whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Why Won't God Heal Amputees? => Topic started by: EV on July 17, 2011, 04:38:55 PM

Title: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 17, 2011, 04:38:55 PM
http://www.thehomeland.org/tenquestions.htm

Guys, look at this and see what you think of this persons answers.

He left a GMail, Has anybody ever come across him before?

I may email him and ask him to come to the forum and answer some questions.

Quote
Answered by m.james moore, lay-apologeticist and author. You may contact him at walkwithx@gmail.com.

-Elliot x
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: BaalServant on July 17, 2011, 05:33:37 PM
I can't believe it.  Most of their responses have at least one fallacy and the ones that don't are poor insults and misrepresentations.  Some responses even contradict others.  They even try to defend slavery as an admirable idea. 

It would be interesting to see how honest they could actually be with their discussion if they actually did respond. 
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 17, 2011, 05:50:10 PM
I've emailed him and asked him to join us at the forum.

Quote
Greetings m.james moore.

My name is Elliot, and I am a member of the WWGHA Forum.

As a member of the online forum to the WWGHA website (whose members are not affiliated with the man who created the videos) , I would like to cordially extend an invitation to you to join our forum and engage in a debate regarding the content posted on this link ---> http://www.thehomeland.org/tenquestions.htm

We are interested by your responses and wish to discuss them in an intellectual and mostly peaceful manner.

Regards,

ElliotViolin

(and the members of the WWGHA forum)

Link to the topic thread regarding your answers: ------> http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.0.html
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: anothermarcus on July 17, 2011, 06:09:07 PM
heheh. 'mostly peaceful.'
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: anothermarcus on July 17, 2011, 06:20:53 PM
hmm. just read a fair amount of what he wrote on that link. not sure i believe he's really college educated. i think it might be unfair to invite him here.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 17, 2011, 06:22:53 PM
heheh. 'mostly peaceful.'

pwahahaha!! I was hopping nobody would notice that... it was a sort of disclaimer in case things got heated and he did actually reply to our forum :P
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: anothermarcus on July 17, 2011, 06:26:47 PM
i really doubt he will. he seems to be preaching to his own little group of converts. his logic is nonexistent and he seems very angry. was considering asking "u mad bro? u sound mad." on his site.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: anothermarcus on July 17, 2011, 06:30:39 PM
update:

the link to Tough Bible Questions Answered gives
Error 404: File Not Found

lololol
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Historicity on July 17, 2011, 08:04:43 PM
He sounds like a bipolar in the manic phase.

It depresses me how much he praises himself.  But then again I am a depressive person.

Or he is overcaffeinated.  Or similarly chemically enhanced.

He says he was in advertising but quit because it was so immoral.  In advertising a rule is that if you use the right noun, you don't need an adjective.  Be concise.

So did he quit or was he fired?

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Historicity on July 17, 2011, 08:40:21 PM
I like this one:
Quote
This crucial understanding answers loads and piles of other questions, like why God slew so many people at the seeming drop of a hat. It's because people hold excessively high value on their very lives whereas God is saying there is something waaaaay more important.

So God was teaching them a lesson.  One they would never forget.  And never remember either because they were dead.  I don't recall that any prophet who passed that on from God.  All they had to say was announcing wrath.

Now I remember I skimmed this thing before.  I remembered his "gloobidy-foop".  He thinks saying that makes sense.

Aha!  We were all waiting for this casino chip[1] to drop:
Quote
What matters is that you are making a gamble, not with your life, but a gamble with eternity.

Pascal's Wager!
 1. Oh my Invisible Pink Unicorn!  Reading him has made me start to write like him.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: screwtape on July 17, 2011, 10:44:12 PM
He left a GMail, Has anybody ever come across him before?

I've seen that site.  It was posted here before.  He's an arrogant cock who is too stupid to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 18, 2011, 06:46:03 AM
He does sound kinda angry :P

Gloobidy Floop... what an irritating word.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: PhilOnDeez84 on July 18, 2011, 07:27:46 AM
I couldn't finish reading it the bullshit was just too much to digest.  I did chuckle when he tried to justify the killings and the slavery.  Sorry pal but I'm not much for a god that says obey or die... He says slavery wasn't bad.  Someone tell him to be our slave for a week and beat him everyday.  When he complains just say "hey... God says its ok as long as you don't die."
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Historicity on July 18, 2011, 08:18:08 AM
not sure i believe he's really college educated.
I think he is.  There's a difference between a college degree and an education.

He says he has a degree in journalism.  You think he doesn't.

But consider, AnotherMarcus, that Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism.

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Historicity on July 18, 2011, 08:25:54 AM
This site hasn't been active in a long time.  There are a number of 404s.  He wrote some short stories and was a prospective author.  He has run out of ideas.

I'd say he was unemployed.  He is now considering dropping out of society and living off the land.

http://www.thehomeland.org/imagez/farmville-strategy.txt (http://www.thehomeland.org/imagez/farmville-strategy.txt)

He figures he has the best chance of a profit growing peppers.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: RNS on July 18, 2011, 09:10:46 AM
i couldn't read very much of this. personally i don't think i'd want to have a discussion with him, he seems so deep in his ways that he's got so many flawed and twisted logics. beyond hope perhaps. or at least it would take too much time and effort.

i like how he starts off by saying

Quote
Being "an intelligent and educated Christian,"<snip>"I have a college degree, and I have been trained to think logically about the world we live in."
i found this pretty funny as i like to think he was using sarcastic quotation marks here. it certainly would be consistent with the rest of the site! maybe that's it... maybe, it's all a joke! otherwise, i don't understand why the quotation marks are there..
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: anothermarcus on July 18, 2011, 01:29:41 PM
"But consider, AnotherMarcus, that Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism."
ykies. good point.


 "maybe, it's all a joke! otherwise, i don't understand why the quotation marks are there.."
haha! my oldest son told me he was going to paint:
All Employees "Certified" Drug Free
on the side of his trucks.

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 18, 2011, 02:22:05 PM
I'd say he was unemployed.  He is now considering dropping out of society and living off the land.

http://www.thehomeland.org/imagez/farmville-strategy.txt (http://www.thehomeland.org/imagez/farmville-strategy.txt)

He figures he has the best chance of a profit growing peppers.


ROFL.

I didn't notice that...  :laugh:

Anyway (disgusting secret being exposed here, I played FarmVille...)

He is wrong there too, as the most profitable crop is actually Grapes and Sunflowers.


Take THAT, God.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Hatter23 on July 18, 2011, 02:37:54 PM
http://www.thehomeland.org/tenquestions.htm

Guys, look at this and see what you think of this persons answers.

He left a GMail, Has anybody ever come across him before?

I may email him and ask him to come to the forum and answer some questions.

Quote
Answered by m.james moore, lay-apologeticist and author. You may contact him at walkwithx@gmail.com.

-Elliot x

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16686.msg372830.html#msg372830

Yes I did, and his actions here were less than pleasant.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 18, 2011, 02:56:55 PM

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16686.msg372830.html#msg372830

Yes I did, and his actions here were less than pleasant.

Ahh.

Shame...

He would have been amusing fodder if he had stuck around longer.

Thanks Hatter :)
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Hatter23 on July 18, 2011, 03:48:08 PM

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16686.msg372830.html#msg372830

Yes I did, and his actions here were less than pleasant.

Ahh.

Shame...

He would have been amusing fodder if he had stuck around longer.

Thanks Hatter :)

I don't think someone who simply goes after form, form, form; never adresses content, and then lauds themselves at the same time hurling unsubstantiated insults all that amusing.

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 01:09:11 PM
www.eatnails.net/?p=24

So you're going to spam on an website in order to get activity on your blog, where you will likely edit and remove posts that disagree with your own.

To be blunt, your questions are ridiculous.  Full of leading emotional pandering, presupposed conditional bullshit, and completely lacking any argument that can be identified.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 01:12:12 PM
Didn't mean to spam. Ignore if you're not interested.
-fizixgeek
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 01:15:56 PM
Didn't mean to spam. Ignore if you're not interested.
-fizixgeek

Meaning: You're not going to be a contributing member in the community and you're simply here to get hits on your blog.  Why would I ignore your own disingenuous behavior?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 01:24:26 PM
http://www.thehomeland.org/tenquestions.htm

After all the veiled insults on the first page it gets down to a single response:

Quote
"There is another verse that isn't oft cited that provides a skosh of insight into why a prayer might seemingly have gone unanswered. Romans 8:26-27 provides that insight, noting that we're not actually sure what we really need to be praying about, and that the Spirit (of God) interprets it correctly for us. For instance, if I were to ask in prayer, "God, give me a million dollars." I think that (had you known, you'd might soon after asking recall the stipulation of praying "in his name" and his name isn't "God", plus Christ also chastises a few newbs by retorting, "Why do you call me Lord but don't do what I say?" ..something to think about) a reasonable Spirit-translation might instead be, "Help me to realize how rich I already am," "Help me to appreciate living efficiently," or "Help me to realize that I am neither Aladdin, nor are you some two-bit genie that must obey me, since I dutifully read the entire verse without getting bored." Don't you suppose that God, in his bountiful wisdom, would actually not grant me this prayer, firstly, knowing that I would probably just go blow it all on multiflavor, individually wrapped chunks of saltwater taffy and stockpile a collection of Morning Musume DVDs? By instilling some kind of filtering system, the deeper, inner question could be answered and cancel out the need for such a desire to even warrant asking in the first place (but you don't get that, unless you ask =P).."

But it consists largely of a strawman and an argument from personal incredulity.  No one is suggesting prayer being answered is one of frivolous material needs, yet that's exactly the analogy this person goes with for pretty obvious emotional reasons.  His rejection of the entire case can be summed up as a rejection from his own personal incredulity and nothing else.  We can easily surmise a prayer that benefits all equally, the only way around it is to insert an arbitrary 'greater purpose' as the reason authentic prayers of need go unanswered.  The problem with a 'greater purpose' is that it is simply another red herring, since we can always suppose conditions that can be attained for the greater purpose without any conditional context coming before it.  IE The greater purpose can be had 'instantly'.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 01:41:21 PM
Didn't mean to spam. Ignore if you're not interested.
-fizixgeek

Meaning: You're not going to be a contributing member in the community and you're simply here to get hits on your blog.  Why would I ignore your own disingenuous behavior?

I'd love to discuss your objections to the existence of God either here or on my site. Nothing disingenuous about that.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 01:46:36 PM
I'd love to discuss your objections to the existence of God either here or on my site. Nothing disingenuous about that.

So I have to tell you my objections to what you have supposed to be true for me without explanation?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 19, 2011, 01:47:27 PM
Hi fizixgeek,

1) Welcome! I hope you stick around.

2) I deleted your 1st post. Seemed a bit rude / presumptious for a newcomer (do you know how many spammers visit daily here?) However, there is no problem with you posting a normally sized link in your sig line, or elsewhere in your forum profile.  
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 19, 2011, 01:51:12 PM
^ the green means I had my admin/mod hat on. Black means I am just a forum member.

Hey! Mormon! Cooool. Mormonism seems pretty full of shit, if I may say so.

How long have Native Americans enhabited North America, fizix?

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 01:51:58 PM
How long have Native Americans enhabited North America, fizix?

Don't forget the horses :)
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 19, 2011, 01:53:55 PM
I'm in mormon withdrawal! I am trying to pace myself here.

Fizix, can I get you a coffee, a cup of tea? Please enjoy the forum, and let me know if there is anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
I'm in mormon withdrawal!

I've been using the mormon church's involvement in the civil rights fight in California to treat most mormons like absolute shit.  Its not fair of course, but I find it as hard to care as they care that they are part of a larger organization that used its money/power to hatefully devalue the lives of innocent human beings.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 02:13:40 PM
http://www.thehomeland.org/tenquestions.htm

After all the veiled insults on the first page it gets down to a single response:

Quote
"There is another verse that isn't oft cited that provides a skosh of insight into why a prayer might seemingly have gone unanswered. Romans 8:26-27 provides that insight, noting that we're not actually sure what we really need to be praying about, and that the Spirit (of God) interprets it correctly for us. For instance, if I were to ask in prayer, "God, give me a million dollars." I think that (had you known, you'd might soon after asking recall the stipulation of praying "in his name" and his name isn't "God", plus Christ also chastises a few newbs by retorting, "Why do you call me Lord but don't do what I say?" ..something to think about) a reasonable Spirit-translation might instead be, "Help me to realize how rich I already am," "Help me to appreciate living efficiently," or "Help me to realize that I am neither Aladdin, nor are you some two-bit genie that must obey me, since I dutifully read the entire verse without getting bored." Don't you suppose that God, in his bountiful wisdom, would actually not grant me this prayer, firstly, knowing that I would probably just go blow it all on multiflavor, individually wrapped chunks of saltwater taffy and stockpile a collection of Morning Musume DVDs? By instilling some kind of filtering system, the deeper, inner question could be answered and cancel out the need for such a desire to even warrant asking in the first place (but you don't get that, unless you ask =P).."

But it consists largely of a strawman and an argument from personal incredulity.  No one is suggesting prayer being answered is one of frivolous material needs, yet that's exactly the analogy this person goes with for pretty obvious emotional reasons.  His rejection of the entire case can be summed up as a rejection from his own personal incredulity and nothing else.  We can easily surmise a prayer that benefits all equally, the only way around it is to insert an arbitrary 'greater purpose' as the reason authentic prayers of need go unanswered.  The problem with a 'greater purpose' is that it is simply another red herring, since we can always suppose conditions that can be attained for the greater purpose without any conditional context coming before it.  IE The greater purpose can be had 'instantly'.

Actually, I do, in fact, have something to say right here!

Omen, your point is exceptionally well stated. We need to explore the question, "If God 'desires' His greater purpose and He's all-powerful, then what is He waiting for?" It's been explored. It was this question that led to the (IMO, ridiculous) Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination--If God wants you saved, then he saves you and there's not much else to talk about. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it logically follows. If God is all-powerful, then human free will has a serious problem.

John Polkinghorne says, "The well-known free will defence in relation to moral evil asserts that a world with a possibility of sinful people is better than one with perfectly programmed machines. The tale of human evil is such that one cannot make that assertion without a quiver, but I believe that it is true nevertheless. I have added to it the free-process defence, that a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theatre with a Cosmic Tyrant. I think that these two defences are opposite sides of the same coin, that our nature is inextricably linked with that of the physical world which has given us birth."

I have a similar view influenced by my own Mormon background. I believe that God is working a much greater work than anything visible here. His stated purpose is to make us perfect--perfectly loving, perfectly strong, and perfectly able to live according to the precepts we believe. A world brimming over with evil--that i,s opportunities to choose cruelty and selfishness--is the only place to gain such strength.

But, the question is still, "What is he waiting for?" If He can heal our physical maladies instantly and with ease, why not just create us perfect in the first place? My bold statement is this: When it comes to humans, God is not all-powerful. We are a different kind of thing--begotten and not created by God. God cannot create us perfect and whole without letting us pass through sorrow and sin. You are not clay.

With Polkinghorne, I "quiver" to state that the suffering in the world is toward some good. Easy to state in the abstract, but harder to swallow in the face of actual, specific suffering. It's a little easier when you immerse yourself in a spiritual world view. For me, its much more consistent to consider earthly suffering in the context of an eternal afterlife. This life is very short when compared with eternity. In that sense, earthly suffering is (quivering here) like your football coach pushing you through wind sprints to strengthen you for what lies ahead. Hard, yes, but temporary.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 19, 2011, 02:20:25 PM
When it comes to humans, God is not all-powerful. We are a different kind of thing--begotten and not created by God. God cannot create us perfect and whole without letting us pass through sorrow and sin. You are not clay.

What else can your god not do? Does it have any other deficiencies à la Achilles?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 02:23:23 PM
My bold statement is this: When it comes to humans, God is not all-powerful.

Then your mythological god is not a god, you've contradicted yourself with your first bold statement.

Quote
We are a different kind of thing--begotten and not created by God.

This could only be the case if we are in fact, as omniscient as a god.  We are not omniscient.

Quote
God cannot create us perfect and whole without letting us pass through sorrow and sin

This is special pleading and contradictory; If god cannot create perfect humans, then your mythological god is simply not a god and not perfect itself.  Trying to plead 'pass through sorrow and sin' do not reasonably answer any for the problems in suggesting a greater purpose, they simply represent a new unexplained condition.  I can point it out and repeat what I stated earlier, that a being of absolute ability knows exactly how to achieve its perfect goal without anything coming before it.  You're trying to get around all of this by reducing an omnipotent/omniscient beings ability to less than omnipotent and omniscient.  I'm going to cry foul.

Quote
is toward some good..

Any statement of arbitrary value is without warrant in a logical discussion, neither extreme of how we feel or project what should be felt has anything to do with determining the truth value of a claim.


----------------------------------

I must also point out that this isn't an argument for a god existing.

Your first statement and my response was the following:

I'd love to discuss your objections to the existence of God either here or on my site. Nothing disingenuous about that.

So I have to tell you my objections to what you have supposed to be true for me without explanation?

This is a very important distinction, because constantly religious apologist engage in presuppositional nonsense that has no basis in a rational discussion.  If you want to begin an argument for your mythological beliefs feel free, but don't try to presuppose conditions of your belief system as if they were true for people that don't believe them.  I don't have to argue or present a disproof against a unprovable or unexplained agent, you are the claimant and you are the only one that possesses the burden of proof.  My burden is only supporting possibly counter arguments against your position and is otherwise satisfied by my lack of a belief in your unexplained conditional claims.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: screwtape on July 19, 2011, 02:29:45 PM
a mormon.  *gigglesnort*!  Are you white and delightsome?

Can you give me the coordinates for the Kolob system?  I'd like to look at it with my telescope.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 02:47:12 PM
Thanks for your responses, Omen. (Oh, and to the rest of you, the abuse was nice as well ;))

I'm not afraid to say "God cannot" with regard to humans. That may violate some pre-defined rule you have about God (speaking of presuppositions), but I guess He's my God to invent so I'll invent him any way I like. ;)

A minor point or two here: I believe God's goal for us is to make us omniscient as He is. And, of course, saying that we are the offspring of deity doesn't imply that we're perfect any more than it follows that my baby son can talk because I can. 

Finally, let's set some ground rules vis-a-vis burden of proof. This a site who's contention is that God is imaginary and that a belief in God is inconsistent with a rational mind. My purpose is not to prove the existence of God. Given what God has said about himself, that seems pointless to me. My purpose is to defend the self-consistency of a theistic perspective, with an eye toward enticing you to discover God for yourself. There's more about this on my blog (www.eatnails.net), but if you guys want to keep tighter control, then we'll do this for a while.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 03:11:15 PM
I'm not afraid

I don't care.

Quote
That may violate some pre-defined

Again, your rationalizing towards a context in which you hold all the predetermined answers too.  I don't give a shit if you've redefined your make believe deity to be slightly different then the general definition of what is meant when someone uses the word 'god'.

Notice that I don't use the 'god' label in the first person, with a capital G.  I also refer to it as a thing, since there are thousands of asserted 'gods'.  I no more care about yours without evidence or valid explanations then i do anyone elses and it is not my responsibility to suddenly know something about your superstition that somehow makes it more or less valid without your initial explanation to establish that context.

So don't try to feed me that line of bullshit.

Quote
(speaking of presuppositions)

You couldn't have responded exactly as you did without operating from a presupposed set of conditional beliefs you've offered no original explanation or definition for.  Which is exactly why I repeated myself, in emphasizing exactly what I began earlier in forcing you to argue in the affirmative for your claims without presupposing that anyone of us know or give a shit about what you're talking about.

Thank you for doing exactly what I predicted and prepared for you to do.

Quote
but I guess He's my God to invent so I'll invent him any way I like. ;)

Excellent, how will we ever tell the difference between your claimed mythological god and make believe?

Quote
I believe

I don't care.  Lists of ridiculous nonsense you believe doesn't tell me why you believe it.

Quote
Finally, let's set some ground rules vis-a-vis burden of proof.

This should be a hoot.

Quote
This a site

This is a forum, represented by thousands of non-believers that operate from thousands of different backgrounds.  The religious people that come to this forum also originate from different religious backgrounds.

Quote
who's contention is that God

it addresses a god that is commonly defined and used through the Christian context, it doesn't not address your capital G god since you presuppose all the context without little to no explanation.  That being stated, the rest of the forum will happily address the claimed gods of any religion.

Quote
is imaginary and that a belief in God is inconsistent with a rational mind.

Ignoring all the capital G nonsense, this is the general message repeated on the website.  Individuals on the forum might have differing or contradictory opinions.

Quote
My purpose is not to prove the existence of God.

Then we are done, you have nothing else to say.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 03:17:47 PM
Why should any of us argue against a constantly shifting goal post?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 03:36:05 PM
Finally, let's set some ground rules vis-a-vis burden of proof.

This should be a hoot.

Quote
This a site

This is a forum, represented by thousands of non-believers that operate from thousands of different backgrounds.  The religious people that come to this forum also originate from different religious backgrounds.

Quote
who's contention is that God

it addresses a god that is commonly defined and used through the Christian context, it doesn't not address your capital G god since you presuppose all the context without little to no explanation.  That being stated, the rest of the forum will happily address the claimed gods of any religion.

Quote
is imaginary and that a belief in God is inconsistent with a rational mind.

Ignoring all the capital G nonsense, this is the general message repeated on the website.  Individuals on the forum might have differing or contradictory opinions.


Wait, who moved my goalposts?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 03:40:33 PM
Wait, who moved my goalposts?

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, here let me help you:

Quote
My purpose is not to prove the existence of God.

And..

Quote
My purpose is to defend the self-consistency of a theistic perspective

We can never determine the consistency of your theistic perspective if at all times and places, you can move the goal post however you wish without explanation and never actually argue in the affirmative of your position.  Not to mention that you're idiotically trying to draw comparisons between differing ideological systems of belief, as if arguing against one was an identical argument against your own.

Quote
with an eye toward enticing you to discover God for yourself

This will categorically be dishonest and trolling behavior on your part, you're not going to entice anyone to do anything except ridicule you.  i can't be enticed to discover what there is no presented evidence for and no attempt to argue the position reasonably to even know what the hell you're talking about.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Hatter23 on July 19, 2011, 03:53:42 PM
I have a similar view influenced by my own Mormon background. I believe that God is working a much greater work than anything visible here. His stated purpose is to make us perfect--perfectly loving, perfectly strong, and perfectly able to live according to the precepts we believe. A world brimming over with evil--that i,s opportunities to choose cruelty and selfishness--is the only place to gain such strength.



And, yet, this still fails to provide one whit of evidence seperating God from any other mythology, and other delusion, any other fiction. Try constructing an argument that does this with a logical fallacy; particularly special pleading or shift of burden of proof.


Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 04:33:30 PM
I really think you guys (Hatter and Omen) have mistaken me for someone else. You will never catch me trying to prove the existence of God in an online forum (or anywhere else). My game plan is this:

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.
2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.
3. Invite others to try it.

So, my comments here are mostly in response to challenges to the self-consistency of theism. Omen's question, if I may restate, was "If there were an all-powerful god and he wanted us to be perfect, then why aren't we perfect?" You may have mistaken some of what I said for a proof of God's existence, but I never intended it as such.

I know I've been accused of spamming before, but my blog has a few points related to this. The last of my "Four questions for atheists" (www.eatnails.net/?p=24) is

Are you willing to consider an alternate epistemology, complementing but not supplanting the scientific method? That is, could you accept that there are ways to discover truth about the world that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory?

The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 04:52:25 PM
I really think you guys (Hatter and Omen) have mistaken me for someone else.

No, you're obfuscating tactics are accurately identified and have been challenged.  You're simply ignoring what has been said and repeating yourself.

You can't do 1, 2, or 3 without be required to argue in the affirmative for the existence of your god claim.  As I pointed out, you would only be engaging in a game of goal shifting as you constantly expect others to argue against your presupposed notions that you can change and rationalize to be anything.  Your every claim would be inseparable from make believe or utter bullshit.

So why don't you actually go back and address what was stated instead of equivocating.

Quote
The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

Then you lack any informative context to claim anything about a god, ever.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 19, 2011, 05:03:40 PM
Thanks for your responses, Omen. (Oh, and to the rest of you, the abuse was nice as well )

Abuse? Is this directed at me?

I don't want to abuse you. Read my last post! I am ecstatic about your visit! Can you answer my questions? I wanted to get some key points nailed in about your belief system before I have any sort of exchange with you.

I gleened what I could from scanning your blog, but there is no replacement for just plain asking.

My questions were:

1) When do you think Native Americans first enhabited North America?
2) Is there anything else your god can't do? (re-phrased lest my comparison to Achilles be interpreted as abuse)
3) Can I get you a coffee or tea, or make your stay more enjoyable? (you can ignore this one)
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 05:40:36 PM
Hi Ambassador Pony,

No no. You've been very welcoming.

I'm not sure when people first arrived in America (15,000BC, is it?). According to the Book of Mormon, which I believe, groups arrived there from the Middle East in 2500 BC and 600 BC. In anticipation, I'll say that I don't believe that the Nephites are all or even most of the ancestry of the modern Native Americans.

I don't know of anything else God can't do.

No thanks to coffee, tea, booze, soccer on Sunday, premarital sex, profanity or voting Democrat (just kidding with that last one).

-FG
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: naemhni on July 19, 2011, 05:50:28 PM
could you accept that there are ways to discover truth about the world that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory?

Oh, is that what you meant?  Then the answer is easy: no.  If I say I see a pink unicorn in my closet and nobody else can see it, which do you think is more likely: that I have a new sense perception that allows me and nobody else to see magical creatures, or that I'm having some kind of hallucination?  (Or that I'm just plain lying, for that matter.)

Quote
The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

Nice to know.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 19, 2011, 05:59:10 PM
Thanks fizix, I was really hoping for that sex one, as pale sciency computer geeks are well known for their sexual prowess. :(

Were you brought up in mormonism? Were your parents mormons? And, was mormonism one of the belief systems many people practiced in the place/culture where you were born and raised? (meaning, were you born and raised in Riyahd, Salt Lake City, or somewhere in between? 

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 19, 2011, 06:02:54 PM
@fizixgeek

You sort of remind me of my little girl. She always wants to swim in the deep end of the pool but she doesn't know how to swim and she gets nervous about it. The closer she gets to the deep end the more nervous she gets and starts wanting to get out of the water. If I were to let go of her she would literally panic and drown. Two points for you to consider;

1) You are now in the deep end
2) Daddy ain't here to help keep you from drowning

The only way for you to move forward is to address the questions posed to you directly. In other words, stop telling us what you *want* to do and just do it.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 06:12:26 PM

Ambassador Pony,

My parents are both Mormons and I was fed it "from the bottle" so to speak. But, I'll tolerate none of your ad hominem attacks!

Thanks for asking.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
@fizixgeek

You sort of remind me of my little girl. She always wants to swim in the deep end of the pool but she doesn't know how to swim and she gets nervous about it. The closer she gets to the deep end the more nervous she gets and starts wanting to get out of the water. If I were to let go of her she would literally panic and drown. Two points for you to consider;

1) You are now in the deep end
2) Daddy ain't here to help keep you from drowning

The only way for you to move forward is to address the questions posed to you directly. In other words, stop telling us what you *want* to do and just do it.

I'm trying so hard not to resort to sarcasm here. Which questions did you feel were not adequately addressed?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 19, 2011, 06:25:12 PM
Fizix,

I am interested in the psychology of belief-type behaviour of all sorts. You know where that last set of questions leads, and that is just something you should sort out on your own. I don't think I will be leading you to any revelations. I imagine physicists are usually averse to effect sizes <.9, so the above-alluded-to artifact is one of the few things I can point you in the direction of.

I noticed in another thread that you are interested in demonstrating the internal consistency of your belief system, axioms granted. And, that you have a "just try it out" offer. I say with a fair degree of certainty that other belief systems from other times, places / cultures have and have had similar standing offers, with as much conviction to back it up.

Have you ever taken anyone up on their offer? Abandoning your belief system, adopting theirs, believing its precepts wholeheartedly and checking the results? Why or why not?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 19, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
^ the green means I had my admin/mod hat on. Black means I am just a forum member.

Hey! Mormon! Cooool. Mormonism seems pretty full of shit, if I may say so.

How long have Native Americans enhabited North America, fizix?
In some areas we have stuff going back between 12,000 and 40,000 years (and that is just what has been uncovered so far) Some of the elders (not yet scientifically proven) say somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000 years
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 19, 2011, 07:33:58 PM
According to the Book of Mormon,

According to the book of Mormon, a people of which no record or evidence exists of, settled in a land where native americans were already present and populated throughout.  The book of mormon also claims that horses were present, when horses were not brought to america until the 1600s.  This would also include cattle, which is also mentioned and again not present until the thousands of years later.  No major animal group is shown to be domesticated in the archaeological record.

The same goes for goats, swine, crops of barley, crops of wheat, and not to mention silk .. which of course was entirely unknown to anyone on the american continent.

on and on and on.

Quote
which I believe,

Of course, completely removing ones self from responsibility or burden of evidence, one can easily introduce 'faith' to justify anything one wishes to believe.

Leprechauns? Faith!

Oh yah.. science can exist along side this.. of course.. no 'science' that actually relies on objective methodologies.. which is all of science.. but science sure.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 19, 2011, 07:43:39 PM
I'm trying so hard not to resort to sarcasm here.

While I appreciate your restraint, I must tell you that I absolutely LOVE sarcasm. So don't hold back on my account :)

Quote
Which questions did you feel were not adequately addressed?

Maybe it's more of a point than a question, but this

You can't do 1, 2, or 3 without be required to argue in the affirmative for the existence of your god claim.  As I pointed out, you would only be engaging in a game of goal shifting as you constantly expect others to argue against your presupposed notions that you can change and rationalize to be anything.  -snip-
So why don't you actually go back and address what was stated instead of equivocating.

In other words...you can't defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431975.html#msg431975) or outline the method for coming to knowledge of God (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431975.html#msg431975) until you argue in the affirmative (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431945.html#msg431945) of your position. You have made no positive claims and you have not addressed these issues brought to you by Omen.

We can not begin to have a meaningful discussion with you until you make a positive claim to back up your desire to:

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.
2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.
3. Invite others to try it.






Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 19, 2011, 07:50:02 PM
Sarcasm is God!!
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 19, 2011, 10:47:03 PM

In other words...you can't defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431975.html#msg431975) or outline the method for coming to knowledge of God (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431975.html#msg431975) until you argue in the affirmative (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431945.html#msg431945) of your position. You have made no positive claims and you have not addressed these issues brought to you by Omen.

We can not begin to have a meaningful discussion with you until you make a positive claim to back up your desire to:

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.
2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.
3. Invite others to try it.

I'm sorry if it's frustrating, but things simply won't work that way. As I said, A spiritual epistemology will embarrass you. (http://www.eatnails.net/?p=24) There simply is no way to prove God exists. He may only be discovered and then only by one who can answer yes to the following (rapidly becoming my 5th question for atheists) "If God did exist, would you obey Him?"

So, here's a postulate for your consideration. I call it fizixgeek's totally bogus postulate of internet omniscience. Ahem.
"A truth which is unprovable on a public internet forum is not a truth."
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 19, 2011, 11:12:48 PM
I'm sorry if it's frustrating, but things simply won't work that way. As I said, A spiritual epistemology will embarrass you. (http://www.eatnails.net/?p=24) There simply is no way to prove God exists. He may only be discovered and then only by one who can answer yes to the following (rapidly becoming my 5th question for atheists) "If God did exist, would you obey Him?"

I am not in the least frustrated, also I feel at this point I should tell you that I am not an atheist. Further, I am not asking you to prove your God or any god's existence. However, you still haven't begun to defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint. Nor have you offered to explained what, exactly, you are attempting to defend this viewpoint against.

What IS your method for coming to knowledge of God? And while we are at it what do you mean by "God"? If it is something you just made up (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431932.html#msg431932) what is my incentive to take anything you say about it into consideration?

Quote
So, here's a postulate for your consideration. I call it fizixgeek's totally bogus postulate of internet omniscience. Ahem.
"A truth which is unprovable on a public internet forum is not a truth."

Pizza is my favorite food. I know this to be true but since there is no way I can prove it on this forum then it is not true? How does that follow?

This is my last post before going to bed, I will read your blog tomorrow. g'night.

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 19, 2011, 11:22:42 PM
Sarcasm is God!!

The only God I know is the Ace of Spades  8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxGsMUguKO4&feature=related
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 01:20:36 AM
Hi AP,
Your question sparks some introspection. Would I be willing to accept my own challenge? I have not, to any great degree, pursued another belief (or non-belief) system. I have read quite a bit, but I wouldn't give you credit for simply having read the Book of Mormon. To what extent would I be willing to follow the tenets of another faith?

My faith allows for quite a bit of truth in other religions. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if Gabriel had appeared to Mohammed or if meditation could expand my connection with the infinite. The cost is very high for me to abandon my faith altogether for the sake of an experiment, so I would be hoping for an incremental path. Maybe that's not possible. I think God provides a fairly incremental path for atheists, though. Read some scripture. I'd recommend 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon or Matthew 5-8 in the Bible. Pray to have the truth of it revealed to you (if it's, in fact, true), then make one change in your life to put your life more in harmony with what you've learned. Would that be so hard? I could do that with Islam or even with atheism. What would I read and how should atheism change my life?

Even more revealing, I will say that I've spent quite a bit of time considering that most frightening of questions: "What if death is the end?" There's something incredibly demotivating about that concept. I think you'll agree. But, it's tempting to follow history to what seems to be its natural conclusion. First, we abandoned our belief that Ra carried the sun across the sky in a boat. Then, we abandoned the idea that demons make our bodies sick. Then we got rid of the notion of a literal 6-day creation. The space for the super-natural does seem to be shrinking. But, I've had a lot of experiences that lead me to conclude that the world is not wholly random. There is someone running all of this. The journey to find Him is clearly a long one.

So, how about you, Ambassador Pony. I think it's fair of me to ask, what's your background? Where did your faith go and do you miss anything about it? How do you make sense to a world with no purpose, or do you find some purpose in all of this? Oh, and what makes you so excited to have a Mormon in the forum?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Hatter23 on July 20, 2011, 07:30:12 AM
I really think you guys (Hatter and Omen) have mistaken me for someone else. You will never catch me trying to prove the existence of God in an online forum (or anywhere else). My game plan is this:

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.


That is irrelavent until it is consistent with reality. JRR Tolkein strove for consistency in the language of the Elves. Until a veiw is consistent with reality, it is just fantasy.


2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.

Which again is only relavant if you are coming to knowledge of something that exists in the first place. You are simply stating the same question in different language.


The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

I am not asking for a proof, I am asking for evidence. Objective, Unambiguous Evidence. Listen I don't have "proof" that CroMagnum man intermingled with Homo-sapiens. However, there is some very good, objective, unambiguous evidence.

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: screwtape on July 20, 2011, 07:43:58 AM
1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.

Why is this relevant?  I've seen numerous theists try to do this, but I don't get the point.  Even if you could do it[1], it does not eshtablish the existence of a god.  It is akin to defending the self-consistency of a wiccan viewpoint or of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.  Who gives a rat's ass?  It looks like a highly masturbatory exercise.

2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.

Does it involve peeping stones in a hat?




The cost is very high for me to abandon my faith altogether for the sake of an experiment,

But the potential reward is so much higher.  It is a version of Pascal's wager. Given all the religions out there, and assuming there is only one right one and also assuming the one you are in is just a random event[2], the probability is you are in the wrong religion.  So you probably have everything to gain and nothing to lose by trying out other religions.

"What if death is the end?" There's something incredibly demotivating about that concept. I think you'll agree.

Nope.  Quite the opposite actually.  Knowing this is the only life I have, I have to do everything I can to make it the best life possible.  This is not the dress rehersal for something infinitely better.

But, it's tempting to follow history to what seems to be its natural conclusion. First, we abandoned our belief that Ra carried the sun across the sky in a boat. Then, we abandoned the idea that demons make our bodies sick. Then we got rid of the notion of a literal 6-day creation.

And when do we abandon our belief that a guy with magical lenses translated stories in "Reformed Egyptian" from golden plates he found using a peeping stone?  Just curious.

 1. you cannot
 2. as opposed to you being in it because god lead you to it or because you had excellent objective evidence to join it.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 20, 2011, 08:15:45 AM
Fizix,

Quote
I think God provides a fairly incremental path for atheists, though. Read some scripture. I'd recommend 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon or Matthew 5-8 in the Bible. Pray to have the truth of it revealed to you (if it's, in fact, true), then make one change in your life to put your life more in harmony with what you've learned. Would that be so hard? I could do that with Islam or even with atheism. What would I read and how should atheism change my life?

Wow! Zero to preachy in minutes. Cut it out, please. If I feel I need something from your belief system, I will ask. I promise.

I am not interested in getting you to "try atheism". Not my point, sorry if I wasn't clear. I appreciate there is very little I can do to help you out there, given you learning history, anyway.

I was zeroing in (I used zero twice in my post, and I feel dirty) on your implication (I read elsewhere on the forum) that one must believe before one can perceive the spiritual benefits of belief behaviour. I wanted to see if you actually thought that was feasable. You don't seem to believe that, at least at first, it is necessary. Sounds like a very practical gradient instead. "Just read some bible-advice, apply it in your life, and see what happens" to paraphrase.

For me the "see what happens" component is the kicker, as you feel that expectations are necessary as well, going into it. In the pseudo-science of psychology, it is known that expectation is a strong determinant in perception. Tell people who believe in ghosts that your house is haunted, leave them be for a while, and guess what they'll tell you they saw in your house, and believe it wholeheartedly?

I'll ask you later what exactly are the success criteria for the spiritual sort of benefits one gets? What is the objective scale of measurement?     

Quote
So, how about you, Ambassador Pony. I think it's fair of me to ask, what's your background? Where did your faith go and do you miss anything about it? How do you make sense to a world with no purpose, or do you find some purpose in all of this? Oh, and what makes you so excited to have a Mormon in the forum?

Lab rats don't ask questions!

My backfround is culturally French-Catholic. In Canada, it used to be that French school was catholic school. As a child, I suppose I had faith, but, as I recall, it was the same kind as a child has in the easter bunny and in santa. It went away not long after santa and EB. I honestly, never bought into any of it. And, I've heard that the catholics were the best at inoctrination and/or destroying cultures that were not the same as them (google: "canada" and "residential schools" for your edification). I think mormons are better at running a religion, BTW.

No, I do not miss any behaviour related to belief without evidence (faith).

At the heart of existence itself, I can only relate my most honest, "I don't know". Being human and in posession of a brain frames purpose perfectly, IMHO. I don't see a need to pile on faulty axioms.

mormons are an exotic species at WWGHA. When you leave, I have to go back to poking mouth-breathing fundy creationists with sticks. No one likes that.

Did I answer your questions?   

 
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 20, 2011, 08:40:03 AM
Quote
Even more revealing, I will say that I've spent quite a bit of time considering that most frightening of questions: "What if death is the end?" There's something incredibly demotivating about that concept. I think you'll agree. But, it's tempting to follow history to what seems to be its natural conclusion. First, we abandoned our belief that Ra carried the sun across the sky in a boat. Then, we abandoned the idea that demons make our bodies sick. Then we got rid of the notion of a literal 6-day creation. The space for the super-natural does seem to be shrinking. But, I've had a lot of experiences that lead me to conclude that the world is not wholly random. There is someone running all of this. The journey to find Him is clearly a long one.

And, lucky you, the pinnacle just so happens to be the exact religion you were inculcated with because of the place and time you happened to be born in. Please. 

Your learning history stacks the deck, so to say, when it comes to perceiving that "lot of experiences". Your experiences are an inevitable outcome and what would be truly remarkable, is if you never had any. That's how the brain works. 
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 09:26:59 AM
I knew that would bite me.
You don't have to worry about anymore genuine inquisitive introspection here. We'll just go back to empty-headed name-calling. Where is Omen anyway?

I did appreciate Ambassador Pony's personal narrative. What about you screwtape? What was your journey to atheism? How come your not as smart or self-assured as AP?

I think I was misunderstood there. My point is that history seems to lead to atheism. Why wouldn't all religious ideas fall by the wayside the same as Ra, illness as demonic possession and literal 6-day creationism? I helping you out, here.

I don't mind answering questions about Mormonism specifically, but I came with some ideas about theism more generally. screwtape missed my earlier posts, so I'll reiterate. I'm not attempting to prove that God exists. In my view, that's dumb. I would like to defend the self-consistency of theism to remove that as an obstacle for anyone seeking to learn whether there is a god. I wouldn't expect anyone to go to effort to test a hypothesis that is demonstrably false.

Then, I present an alternate epistemology (http://www.eatnails.net/?p=24), that is another method for gaining knowledge, that complements the scientific method. It seems there's a lot of resistance to the idea that there's a method besides the scientific method for learning truth. And who could blame you. It's a great system (just like Newtonian mechanics). But is it really so crazy to imagine that there are things that are true that cannot be proven (or disproven) in a controlled experiment?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 20, 2011, 09:31:07 AM
e missed my earlier posts, so I'll reiterate.

No one missed them, you were challenged on the assertions you made and chose to ignore the responses.

You can't reasonably or honestly conduct a discussion on any subject you refuse to support the burden of proof for.  You can't claim to know or say anything as if you were being authoritative about any subject without it.  You are simply operating out of a presuppositional position that all of us reject, because of its grossly ignorant and dishonest nature.  Exactly what I emphasized as unacceptable when you first began posting on this forum and exactly what you began to do.

You might as well be claiming to clarify the positions on leprechauns.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Hatter23 on July 20, 2011, 10:02:15 AM
Then, I present an alternate epistemology (http://www.eatnails.net/?p=24), that is another method for gaining knowledge, that complements the scientific method. It seems there's a lot of resistance to the idea that there's a method besides the scientific method for learning truth. And who could blame you. It's a great system (just like Newtonian mechanics). But is it really so crazy to imagine that there are things that are true that cannot be proven (or disproven) in a controlled experiment?

I know there are things that are true that cannot be proven by a controlled exiperiment with the means currently available to us.

The God theory is not falsifiable, but ignorable.

Let us say someone has a dream that there is an adanced civilarizion(but not possessing FTL  technology) on the fouth planet around a star that is 9670 light years from earth. They propose it is real, do you "accept this" theory as reasonable? Or would you ignore it as unsupported?

Lets us say the 1200 years from now that we find out that there is actually an advanced civilization on said planet. Yes, the theory was valid, but it was...given the fact it was unsupported and untestable it was still reasonable to ignore it. Certainly it would be unreasonable to change our behavior and expend resources on a welcome center for these aliens in the present time and any proposing to do so is foolish. Wars over what people think what these aliens want ludicrous.

Your method doesn't adress the fact that people can conceive of an infinite number of things, both true and false. Most flights of fancy are false. If they cannot be substantiated, they are ignorable

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 10:17:16 AM
Hatter, I definitely respect that position.

Now, could you imagine a truth that affects your life and can be proven, but not in a controlled experiment?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 20, 2011, 10:18:44 AM
Quote
You don't have to worry about anymore genuine inquisitive introspection here. We'll just go back to empty-headed name-calling. Where is Omen anyway?

You really need to start citing the specific instances of "name-calling" and such when you make a comment such as this one. I always think it's me.

I want to lead you along the path to a debate where it is implicitly understood we're all nice people, but we're putting that aside for the sake of expedience and a raw intellectual bagarre. I don't want to move too quickly.

You should understand that I don't see referencing your reinforcement history as ad hominem. To me, it towers over any discussion of your belief system and your adherence to it.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Hatter23 on July 20, 2011, 10:24:05 AM
Hatter, I definitely respect that position.

Now, could you imagine a truth that affects your life and can be proven, but not in a controlled experiment?

Yes, but I would not accept it as an absolute.

A common example would include political theory.

I do not accept the concept of outside (that is non human) agency afecting my life, and changing my behavior regarding such outside agency, until said outside agency is evidenced. I am not foolish, and plenty of people have said such things to me in my life not even considering Christianity. For example, those that are proponents of Geomancy, Astrology,  or crystals affecting one's life energies.

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 20, 2011, 10:28:46 AM
Quote
But is it really so crazy to imagine that there are things that are true that cannot be proven (or disproven) in a controlled experiment?

It's always imagined, and examined. The evidence points to the symbol processing nature of human cognition. Such perceptions, that there is somehow more, are an artifact of a language-using primate with a fore-brain, who's schema can form as a mix and match to produce ideas that seem to extend beyond what is evident. That's why the word "semantics" will innevitably come up in such a discussion as the one you will have.

It's not crazy to imagine this at all, it is a predictable consequence of what we are. However, it is not real beyond the confines of our imagination, AFAIK.

Can you provide examples?

Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 10:40:56 AM
Quote
You don't have to worry about anymore genuine inquisitive introspection here. We'll just go back to empty-headed name-calling. Where is Omen anyway?

You really need to start citing the specific instances of "name-calling" and such when you make a comment such as this one. I always think it's me.

I want to lead you along the path to a debate where it is implicitly understood we're all nice people, but we're putting that aside for the sake of expedience and a raw intellectual bagarre. I don't want to move too quickly.

You should understand that I don't see referencing your reinforcement history as ad hominem. To me, it towers over any discussion of your belief system and your adherence to it.

I agree that if the topic were my belief system and my adherence to it then my upbringing would be central. That's a different topic, but I'll stick around for it. Shall we start a new thread--"fizixgeek's religion"?

I will expect some tit-for-tat and I've appreciated your willingness on another thread. So, here's my question to you and I hope you'll consider it in the same sincere spirit in which it's presented:

If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 20, 2011, 10:44:39 AM
I'm not sure why religious apologist think that behaving dishonestly is somehow a means of conveying a defense of religion.  How exactly are you arguing for any position using disingenuous tactics such as avoiding talking points, imposing a set series of conditions you're trying to get others to respond with, and emphasizing that you're not really here to argue for the affirmative of your god claim?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 10:46:51 AM
Actually, on second thought, if the topic is why I believe what I believe, then it makes sense to move to my page, www.eatnails.net. If you want to talk about God or religion in general, and whether or not amputees disprove God's existence, then let's stay here.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 20, 2011, 10:47:47 AM
If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?

Pascals wager, really?

More accurately, you want to ask a question that presupposes that an unexplained qualification of value is determined by belief in your superstition, as if others were part of that presupposition and that that presupposition is objectively true.  Yet, you don't want to discuss your belief system that imposes such ridiculous non-sequitirs in the first place?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Hatter23 on July 20, 2011, 11:06:06 AM

If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?

Actually everything that would give life meaning....because it is all you have before you arrive at that black nothingness. I am not one that says eternity makes life meaningless, eternity or not...one still can strive to make things better, whether or not you are there to see it.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 11:12:13 AM
Omen, <removed by fizixgeek for civility. Apologies to Omen>. The question is just that, a question.

Thanks for your reply, Hatter.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 20, 2011, 11:19:59 AM
Omen, the grown-ups are trying to have a conservation. The question is just that, a question

Thanks for the ad hominem, but to be honest your animosity to me is purely because I've called you on your dishonesty from your very first post on.  You have never addressed any of my criticisms, only other than to offer a blank denial and to repeat your initial claim.

- You have not made a single claim where your logic follows into a dichotomy between theism and atheism.  This is called a false dichotomy, meaning you have imposed a two sided series of conditions that are not true even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt of your initial premises.

- You have also not made a single claim where you have addressed the burden of proof, you have worked to avoid the burden of proof as it relates to standard logical arguments.  You have incessantly presupposed 'truths' as if they were known or self evident without explanation or demand to provide evidence for the blank assertion itself.

- You have offered arguments of personal incredulity, rejecting wholesale vague conditional claims ( ignoring that they rarely have anything to do with atheism ) based on nothing more than your personal emotional dislike of something.

- From the very beginning I've pointed out that if you're going to presuppose any conditions in the discussion as if they were true, then you are engaging in what is known as presuppositional apologetics.  Presuppositional apologetics are dishonest type of word play, where you work to avoid establishing the criteria for determining your claims to be true and instead presuppose them to be true.  You then, as the presuppositionalist, avoid any discussion to determine the veracity of your own claims.  This has been your defacto behavior since you began.

- You selectively choose what to respond too, often reducing posts to either outright misrepresentations of the post of someone else or choosing to engage in a tit for tat style rhetoric.  You claim others support your positions, omitting their posts down to single phrases or statements, while in actuality their posts often contradict your own.  You've equivocated and obfuscated to the point of sophistry, whenever required to be responsible for your own claims.

I've been referenced by others here and they have repeated the same criticisms; all of which you've ignored.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: velkyn on July 20, 2011, 11:23:59 AM
Omen, the grown-ups are trying to have a conservation. The question is just that, a question.

Thanks for your reply, Hatter.
You know, I really doubt that it's "just that, a question."  It's the same old nonsense that theists try to get atheists with.  Ohhh, what is the purpose of life if you don't have *my* god there to give it purpose?  What shallow lives you all lead.  I have a lot of purpose in my life. 

Omen's right, it's just one more version of Pascal's Wager.  The usual theist making baseless assumptions about the universe and their religion. They postulate some skeeery things about the universe in a typical appeal to emotion.  They then proceed to desperately hope that atheists are unhappy so they can feel better about themselves. 
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 11:28:26 AM
Omen, I apologize for my last post. I will modify. You are welcome to do the same.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 20, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
Omen, I apologize for my last post. I will modify. You are welcome to do the same.

I have nothing to apologize for.  My hostility has only been a measured response to the dishonest and disingenuous behavior you've brought to this forum, you would have an entirely different experience if you actually worked to have an open discussion with others instead of trying to force people to respond to criteria that they reject or do not accept at face value.

I also reject your apology as not being genuine, because you still are not actually responding to the criticisms leveled at you.  Are you going to begin to respond to those criticisms or are you going to continue to try to force discussion into narrow predetermined talking points that you are only willing to accept?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
It's clear we're not communicating very well. I'm not trying to be evasive. It's frustrating for me to say over and over again that I will not and cannot prove to you that God exists, then read half a dozen post that say, "But you haven't said anything to prove god exists!"

I'm starting a new thread. It's title is "I will not prove God exists" Come on over.

Omen (and anyone else), if you have an objection to something I've said that cannot be reduced to "But you haven't shown me why God exists!" then come on over.



Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 20, 2011, 11:49:13 AM
Fizixgeek,

Two pointers- Welcome to the forum firstly. I'm quite excited too to have a Mormon here, they are rare on this site!

Secondly-

Are you aware that 'Kolob' backwards is

Bolok?

Which read aloud sounds like the singular adjective of an apt description of what Joseph Smith was talking when he wrote this book of Mormon?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons (http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons)

See if South Park with it's loveable display of sarcastic portrayal of faith is able to make you realise how incredible your religion is. Not incredible in a good way, incredible in the sense that it is in (not) credible (trustworthy).

P.S Sorry if this is not from correct Latin roots source Historicity ;)
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 20, 2011, 11:50:06 AM
I'm not trying to be evasive.

Case in point:

Quote
It's frustrating for me to say over and over again that I will not and cannot prove to you that God exists

This is evasive obfuscation; you have no negligible information you can convey unless you can objectively determine the reasonableness of premises and claims that you make.  You can't claim to be defending a 'theistic' view point, because you have nothing for which to defend it with.  No logic, no evidence, and just a blank series of utterances .. as if blindly saying something means that that thing is relevant, reasonable, and rational.

There is no authority you can establish, no argument you can make, and absolutely nothing you can say to counter or defend any position.  This doesn't give you permission to continue to ignore demands for you to provide the burden of proof for your own claims.  Repeating this over and over, doesn't tell us anything more, doesn't defend yourself from the burden of proof logically, and more importantly doesn't respond tot he criticism pointed out about this painfully stupid assertion when you first made it to begin with.

What stops you from responding to that criticism?  Why can't you respond to the counter argument?

Quote
"But you haven't said anything to prove god exists!"

You make arguments and claims that presuppose conditions of your superstitious beliefs as if they were true.

Of course others would then demand you to provide the burden of proof for those assertions and presuppositions.  Which you then ignore or obfuscate in return.

Quote
I'm starting a new thread. It's title is "I will not prove God exists" Come on over.

So we can watch you be evasive and troll the forum which is against the rules?  No thanks.

Quote
Omen (and anyone else), if you have an objection to something I've said that cannot be reduced to "But you haven't shown me why God exists!" then come on over.

You've had literally hundreds of direct criticisms, pointing of fallacies, and other problems that you've simply ignored.  Summarizing all of them as 'but you haven't shown me why God exists!" is an outright lie.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 11:56:17 AM
New thread is here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19541.0.html)
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on July 20, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
And our questions are HERE --> http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.58.html (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.58.html)

Answer them...
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: fizixgeek on July 20, 2011, 12:04:39 PM
I'd prefer to make a clean start. If you have a question you think is still relevant, would you mind posting it to the other thread?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Omen on July 20, 2011, 12:11:56 PM
I'd prefer to make a clean start. If you have a question you think is still relevant, would you mind posting it to the other thread?

So you're going to ignore everything you've done here and expect everyone to carry over the discussions you avoided responsibility for elsewhere?
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: velkyn on July 20, 2011, 01:07:06 PM
It's clear we're not communicating very well. I'm not trying to be evasive. It's frustrating for me to say over and over again that I will not and cannot prove to you that God exists, then read half a dozen post that say, "But you haven't said anything to prove god exists!"

I'm starting a new thread. It's title is "I will not prove God exists" Come on over.

Omen (and anyone else), if you have an objection to something I've said that cannot be reduced to "But you haven't shown me why God exists!" then come on over.

this is such nonsense.   You want to make claims and then when asked for evidence of your claims, you run away and insist that you won't prove that the basis for your claims doesn't exist.  Congratulations, you've just become one more tedious theist who thinks that they are right and has no evidence for any such thing. 
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 20, 2011, 02:02:45 PM
If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?

That's a long list! Do you want a few examples so you have something to work with (I hope not for preaching), or is it sufficient for you to know that I find a multitude of things worth striving for?

Logically, I find the finite more valuable than eternity, to be honest.

Eternal afterlife is logically indisguishable from eternal nothingness. Can you imagine how this seems logical to me? 

Edi: I appreciate that your belief system is somewhat off thread topic, but we were talking about you, via my questions. I'll drop it if you want, but new threads aren't what you need right now.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: screwtape on July 20, 2011, 04:29:25 PM
What about you screwtape? What was your journey to atheism? How come your not as smart or self-assured as AP?

To answer the second question first, I was not fortunate to have been raised in Quebec, though I did attend school in France briefly as a child.

As for my journey, I was raised in a casually Catholic family until we had to move in with my grandparents.  Then it was all catechisms, communions and confirmations.  I knew too much science to ever be a literalist and once I actually read what was in the bible[1] that pulled the rug out from under any faith I had.  Talking snakes?  World wide floods?  Genocide?  Babel?  PREPOSTEROUS!

I think I was misunderstood there. My point is that history seems to lead to atheism. Why wouldn't all religious ideas fall by the wayside the same as Ra, illness as demonic possession and literal 6-day creationism? I helping you out, here.

Evolution, in two ways.  first way: the brain has evolved to see agency in everything.  That is why every knucklhead who encounters something they cannot immediately explain, they attribute the cause to an invisible person, be it ghost, angel or god. 

Second way: religions and religious concepts evolve.  The god in which you believe does not resemble anything of the yhwh worshipped by pre-exilic hebrews. As the old religious ideas are mercilessly shot to pieces by new knowledge, the ideas are re-interpreted to fit.  Old religion[2]: world was created by a superguy in 6 days.  New religion: it was metaphorical.  Old religion: yhwh was paret of a pantheon of god called Elohim.  He was one of the sons of El and his wife was Asherah.  New religion: since yhwh apparently got his ass handed to him by Marduk, and that is just not thinkable, it must be that yhwh controls Marduk and used him as a way to punish us.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Old religion: lightning is an expression of god's anger.  New religion: lightning rods are a part of god's plan.

So religion as an entity is a slippery bastard that expliots the brain's functionality and is not easy to end.  I think if we had a selection mechanism - like sterilizing the religious before they could breed - we could eliminate it relatively quickly.

screwtape missed my earlier posts, so I'll reiterate. I'm not attempting to prove that God exists.

I got that part.  But thanks for making sure.

I would like to defend the self-consistency of theism to remove that as an obstacle for anyone seeking to learn whether there is a god.

see above.

 1. catholics are not big on bible reading
 2. and that of modern illiterates and savages
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 20, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
There are a thousand French schools outside of Québec, Screw.

 
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: ablestmage on October 02, 2011, 01:18:07 PM
Is it too late to make a complete douchebag of myself responding to OP?
I really need to check that Gmail more often, apparently.
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: EV on October 04, 2011, 10:44:08 AM
Is it too late to make a complete douchebag of myself responding to OP?

Hi James, welcome back.

Feel free to respond, that's why I emailed you anyway :)

I really need to check that Gmail more often, apparently.
Haha, it has been like 3 months... That's pretty poor ;)

regards,

Elliot (perpetrator of OP...)
Title: Re: Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.
Post by: ablestmage on October 05, 2011, 04:17:32 PM
Quote
Hi James, welcome back.

It's Mike, as the first initial M was a poorly-planned (not foreshadowing, not foreshadowing) attempt to make a pseudo-pen-name (a-la-M-Night), but seems to have instead come across instead as an honorific than an initial.

I've changed web hosts and have yet to re-up the page OP references, which, as I explained in another thread, was a prior version I'd assembled initially as a draft version. I then decided a better angle was to create a newer version as a YouTube pause-to-read-style video (since the original WWGHA video was a YT video, I decided a YT response would be more appropriate), and made the linked missive obselete/oldver. I'm not certain how OP obtained the link posted, since it wasn't linked in the video description.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOfGJKnHLso

I will confess also that I've conceded on the point I made regarding sampling size (00:24) although I don't particularly comprehend why exactly it should be conceded (as explained in the video's description section).

I think its concession more or less boils down to a personal philosophy on whether a given survey sampling size is a credible indication of whether "3 out of 4 doctors" think one way or another, and whether "from those we surveyed" need or not be appended to the claim.

There seem, to me, to be too many different ways of interpreting survey results, that I am far less likely to trust survey results as a genuine indicator of popular opinion unless an overwhelming/landslide majority of the people, of whom the assertion is made, participate.

To suggest a sampling size of 1,100 doctors adequately represents ~4.6 million doctors seems preposterous to me, but several self-proclaimed statistics experts assured me this sampling size is perfectly healthy to make such leaps. I decided not to press it, although I still disagree with it.

Quote
Feel free to respond, that's why...

I think one thing I failed to communicate is that the response is generally a discussion-provoking response, rather than a strict allow me to inform you of the Truth so please adjust your mind accordingly type response. I think too few Christians adopt this angle, and too few of those interesting in hashing it out with silly Christians are willing to adopt the idea they are discussing matters with a brainstormer type and instead prefer to believe they are battling wits with a This Is How It Is type and respond accordingly.

I have long been a Devil's Advocate sort, on occasion to excess, to side with the dissenting view interminably. Before I knew Christ, I believed (although unresearched/unverified) that this kind of personality was unwelcome in the church, so was turned away by my own presumptions -- when instead I think you will find quite a healthy congregation of those willing to momentarily suspend a staunch position on scripture to entertain an idea, such as that (hypothetically) perhaps, "Love is a decision, not an emotion" and then defend or refute the position without resorting to small arms fire, as it were.

A significant portion of my response is a criticism of the WWGHA video's technique and roundabout style of presenting its position, whereby relying on emotionally-driven language and open-ended questions.

The Goobidy-Foop portion is a translation of the video, permitting the opponent to adopt a Christian-eyed view of how the presentation comes across, in tone. If there is any ire that arises from the Goobidy-Foop section, from those who are pro-WWGHA, then its message was well communicated -- that the original WWGHA is essentially a poorly-executed attempt at criticizing popularly-held Christian views that Christians themselves criticize each other of already, but with the presentation that the video itself stands as the one who is speaking out.