Debate Comments: Bible or Atheism

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Dear Gods... This is so terrible.
I enjoy how he ignores the Infanticide, Murder, and Genocide of other cultures by the Jews and glares at others.

The ENTIRE rambling of that fluff and stuff of a post, I could only find a single part relevant to the topic. You know, the one written in giant yellow letters and canvasing a good 4 lines worth of space -
and it's basically the typical rant that we disregard anything that leads to God because it leads to God.

No. It's not disregarded because it leads to God. It's disregarded because the argument itself is irrational in basis, and all the evidence we have is contradictory in nature to any one of the millions of things that are claimed by the Bible itself, and the fact that it literally uses a magic wand to cover up any holes in the logical foundation of it.

This doesn't occur in actual science - not even in Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. All the logical foundations don't require a magic wand.
I can sit down right now and explain logically why the Uncertainty Principle (almost illogical in it's own admission) works. You can't determine a Particle's location AND Speed simply because if you're looking at it's location, it's basically like zooming in on a single point with no reference frame. If you're looking at it's speed, you're zoomed out and you can basically see a general line of where it's been, but being unable to determine where it is.
(If I remember Chemistry right, that should be correct)

 

[Dustnite]

4) QUOTE MINING: The larger context was no different from what I was talking about. Christian scientists/intellectuals rarely quote mine. But, one of the most common things in academia is for one scientist to use evidence from another scientist, but not agree with his conclusions. This is 100% legitimate. Atheists straw man this as quote mining. It is NOT. THIS is quote mining by Fox News (I detest their political news):
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-s ... -narrative (~5:15-6:25)

My jaw dropped to the floor and I did a quadruple take. Christian scientist/intellectuals (oxymoron) rarely quote mine? Are you effin serious?

William Lane Craig quote mines so often it's considered a nervous tic and I can't tell you how many times the evolution of the eye from Origin of Species is taken out of context.

Taking things out of context is NOT the same thing as using observational evidence to disprove someone else's conclusions. In fact they are not even close to being the same thing. This mental masturbation you exercise in public forum is quite disgusting.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

B) Faith that comes after seeing evidence: For Israel, God didn't ask for them to have faith first (not even after He had done the 10 plagues). He just told them to stand & watch (Exodus 14:13). It is only after opening the Red Sea & sinking the chariots of Pharoah (supernatural actions sometimes do leave physical evidence & they did in this case. They have no similarity to Harry Potter or magic), that God asked them to put faith in Him.

There is no evidence that there were ever Jewish people in Egypt. Let alone the story of Exodus. However, I would love to see what you think counts as evidence for this story.

Mayan vehicles with ability to fly (how many modern people know how to build flying machines):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaOYELJjKU (~3:30-7:30, esp. see ~6:00)

Mayans having flying vehicles? I love how you say it is legitimate when it features Erich von Daniken. You do realize that von Daniken is pushing aliens giving us that technology, right? It is also funny how it takes liberties by adding an engine and propellers that are obviously not on the "models" discovered. I have no doubt that many ancient civilizations made toys that could fly when thrown. Most children make them out of paper when sitting in a boring class today. However, there is no evidence that those artifacts are anything more than models of some toy that children would throw to make fly, if that. Many liberties are taken in that video and no evidence to back it up besides speculation.

I have not finished reading all of dotoree's post. I will wait to read the good parts when Inferno rebuts it.

 

[Squawk]

It's 9000+ words. The mark of a good debator is keeping the audience interested. I can't even be arsed to start.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It's 9000+ words. The mark of a good debator is keeping the audience interested. I can't even be arsed to start.

Not just keeping the audience interested, but also making coherent and logical points in a clear and concise manner. Just vomiting word salad at people isn't debate or discussion or anything else worthwhile.

 

[Gnug215]

TruthIsLife/dotoree, I have to say...

If your debate posts are excerpts from, or in the same style as, the supposed book you're working on, then surely, it's not gonna pass by any editor, and no one is going to want to read it.
Not because I don't think some Christians would like to read about this stuff to bolster their faith and what not, but they'd give up pretty quickly, quite simply because the book is going to be a nightmarish mess.
You're quite simply listing off random, disjointed information in no discernable order or fashion - even despite your efforts to numbering your points. (The number just seem to be there for ornamental reasons.)

And I suppose I could mention what non-theists will think of your book; they'll not get many pages into it before (righrfully) discarding it as inconsequential and pointless, since all the supposed "evidence" you're listing is in no way convincing, coherent or even interesting - or even evidence.

You will, of course, have your mental defences in place and deal with this particular cognitive dissonance by convincing yourself that these non-convinced detractors are just close-minded and heart-hardened, but let me assure you that you'll only have yourself to blame for the magnificent failure.

Try again.

 

[Squawk]

Well, I read the entirity of what can only be described as a mess.

Not a single shred of evidence presented. Lots of tangential bullshit and side tracking, but no actual evidence. Quite amusing really. How can you post 9000 words and not even get to the point of the debate?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

It would be mean-spirited and wrong of me to actually accuse truthislife of any such thing (and for the record I do not believe he is a plagiarist, at least in any overt fashion), but I find the analysis of Theowarner to be some help here in dissecting this post:

 

[Squawk]

Without actually discussing possible plaigerism, I did think that most of the stuff copied from other websites was linked to (though I didn't check everything), so not sure we can level that accusation. Of course I didn't really research it, so can't rule it out.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Without actually discussing possible plaigerism, I did think that most of the stuff copied from other websites was linked to (though I didn't check everything), so not sure we can level that accusation. Of course I didn't really research it, so can't rule it out.

I've been doing searches of random parts of his posts, and they don't show up anywhere but here according to Google. That doesn't mean he isn't copying from stuff he's written down previous to this debate. Certainly, it is all the same bullshit over and over, however he words it.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

...
His excuses for time gaps could be him typing up >9000 words.

Don't get me wrong - I think he's full of crock and is dishonest.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I wasn't suggesting that he was plagiarizing his material from elsewhere, only that he seems to embody the askew familiarity with academia which is characteristic of the mis-educated (be they plagiarist, home-schooled, or otherwise.)

That bit starts at about 3 minutes in.

 

[Prolescum]

I was going to agree with Rex's suggestion (not plagiarism) earlier when I watched the video but was distracted by the call of the basil in my kitchen. I've suspected (and voiced, I think) this for some time. There are signs throughout his writing as TruthisLife7 and Dotoree which suggests, rather than being an English teacher as he has insinuated, he teaches English as a second language. A sleight of hand, if you will. He certainly likes to give the impression of a scholar on this topic, but much like Dick Van Dyke's Cockney accent in Mary Poppins, it's pretty apparent to those whose understanding goes beyond the superficial. I'm sure this'll discompose him somewhat, but there we are.

Peculiar.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

After reading the rest of dotoree's post, I have a few more things I must point out.

2nd, Fiction seldom produces pragmatic scientific results in real life & NEVER at the level of the Bible or the scientific method. NEVER. When's the last time the story of Pinocchio added 10 years to anyone's life or built a foundational method in science? When's the last time the wascally wabbit (Bugs Bunny) helped industry save billions in shipping because of scientific concepts it outlined? The few results that do come from fiction almost always come because the fiction writers borrowed from well known natural laws or something like that.

This seems to be referring to the long debunked claim that Matthew Maury discovered the ocean currents by reading Psalm 8.8. Thunderf00t made a great video about this (Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 36).). Thunderf00t also goes on to show how predictions in Star Trek represent our modern lives better than the bible predicted. I guess fiction was able to predict things better than the bible.

Of all the 1000s of cultures in history, it was the Biblical & Judeo/Christian & creationist views that built the foundations & infrastructure of modern science & pioneered most of its branches as well as:

Genetic fallacy. How or why modern scientific thinking started in no way reflects how it is used today.

Even Einstein who had strong tendencies towards intelligent design but was not a Christian, wrote that, "The most beautiful & most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical.

Citation please.

Could all these Nobel prize winning benefits all have come from something that was just made up by "bronze aged desert shepherds".

Those Nobel Prize winning benefits did not come from "bronze aged desert shepherds". They came from people researching and performing the scientific method. You have to remember that all those people you listed came up with their Nobel Prize winning benefits through research and not reading of the bible. This was pointed out to you on the first page of that infamous thread, yet you still act as if it was evidence. You keep equivocating someone's beliefs with his or her scientific research.

One last thing, I find it funny how you mix and match Christian and Jewish statistics together whenever it pleases you. You talk about how long one can live with a Christian life style, but praise the Jewish way of educating everyone in their society. You then scorn the Catholics for holding back knowledge and not educating the masses. I have never seen someone select his or her examples so fragrantly.

 

[Prolescum]

I have never seen someone select his or her examples so fragrantly.

Yes, it's like a sort of faith-based potpourri.





















I'll get my coat.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Dear Gods that mess about Pragmatic Evidence -
The Scientific Method is simply a logical approach to understanding the work and structure of the universe. It's not based off of our own experiences - it's simply limited by what input we have.
The point of the Scientific Method is that it sets a precidence by which ANY SINGLE PERSON, following the correct steps, can reproduce and test the results for themselves with the proper equipment, training, and understanding of basic principles.
You know all those useless "experiments" they made you do in school, even though we already know the outcome to the said experiment and something doesn't magically not work later on? The fact that you can even DO that is a success of the Scientific Method. No matter if you were Hindu, Christian, Wiccan, Atheist, and so on and so forth, REGARDLESS of your belief in it, it would occur.
You don't need to BELIEVE that pressure on a fluid in a closed space will cause increased pressure elsewhere for it to be observed and repeatable. If someone, some day, was able to produce this experement and the fluid showed no increase in pressure, then it would 100% toss out everything we know about this principle and we have to start writing the books all over again about this fundamental law of the Universe.
If you ask a Young Earth Creationist about the Great Flood, they will say that God covered all logical holes that you can come up with. If you ask a Young Earth Creationist Christian about their evidence for the God that covered up these holes, they will say "You have to be redeemed within Christ to see it."

It's not scientific in the least.

Science doesn't care what you believe. It's independent simply upon the fact that a million people can try the experement, look at the data, and go through the training and still come up with the same results.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Good job Inferno, although some of your sources are showing...

 

[Thomas Doubting]

nice read, i will wade through your blog entry now (to kill some time) but i am glad you kept the debate post short but telling. Let's see if TruthisLife7 will accept your suggestion to focus only on 1 point or at least try to make his points without using several thousands of words.

Oh btw.. i am pretty sure this was meant to say "religion"

Science supresses scientific progress

guess it's too late to correct it now.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Inferno, after reading your debate response and blog post, I do not understand why you did not use the blog post as your response.

Good job Inferno, although some of your sources are showing...

Agreed. Not detracting, it is just something I have noticed as well.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Inferno, after reading your debate response and blog post, I do not understand why you did not use the blog post as your response.

Good job Inferno, although some of your sources are showing...

Agreed. Not detracting, it is just something I have noticed as well.

He's trying to bottleneck the discussion from novel-size proportions of 10,000 words per post to a mere 1500 to 2000 words...