Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Christian Author Who Says Atheists “Accidentally Prove God Exists” Is All Wrong

  1. Top | #11
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,177
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe
    that
    You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
    There's a link in the Op.
    I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.
    I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member phands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    New York, Manhattan, Upper West Side
    Posts
    1,976
    Archived
    1
    Total Posts
    1,977
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe
    that
    You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
    There's a link in the Op.
    I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.
    I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.
    So....LIRC states plainly that he has nothing new to say, and given that all the previous "arguments" have failed, I think that's an admission of defeat.
    “Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” Terry Pratchett

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    15
    The C.R.I.I.M.E.S. arguments haven't failed. Wishful thinking doesn't defeat arguments phands.


    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    CRIIMES. That's snappy.

    Causality, Reason, Information, Intentionality, Morality, Evil and Science.

    Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology.

    The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe that
    You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
    There's a link in the Op.
    I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.
    I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.
    Well I think they are all problematic for atheist counter-apologists for exactly the reasons Frank Turek outlines. But (without going into the details of arguments themselves) you want to know why I think those two in particular stand out.

    OK.

    1. Morality.
    Even if you disregard the AvT context of the moral argument, (for or against God) this is still a highly contentious/controversial field of secular philosophy. If there was general consensus among non-theists regarding the existence of OMV and a scientifically (biology) supported ethical framework/epistemology, then I might think differently. But atheists are all over the shop on morality - because they refuse to concede to anything transcendent. Frank Turek rightly challenges atheists to justify how and why they believe something is a human right, and why something else is "wrong" - given that primate emotions are just chemical reactions and subjective opinions are just impulses. (Consider phands vociferous hatred of religion. If there's no God, then phands' religious opponent can simply ignore his opinionated white noise because, in the law of the jungle, no individual primate's subjective opinion really matters in the long run.)

    2. Information.
    Atheism/atheology has to account for the apparent and recognisable existence of what we call "information" which is a placeholder word for something that is intricately connected to teleology/volition (personal beings). So much so that it's actually used as a defining metric for distinguishing intelligent life in outer space (SETI).
    A universe full of chaotic, unintelligible gibberish would conform to the idea of undesigned, random chance. 10,000 monkeys accidentally typing a Shakespearean Sonnet wouldn't make any difference because there would be nobody who recognised it, and even if there were, they would know it was unintended. But when we (as sentient beings) observe DNA we recognise that it is coded information. If we found DNA code in a time capsule drifting thru our corner of the galaxy, we would almost certainly regard that as a sign of deliberate, intelligent design - not meaningless random gibberish accidentally typed by one of 10,000 monkeys.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member Opoponax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    California Central Coast
    Posts
    1,384
    Rep Power
    10
    A considerably less well thought out line of bullshit coming from some hack who is either too dim or too stubborn to understand the arguments of his opposition is not more convincing than the great Christian/Catholic philosophers of yester-century.

    One of the good things about being a cagey, older heathen is that you know you've heard it all before and can simply proceed to check off the "Wrong!" boxes for the stupid arguments these people make. What's discouraging about having been at it so long is that you discover the well of human spiritual bullshit is apparently bottomless. This Turek stooge could've picked up any number of reputable books atheists have written and in a few days came to an honest understanding that his ideas are more full of shit than a pet monkey.

    The question that always baffles me though, is why. That is, why vomit forth long disproven nonsense or ideas that can be knocked over with a throw-pillow? You want to prove your god exists, fucking prove it. Find a way. Do something no one's ever done before. Use the scientific method; use mathematics.

    You can't prove unicorns exist by insulting horses, or by stating that horses exist; you have to produce a unicorn. What you don't fucking do is superglue a party hat to a horse's forehead and then claim to have proved the existence of unicorns.

    Fucking clowns. The whole lot of these dipshits.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    3,700
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    The C.R.I.I.M.E.S. arguments haven't failed. Wishful thinking doesn't defeat arguments phands.


    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post


    The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe that
    You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
    There's a link in the Op.
    I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.
    I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.
    Well I think they are all problematic for atheist counter-apologists for exactly the reasons Frank Turek outlines. But (without going into the details of arguments themselves) you want to know why I think those two in particular stand out.

    OK.

    1. Morality.
    Even if you disregard the AvT context of the moral argument, (for or against God) this is still a highly contentious/controversial field of secular philosophy. If there was general consensus among non-theists regarding the existence of OMV and a scientifically (biology) supported ethical framework/epistemology, then I might think differently. But atheists are all over the shop on morality - because they refuse to concede to anything transcendent. Frank Turek rightly challenges atheists to justify how and why they believe something is a human right, and why something else is "wrong" - given that primate emotions are just chemical reactions and subjective opinions are just impulses. (Consider phands vociferous hatred of religion. If there's no God, then phands' religious opponent can simply ignore his opinionated white noise because, in the law of the jungle, no individual primate's subjective opinion really matters in the long run.)

    2. Information.
    Atheism/atheology has to account for the apparent and recognisable existence of what we call "information" which is a placeholder word for something that is intricately connected to teleology/volition (personal beings). So much so that it's actually used as a defining metric for distinguishing intelligent life in outer space (SETI).
    A universe full of chaotic, unintelligible gibberish would conform to the idea of undesigned, random chance. 10,000 monkeys accidentally typing a Shakespearean Sonnet wouldn't make any difference because there would be nobody who recognised it, and even if there were, they would know it was unintended. But when we (as sentient beings) observe DNA we recognise that it is coded information. If we found DNA code in a time capsule drifting thru our corner of the galaxy, we would almost certainly regard that as a sign of deliberate, intelligent design - not meaningless random gibberish accidentally typed by one of 10,000 monkeys.
    Drop the hand waving. Considering the long history of moral failures of Christianity right up through today you can not possibly argue that Christianity as a whole has any moral superiority over anything. Across all sects. The pope is trying to hang onto the image of papal moral authority in the face of the obvious.

    As to information, what are you babbling about? Christianity has a long history of thought control and suppression of ideas, right up to today.

    You can rightly argue modern atheist regimes like the Soviets and Chinese communism are no less oppressive.

    That is why COTUS has both freedom of religion and speech along with a firewall preventing govt from implementing religion.

    The COTUS prohibitions against govt making laws promoting religion and religious tests for office were enacted to protect minority Christian sects against majority Christians. It was not protection of religion from atheist attack. Tjroughout history tje major threat to a Christian has been other Christians.

  6. Top | #16
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    6,808
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    15,848
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Opoponax View Post
    What's discouraging about having been at it so long is that you discover the well of human spiritual bullshit is apparently bottomless. This Turek stooge could've picked up any number of reputable books atheists have written and in a few days came to an honest understanding that his ideas are more full of shit than a pet monkey.

    The question that always baffles me though, is why. That is, why vomit forth long disproven nonsense or ideas that can be knocked over with a throw-pillow? You want to prove your god exists, fucking prove it. Find a way. Do something no one's ever done before. Use the scientific method; use mathematics.

    You can't prove unicorns exist by insulting horses, or by stating that horses exist; you have to produce a unicorn. What you don't fucking do is superglue a party hat to a horse's forehead and then claim to have proved the existence of unicorns.

    Fucking clowns. The whole lot of these dipshits.
    Absolute truth. These people all think they have something NEW! To say, and they never do just the most basic research for prior discussions to avoid looking like a toddler with a new vocabulary word.

    And yet they still try to “PROVE!” Their nonsensical god with these explanations that they think are new - and aren’t new (aren’t even explanations).

  7. Top | #17
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    6,808
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    15,848
    Rep Power
    77
    In many ways it reminds me of those sycophants who claim they know a celebrity. Trust me, I now him. He’s got this house, I’ve seen the house (pretend you don’t notice the other people who claim they’v seen the house and describe it differently!). I’ve talked to him and I know what he wants! (pretend you don’t notice the other people who claim they’ve talked to him and describe it differently!). I can help you meet him. Okay, not today, but I’ve met him. I can help you meet him, just, well, I can’t actually introduce you, but if you stand on this hill with binoculars, and imagine you can see through those trees, then you can imagine you’ve met him, too.

    Honest, I totally know him personally. He’s my good friend. But, well, I can’t actually introduce you...

  8. Top | #18
    Zen Hedonist Jobar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,097
    Archived
    9,525
    Total Posts
    10,622
    Rep Power
    67
    http://choosinghats.org/2012/02/some...-the-contrary/

    It boils down to "you can't be right because that would mean I am wrong." The method is ancient, indeed Biblical.

    Trouble is, it can also be used to argue for any other religion, including the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's basically a means to ignore rational argument, and claim whatever you believe is true.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    1,715
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    2,306
    Rep Power
    57
    Right, who needs science. If you're Christian and you need bus fare, go to a lake, catch the first fish you can, and it will have your bus fare in its mouth. Just like in Matthew!! But try getting a friggin' ichthyologist to back you on that plan. They won't. Because they don't believe on Jeebus. Friggin ichthyologists.

  10. Top | #20
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,502
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,541
    Rep Power
    72
    Gods are just ghosts. Lots of people claim to experience ghosts. It's not really a claim deserving of much consideration. Show me your ghost already.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •