why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s

[siegfriedandroy]

question one: why does sklansky spend so much time here? if he is so certain that god doesnt exist, why does he care to spend so many of his waking hours in this part of his wonderful forum? why doesnt he spend more time on the nolimit section instead, so that donks like me can profit more easily? if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

question 2: what is sklansky's favorite hemingway book? i read 'old man and the sea' in 9th grade, and some other title i cant remember, but that's the extent of my heminway experience. i do remember seeing some dooshbag kid outside a bar one night reading 'old man', trying to be cool and to pass for an 'intellectual'. i am pretty sure, though, that he was no Sklansky!

3) how much money has sklansky made at poker in his lifetime?

question 4) what are some of the flaws that you agnostic's see with pascal's wager. wasnt he one of the great scientists of the past millenium?

5) daniel n. and david s. agree to play a game of strip poker, to be observed by carmen e. who does carmen e. want to win?

question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

7) does sklansky ever play online? if so, where, and what is his screen name?

[ QUOTE ]
question one: why does sklansky spend so much time here? if he is so certain that god doesnt exist, why does he care to spend so many of his waking hours in this part of his wonderful forum? why doesnt he spend more time on the nolimit section instead, so that donks like me can profit more easily? if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's done his share of poker teaching, and there are so many posters who can supply new readers with information. This whole reasoning out that God doesn't exist problem is very complex, so it may interest him, since he's a bright guy. and maybe not knowing 100% that God doesn't exist is too risky considering the consequences.


[ QUOTE ]
5) daniel n. and david s. agree to play a game of strip poker, to be observed by carmen e. who does carmen e. want to win?

[/ QUOTE ]
DN & DS convince CE to also play. It's televised. Everyone wins, unless CE wins. Then we lose.


[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're saying if someone was atheist, then they shouldn't care whether or not their child is taught incorrect information?

[siegfriedandroy]

i guess im saying there's no rational reason to care, at least none that i can think of. i guess there's no reason not to care either, though. either way is w/o meaning, just like everything else in such a god forsaken philosophy. however, most atheists (in my experience at least) do seem to care very much that the 'truth' (evolution, for instance) be known. but in my view, there is no real reason for 'truth' to be taught, pursued, believed, etc. in an atheistic perspective. certainly no reason to argue on a web forum about it. it seems most atheists have no solid or legitimate reason to argue evolution (or anything else related to philosophy, etc) except to serve themselves, through receiving pleasure, etc out of such debate and dialogue. no inherent reason to seek or teach the 'truth' though. but inevitably they do seem to search for truth, etc (ala sklansky), despite having no real incentive or reason to do so. to me it just all boils down to hollow and empty philosophy. utter meaninglessness...

question 8: if an atheist, why not commit suicide? why value life at all? of course you could respond simply and say, 'why commit suicide?' that's fine. either way. but most atheists do not commit suicide? why not? it seems they all place substantial value on human life. if they did not, there seems to be no reason not to commit suicide, especially if done painlessly. this is especially true if the person is one who suffers greatly (and i believe we all suffer to some extent). why not avoid it? even if you consider yourself 'happy' and espouse some ridiculous moral view like the happiness principle (leibniz i believe), why live and be happy as opposed to dying and feeling nothing? is it better to be 'happy' than to feel nothing? i am a christian and would never encourage someone to kill themself. yet if i was an atheist, then id have no reason to value human life, and killing myself would not be irrational. yet most atheists do not kill themselves. why not? i believe that even atheists are aware of an ultimate reality. i believe deep inside that even sklansky knows it is wrong to kill unjustly, no matter how deeply he buries such truth. enough for now.

I'm not Sklansky, but the odds of him replying seem small, so I'll put in my two cents.

1) why does sklansky spend so much time here?
He doesn't spend that much time on here. As to why, it's an interesting subject, and fun to play around with. I think he's looking to create moments of truth, where posters will discover something about themselves they didn't know before. He seems to be a genuine teacher who likes it when people think about things that matter.

2) How much money has sklansky made at poker in his lifetime?
My guess is about 300K.

5) daniel n. and david s. agree to play a game of strip poker, to be observed by carmen e. who does carmen e. want to win?
Unless she likes feminine males, I'd say Daniel all the way.

6) why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school.
Because it's wrong by every reasonable and common sense standard. Read a book on evolution and the fossil record (and I'm not talking Lucy). It's simply stunning and ovewhelming both in number and diversity. Read about the phylogenic tree. Look at the structure of cells. No one who has done these things doubts the fact that organisms have evolved from single cells to what they are today.
God is a seperate issue.

7) does sklansky ever play online? if so, where, and what is his screen name?
"Doy... wait, don't you have to win a contest or something if you want to ask questions?

[BluffTHIS!]

#1: Because he can, because he believes there is value to society in getting intellingent believers to not believe in religion, and because he is only willing to give so many poker insights for free in other forums when he would rather you pay for them in his next book.

#2: To Have And Have Not, because that is the ultimate philosophical question for him.

#3: 1 mil+. Although that might sound impressive, expensive girlfriends and getting Matt out of continual trouble as a teenager drained much of that with the result he still has to grind it out on the seat of this leather ass.

#4: His main objection to Pascal's wager is probably that it posits an infinite reward that could only be finitely appreciated by humans since they are finite creatures themselves.

#5: carmen e. is too smart to take take those 2 as her only choices and would insist on the addition of one or more chippendales to the game.

#6: Because ID is psuedo-scientific bunk put out by creationists who can't reconcile their selectively-literal interpretations of scripture with scientific fact.

#7: He plays micro-limits on PS under the screen name "MalmuthIsaPutz".

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you seem to be caught in the notion that atheists must believe life is meaningless (in the we should all commit suicide now sense). Most atheists do find some meaning in their life, and for alot of us it could be raising children and contributing professionally in a way to improve the species. Fighting for public schools to teach actual science in science classes seems to fit into both of these goals.

[bluesbassman]

I obviously can't answer for DS, but my "atheistic" perspective is probably typical...

[ QUOTE ]
if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing about atheism which implies "everything is meaningless and without purpose." That's a classic logical fallacy known as a false dilemma: the (supposed) only alternative to theism is philosophical nihilism. See this index of logical fallacies (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm).

And besides, do most believers really find meaning in life only to serve the inexplicable wishes of some "god" (whatever that is)? I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
question 4) what are some of the flaws that you agnostic's see with pascal's wager. wasnt he one of the great scientists of the past millenium?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are just a few of the flaws:

1. Wagering on one religion may damn you to hell according to a number of others. Where do you place your bet?

2. An omniscient "god" may know you are simply hedging your bets, and punish you anyway.

3. "God" may reward in afterlife only those who rigorously use their god-given reason by rejecting religion; i.e. the "best" wager is to be an atheist.

4. Any "god" who tortures unbelievers probably can't be trusted to honor his end of the wager.

5. Since the concept of "god" is incoherent, no meaningful wager can be posed.

That Pascal was great scientist is irrelevant; that logical fallacy is known as the argument from authority.

[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since ID isn't science, many theists also vehemently oppose it being taught in a science class. The reasons for atheists and theists are probably the same, namely that some people care about the quality of education.

[ QUOTE ]
many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care about the issue, and I don't have any children, nor ever plan to.

[ QUOTE ]
if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins. [wrt to teaching ID as science]


[/ QUOTE ]

Then using your own logic, any theist should not give a sh*t what was taught in every other class since none of it matters to eternal salvation. So if math teacher decides to teach that 2+2 = 7, you're cool with that, right?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Read a book on evolution and the fossil record (and I'm not talking Lucy). It's simply stunning and ovewhelming both in number and diversity. Read about the phylogenic tree. Look at the structure of cells. No one who has done these things doubts the fact that organisms have evolved from single cells to what they are today.
God is a seperate issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very very untrue. What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record? How about the concept of irreducible complexity? Darwin had absolutely no idea about the complexity of the cell when he came up "The Origin of Species".

It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer.

[ QUOTE ]
Very very untrue. What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record? How about the concept of irreducible complexity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I would wager my life that you've never read about the phylogenic tree. Or explored the fossil record very much.

The two ideas you quoted, pre cambrian explosion and irreducible complexity are common fallacies repeated in the non educated religious community. They have been thoroughly debunked, in fact anyone who's ever studied evolution wouldn't even mention them. At least you didn't mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that's refreshing.

Anyway it's late here so I'll start a thread about this tomorrow (or you can) rather than hijack.

As for this:

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, it points to an unintelligent or naive observer. Kind of like once believing the sun was a light moved across the sky by God. Now we know it's a massive ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion that the earth orbits around. If anything, this points away from a credible 'God did it' hypothesis. See why?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean the "Cambrian explosion." What about it? There is nothing about it which falsifies evolution. See, for example, this page about the Cambrian explosion (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html) .

[ QUOTE ]
How about the concept of irreducible complexity? Darwin had absolutely no idea about the complexity of the cell when he came up "The Origin of Species"

[/ QUOTE ]

Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is nothing more than an argument from incredulity: "I don't understand how this feature could have evolved, therefore god -- er, I mean an 'intelligent designer' did it. What Behe claims to be "irreducibly complex" isn't at all. See, for example, this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html) for a critical analysis of Behe's claims.

That Darwin was unaware of genetics or cellular microbiology actually provides powerful evidence supporting the theory of evolution, since DNA evidence can be analysed independent of morphological evidence from the fossil record. These two lines of evidence overwhelmingly converge to support evolution, as manifested, for example, by the twin-nested hierarchy (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html) .

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if your claim is true (it's not), it doesn't mean "intelligent design" is a scientific theory. Indeed, in the 145 or so years since the publication of The Origin of Species, the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly supported evolution.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read a book on evolution and the fossil record (and I'm not talking Lucy). It's simply stunning and ovewhelming both in number and diversity. Read about the phylogenic tree. Look at the structure of cells. No one who has done these things doubts the fact that organisms have evolved from single cells to what they are today.
God is a seperate issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very very untrue. What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record? How about the concept of irreducible complexity? Darwin had absolutely no idea about the complexity of the cell when he came up "The Origin of Species".

It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Darwin had no knowledge of genetics or heredity when he developed his theory of natural selection. You are still wrong about everything else. Fancy-pants symbol name is closer to correct. When an idea is a good as natural selection or the second law of thermodynamics, the underlying mechanisms are usually not so important.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Fancy-pants symbol name is closer to correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

on #6, you completely missed the point. also, from what ive read, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists (no intermdiate transitional forms) that has failed miserably to vindicate Darwin's prediction. but that is beside the point- reread question 6. you clearly know very little about the deep philosophical implications of atheism. your thinking is narrow. reread six.

[siegfriedandroy]

why is it 'uneducated' to refer to the cambrian explosion? also, the fossil record was glaring problem in darwin's day. thus darwin predicted that the record would vindicate him over the course of a couple hundred years. it never has. where are the thousands of intermediate fossil forms (links between species) that Darwin predicted. name 10 of them for me. they simply do not exist, and Darwin's prediction has failed. archeopteryx doesn't count- if you dont know why, ill explain.

please dispense with the typical ad hominems about how guys like jeff v. are not educated. the ad hominem is a favorite tool of those who think like you. it's tiresome. you know little about that you attempt to pontificate about. do you understand what im saying in #6 yet? im sure sklansky does (and he usually does reply to my threads, fwiw).

[siegfriedandroy]

can you please explain to me yourself the 'overwhelming' evidence that supports evolution? i read the link to the analysis of behe and found it quite unpersuasive. they are arguing over seemingly archaic, incomprehensible minutiae that seems to matter little in relevance to the overarching philosophical issues. please give me your version of the great evidence for evolution. and, if you're an atheist, why do you care to argue strongly for evolution and just as strongly renounce ID? b/c it's 'true', in your view? laughable

[Aytumious]

[quoteand, if you're an atheist, why do you care to argue strongly for evolution and just as strongly renounce ID? b/c it's 'true', in your view? laughable

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean here? If a person is an atheist should they not try to further the scientific understanding of the universe?

[siegfriedandroy]

good response, bluff! you are roman catholic, no?

as for 1, why does sklansky care about 'value for society'? unless it directly affects him personally (which is highly unlikely- at least society will not drastically be changed by his futile attempts on this site to 'relieve' believers of their faith). i see no reasonable point in his efforts here.

as for 6, same thing. nobody seems to understand what i am saying here. who gives a f*ck if 'ignorant' creationists dominate the science classroom? it will not affect sklansky or the other psuedo-intellectual atheists on this forum, at least not in a personal manner in a way direct enough to justify them all getting their panties in a bunch.

[siegfriedandroy]

i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.

[siegfriedandroy]

that's fine, but ultimately those goals really are meaningless, and a pathetic attempt to insert your own subjective meaning existentially into a world where such meaning doesnt exist. just seems pathetic to me. but ill grant that in atheism, it's not necessarily a worse choice than simply admitting that everything is meaningless and then killing yourself, nihilistic style. each option is equally valid (or actually equally meaningless)

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
who gives a f*ck if 'ignorant' creationists dominate the science classroom? it will not affect sklansky or the other psuedo-intellectual atheists on this forum, at least not in a personal manner in a way direct enough to justify them all getting their panties in a bunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a scientifically minded society as opposed to a faith based society, therefore I'd much prefer to actually have a scientific view of human history taught as opposed to the non-scientific intelligent design argument.

The type of people that are molded through education certainly does have effect on us. Perhaps we should teach children that we form from puddles after a rainstorm and that the ultimate form of human existence is the serial killer. Afterall, who gives a [censored], why get our panties in a bunch.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your main problem is that you are unable to conceive of people ascribing meaning to their life in the absence of god. In fact, you seem incapable of even imagining how it is someone could make even the most basic of decisions without an underlying belief in god. I don't need a belief in god to love my family, derive enjoyment from things in my daily life, or decide that I should indeed eat at periodic times in order to not die from hunger.

Did god come into play for you today when you decided what to eat for breakfast or what clothes to wear?

I do indeed try to encourage my worldview, just as religious people do. I think that science is man's greatest achievement, therefore I strongly promote it's proper teaching to our young.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing about atheism which implies "everything is meaningless and without purpose." And besides, do most believers really find meaning in life only to serve the inexplicable wishes of some "god" (whatever that is)? I doubt it.

Well it depends how you define 'meaninglessness'. atheistic evolution actually expressly asserts that 'everything is w/o purpose. i'd say true meaning is such that ultimately has genuine and absolute moral implications, both in the present and afterlife, in a world where human life is 'really' valuable in created in the image of an allperfect Intelligent Designer. As for believers who serve God, His wishes are not inexplicable. And yes, true meaning and good can be found only in Him, as St. Augustine eloquently explained a millenium and a half ago.

[ QUOTE ]
question 4) what are some of the flaws that you agnostic's see with pascal's wager. wasnt he one of the great scientists of the past millenium?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are just a few of the flaws:

1. Wagering on one religion may damn you to hell according to a number of others. Where do you place your bet?

This is clearly not a flaw. You wager on the most likely religion. If there is even a 1% chance Christianity is true (and this is higher than all other reasonable alternatives), it would be incredibly foolish not to believe, thereby risking eternity in hell.

2. An omniscient "god" may know you are simply hedging your bets, and punish you anyway.

Not a flaw. As for God's judgment on such matters, I cannot speak for Him. All we can do is make the best of the knowledge He reveals to us. God is merciful.

3. "God" may reward in afterlife only those who rigorously use their god-given reason by rejecting religion; i.e. the "best" wager is to be an atheist.

No flaw. This is simply foolish. God will reward those who deny Him, incorrectly refusing to believe? Childish...

4. Any "god" who tortures unbelievers probably can't be trusted to honor his end of the wager.

Also not a flaw. Who are you to speak for God? If God is truly real and cannot tolerate imperfection, it is not 'immoral' of Him to exclude these sinful, wicked abominous (my word) people from His presene. 'Will the thing formed say to the potter, 'why have you made me like this'' i find the combination of arrogance and igorance on the part of atheistic posters on this forum to be astounding. where are the Socrates's who 'know b/c they do not know'??

5. Since the concept of "god" is incoherent, no meaningful wager can be posed.

Not a flaw. The concept of 'God' is not incoherent. Because we cannot understand Him perfectly, doesn't make the concept of Him absurd. You need to stop reading such psychobabble. As shown above, you know little about Pascal's wager; yet this doesnt make his ideas 'incoherent'.

That Pascal was great scientist is irrelevant; that logical fallacy is known as the argument from authority.

Ill grant this to some extent. However, he was clearly overall a far greater intellect than most all who post on this forum. In my view, that is worth something. It especially tells me not to give credence to pitiful attempts (not just yours, blues) by posters here who honestly believe they can dismantle his argument with a thoughtless post such as this one.

[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since ID isn't science, many theists also vehemently oppose it being taught in a science class. The reasons for atheists and theists are probably the same, namely that some people care about the quality of education.

How is the theory of evolution any more science than ID? They are both competing philosophical systems in the end. Where is this great scientific evidence for evolution. ive read some of the 'talkorigins' site, and find it quite lacking. tell me what to read, please! in the end, though, atheists have no legitimately defensible reason for valuing education. it would be just as rational for them to value a lack of education and promote 'religious fairy tales' (in their view) over and against evolutionary truth.

[ QUOTE ]
many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care about the issue, and I don't have any children, nor ever plan to.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. you have no legitimate reason to care. you could rationally care just as greatly about causing people to disbelieve in evolution (even if you know it to be true)

[siegfriedandroy]

exactly. you shouldnt give a f*ck unless it personally affects you (and i doubt the evolution/id debate is anywhere close to the level of determining whether more or less serial killers will be on the streets- id argue that a serial killer would more likely disbelieve in God - i.e. hitler/stalin). your personal, subjective in the controversy is without meaning. you basically are confirming my argument.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
exactly. you shouldnt give a f*ck unless it personally affects you (and i doubt the evolution/id debate is anywhere close to the level of determining whether more or less serial killers will be on the streets- id argue that a serial killer would more likely disbelieve in God - i.e. hitler/stalin). your personal, subjective in the controversy is without meaning. you basically are confirming my argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's safe to say you misunderstood what I wrote.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Your main problem is that you are unable to conceive of people ascribing meaning to their life in the absence of god. In fact, you seem incapable of even imagining how it is someone could make even the most basic of decisions without an underlying belief in god."


This is not a problem of mine. I understand that you can perfectly well ascribe meaning to your life (even if ultimately it's meaningless- in 100 years). All Im saying is the meaning you ascribe to it is ultimately subjective and meaningless and pathetic.

"I don't need a belief in god to love my family, derive enjoyment from things in my daily life, or decide that I should indeed eat at periodic times in order to not die from hunger."


you could just as well choose to ascribe meaning to your life by hating your family and doing things you do not enjoy. in the end everything you do is without real meaning. why not simply decide not to eat and starve to death? would this really be 'irrational' (whatever that means) in an atheistic world?


"Did god come into play for you today when you decided what to eat for breakfast or what clothes to wear?"


I did not eat breakfast (just woke up), and am sitting on my bed naked as I type this!


"I do indeed try to encourage my worldview, just as religious people do. I think that science is man's greatest achievement, therefore I strongly promote it's proper teaching to our young.

[/ QUOTE ]




As an atheist, you could just as rationally believe that science is man's worst achievement, and that it's proper to teach young people to hate it. after all, w/o science and technology, perhaps millions of less people would have perished in the 20th century (just an example- dont know if thats really true- could be). You have no legitimate reason for 'promoting' your world view'. Christians do.

[siegfriedandroy]

can you elaborate? i think i understand perfectly what you wrote.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your main problem is that you are unable to conceive of people ascribing meaning to their life in the absence of god. In fact, you seem incapable of even imagining how it is someone could make even the most basic of decisions without an underlying belief in god.

This is not a problem of mine. I understand that you can perfectly well ascribe meaning to your life (even if ultimately it's meaningless- in 100 years). All Im saying is the meaning you ascribe to it is ultimately subjective and meaningless and pathetic.

I don't need a belief in god to love my family, derive enjoyment from things in my daily life, or decide that I should indeed eat at periodic times in order to not die from hunger.

you could just as well choose to ascribe meaning to your life by hating your family and doing things you do not enjoy. in the end everything you do is without real meaning.

Did god come into play for you today when you decided what to eat for breakfast or what clothes to wear?

I did not eat breakfast (just woke up), and am sitting on my bed naked as I type this!

I do indeed try to encourage my worldview, just as religious people do. I think that science is man's greatest achievement, therefore I strongly promote it's proper teaching to our young.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, you could just as rationally believe that science is man's worst achievement, and that it's proper to teach young people to hate it. after all, w/o science and technology, perhaps millions of less people would have perished in the 20th century (just an example- dont know if thats really true- could be). You have no legitimate reason for 'promoting' your world view'. Christians do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have every reason to promote my worldview as I would prefer the world be filled with people with similar views to my own in future generatations, as opposed to antiquated religious views.

BTW, how exactly does christianity have legitimate reasons to promote it's worldview?

Also, why are you not a buddhist, hindu, muslim, taoist, or jew?

[siegfriedandroy]

wrong. In theism, there is a legitimate reason to pursue truth of all kind. In fact, truth is now a meaningful concept, and we should care that truth, justice, morality, etc. is carried out on earth (irregardless of whether in a particular instance eternal salvation is or is not directly at stake). pursue the good and shun the evil, for it's own sake.

[siegfriedandroy]

Did you read the rest of my responses to you? Sorry, I accidentally blended them in with the above quote in my response.



I have every reason to promote my worldview as I would prefer the world be filled with people with similar views to my own in future generatations, as opposed to antiquated religious views.



You again miss the point. Of course you are free to desire the world to be filled with 'educated' people like yourself. But you dont have 'every reason' to desire this. My overall is point is that as an atheist, you could just as easily desire the world to be filled primarily with 'ignorant' Christians, perhaps because more death has occurred at the hands of atheists in the 20th century (and in the history of the world) than at the hands of Christians. But this fails, too, b/c why should you give a sh*t about killing in the first place?



BTW, how exactly does christianity have legitimate reasons to promote it's worldview?

B/c if Christianity really is true, then God has commanded that we spread this truth. The legitimate reason is the authority of God Himself. This is an infinitely stronger reason than the subjective desire of an atheist to 'educate' the world.



Also, why are you not a buddhist, hindu, muslim, taoist, or jew?

[/ QUOTE ]



B/c after analyzing the evidence for each, I am convinced that Christianity is most likely to be true.

[Aytumious]

It is pointless to continue this further since it is quite clear you are firm in your christian view of the world and are just as firm in your lack of understanding of the atheistic view of morality, truth, meaning, etc. I do not want to provide an explanation when wikipedia or the like could explain it just as well.

[ QUOTE ]
on #6, you completely missed the point. also, from what ive read, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists (no intermdiate transitional forms) that has failed miserably to vindicate Darwin's prediction. but that is beside the point- reread question 6. you clearly know very little about the deep philosophical implications of atheism. your thinking is narrow. reread six.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't. I chose not to answer the rest of your question as it's dull and theists who ask questions like these are never satisfied with the answers anyway, because they just can't imagine a fulfilling life without Gawd. But I will answer it now.

Atheism for me has no deep philosophical implications, apart from a sense of wonder at life and the universe. I'm a fairly normal person and I choose to care about my friends, family and the human race. The fact that I'll be rotting int the ground one day for the rest of eternity doesn't change the fact that I'm alive now and can do something with my life. It doesn't change the fact that I care about people, and issues, and society.

The main reason evolution is defended so vehemently is because it has become a battle ground with certain extreme religious groups who seek to impose their religious teachings and their version of religion on children in public schools. Children being indoctrinated by religion concerns me, because I believe in giving people the facts and letting them make up their own mind. Education is not a place for people to impose their own personal credulity and state it as fact. Have you ever heard of Scientology? Did you know they go around public schools in California providing drug education to kids? Did you know they include a little of bit Dianetics into the mix of what they teach? Does this bother you?

The question of our origins is an important one, and the fact that all available evidence points to at least to single cell to modern day evolution is the reason it should be taught. It matters that kids know the truth about their world, for so many reasons. Evolution is scientific fact. Only the theories about the mechanisms of evolution are being debated - but you can be sure God isn't needed for any of them.

And there are many intelligent and educated theists who share this view.

[ QUOTE ]
if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins

[/ QUOTE ]
That says more about your character than it does about atheism. And that's not an ad hominem if you think about it.

As for the rest, I'm in the process of writing a seperate thread about evolution, so please be patient.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
chose not to answer the rest of your question as it's dull and theists who ask questions like these are never satisfied with the answers anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so pot calling kettle.

[ QUOTE ]
Children being indoctrinated by religion concerns me, because I believe in giving people the facts and letting them make up their own mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we agree. Then why is it so wrong to have ID presented as at least an alternative theory?

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution is now a fact? On a micro-level maybe.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the rest, I'm in the process of writing a seperate thread about evolution, so please be patient.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be good. I hope it's not too full of you wagering your life on the phylogenic tree, and I'm smarter than you so case closed arguments.

Jeff

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
that's fine, but ultimately those goals really are meaningless, and a pathetic attempt to insert your own subjective meaning existentially into a world where such meaning doesnt exist. just seems pathetic to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if what you're saying is having subjective meanings is pathetic, all meanings are subjective. Everyone's interpretation of the Bible or Koran is also a subjective meaning. It just seems to me you want to think atheists are pathetic because you aren't one. Man, that's pretty lame of you.

[RJT]

To the poster formerly known as The Little Prince (close as I can come to OOO with the 2 umlauts and the dash inside the O):


Kudos to your positive zest for life. Life/the universe is grand (sometimes), I agree.

But, don’t you ever wonder about how that dang one cell got there?

And how the big mass (or whatever the big bang started from) got there to begin with to explode?

Or most curious to me when and how the first iota of self awareness (consciousness) came into evolution?

These are rhetorical questions, as I am sure you have that curiosity.

Do scientists at this point not think about it like this? Do they say “who knows“? Or are there some good germinations of ideas regarding this - absent of course God - or are any ideas they have come up with so far as “absurd“ as God?


RJT

[ QUOTE ]
Then why is it so wrong to have ID presented as at least an alternative theory?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with having Dianetics taught as a alternative to psychology? What's wrong with having the 6000 year old earth theory taught in schools? What's wrong with teaching that mental illness is caused by God's displeasure?

Like it or not, we live in a society that values seperation of church and state. Science belongs in science classes, religion in religion classes. But I'm a reasonable man, so I'll tell you what. If all religion and bible study classes start giving equal time to the Koran and Vedas in their classes, and teaching the view, with evidence, that Jesus may indeed not be the messiah (after all, two major religions say he's not), then I'll give some ground on the evolution/ID issue.

[ QUOTE ]
"Evolution is scientific fact."
The theory of evolution is now a fact? On a micro-level maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the evidence that creatures evolved from single celled organisms to what we see today is so overwhelming that the scientific community accepts it as fact. It is beyond dispute. What is in dispute/still being investigated is the theory of how this evolution occurred. So there is still some room for believing God directed evolution, although given what we know about genes and selction, this input was likely small or non existent. Either way he certainly did a good job of covering his tracks.

[ QUOTE ]
This should be good. I hope it's not too full of you wagering your life on the phylogenic tree, and I'm smarter than you so case closed arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
None of that, I promise.

[Lestat]

You have so many holes in your logic, there's no one place to even begin.

What makes you think an athiest is incapable of enjoying life?

By your own logic a theist should be more willing to die, since his beliefs tell him he will go to a more perfect place.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">2) How much money has sklansky made at poker in his lifetime?
My guess is about 300K.
</font>

This can't be right.

[siegfriedandroy]

Lestat, I do not believe I have many holes in my logic. You however, are blatantly incorrect i claiming that I said, "an atheist is incapable of enjoying life." i said nothing of the sort. perhaps you should read more carefully. what are my other 'holes'?

as for your comment that a theist should be more willing to commit suicide, that is also bulls*it. If God tells us that life is sacred, and commands that we should not kill, then it is right and reasonable to obey. In an atheistic world, though, there is nothing wrong with committing suicide. Please answer this: is it 'irrational' for an atheist to painlessly commit suicide?

[siegfriedandroy]

Nothing is wrong with teaching any of those things if you are an atheist. You are definitely not reasonable in your thinking, as you claim to be.

[siegfriedandroy]

All good questions, RJT. I remember 10th grade biology teacher mocking such types of inquiry. Many naturalists falsely presuppose that such questions ABSOLUTELY must have only naturalistic causes. That's good, unbiased, objective science, huh?

[siegfriedandroy]

Good ad hominem. Here's mine: you are a fool. You clearly dont even understand any of the arguments I am making, yet you proceed to criticize my lack of understanding of atheistic thought/morality, etc. Yet you provide no reasonable explanations or even basic definitions explaining what you believe about these things. If you really understood what i am saying, you have nothing to argue. if i were an atheist, my thinking would be FAR more consistent than yours.

[siegfriedandroy]

I sure hope not! Else I need to find a new guru.

[siegfriedandroy]

Yes, you did completely miss the point. You should reread until you understand. Or else we are not even arguing over similar issues.

And it says nothing about my character for me to state how I would think 'if i were an atheist'.

it is incredible how inconsistent many of these self-proclaimed atheistic experts are in their thinking. supposedly, atheists take pride in their reasoning skills, etc. But most of them (barring perhaps Sklansky so far) cannot even effectively respond to basic and simple arguments about the philosophical implications of what they believe. At least Sklansky admits that there is no real morality in atheism, that Hitler in 'reality' was no worse than Mother Theresa.

[siegfriedandroy]

I dont think atheists are pathetic because im not one. I do think most atheists are incredibly unaware of the philosophical implications of what they believe. I believe that it's untrue that everything is subjective, as you falsely characterize my view. Objective truth exists, and atheists deny the clear truth that God exists. this frustrates me.

[David Sklansky]

Forget the high falootin philosophers. Not Ready is right about them. But you are confused also. For the fifth time at least:

The meaning of life is:


Topless dancers.


The reason athiests don't want to commit suicide is:


The same reason cats don't.


The reason I argue against God on this forum is that:


I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


This is not rocket science.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget the high falootin philosophers. Not Ready is right about them. But you are confused also. For the fifth time at least:

The meaning of life is:


Topless dancers.


The reason athiests don't want to commit suicide is:


The same reason cats don't.


The reason I argue against God on this forum is that:


I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


This is not rocket science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen, brother!

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Good ad hominem. Here's mine: you are a fool. You clearly dont even understand any of the arguments I am making, yet you proceed to criticize my lack of understanding of atheistic thought/morality, etc. Yet you provide no reasonable explanations or even basic definitions explaining what you believe about these things. If you really understood what i am saying, you have nothing to argue. if i were an atheist, my thinking would be FAR more consistent than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

You equate atheism with nihilism, which leads you to believe atheists are unable to make valid value judgements.

Explain to me the decisions that went into what shoes you would wear today. I doubt god came into the equation. Now hopefully you can extrapolate and see how it is atheists come to conclusions about other, more important subjects.

[siegfriedandroy]

How would you define 'nihilism'?

[siegfriedandroy]

Man, Mr Sklansky. I enjoyed your topless dancing answer. I dont understand the line about cats...why dont they? apparently you are speaking of some type of self preservation instinct (seems to me evidence that life is indeed valuable and worth preserving)? (i believe they simply cannot even comprehend what suicide is)

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you define 'nihilism'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lack of belief in absolute truth. Since we are talking about morality, then the lack of an objective moral system, which, in turn, leads to a lack of certainty in moral questions. From there you assume that a person could choose any action and essentially be "right."

[siegfriedandroy]

the thing about atheism is it seems too simple to me. i could easily spout off all the same arguments, but they just dont ring of truth to me. at least that's how i often feel when im debating one of my best friends, who is an atheist from Meheco. the universe is incredibly (irreducibly) complex (jk- trying to get a rise) and could not have come from nothing. seriously, it simply seems insane that the world could be so utterly complex and could have popped into being out of nothing. how??????? what was there a million x 20billion years BEFORE the big bang occurred?? what is nothing? how does something come from nothing? just seems like a fairy tale to me. that's my ultimate reason for rejecting atheism.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">2) How much money has sklansky made at poker in his lifetime?
My guess is about 300K.
</font>

This can't be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, it's probably at least an order of magnitude too small. Not definite, but probable.

[David Sklansky]

"I dont understand the line about cats...why dont they? apparently you are speaking of some type of self preservation instinct"

Nope. Maybe cows. Not cats.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you did completely miss the point. You should reread until you understand. Or else we are not even arguing over similar issues.

And it says nothing about my character for me to state how I would think 'if i were an atheist'.

it is incredible how inconsistent many of these self-proclaimed atheistic experts are in their thinking. supposedly, atheists take pride in their reasoning skills, etc. But most of them (barring perhaps Sklansky so far) cannot even effectively respond to basic and simple arguments about the philosophical implications of what they believe. At least Sklansky admits that there is no real morality in atheism, that Hitler in 'reality' was no worse than Mother Theresa.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's get something very clear. There is nothing wrong with my response. The question you asked had nothing to do with the philosophical implications of atheism. You asked your question as one of seven unrelated ones, and did not state it clearly. To compound it all, you asked several questions in one:

[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not asking about the philosophical implications of atheism. You're asking specifically why atheists care so much about the theory of evolution and ID being taught in schools. If you learn to read, you'll see that I answered that question:

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason evolution is defended so vehemently is because it has become a battle ground with certain extreme religious groups who seek to impose their religious teachings and their version of religion on children in public schools. Children being indoctrinated by religion concerns me, because I believe in giving people the facts and letting them make up their own mind. Education is not a place for people to impose their own personal credulity and state it as fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the 'why' of it is obvious and didn't need explaining. The reason you don't want kids to be taught false information is the same reason you don't want your kid to still believe in Santa when they're 20. It's in the interests of their best personal and social development that they're taught correct information. In addition, there is the fact that classroom science classes should teach science. This is no different to being concerned about kids being taught astrology during physics class, incorrect grammar during English classes, or that Japan is part of Europe in geography.

I have answered your question as it was stated. If you meant to ask something else, you should have done that to begin with. Get off your high horse.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget the high falootin philosophers. Not Ready is right about them. But you are confused also. For the fifth time at least:

The meaning of life is:


Topless dancers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aim low David?

At least say orgies, mountains of flesh at every turn etc.

If the meaning of life is only to watch some girl who has probably had a less than stellar childhood and probably makes bad relationship choices because of 'daddy issues' flaunt her boobs for cash and give lap dances it doesn't explain why for our 70 years or so (if we are lucky) on this rock we can't do x/y/z because they are "bad", we have conscience, and our heart melts at a baby smiling.

Bullshit I say, there is something more:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/Rodin_The_Thinker_Laeken_cemetery.jpg/190px-Rodin_The_Thinker_Laeken_cemetery.jpg

[ QUOTE ]

The reason athiests don't want to commit suicide is:


The same reason cats don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this answer actually.

Since cats are nothing more than animals who don't enrich themselves other than sleeping in sewers, who cry out at night because they want to [censored] other dirty cats and therefore annoyingly disturbing their evolved superiors who need to sleep to serve the capitalist machine (Q. truly evolved? /images/graemlins/crazy.gif), and if they are in China end up in a wok under the name "Duck - 'meow'" on some Chinese menu ... I like how you put atheists on the same plate. (pun intended)

"Does God sit at a table in heaven with a menu written in Chinese?" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.messybeast.com/images/eatcat5.jpg
[ QUOTE ]

The reason I argue against God on this forum is that:


I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You delude yourself David.

All you have done is educate people about how to maximize their EV in gambling, specifically in regards to a game of incomplete information.

If you can't see life as the same game, the same gamble, and thus recognize even a wager on any random God (let alone one which may be correct regarding to current events *hint hint*) is worth more than a wager on none purely for the sake of masturbatory pride in humanity and the sciences which goes through continual "we know, we don't know" stages continually, ye are stoo ... well, it may be -EV, that's all. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

This is not rocket science.

[/ QUOTE ]

*crash* /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
how??????? what was there a million x 20billion years BEFORE the big bang occurred?? what is nothing? how does something come from nothing? just seems like a fairy tale to me. that's my ultimate reason for rejecting atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ther's no fairy tale, we simply recognise that we don't know.

Inventing something else that we don't understand doesn't help us.

chez

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
just seems like a fairy tale to me. that's my ultimate reason for rejecting atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's your ultimate reason, then perhaps you still have hope. Have you ever stopped to consider that possibly you're in no way qualified to make judgements about what is 'insane,' regardless of how it might 'seem' to you? Have you studied Quantum Physics? There's some crazy-ass [censored] going on that would 'seem insane' to almost any layperson, and yet.....

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to say Mr. Sklansky, but even Jesus couldn't perform the miracle of converting the ignorant here into the wise.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to say Mr. Sklansky, but even Jesus couldn't perform the miracle of converting the ignorant here into the wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one's for you kidluckee, meditate on it:

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." - Luke 6:42

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to say Mr. Sklansky, but even Jesus couldn't perform the miracle of converting the ignorant here into the wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one's for you kidluckee, meditate on it:

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." - Luke 6:42

[/ QUOTE ]

Or Christians can use that quote when they find specks in agnostic arguments but fail to see the logs in their own reasoning.

Meditate on it, brother.

[Jeff V]

I'm beginning to think that you're border line insane. ID does NOT include ANY religion, just that we may have a Creator. Quit reading so much into it.

[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not, we live in a society that values seperation of church and state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whole nother thread, cause we've managed to get this all out of whack too.

[ QUOTE ]
No, the evidence that creatures evolved from single celled organisms to what we see today is so overwhelming that the scientific community accepts it as fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a flat out mistruth.

Why does it seem the burden of proof is always on the believer? What was the cause of the big bang? What proof is there for macro-evolution?

I feel it takes more faith to belive what you believe.
Jeff

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it seem the burden of proof is always on the believer? What was the cause of the big bang? What proof is there for macro-evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, I'm, confused by this. You complain that the burden of proof is on the believer and then complain that someone else believes something with out proof.

Don't you think that whatever burden of belief is appropriate it should apply equally to all believers?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does it seem the burden of proof is always on the believer? What was the cause of the big bang? What proof is there for macro-evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, I'm, confused by this. You complain that the burden of proof is on the believer and then complain that someone else believes something with out proof.

Don't you think that whatever burden of belief is appropriate it should apply equally to all believers?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chezlaw wins the main pot.
JeffV mucks cards.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think that whatever burden of belief is appropriate it should apply equally to all believers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It just seems that evolution is a forgone conclusion- see OOO:'s posts, and a believer is put in the position of defense too often.

I believe I should be able to defend my faith with sound intelligent arguments. I also feel the same for evolutionists. Not just the blanket statement -evolution is a fact.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Please answer this: is it 'irrational' for an atheist to painlessly commit suicide? </font>

No it is not irrational. But why would an athiest want to commit suicide? What does a non-belief in God have to do with wanting to die? That's silly.

As to life having no purpose if you don't believe in God. What is meaningless about the desire to perpetuate one's own species? All animals instinctively do this. Why should man get no satisfaction for making the next generation of humans better off?

You are looking at this from a very myopic viewpoint. So you believe in God and think everyone else should just want to kill themselves because they don't?

You are also injecting the supposition that athiests view life as meaningless. You can't do that. That's one of the many holes in your argument.

[siegfriedandroy]

I dont see how chez possibly wins this pot. First, he misunderstands Jeff's burden of proof point in his second sentence. Also, he fails to address either of Jeff's questions about the origin of the big bang or microevolution. I dont even think chez wins the tiny side pot.

[Jeff V]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how chez possibly wins this pot. First, he misunderstands Jeff's burden of proof point in his second sentence. Also, he fails to address either of Jeff's questions about the origin of the big bang or microevolution. I dont even think chez wins the tiny side pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff and most other Christians don't apply the same burdens of proof on the words of the Bible as they do on say, a theory of evolution. Look at your own statement: you want proof of what originated the big bang, but accept the origin of God as eternal and "just there" with zero proof. And you don't see that??? Open thine eyes.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at your own statement: you want proof of what originated the big bang, but accept the origin of God as eternal and "just there" with zero proof. And you don't see that???

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh
It goes like this
1. Acceopt that God is the Creator of the universe.
2. Accept that Jesus was His son.
3. Accept that Jesus rose from the dead, thus proving he was God.
4. Since #3 is the central point of christianity, and if you get to the point that you believe that,then you can accept that The Bible was devine rather than human in origin. Thus making it the infalible word of God.

The intelligent design movement is trying to prove #1. If not by hard proof yet maybe through logical inference(which you use everyday in all kinds of situations so please don't start on that). After #1 the rest come easier.

I wonder about my phrasing of #4 but I'm at work and it's the best I can think of now.
Flame Away,
Jeff /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

P.S. How do you get through all these steps? Many other posts in many other threads, but they can be done logically- even if your smart!

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason I argue against God on this forum is that:

I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ergo: Those who belive in God are idiots. Then how do you explain the fact that I still make my 5/BB/100?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at your own statement: you want proof of what originated the big bang, but accept the origin of God as eternal and "just there" with zero proof. And you don't see that???

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh
It goes like this
1. Acceopt that God is the Creator of the universe.
2. Accept that Jesus was His son.
3. Accept that Jesus rose from the dead, thus proving he was God.
4. Since #3 is the central point of christianity, and if you get to the point that you believe that,then you can accept that The Bible was devine rather than human in origin. Thus making it the infalible word of God.

The intelligent design movement is trying to prove #1. If not by hard proof yet maybe through logical inference(which you use everyday in all kinds of situations so please don't start on that). After #1 the rest come easier.

I wonder about my phrasing of #4 but I'm at work and it's the best I can think of now.
Flame Away,
Jeff /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

P.S. How do you get through all these steps? Many other posts in many other threads, but they can be done logically- even if your smart!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. So your rebuttal to the fact that your burdens of proof are different is just to "accept all of it." And you have the gall to *sigh* at my post.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

The meaning of life is:

Topless dancers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, DS injects profundity into an otherwise pedestrian thread. This honestly could be the answer to ~50% of the questions posed in this forum...too bad no one ever seems to be listening.

Yugoslav

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how chez possibly wins this pot. First, he misunderstands Jeff's burden of proof point in his second sentence. Also, he fails to address either of Jeff's questions about the origin of the big bang or microevolution. I dont even think chez wins the tiny side pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I didn't understood, that's why I said I was confused and asked for clarification, I don't see how I win anything or fail to do anything either.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think that whatever burden of belief is appropriate it should apply equally to all believers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It just seems that evolution is a forgone conclusion- see OOO:'s posts, and a believer is put in the position of defense too often.

I believe I should be able to defend my faith with sound intelligent arguments. I also feel the same for evolutionists. Not just the blanket statement -evolution is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, so are you saying that the reason for belief need to be sound arguments? (logically sound or just convincing to the believer?)

chez

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems that evolution is a forgone conclusion- see OOO:'s posts, and a believer is put in the position of defense too often. I believe I should be able to defend my faith with sound intelligent arguments. I also feel the same for evolutionists. Not just the blanket statement -evolution is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's odd. Because when I wrote that you accepted God as eternally there and you wanted prrof of the origin of the Big Bang, you wrote:

"It goes like this
1. Acceopt that God is the Creator of the universe.
2. Accept that Jesus was His son.
3. Accept that Jesus rose from the dead, thus proving he was God."

So, in other words, you wanted your version simply accepted as fact without supporting evidence. Yet here you are complaining that evolution is just accepted.

Again we are back to your double standard of proof.

"

[Jeff V]

The sigh was because again you are mis reading me. I never said to accept The Bible as just fact.

[Jeff V]

I supose that's subjective. Hopefully logical.

[ QUOTE ]
The sigh was because again you are mis reading me. I never said to accept The Bible as just fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claim that the Big Bang theory has a hole: what originated it? So, to be fair, what originated your God? Oh, he was just "always there"? Well, then if you accept things just always being there, what again was your beef with the Big Bang?

Incidentally, I am not saying the universe was just "always there" as a singularity or repeatedly expanding/collapsing. I have no evidence beyond the universe to make such claims. You, however, apparently have the evidence to say God was always there, or you just accept that claim on faith (but won't accept other universe theories on faith).

[Jeff V]

Why do you keep puting words in my mouth?
Seriously.

"The intelligent design movement is trying to prove #1. If not by hard proof yet maybe through logical inference(which you use everyday in all kinds of situations so please don't start on that). After #1 the rest come easier."

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep puting words in my mouth?
Seriously.

"The intelligent design movement is trying to prove #1. If not by hard proof yet maybe through logical inference(which you use everyday in all kinds of situations so please don't start on that). After #1 the rest come easier."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. ID is trying to "prove" a supreme being created the universe, and thus it follows that Jesus is his Son and died for our sins and we have eternal life and ...

No, sir. That doesn't follow. Maybe "the rest come easier" means that once you are fooled into accepting one theory without evidence, it becomes easier to accept even more far-fetched myths without evidence. If this is your point, then I agree and that is why ID is dangerous to teach.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe "the rest come easier" means that once you are fooled into accepting one theory without evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'm done. If yoyu want to debate fine, but I can't keep arguing when you continually refuse to be rational.

[siegfriedandroy]

If you read a little bit between the lines (actually, i think the question is stated fairly explicitly), you will see that i am asking that question solely in connection with the philosophical implications of atheism.

If you, as an atheist, woke up tomorrow and began fanatically teaching dianetics, or ID, or that the moon is made up of green cheese, I believe you would be no less rational than in desiring that evolution be taught. If you cannot understand why, then you simply do not understand some simple fundamental implications of materialistic philosophy, namely that ultimately, nothing matters, especially where the universe came from. Even if evolutionary theory were true, what does it matter whether or not people know this true. It would serve zero value to society in knowing this. Again, I'd propose that even in an atheistic universe, it would be more beneficial for all to be truly Christian than for all to be atheist. Hitler and Stalin (two atheists) were, along with Mao (probably an atheist, im not sure), were responsible for more death than anyone else in the history of the universe.

You say you desire your kids and for people generally to basically 'not be ignorant' and know the truth about our origins. Please tell me why this truly matters. You can give me all your subjective reasons (as you tried to do), but they are no more valuable than another atheist who says he wants everyone to believe in creation (even though he knows evolution is true). If you just try to think a little bit deeper, perhaps you will know what im really saying.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how chez possibly wins this pot. First, he misunderstands Jeff's burden of proof point in his second sentence. Also, he fails to address either of Jeff's questions about the origin of the big bang or microevolution. I dont even think chez wins the tiny side pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff and most other Christians don't apply the same burdens of proof on the words of the Bible as they do on say, a theory of evolution. Look at your own statement: you want proof of what originated the big bang, but accept the origin of God as eternal and "just there" with zero proof. And you don't see that??? Open thine eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

kid, please do not be as illogical as the theta dude, or the poster that starts with A (cant remember the name). My first sentence merely addressed how Chez misinterpreted Jeff's original question. Secondly, the questions were not mine, but Jeff's. I did not ask where the big bang came from; jeff did. I merely quoted his questions, and pointed out that Chez did not address them; therefore Chez probably wins no portion of the pot. So how, from the above quote, can you possibly tell me what I believe or do not believe about either God or evolution??? You atheists in this thread are not good at basic reading comprehension, that is for certain. Kid, I almost wanted to give you more credit than the others in this thread, but you are shooting your own foot here. Hopefully your subsequent responses (which i am about to read) are more sensible. I did like your 'pot' analogy, though, even though you did give it to the wrong guy!

[siegfriedandroy]

How about this, lucky? Are you familiar with the Kalam cosmological argument? It's something to the effect of, "All things that had a beginning must have been created (or had a cause." The Big Bang (the beginning of the universe) therefore had a cause. God, though, by definition, had no beginning and thus was not 'caused'. Thus, using the same test for the universe and for God, only one needs to have been caused. How does that strike you?

The question, of course, remains. Who created the Big Bang? I believe it was God. What is your belief?

[siegfriedandroy]

Just playing around, Chez! I always seem to lose the big pots, myself. Flopped nut set the other night (10,8,2 rainbow). 3 bet pf, 1 bet on flop, 2 on turn. I lose on river to donk who PICKED UP a gut shot on the turn and hit his j5 on the river. BAAAADD BBEATT.

[siegfriedandroy]

Do you believe that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, or that the universe existed before it? I believe Russell believed the universe was eternal. To many scientists, the big bang clearly implies or perhaps explicitly shows that the universe had a definite beginning, some near 20 million years ago. What evidence is there that God had such a beginning. What evidence do you have that God is not eternal? What evidence do you have that God does not exist?

[siegfriedandroy]

should be both, imo

[siegfriedandroy]

kid, as an atheist, why is it 'dangerous' for the general population to believe incorrectly about the universe? Does it really matter? In 100 years, it will mean nothing. Why do you care? Why not believe crazy myths yourself. What harm can that cause in your atheistic world view?

[siegfriedandroy]

so then what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? How is atheism different? I thought agnostics believed that they simply dont know. Perhaps they believe further that it's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just seems like a fairy tale to me. that's my ultimate reason for rejecting atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's your ultimate reason, then perhaps you still have hope. Have you ever stopped to consider that possibly you're in no way qualified to make judgements about what is 'insane,' regardless of how it might 'seem' to you? Have you studied Quantum Physics? There's some crazy-ass [censored] going on that would 'seem insane' to almost any layperson, and yet.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Hope for what? Is one 'better off' being an atheist, even if it were true? Does quantam physics in any way lend itself to verifying atheistic philosophy? If so, please describe how in layman's terms. I have heard of numerous scientists in the recent decades rejecting naturalistic philosophy/traditional evolutionary theory as new scientific discoveries unfold.

[siegfriedandroy]

gh

[siegfriedandroy]

gh to you, too, sir. apparently, though, your iq is probably around sub-80 levels as you dont believe in God. So much for Sklansky's 130+ theory.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
so then what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? How is atheism different? I thought agnostics believed that they simply dont know. Perhaps they believe further that it's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Been there before on trying to define those words and no-one was able to agree. It doesn't help, so lets move on.

Whatever you want to call my beliefs, I don't know how anything came to exist in the first place (ignoring the clever retort that nothing is something).

I also don't believe anyone else knows (though I can't be sure of that) and I doubt its possible to know because I can't conceive of any possible method of finding out (could be wrong about that as well).

I think arguments about the big bang miss any important point about theism.

I have sympathy, although I'm not sure I agree, with the view that the question about the existence of god is meaningless but that's philosophy which is frowned upon on this forum. [Edit: nothing to do with the problem of definition]

chez


PS Can you help simple souls like me by giving some clue as to which response you are replying to.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, or that the universe existed before it? I believe Russell believed the universe was eternal. To many scientists, the big bang clearly implies or perhaps explicitly shows that the universe had a definite beginning, some near 20 million years ago. What evidence is there that God had such a beginning. What evidence do you have that God is not eternal? What evidence do you have that God does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't have (and currently can't have) any evidence about nthe universe before the big bang, so I believe nothing about it before that event as there is no basis for any particular "belief."

2. The fact that there was a big bang does *not* imply that there must have been a "beginning." The singularity that was the universe could have existed for "eternity" (whatever that means before time) just like your God, or it could endlessly be contracting/expanding, or it could be a slice of a higher dimensional space which "predates" it, etc. But since there can be no evidence beyond the big bang due to its singular nature, these are all just wild ass guesses not based on physical evidence, much like your religion.

Oh, and this is precious: "What evidence do you have that God does not exist?" What evidence do YOU have that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe?

[ QUOTE ]
The question, of course, remains. Who created the Big Bang? I believe it was God. What is your belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who created God? And stop saying he always was if you also can't say that whatever or whoever was the universe before the big bang always was.

[ QUOTE ]
kid, please do not be as illogical as the theta dude,

[/ QUOTE ]

You calling me "illogical" is music to my ears based on your demonstration of "logic" thus far.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe "the rest come easier" means that once you are fooled into accepting one theory without evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'm done. If yoyu want to debate fine, but I can't keep arguing when you continually refuse to be rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just have faith and reason isn't necessary, or so I thought???

[ QUOTE ]
kid, as an atheist, why is it 'dangerous' for the general population to believe incorrectly about the universe? Does it really matter? In 100 years, it will mean nothing. Why do you care? Why not believe crazy myths yourself. What harm can that cause in your atheistic world view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you fly in an airplane if the designers relied on unsupported faith to build it?

[Maddog121]

question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class because it is not science, it is philosophy. Here is an elementary explanation of the scientific method with an example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis that would be equivalent to intelligent design:

Science proceeds by making observations of nature (experiments). If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it. Arguing back-and-forth about what should happen, or what ought to happen, is not the way science makes progress.

Consider this hypothesis:

Hypothesis A:

"Our universe is surrounded by another, larger universe, with which we can have absolutely no contact."

This statement may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. By its very nature it is not testable. There are no observations that a scientist could make to tell whether or not the hypothesis is correct. Ideas such as Hypothesis A are interesting to think about, but science has nothing to say about them. Hypothesis A is a speculation, not a hypothesis.

Intelligent design is not testable. It has no predictive value in an experimental setting.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, or that the universe existed before it? I believe Russell believed the universe was eternal. To many scientists, the big bang clearly implies or perhaps explicitly shows that the universe had a definite beginning, some near 20 million years ago. What evidence is there that God had such a beginning. What evidence do you have that God is not eternal? What evidence do you have that God does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

You really have no understanding of philosophy or logic do you? You can't ask someone to prove a negative.

BTW, you are close in your "20 million years ago" statement about the big bang; it's actually more like 13 billion.

I appreciate being called illogical by you since you basically are proving yourself to be an uninformed moron in nearly every post you make.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.


[/ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class because it is not science, it is philosophy. Here is an elementary explanation of the scientific method with an example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis that would be equivalent to intelligent design:

Science proceeds by making observations of nature (experiments). If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it. Arguing back-and-forth about what should happen, or what ought to happen, is not the way science makes progress.

Consider this hypothesis:

Hypothesis A:

"Our universe is surrounded by another, larger universe, with which we can have absolutely no contact."

This statement may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. By its very nature it is not testable. There are no observations that a scientist could make to tell whether or not the hypothesis is correct. Ideas such as Hypothesis A are interesting to think about, but science has nothing to say about them. Hypothesis A is a speculation, not a hypothesis.

Intelligent design is not testable. It has no predictive value in an experimental setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[siegfriedandroy]

Clearly nobody in this forum has come anywhere near even minimal comprehension of what i am trying to say. some have resorted to ad hominem attacks, w/o specifically and positively proving anything i've said to be blatantly contradictory. on the other hand, i have shown several examples of blatant inconsistencies in the pseudo-logic of some of your responses. it's amazing how arrogant people can be when it is clear they know next to nothing of any value. perhaps there are atheists who can provide a more formidable challenge (by formidable i mean capable of reading above a 6th grade level, and understanding even the most simplistic and basic moral implications of atheism). these atheists simply do not exist yet on this thread. arrogant ignoramii is all i have come across so far.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly nobody in this forum has come anywhere near even minimal comprehension of what i am trying to say. some have resorted to ad hominem attacks, w/o specifically and positively proving anything i've said to be blatantly contradictory. on the other hand, i have shown several examples of blatant inconsistencies in the pseudo-logic of some of your responses. it's amazing how arrogant people can be when it is clear they know next to nothing of any value. perhaps there are atheists who can provide a more formidable challenge (by formidable i mean capable of reading above a 6th grade level, and understanding even the most simplistic and basic moral implications of atheism). these atheists simply do not exist yet on this thread. arrogant ignoramii is all i have come across so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

I exist, ignorant and sometimes guity of arrogance. Weakish comprehension skills but good enough if you write clearly.

What's the point you want to address?

chez

[siegfriedandroy]

Nothing really, Chez! Just frustrated by the lack of legitimate responses and presumptuous nature of many of the posters here. Guess that's what I should expect, though. As for yourself, you at least do not appear quite as arrogant (and hopefully not as narrow-minded) as the others in your camp on this thread, which is refreshing.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read a little bit between the lines (actually, i think the question is stated fairly explicitly), you will see that i am asking that question solely in connection with the philosophical implications of atheism.

If you, as an atheist, woke up tomorrow and began fanatically teaching dianetics, or ID, or that the moon is made up of green cheese, I believe you would be no less rational than in desiring that evolution be taught. If you cannot understand why, then you simply do not understand some simple fundamental implications of materialistic philosophy, namely that ultimately, nothing matters, especially where the universe came from. Even if evolutionary theory were true, what does it matter whether or not people know this true. It would serve zero value to society in knowing this. Again, I'd propose that even in an atheistic universe, it would be more beneficial for all to be truly Christian than for all to be atheist. Hitler and Stalin (two atheists) were, along with Mao (probably an atheist, im not sure), were responsible for more death than anyone else in the history of the universe.

You say you desire your kids and for people generally to basically 'not be ignorant' and know the truth about our origins. Please tell me why this truly matters. You can give me all your subjective reasons (as you tried to do), but they are no more valuable than another atheist who says he wants everyone to believe in creation (even though he knows evolution is true). If you just try to think a little bit deeper, perhaps you will know what im really saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

See hedonism, logical positivism, utilitarianism, etc. There are other ways to make value judgements other than by what your religion tells you.

If you are not able to understand that there are ways of actually assessing the value of something even if you are an atheist, I don't see why anyone else here should bother responding to you.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget the high falootin philosophers. Not Ready is right about them. But you are confused also. For the fifth time at least:

The meaning of life is:


Topless dancers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly I have missed something again. I thought we had all agreed that the meaning of life is to SIIHP.