Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[Sparhafoc]

It's legal to kill babies.........atheists don't take moral issue.

Rectum, back up.

Now your bait and switch is revealed, I can come back to this and call you out for talking shit.

Atheists don't believe in gods, Bernie.

Atheism provides no coherent position on anything else.

As such, there will be atheists who accept the medical and legal definition of abortion, and there will be those who would never abort even an early embryo.

Given that Christians assuredly do abort embryos and foetuses, and in more numbers than any other group in the world, you are of course talking shit squared.

In fact, in my experience, it's Buddhists who are most stringently against abortion, but Bernie's too clueless about the world to know what a Buddhist is anyway, and as far as he's concerned, who cares? They're not Christians, ergo they're 'atheist muslims' amirite drooler?

 

[Bango Skank]

Legal to kill babies.....its called abortion.

Which wasn't any stretch to figure out.

Nah, you should have said "Legal to kill unborn babies.....its called abortion."

 

[Sparhafoc]

And here's where Bernie's claims about being Christian come to the fore.

Cite the Bible passage which unequivocally states an explicit prohibition of abortion, Bernie!

Again, this is supposedly the set of divine instructions recorded for eternity by the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe for his special creation. Assuming God wants to make it perfectly clear what is acceptable and is not acceptable to God, then the prohibition on abortion should be manifestly clear - you know, 10 commandments type clear.

But it's not. In fact, the only way you can arrive at any Biblical source of a prohibition on abortion is by taking general statements about taking someone's life. However, as we all know, it's Christians who are the most likely to support capital punishment today. It's Christians who had no trouble murdering women, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and those with a slightly different idea than what was deemed the One True Interpretation of the Bible. It's Christians who enjoyed a 2 century war murdering each other over who had the right interpretation of this supposedly divinely dictated guide to everything.

Anyone with half a functioning brain would realize that any written word needs to be interpreted. And any honest believer would realize that their interpretation of scripture could be very, very wrong.

That's what's different between you and real Christians, Bernie - they still use their brains rather than knee-jerking their way through the complexities of life.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Moral reasoning without gods:

http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/thoughts-abortion-carl-sagan/

By far the most common reason for abortion worldwide is birth control. So shouldn’t opponents of abortion be handing out contraceptives and teaching school children how to use them? That would be an effective way to reduce the number of abortions. Instead, the United States is far behind other nations in the development of safe and effective methods of birth control–and, in many cases, opposition to such research (and to sex education) has come from the same people who oppose abortions.

The attempt to find an ethically sound and unambiguous judgment on when, if ever, abortion is permissible has deep historical roots.

...

Different religions have different teachings. Among hunter-gatherers, there are usually no prohibitions against abortion, and it was common in ancient Greece and Rome. In contrast, the more severe Assyrians impaled women on stakes for attempting abortion. The Jewish Talmud teaches that the fetus is not a person and has no rights. The Old and New Testaments–rich in astonishingly detailed prohibitions on dress, diet, and permissible words–contain not a word specifically prohibiting abortion. The only passage that’s remotely relevant (Exodus 21:22) decrees that if there’s a fight and a woman bystander should accidentally be injured and made to miscarry, the assailant must pay a fine.

Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas considered early-term abortion to be homicide (the latter on the grounds that the embryo doesn’t look human). This view was embraced by the Church in the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been repudiated. The Catholic Church’s first and long-standing collection of canon law (according to the leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, John Connery, S.J.) held that abortion was homicide only after the fetus was already “formed”–roughly, the end of the first trimester.

...


Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester–except in cases of grave medical necessity–it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.

 

[Rumraket]

Legal to kill babies.....its called abortion.

Which wasn't any stretch to figure out.

No, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. As in, the pregnancy is aborted. That can happen by killing an embryo or a fetus (or even a zygote). Those two words there, embryo and fetus, are different stages of development.

This is very much different from killing babies, as killing babies implies the killing of infants that have already been born.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Heck... discuss abortion there too.

No, make another thread. It's easy to do, and let's people focus on a specific topic.

I promise to keep the concepts very simple so evidence will be obvious ☺

Really, you can only muster simplicity, which is why your arguments will be instantly defeated, and why you won't notice it. In fact, you could pre-emptively call the thread Monty Python's Black Knight Defends Abortion

 

[Sparhafoc]

Opened up a slavery thread. Under the religion forum. Perhaps there it will remain under topic ☺

The best thing about that thread is that you can't delete it!

Why not link to it in your Facebook page so that all your pro-slavery Christian friends can see your masterful argumentation?

 

[leroy]

Can you posit a good reason why it would have changed? Ever hear of parsimony?

LEROY seems to be misunderstanding the nature of radioactive decay, apparently he thinks it's like a chemical reaction? :roll:

Because I actually like to learn - that's what I am here for - and because I know Hack not only enjoys a depth of knowledge on this subject, but will happily spend time citing sources if I dispute any point he proposes, I am more than happy to ask some questions here that will allow Hack the opportunity to educate me and thereby to employ the Feynman Technique, and will also both increase my knowledge of this predicament we find ourselves in and increase and my gratitude to him for his efforts over the years to provide some kind of depredicamentification. :lol:

Hack has spent many years teaching people about entropy, and as one of the beneficiaries of that, I am somewhat cautious to foray into it, but I would state that the point here is about the most fundamental way in which our universe can be described. Radioactive decay is basically the tendency for matter and energy to become uniform and therefore inert. It's what our universe does.

I'd love to have the ability, math, and knowledge to pontify on how universes could be different, what a universe might look like if it was different in this regard.... but I don't, and to be honest, this forum has a hostile tone to it due to LEROY's endless bullshit, so it doesn't encourage people to engage in learning.

However, I give not a fuck about the chap. My life IS learning, so learn I will!

Dear Mr Slash. I am thinking about various influences or perturbations that could on some level affect essentially anything in the universe.

Would there be any decay rate perturbations.... i) at light speed ii) at the event horizon of a black hole iii) when pushed over the usual gradient into a very unusual state like Bose-Einstein condensates.

I have no reason to think so for any of them, but I also have no reason not to.... because it's at this level of reality that shit really goes whack for me. Without the math to purify it, my mind can't really hold the way it fits together, if you get what I mean!

I don't have to provide any good reason for anything, I am taking the skeptic position,


the fact that we obverse atoms decay at a given rate, does not prove that this where the same 200 years ago.


so justify your assertion, you are asserting that radioactive decay provides reliable results and accurate ages, justify your assertions without fallacies and without fallacious sources.

 

[leroy]

[

you are asserting that the decay rate has always been constant without any justification SPARHAFOC just because the rate is constant today, that in no way proves that it has always been that way.

Can you posit a good reason why it would have changed? Ever hear of parsimony?

sure, but I was told by brilliant members form this forum that, the kind of logic that you are using is fallacious


a few weeks ago, I would have granted that given that we "observe" the atoms decaying at a given rate and given that we don't have any good reason to assume that the rate was different in the past, it is reasonable to assume that the rates are constant until proven otherwise.


But then I was told that this kind of reasoning is fallacious. So I can not longer grant radiometric dating as a reliable method.

 

[MarsCydonia]

sure, but I was told by brilliant members form this forum that, the kind of logic that you are using is fallacious

a few weeks ago, I would have granted that given that we "observe" the atoms decaying at a given rate and given that we don't have any good reason to assume that the rate was different in the past, it is reasonable to assume that the rates are constant until proven otherwise.

But then I was told that this kind of reasoning is fallacious. So I can not longer grant radiometric dating as a reliable method.

Well Leroy still fails at logic but...
At least, we finally have Leroy admitting that the KCA is bullshit. Because if he isn't, then Leroy would still be an hypocrit, wouldn't he?

So are you Leroy? Still an hypocrit? Or is the KCA bullshit?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I don't have to provide any good reason for anything,....

And consequently no one is obliged to lend your declarations credence.

Go learn stuff: stuff good!

I am taking the skeptic position, ...

Another new word LEROY's made up in order to justify his refusal ever to accept the burden of proof.

the fact that we obverse atoms decay at a given rate, does not prove that this where the same 200 years ago.

If you wish to declare that atoms decayed at a different rate 200 years ago, then you're going to need to cite evidence.

But you can't because there is no evidence to support your position.

Instead, what you'll do is engage in endless specious self-pleasuring where you evade ever performing your side of the discursive bargain, which is why you are considered such a low life troll here, LEROY.

so justify your assertion, you are asserting that radioactive decay provides reliable results and accurate ages, justify your assertions without fallacies and without fallacious sources.

No - I didn't make that assertion, stop fucking lying you fucking liar. And really, what kind of an idiot KEEPS trying to lie to people's faces about what they said?


In reality, this is what happened:


http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181549#p181549

You responded to my post where I showed that radiometric dating is reliable and useful by citing 3 separate scientific papers which you ignored.

You then bullshitted:

you are asserting that the decay rate has always been constant without any justification SPARHAFOC just because the rate is constant today, that in no way proves that it has always been that way.

Whereas, I never said anything of the sort, because this is one of the typical red herrings you use whenever your argument got spanked.

I am reporting this. It is unacceptable that you keep lying about what has been said.

 

[Sparhafoc]

sure, but I was told by brilliant members form this forum that, the kind of logic that you are using is fallacious


a few weeks ago, I would have granted that given that we "observe" the atoms decaying at a given rate and given that we don't have any good reason to assume that the rate was different in the past, it is reasonable to assume that the rates are constant until proven otherwise.


But then I was told that this kind of reasoning is fallacious. So I can not longer grant radiometric dating as a reliable method.

LEROY once again showing that all he has is specious mendacious bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is what really happened outside of LEROY's manufactured bullshit:

For clarity - If I acted the same way as you, there'd be 2000 posts where I complain about the format of your reply, or pick a word you used and wibble about it, or demand you perform some task for me ('prove you know what radiometric dating is before I have a discussion with you') etc. etc. etc. as you always do.

Instead, what I did was provide 3 independent sources immediately and show that radiometric dating is reliable and useful.

Now you will go back to the same old LEROY style where you refuse to engage and just wibble endlessly on in the hope of distracting from your incompetence.

yes 3 independent sources full of logical fallacies and ungranted assertions.

you don't know everything SPARHAFOC, nobody (including you) understands why some atoms decay and other seemingly identical atoms don't. for example if you have 2,000,000,000 C14 atoms 1,000,000,000 of these atoms will decay in 5730 years, but nobody knows which specific atoms will decay, because nobody understand this mechanism at a fundamental level, therefore SPARHAFOC you should suspend taking a position and stop pretending that you know things that you don't SPARHAFOC



you are asserting that the decay rate has always been constant without any justification SPARHAFOC just because the rate is constant today, that in no way proves that it has always been that way.

besides we know that some known mechanisms would accelerate the decay rate producing young rocks with apparent old age.

c) suspend taking a position until taking a position becomes credible

this is the most reasonable position until we get to a point where we understand quantum mechanics and understand how should we interpret the seemingly randomness of the decay of particles. until then suspend taking a position is the most rational thing to do.

When someone keeps lying about what other people have said, it genetically undermines any valid discussion occurring, and this is meant to be a discussion board.

 

[Sparhafoc]

sure, but I was told by brilliant members form this forum that, the kind of logic that you are using is fallacious


a few weeks ago, I would have granted that given that we "observe" the atoms decaying at a given rate and given that we don't have any good reason to assume that the rate was different in the past, it is reasonable to assume that the rates are constant until proven otherwise.


But then I was told that this kind of reasoning is fallacious. So I can not longer grant radiometric dating as a reliable method.

LEROY once again showing that all he has is specious mendacious bullshit.

What is a universe, LEROY?

What characterizes a universe as distinct from any postulated things without the universe, LEROY.

You might want to refuse to learn, but if you lack the competence to address challenges to your claims, then your claims are shown wrong, regardless of your excessive ego.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well Leroy still fails at logic but...
At least, we finally have Leroy admitting that the KCA is bullshit. Because if he isn't, then Leroy would still be an hypocrit, wouldn't he?

So are you Leroy? Still an hypocrit? Or is the KCA bullshit?

Again LEROY shows that he's not stupid, just morally repugnant.

In the thread he's cross-threading from because he got his ass spanked and needed to continually drag this topic over to other threads where he feels he can lie about the preceding discussion, it was made unarguably clear to him that any definition of universe as a discrete thing must acknowledge a particular set of forces. Those forces are the fabric of our universe, and everything in the universe results from those forces.

As such, any claim that the same set of forces operates outside of this universe is a claim that either needs support or is not acceptable to anyone honestly looking for truth.

That's LEROY's actual claim - he claims to know what is outside the universe, but of course, all he can offer when pressed on this is bluster and bullshit.

So LEROY's latest equivocation tries to liken an argument that things inside the universe are unlike things inside the universe as if it were parallel to an argument that things inside the universe are not like things outside the universe.

Again, the only remaining question is who he thinks he's going to fool.

 

[leroy]

[


leroy wrote:
the fact that we obverse atoms decay at a given rate, does not prove that this where the same 200 years ago.


If you wish to declare that atoms decayed at a different rate 200 years ago, then you're going to need to cite evidence.

But you can't because there is no evidence to support your position.

Instead, what you'll do is engage in endless specious self-pleasuring where you evade ever performing your side of the discursive bargain, which is why you are considered such a low life troll here, LEROY.

.

why, you are the one who is making the positive assertion, I am asserting "C" you are the one who has to show that isotopes decayed at the same rate 200 years ago

 

[Sparhafoc]

why, you are the one who is making the positive assertion, I am asserting "C" you are the one who has to show that isotopes decayed at the same rate 200 years ago

Stop lying LEROY.

I just cited the factual evidence that it is YOU who made the claim, not me.

Stop fucking lying to my face.

 

[leroy]

sure, but I was told by brilliant members form this forum that, the kind of logic that you are using is fallacious

a few weeks ago, I would have granted that given that we "observe" the atoms decaying at a given rate and given that we don't have any good reason to assume that the rate was different in the past, it is reasonable to assume that the rates are constant until proven otherwise.

But then I was told that this kind of reasoning is fallacious. So I can not longer grant radiometric dating as a reliable method.

Well Leroy still fails at logic but...
At least, we finally have Leroy admitting that the KCA is bullshit. Because if he isn't, then Leroy would still be an hypocrit, wouldn't he?

So are you Leroy? Still an hypocrit? Or is the KCA bullshit?

Obviously I am being a hypocrite.

If we use the same reasoning that you are using to dismiss the KCA, one can easily dismiss radiometric dating.

 

[Sparhafoc]

you are asserting that the decay rate has always been constant without any justification SPARHAFOC just because the rate is constant today, that in no way proves that it has always been that way.

Cite where I said this, or retract.

If you do neither and continue declaring my position for me, I will simply start reporting your posts.

There can be no discussion with a chump who thinks he can make both sides' positions up.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Obviously I am being a hypocrite.

If we use the same reasoning that you are using to dismiss the KCA, one can easily dismiss radiometric dating.

No, that's abjectly idiotic as I've already explained to you.

Don't get it? Then the problem lies with your comprehension.

But repeating idiocy doesn't make it become valid or true, at least not to honest people.