Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
41
This is a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Mike Licona. I didn't want to post it in the Reviews section because I'm only half way through watching it. I just had to post it because Matt gives a brief shout out to WWGHA at around 1:15:22. He actually says"whydoesntgodhealamputees.com", but that address will also bring you to this site.


42
Chatter / Re: 5 Tips to lead a happier life
« Last post by shnozzola on Yesterday at 03:15:46 PM »
Here's the Brooklyn lady making manicotti, for Velkyn.  Reminds me of the SNL coffee talk skit, all verklempt.......(in this case she is getting "misty")

43
Chatter / "A remarkable discovery in Lithuania"
« Last post by shnozzola on Yesterday at 03:07:22 PM »
Quote
The Nazi killing site at Ponar is today known to scholars as one of the first examples of the “Holocaust by bullets”—the mass shootings that claimed the lives of upwards of two million Jews across Eastern Europe. Unlike the infamous gas chambers at places like Auschwitz, these murders were carried out at close range, with rifles and machine guns. Significantly, the killings at Ponar marked the transition to the Final Solution, the Nazi policy under which Jews would no longer be imprisoned in labor camps or expelled from Europe but exterminated.

.......he told an astonishing story about a group of prisoners who had reportedly tunneled to freedom and joined partisan fighters hiding out in the forest. But when Freund asked to see exactly how they made it out, he got only shrugs. No one could show him; no one knew. Because a tunnel had never been definitively located and documented, the story had come to take on the contours of a fable, and three-quarters of a century on, it seemed destined to remain a legend without any verifiable evidence to back it up—a crucial piece of the historical record, lost to time.






http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/holocaust-great-escape-180962120/?utm_source=keywee-facebook.com&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=keywee&kwp_0=350956&kwp_4=1354988&kwp_1=598838

Nova- April 29th
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/escape-tunnel.html
44
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Yesterday at 01:17:07 PM »
Frankly, this is bizarre. You are claiming that DNA does not contain enough information to hold beliefs...which, may or may not be true, but for the sake of argument I'm willing to concede....but you STILL have not demonstrated how they came to exist outside of an evolutionary model. You've seemingly established a basis for how certain beliefs are formed (conceding that they do...which is encouraging) but the assertion that they are formed independent of DNA does not explain which biological structures are at work forming and holding beliefs. The reason this seems bizarre is because on naturalism in combination with evolution, everything we do and are is the result of naturalistic evolution...yet you seem to be attempting to skate around that somehow.

The main issue was whether evolution produces sufficient reliability and rationality and I showed it does by intuition and data collection and analysis. The main issue is proved.

This issue is just a minor one: where does this particular error come from? There are other errors such as the intuitive mistake that effects need causes, which makes you flinch in the dark for good reasons when you see a shadow move .

The issue of false beliefs is caused by false data collection. It is data collection by words. It is culture which passes on your false beliefs. We have evolved data collection as part of a reliable method for understanding reality, unfortunately words are an unreliabe source which we assume is reliable when we are children. Stories for entertainment are things you remember no matter how non factual they are. It is the same with supernatural stories but you are told that they are true and you hold on to them just as much as any other childhood story. Your intuitive mistake that effects need causes, makes it easy for you to believe stories in which supernatural beings cause everything.
45
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Azdgari on Yesterday at 01:04:17 PM »
No. I am not desperate to avoid addressing the contents of your post. The fact that I have been responding with material relevant to the topics being discussed is evidence of that.  But, I do know from experience that if I am not careful about making sure I understand what is being posited, there are consequences. In fact, I am regularly being reprimanded for not reading carefully enough so I tried to avoid adding wood to the fire.

Apologies, then.  Your zero-ing in on an apparent contradiction and refusal to accept clarification did strike me as avoidance.
46
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Yesterday at 12:49:43 PM »
BS, do you use modern medicine?  Do you use plastics, gasoline, modern food animals and plants?  These were created by the scientific method and are parts of the various sciences.  If you do not think that they are based on reality, why do you use them?  How do *you* know that they work?  Why do you accept that they work?

I can deduce that they work because my God-given cognitive abilities are reliable. Your naturalistic evolution no-God produced cognitive abilities are yet to be established as reliable. Your view, I assume (and I could be wrong), is that we are molecules in motion. Evolution produces new physical features with no regard for whether they are of any value. Natural selection determines if those physical features will enhance survivability and reproduction with no regard for whether they are true or false. Therefore, once again, you have no basis for establishing that what you believe is true or not. You may be believing things that are true but you can never know, and that includes what you observe by analyzing the things you listed. It may be that you believe false things that survive because they are somehow beneficial.

If I were to ask you how you know that what you observe to be true about the items in your list, you would likely respond by saying that we can observe they are true and demonstrate that via a scientific process. The question is, how do you know that what you believe about a scientific process is true when your cognitive faculties evolved absent a method for weeding out all false beliefs. Maybe what you observe as being true is actually false as a result of it being some beneficial evolutionary function.

Here is an illustration that I provided earlier: It has been asserted that theistic beliefs in God and beliefs such as objective God-given morality evolved as features of a survivability function to aid in survival. Theism is claimed to be false. Therefore, a false belief has provided a survival advantage to numerous individuals. That means your belief that theism is false could be a false belief that aids you in survivability…which, in turn, means that everything we believe can be called into question because survivability and reproduction is what natural selection keys on…not truth value.   
47
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Yesterday at 12:25:25 PM »
They are mostly interchangeable.  You've still not explained what's contradictory about the two things I've said.  Are you this desperate not to process the actual contents of my post?

No. I am not desperate to avoid addressing the contents of your post. The fact that I have been responding with material relevant to the topics being discussed is evidence of that.  But, I do know from experience that if I am not careful about making sure I understand what is being posited, there are consequences. In fact, I am regularly being reprimanded for not reading carefully enough so I tried to avoid adding wood to the fire.
48
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by wheels5894 on Yesterday at 12:21:52 PM »
Here's the trouble of living in Scotland - all the discussion takes place after I have gone to bed so I miss it!

OK, well there are plenty of different ways that this has been looked at but let's have something new for Biblestudent. Now, you are sitting in PLantinga's study with him as he finalises his work on this question. No whe reckons the chances of having true beliefs if there is no god is low.  You still have true beliefs about things in the world though.

On what basis would he reckon that the chances of having a true belief in God is low? That is going to be critical in determining how I answer your question.

Well, for everything there is there is a t least some evidence or something substantiates ideas whether Big Bang or neutrinos. For gods we have books. See where the problem is? We have nothing of substance to suggest a god exists. I imagine that's why it all comes down to playing with words in philosophy trying to conjure up something isn't there. We can have a guess at the chance of life on other planets, after all we have life on this one and lots amino acids in space dust. We could assess the chance as high, based on what we know. For gods, though, well based on the evidence we would have to say not so much low as unlikely.

Quote
Quote
While you are at it, try this one too. Any really good idea make predictions that can be checked to see if the idea is a good one. What does this idea predict and how should we test it?

What is "this idea" that you are referring to? The predictions it makes will determine how it can be tested, right?

 Plantigas arguement that we have been discussing, Can we make predictions to test it?
49
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Yesterday at 12:21:08 PM »
That's why I said your dislike of it does not invalidate a natural perspective
Where has my dislike been introduced as a means for invalidating the argument? That’s why what you are saying is not making sense. You are asserting that I have used my dislike for something in order to refute it. That is just nonsense.

Quote
But, you have established that, if we live in a naturally confusing world, there is no logic we can use to establish proof of things that we cannot observe with ease.
That is true for you, not for me. I can use the logic that God provided for us but, absent God, you cannot account for the reason(s) we should believe naturalism in combination with evolution is reliable in forming true beliefs about anything.

Quote
You haven't established whether or not it is correct.
I have presented the argument on the basis that it is correct. If you believe that it is incorrect then please show how.

Quote
We can irrationally believe there is no God, and still be correct.
Hey man, if you are comfortable holding irrational beliefs then all the power to you.

Quote
Not by a long shot have we established that God would make us rationally believe in him. The converse of what I just said, is also true. Your belief in God can be completely irrational.
The please demonstrate how my belief in God is irrational. You are throwing out propositions with nothing to support them.

Quote
Quote
As of now, you have not shown that that position is false.
Your position does not consider all the logical alternatives, so you are not being rational.
Provide logical alternatives and explain why they may be logical alternatives. The list you provided earlier may or may not contain legitimate alternatives but I cannot consider them without knowing why you consider rational and demonstrable.

Quote
It's not even bare bones logical. It's kindergarten kiddy misconception. It's a non starter.

Now, if I said something like that on here I would get pummeled for failing to describe why it is not logical, why it is a kiddy misconception, and why it is a non starter. Seriously, do you expect me to believe this just because you said it?
Quote
If you want to prove God, then prove God. Don't use argument. Arguments are what kids do in the back of a car on long trips.
You have just leveled a criticism against yourself and virtually every other mentally stable human being. If argument is something exclusive to what kids do in a backseat then what are you doing here arguing? This comment lacks any semblance of reflection or intellect.

Quote
It won't produce evidence for things we can't observe, that have no way we can extrapolate from anything. Our track record for predicting, based on logic, is poor. It always has to be verified.
Without logic you wouldn’t be able to predict.
If I were to ask you what you value and you indicated that happiness was important, can you demonstrate that this unobservable internalized experience is true or not?

Quote
If it stood on it's own, your argument would have won by now. It requires external buttressing by you stonewalling, and not acknowledging logical errors.
What logical errors are you referring to?
50
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Azdgari on Yesterday at 11:19:20 AM »
BS, maybe this will help.  Let's keep with the breakfast example.

If I am trying to describe/refer to a single breakfast, then yes, I will use a specific label to identify that specific event.  Rather than numbering it and using "breakfast9327", I - like you, I imagine - would use the date it coincides with as the specific identifier.  That's what I was saying with the first blue quote you made.

The second blue quote was me pointing out that you can do this with any event/occurence.[1]  That the fact that you can find some identifying hook for the Big Bang doesn't in any way set it apart from other events/occurrences that we wouldn't necessarily have called "one-time" events anyway, such as breakfast.

Were you not determined to find a "gotcha" contradiction in my post, this would have been obvious in the course of actually responding to my post's content.  Will you finally do so now?
 1. And yes, in this particular context, the two words are interchangeable.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10