Conquer Club

I don't know who Jamie is.

benmor78 wrote:I don't know who Jamie is.

You have not lived until you have experienced Jamie just being... Jamie.

benmor78 wrote:

That analogy sucks. A more appropriate analogy would be walking into bar, challenging someone to pinball, and having them rig the machine so that it plays in a way not even resemblant of pinball. The rules were laid out in the beginning, and I dare say anyone who opposes me has followed them. This would suggest that there are few (if any) rational arguments with a deity.

Anyone who opposes you has followed your rules? Well, then, what's the problem? And I didn't think anyone here was arguing with a deity...

You probably didn't read that clearly. I'll let you go back and re-read it so I don't have to correct a simply case of misunderstanding.

Third, I am a little disturbed that you would accept that belief in a deity as comforting as a legitimate reason for validating it. If we accepted that anything that gives a person solace and comfort is a good thing, we would have to accept all the implications: If a man enjoys rape, he should be allowed. If a woman enjoys mutilating her children, we should allow her to do it. Etc. so on, and so forth.

And I'm a little disturbed that you think belief in a God is analogous or comparable to rape or child mutilation. But I think that the comparison is sufficient to point out that you have a sizable axe to grind vis a vis religion.

I'll address the latter half, as heavycola already addressed the former properly.

No, he didn't. You compared religion to rape and child mutilation, which is a pretty cheap tactic for someone who is trying to claim the moral high ground for "rational debate."

I did not compare religion to rape or child mutilation. I stated that accepting ones pleasures and comforts as a valid reason for acceptance would mean we would have to accept all pleasures and comforts as a valid reason of acceptance. To deny this would be a double standard.

I do not have an axe to grind vis a vis religion. Of my best friends, one is a Deistic Buddhist, and another is an Orthodox Jew (and I'll admit that my other two are Atheists). My wife, is a practicing Christian (if only you knew about our arguments on how to bring up the kids). To insinuate that I have some agenda against religion is at the best wrong, at the worst misplaced paranoia.

Uh huh... 50 years ago, people used to say "some of my best friends are black." Good job.

Not as good the job you made making a direct attack at me and not my arguments.

1.What makes me pretentious? Being right? I do not engage in false modesty. If I am better then someone and know it, I will not hide it and will exercise the full extent of my bettered abilities.

Hardly. But I'm sure you felt great the one or two times you've been in a position to exercise the "full extent of your bettered abilities."

I have stated my abilities and disabilities here before. I excel at history, evolution sciences, and logic applications. I am poor at math, most earth sciences, and although I can command the English language with ease, I make a terrible writer.

Also, I can't cook for shit.

2. Athiests are irrational? How so?

Evangelical atheists are irritants.

What makes me evangelical? Calling into question a set of beliefs? Or defending my own?

in response to backglasses comments regarding my post.

Firstly calling it a cop out, no just the truth but i do believe it is an atheists cop out to say that the fear of God and his amazingness beyond our comprehension is a cop out, as this gets the debate no further.

As for me trying to strike fear into you, no the only fear anyone nee have is that of God and as i said i know which way i want to go.

I cannot find any websites regarding Samson yet as it is too late at night i will try some other time but i promise i would not lie but i dont expect you to believe that.

As for the holes in my theory that makes sense because somebody as great as a God is not going to tell me hi secret is he.

The truth about jesus being alive helps justify parts of the bible, i understand nowhere near all of it.

The only comment you made remotely near the truth is that it was rich of me to expect you to read that post (i suppose it is this one as well but meh)

I would like to ask all the atheists on this thread are you open to change your mind not nessecarily convert but peerhaps an agnostic, or is it just to deaf people shouting at each other because (this is again rich) as i am not going to change my mind because God has told me in person that it is true and that is enough for me.


I HAVE WHITNESSED A MIRICLE OF GOD but i dont expect you to believe that so i wont explain (unless you want me to) as it is personal but feel free to ask if it helps the dicussion.

I want to threadjack for a moment and have everyone consider a philosophical question. If you feel that it's foolish, then feel free to say so.

Here's my question:
Do I exist?

Do you think?

vtmarik wrote:I want to threadjack for a moment and have everyone consider a philosophical question. If you feel that it's foolish, then feel free to say so.

Here's my question:
Do I exist?

Of course you do. How else could these clearly intelligently designed posts be there? Did they just come from nothing?

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Of course you do. How else could these clearly intelligently designed posts be there? Did they just come from nothing?

No, but what is "I"? Is it something measurable? Is it the product of some confluence of chemical and electrical signals? Is it perhaps something else? Is the concept of the "soul" vis a vis ourselves viable in some way?

Do you have a definite answer?

I always find it is relevant to consult the great philosophers...

[url]The Philosopher's Song (Monty Python)[/url]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

I think, therefore I think I am

vtmarik wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Of course you do. How else could these clearly intelligently designed posts be there? Did they just come from nothing?

No, but what is "I"? Is it something measurable? Is it the product of some confluence of chemical and electrical signals? Is it perhaps something else? Is the concept of the "soul" vis a vis ourselves viable in some way?

Do you have a definite answer?

It's nothing something I think about everyday. If you give me a day or two to come up with an answer, I'll give you a well thought summary of what "I" is.

I don't want a summary. It's quite simple, if the data is complete.

Is consciousness, the wonderful thing that makes the individual "I," the product of a random collation of electrical impulses and chemical reactions, or is it something else?

vtmarik wrote:I don't want a summary. It's quite simple, if the data is complete.

Is consciousness, the wonderful thing that makes the individual "I," the product of a random collation of electrical impulses and chemical reactions, or is it something else?

I don't know. But to assume either without a collection of data is speculation at best.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I don't know. But to assume either without a collection of data is speculation at best.

Precisely.

I suggest, just to cover your bases against evangelicals of all kinds, that you reserve your judgment until all of the data is collected. Don't stop having your beliefs about what is and is not real, just don't expect it to hold up when there's a lack of empirical or tangible data for the conclusion to rest upon.

Logic and deduction only function when they are supplied with proper data.

vtmarik wrote:I don't want a summary. It's quite simple, if the data is complete.

Is consciousness, the wonderful thing that makes the individual "I," the product of a random collation of electrical impulses and chemical reactions, or is it something else?

it is just the sum of your parts. Just the electrical impulses which create an illusion of consciouness. That what you're looking for?

This one, again, comes down to belief I'm afraid. You accept the chemical and biological facts of the brain, and then its whether or not you believe that the consciousness, or 'I', which they give you is something detached and more than this.

I take it vtmarik you're arguing that this "I" is the concept of "soul"?

If so could I put this question to you - would someone born with a mental disability, effectively in a vegetative state - with (presumably) no concept of them self therefor no "I": would they have a "soul" in your Christian concept?

Nice to see how people characterize my neutral statements according to bias.

Until we know what the "I" is, or for that matter any other subject debated upon between Evangelicals and Rationalists, I suggest that we all reserve our judgment until more data becomes available.

*points to everyone in the thread* This goes double for you lot, and for Caleb and his ilk as well.

vtmarik wrote:Nice to see how people characterize my neutral statements according to bias.

Until we know what the "I" is, or for that matter any other subject debated upon between Evangelicals and Rationalists, I suggest that we all reserve our judgment until more data becomes available.

*points to everyone in the thread* This goes double for you lot, and for Caleb and his ilk as well.

Why must understand what the "I" is? You've suppressed your premise that would maintain the relevance to this thread.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Why must understand what the "I" is? You've suppressed your premise that would maintain the relevance to this thread.

What are you talking about? I said that I was threadjacking, that means that I had no intention of maintaining relevance.

And as to your first question, I never said you had to understand anything, I merely suggested that it would be best not to make any final judgments in the absence of complete data.

This thread has tumbled downhill. I agree with whoever said that evangelical atheists are as annoying as evangelical christians, but there are more ev. christians so we have to argue more, making us atheists seem more annoying.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:If you can beat my logic with better, rational logic, I will concede that there is a god.

So, where is it?

Contrickster wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:If you can beat my logic with better, rational logic, I will concede that there is a god.

So, where is it?

Where is what? First, you haven't followed the precise rational steps that I gave, and second, you haven't taken down any arguments. I suggest you read up on logic and fallacies before you go asking for my concession.

The rules were laid out in the beginning, and I dare say anyone who opposes me has followed them. This would suggest that there are few (if any) rational arguments with a deity.

You probably didn't read that clearly. I'll let you go back and re-read it so I don't have to correct a simply case of misunderstanding.

I've quoted the lines in question above. One, they are extremely poorly written. Two, the statements (as read) to not appear to say what you believe them to say. If you can't organize your thoughts coherently into proper sentences which actually convey what you want them to convey, it's hardly appropriate to then say *I* have a problem reading them.

Third, I am a little disturbed that you would accept that belief in a deity as comforting as a legitimate reason for validating it. If we accepted that anything that gives a person solace and comfort is a good thing, we would have to accept all the implications: If a man enjoys rape, he should be allowed. If a woman enjoys mutilating her children, we should allow her to do it. Etc. so on, and so forth.

I did not compare religion to rape or child mutilation. I stated that accepting ones pleasures and comforts as a valid reason for acceptance would mean we would have to accept all pleasures and comforts as a valid reason of acceptance. To deny this would be a double standard.

If we're talking cost/benefit, then your assertion doesn't hold water. For what you are asserting to make sense, the cost/benefit relationship between religion and rape or child mutilation would have to be comparable, but they're not. You're attempting a type of reductio ad absurdum, but in reality it just ends up being an attempt to tar religion generally (in your argument) with the broad brush of something undeniably vile.

Not as good the job you made making a direct attack at me and not my arguments.

There aren't any arguments to make. A belief in a "creator" or "initiator" is just as provable at this point as a belief in a cyclical, closed universe (which is to say, it's not). Religious beliefs do not neccesarily stand in contradiction to science, cosmology, evolution, or developmental theory.

What makes me evangelical? Calling into question a set of beliefs? Or defending my own?

Read your initial post in the thread.

benmor78 wrote:

The rules were laid out in the beginning, and I dare say anyone who opposes me has followed them. This would suggest that there are few (if any) rational arguments with a deity.

You probably didn't read that clearly. I'll let you go back and re-read it so I don't have to correct a simply case of misunderstanding.

I've quoted the lines in question above. One, they are extremely poorly written. Two, the statements (as read) to not appear to say what you believe them to say. If you can't organize your thoughts coherently into proper sentences which actually convey what you want them to convey, it's hardly appropriate to then say *I* have a problem reading them.

The only issue I find with that quote is that I wrote "simply" as opposed to "simple".

Third, I am a little disturbed that you would accept that belief in a deity as comforting as a legitimate reason for validating it. If we accepted that anything that gives a person solace and comfort is a good thing, we would have to accept all the implications: If a man enjoys rape, he should be allowed. If a woman enjoys mutilating her children, we should allow her to do it. Etc. so on, and so forth.

I did not compare religion to rape or child mutilation. I stated that accepting ones pleasures and comforts as a valid reason for acceptance would mean we would have to accept all pleasures and comforts as a valid reason of acceptance. To deny this would be a double standard.

If we're talking cost/benefit, then your assertion doesn't hold water. For what you are asserting to make sense, the cost/benefit relationship between religion and rape or child mutilation would have to be comparable, but they're not. You're attempting a type of reductio ad absurdum, but in reality it just ends up being an attempt to tar religion generally (in your argument) with the broad brush of something undeniably vile.

I am not making a fallacious argument. You're arguing from a utilitarian perspective, and I countered with the appropriate response. If we accept that something gives a person solace and happiness, and that something is good because it gives them solace and happiness, we need to accept that across the board. Again, if we deny it, it would be a double standard.

Not as good the job you made making a direct attack at me and not my arguments.

There aren't any arguments to make. A belief in a "creator" or "initiator" is just as provable at this point as a belief in a cyclical, closed universe (which is to say, it's not).

LOL. Please, support this premise.

What makes me evangelical? Calling into question a set of beliefs? Or defending my own?

Read your initial post in the thread.

I know what it said. A cute deflection doesn't change it. What about it was evangelical? The part where I asked for a rigorous step-by-step logical statement explaining why there is a god? Or the part where I said that if their logic surpassed my own, I would concede that there is a god?

Those terms seemed pretty clear cut, balanced and amicable if you ask me (not to mention they are required in any rational debate).

The only issue I find with that quote is that I wrote "simply" as opposed to "simple".

Well I'm not going to parse the quote and break out the sentence trees to show you what those sentences are actually saying. Suffice it to say, they were poorly written and I'll leave it at that.

I am not making a fallacious argument. You're arguing from a utilitarian perspective, and I countered with the appropriate response. If we accept that something gives a person solace and happiness, and that something is good because it gives them solace and happiness, we need to accept that across the board. Again, if we deny it, it would be a double standard.

No, it wouldn't. If something gives solace and comfort to 3.5 billion people and causes 100,000 deaths, that's obviously a better cost/benefit tradeoff than rape or child molestation. So it's simply a poor argument.

LOL. Please, support this premise.

I'm sorry... has there been some sort of enormous leap forward in science which has allowed us to peer beyond the Planck epoch?

I know what it said. A cute deflection doesn't change it. What about it was evangelical? The part where I asked for a rigorous step-by-step logical statement explaining why there is a god? Or the part where I said that if their logic surpassed my own, I would concede that there is a god?

Those terms seemed pretty clear cut, balanced and amicable if you ask me (not to mention they are required in any rational debate).

I choose not to engage in this particular argument.