26 Mar 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe key word here is "appear". It 's a matter of perception.
So knightmeister, in your opinion, who tells the most lies and intentional distortions of the truth on these forums, theists or atheists?
I know that I believe in my position and that you probably believe in yours. But some theists appear to intentionally make claims that they know to be untrue in order to try to back up their position. I don't think I h ...[text shortened]... their position. Or is it possible that the theist position just cannot be backed up with facts?
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI cant be sure, but I suspect you are lying when you effectively claim that you don't believe that theists are knowingly lying to a greater extent than atheists on this site.
The key word here is "appear". It 's a matter of perception.
Have a look through the "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" thread and you will find a fine example of a theist who will deny all known laws of physics, chemistry and logic in the hope trying to support a stupid claim. He also misquotes other posters. In this case there is no "appear" about it.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think if you are refering to the kind of theists that will deny dinosaur bones etc in order to continue with creationism then I have no argument with you. Most of them do not lie deliberately though , it's more of a self delusion. I might add at this point that I have had more than a few arguments with such fundies.
I cant be sure, but I suspect you are lying when you effectively claim that you don't believe that theists are knowingly lying to a greater extent than atheists on this site.
Have a look through the "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" thread and you will find a fine example of a theist who will deny all known laws of physics, chemistry and logic in the ...[text shortened]... stupid claim. He also misquotes other posters. In this case there is no "appear" about it.
26 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo, do you think that dj2becker actually believes the nonsense he posts? His remarkable ability to ignore any difficult questions, start up side arguments at when it gets too obvious that he is wrong, and intentionally misquote other posters makes me think that he doesn't actually believe most of his claims even if he does try to believe his core ideas such as creationism.
I think if you are refering to the kind of theists that will deny dinosaur bones etc in order to continue with creationism then I have no argument with you. Most of them do not lie deliberately though , it's more of a self delusion. I might add at this point that I have had more than a few arguments with such fundies.
How do you think that you are different from 'fundies' when you spent a lot of effort in a number of threads trying to prove that time not only does not exist but is necessarily infinite, but had no evidence or logic to support such a claim? Your attempts at finding the beginning of a circle seemed very similar to dj2beckers attempts at supporting his obviously wrong claims.
[edit]
The biggest difference I have observed in the past when talking to theists (of all types, fundies and others), is that scientists are usually willing to say "I don't know", whereas theists always seem to feel the need to have an answer and will make up an answer if they don't have one ready. If I ask a simple question like "What is the soul?" nearly every theist will give an answer and attempt to explain it all with confidence, yet every theist will give a different description and when questioned further will make up more and more ridiculous additions. It is very rare for a theist so simply say "I don't know what the soul is"
28 Mar 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow do you think that you are different from 'fundies' when you spent a lot of effort in a number of threads trying to prove that time not only does not exist but is necessarily infinite, but had no evidence or logic to support such a claim? Your attempts at finding the beginning of a circle seemed very similar to dj2beckers attempts at supporting his obviously wrong claims. WHITEY
So, do you think that dj2becker actually believes the nonsense he posts? His remarkable ability to ignore any difficult questions, start up side arguments at when it gets too obvious that he is wrong, and intentionally misquote other posters makes me think that he doesn't actually believe most of his claims even if he does try to believe his core ideas su ...[text shortened]... dditions. It is very rare for a theist so simply say "I don't know what the soul is"
The difference is the argument about time was much more valid because you had no empirical evidence to back up your idea that time exists substantially. In the absence of any evidence (to this day) that time exists or any coherent explanation about what time is made of or what it actually does I felt entirely justified in asking the question. If I were to question the existence of dinosaurs I would have a whole different problem on my hands in terms of empirical evidence , dna , fossils etc etc. So whilst I had no evidence that time didn't exist , neither did you have any evidence that it did (unless you would like to produce it) therefore your comparison is incorrect and not analogous.
I think your problem is you want to put all Christians into the same basket because it is convenient for your position and makes it easier to dismiss. You cannot accept that there might be some thinking Christians out there who understand the difference between self delusional beliefs and grounded faith.
28 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour attempts at finding the beginning of a circle SEEMED very similar to dj2beckers attempts at supporting his obviously wrong claims. WHITEY
How do you think that you are different from 'fundies' when you spent a lot of effort in a number of threads trying to prove that time not only does not exist but is necessarily infinite, but had no evidence or logic to support such a claim? Your attempts at finding the beginning of a circle seemed very similar to dj2beckers attempts at supporting his s out there who understand the difference between self delusional beliefs and grounded faith.
This SEEMED word is key here. Your perception before you begin is that no Christian can make any sense , therefore you lump us all together. I thought my refutation of the circle of time was valid and was based on a reasoned argument about the neccesity of the repetition of time in such a circle. You may have disagreed with me but you have been unable to pick to pieces the argument I made nor show how what I was saying was self contradictory. I quite rightly pointed out that such a circle would require for there to be a paradoxical influencing of the past by the future and thus the circle could not really repeat and would have to be a spiral instead to avoid a time paradox.
This is a million miles away from arguing that the earth is 8,000 years old and I think you know this.
I will quite happily go back through this argument again and let you show me how my arguing style is "similar" to self delusional fundamentalism.
29 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree that it was a more complicated discussion, but you did not speculate as you imply in this post, you claimed you could show it which is a totally different thing.
The difference is the argument about time was much more valid because you had no empirical evidence to back up your idea that time exists substantially. In the absence of any evidence (to this day) that time exists or any coherent explanation about what time is made of or what it actually does I felt entirely justified in asking the question. If I were ...[text shortened]... unless you would like to produce it) therefore your comparison is incorrect and not analogous.
I think your problem is you want to put all Christians into the same basket because it is convenient for your position and makes it easier to dismiss.
I don't put all Christians in the same basket nor do I want to. I was merely asking why I shouldn't.
You cannot accept that there might be some thinking Christians out there who understand the difference between self delusional beliefs and grounded faith.
I am perfectly well aware that most Christians can think. What we disagree on is whether or not there is such a thing as grounded faith. My experience with all Christians that I have had theological discussions with is that they are extremely defensive about certain points that they cannot back up with facts.
Some will resort to inventing things or outright lies to try and support some of their claims.
My question to you was, what is the difference between your attempts to show that the universe is necessarily eternal and dj2beckers attempts to show that abiogenesis contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Both of you had a specific desired result and tried to achieve that without any actual logic to back up the claims.
29 Mar 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was merely asking why I shouldn't. WHITEY
I agree that it was a more complicated discussion, but you did not speculate as you imply in this post, you claimed you could show it which is a totally different thing.
[b]I think your problem is you want to put all Christians into the same basket because it is convenient for your position and makes it easier to dismiss.
I don't put all Christian ...[text shortened]... cific desired result and tried to achieve that without any actual logic to back up the claims.[/b]
...and can you think why it might not be a good idea to lump us all together ? Are all atheists the same?
29 Mar 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadBoth of you had a specific desired result and tried to achieve that without any actual logic to back up the claims.WHITEY
I agree that it was a more complicated discussion, but you did not speculate as you imply in this post, you claimed you could show it which is a totally different thing.
[b]I think your problem is you want to put all Christians into the same basket because it is convenient for your position and makes it easier to dismiss.
I don't put all Christian ...[text shortened]... cific desired result and tried to achieve that without any actual logic to back up the claims.[/b]
The "actual logic" I used was a logic that you didn't accept. I felt that it was logical that either existence came from nothing or that existence has always been. You did not accept this , and felt that something from nothing was unteneble but there was a third option for you. My experience at the time of other Atheists that many of them felt the something from nothing idea was logical and hardly any of them were creating your third option. When I posted the nothing-o-tron thread many posters seemed to agree that there were probabaly only two ultimate possibilities.
Now , you may disagree with my logic as much as I disagree with yours but if you then go on to claim that yours is "actual" logic then you are just saying you are right because you are right. It is pretty obvious from these posts that what seems logical to one person is illogical to another so your claim of "actual" logic is subjective. I felt that your argument was pretty illogical because it contradicted one of the basic laws of logic , namely , A is either A or not A. My argument was based on the idea that existence is either finite or it isn't and I felt you were trying to say that it could be both , which to me is illogical.
29 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot neccessarily , I can know the sun exists without having to know everything but in order to catagorically exclude another exact replica of our sun existing I would have to know everything. It's much easier to know anything in the positive than it is to catagorically exclude things because to say something can't exist one must push the realms of one's knowledge to edge of all knowledge.
Then, by your logic, so is true theism.
29 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou can "know" something, but how could you tell it is not an illusion, if you don't know everything?
Not neccessarily , I can know the sun exists without having to know everything but in order to catagorically exclude another exact replica of our sun existing I would have to know everything. It's much easier to know anything in the positive than it is to catagorically exclude things because to say something can't exist one must push the realms of one's knowledge to edge of all knowledge.