An account of debating a creationist

Originally posted by SwissGambit
What's fun is surprising them with my [b]Super Soaker!®[/b]

Yes, hit and run, cyclists and teenagers standing on street corners! Hours of pleasant wholesome fun! 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes, hit and run, cyclists and teenagers standing on street corners! Hours of pleasant wholesome fun! 😀

Or solicitors that wake me up in the morning. 😉

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum

it is educational. try it. of special interest is the last part:

Atheists, the third major group within materialists, reject the existence of God but tend to be more actively antireligious than the other two. There are about 2,200 members of the best- known atheist group, the American At ...[text shortened]... ed individuals


you are quite certain of yourself. one might actually say you are religious.

You will perhaps notice I said 'BIBLE god'. I did not out of hand reject the concept of a possible god. My stance of no bible god is just as rational as ANY theist claiming rationality in the faith of such a god. To me it is just humans ASCRIBING human attributes to a god, nothing more and nothing less. Like always referring to said alleged god in the masculine. Like the words about 'I am a jealous god'. These are not the attributes of any god I would personally worship. These are stories made up by men to control men and subjugate women. That's my story and I will stick to that to the end.

I am a jealous god. What a pile of crap. Like humans having an ant colony as pets and looking at one particular ant, I am JEALOUS of you, off with your head.

The biggest pile of crap in all theology. Well ONE of the biggest piles of crap in the bible god anyway. There are LOTS of them.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
god didn't actually hammer a nail in that boat. he made noah, a human, use non-magical wood, non-magical nails. he described in detail how to build that boat. by those details, we know that boat is impossible. the fact that it isn't written in the bible "after noah completed that piece of crp construction, god saw it would crumble to pieces first time som ...[text shortened]... it and made it an awesome boat". and that is only dealing with the seaworthiness of such a boat.

And, by our technology, the Titanic was unsinkable, also.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You will perhaps notice I said 'BIBLE god'. I did not out of hand reject the concept of a possible god. My stance of no bible god is just as rational as ANY theist claiming rationality in the faith of such a god. To me it is just humans ASCRIBING human attributes to a god, nothing more and nothing less. Like always referring to said alleged god in the mascu ...[text shortened]... theology. Well ONE of the biggest piles of crap in the bible god anyway. There are LOTS of them.

Your ideas about God are piles of crap.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Suzianne
And, by our technology, the Titanic was unsinkable, also.

Or rather by our marketing people. But as we all know, what the marketing department says should be taken with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You will perhaps notice I said 'BIBLE god'. I did not out of hand reject the concept of a possible god. My stance of no bible god is just as rational as ANY theist claiming rationality in the faith of such a god. To me it is just humans ASCRIBING human attributes to a god, nothing more and nothing less. Like always referring to said alleged god in the mascu ...[text shortened]... theology. Well ONE of the biggest piles of crap in the bible god anyway. There are LOTS of them.

you didn't say BIBLE god, i know that because i haven't seen you say BIBLE god.

the tone of your posts and how you repeatedly attack every theist here (regardless of which club he belongs too) is making one paint you as a militant atheist (the one who cannot keep his atheism to himself).


i am glad this was clarified and i was proven wrong.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you didn't say BIBLE god, i know that because i haven't seen you say BIBLE god.

the tone of your posts and how you repeatedly attack every theist here (regardless of which club he belongs too) is making one paint you as a militant atheist (the one who cannot keep his atheism to himself).


i am glad this was clarified and i was proven wrong.

On page 1, I see him saying "Which could be true if there was such a thing as the bible god."

Originally posted by JS357
On page 1, I see him saying "Which could be true if there was such a thing as the bible god."

i was talking about his activity on this forum since forever. this instance i simply ignored.


like i said, i am glad he clarified his position.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you didn't say BIBLE god, i know that because i haven't seen you say BIBLE god.

the tone of your posts and how you repeatedly attack every theist here (regardless of which club he belongs too) is making one paint you as a militant atheist (the one who cannot keep his atheism to himself).


i am glad this was clarified and i was proven wrong.

I must admit that I have noticed that Sonhouse's tone has become more
militant and I hope he has had not had a bad experience of late that has
caused this.

However the more I learn about religion and its effects the more distasteful
it seems. Certainly a literal translation of the bible is hard to take - yet
my Christian friends are the nicest people. (All my friends are great!!)

Perhaps people are nice despite their religion or lack of?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I must admit that I have noticed that Sonhouse's tone has become more
militant and I hope he has had not had a bad experience of late that has
caused this.

However the more I learn about religion and its effects the more distasteful
it seems. Certainly a literal translation of the bible is hard to take - yet
my Christian friends are the nicest people. (All my friends are great!!)

Perhaps people are nice despite their religion or lack of?

depends what you are talking about.

religion as spirituality? or religion as organization.

religion as spirituality is simply one having mostly the same moral system as you, belonging to the same social structure as you, living his life.

religion as organization means having others tell you what to think, how to behave, who to be friends with, who gets to heaven, who gets to hell.


most of my friends are atheists. two friends are orthodox priests in training. another mixes some funky spirituality with his christianity. i am friends with them because i like their company and i found out who i can talk religion (or any subject for that matter) with and what subjects are best avoided. i am friends with them because they are complex humans who do not try to ram their opinions on me.

do you believe rjhinds was preaching at his job?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are asking where do you draw the line. where do you state "this is bullsht, i am certain it isn't possible". it is hard to describe the exact place when certainty of the impossiblity of something becomes "i don't know and cannot know for sure".


a simple answer would be yes, i should be agnostic about that. "i do not know" doesn't close any doors, ...[text shortened]... not trust those, then nothing can really be known and we might as well burn all science books.

Dude, do you not see how incredibly selective you are in what is possibly true and what is not?

You have no problem accepting there is a god who has done this and that, yet find the idea that he would have helped with building a "supernatural" boat impossible.

You use what is (not) written in the bible as some kind of proof that the boat didn't exist ("the fact that it isn't written in the bible" ) while at the same time you basically say that not everything written in the bible should be taken literally.

You find the idea of such a boat ridiculous, yet have no problem accepting that maybe beings made of cheese exist...

... eventhough I JUST made them up. So whatever I come up with, all of a sudden has a 50/50 percent chance of existing.

So let's see...

8-legged sharkspiders with toupées.

There, from hence on forth there's at least a 50 percent chance that 8-legged toupée wearing sharkspiders exist.

What the hell?! In the complete absence of any kind of evidence for X it is absolutely reasonable to say that X doesn't exist.

The fact that we can't know anything "for sure" (What does that even mean?) doesn't mean we can't say that something doesn't exist, unless there's reason to assume that something does exist.

erased.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Dude, do you not see how incredibly selective you are in what is possibly true and what is not?

You have no problem accepting there is a god who has done this and that, yet find the idea that he would have helped with building a "supernatural" boat impossible.

You use what is (not) written in the bible as some kind of proof that the boat didn't ...[text shortened]... n't say that something doesn't exist, unless there's reason to assume that something does exist.

8-legged sharkspiders with toupées.


Those were toupees, but they looked so real!
🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Dude, do you not see how incredibly selective you are in what is possibly true and what is not?

You have no problem accepting there is a god who has done this and that, yet find the idea that he would have helped with building a "supernatural" boat impossible.

You use what is (not) written in the bible as some kind of proof that the boat didn't ...[text shortened]... n't say that something doesn't exist, unless there's reason to assume that something does exist.

why does one follow the other? if one makes a paper airplane, must one make a boat as well? and an origami crane? then a real airplane?

they are separate events.

bible thumpers think that the bible must be 100% correct, else the world explodes and god gets incredibly pissed.
you think that because there is a stupid thing in the bible, one must throw it all away.


isaac newton was an alchemist. why does that have any relevance to the great things he did, that weren't superstition nonsense?



"You use what is (not) written in the bible as some kind of proof that the boat didn't exist ("the fact that it isn't written in the bible" ) while at the same time you basically say that not everything written in the bible should be taken literally"
i suppose you attempted to post to separate situations that contradict each other and prove i am in an illogical position. what you ACTUALLY did is represent the first situation differently. they are equivalent. that is exactly what i do. i use scientific evidence to prove that at least the relating parts of the bible shouldn't be taken literally.

"You find the idea of such a boat ridiculous, yet have no problem accepting that maybe beings made of cheese exist..."
not accepting. i allow the remote possibility that it may exist. i will not invest my money in a cheese farm and wait for you to capture those beings.


" So whatever I come up with, all of a sudden has a 50/50"
50/50 is a made up percentage, by you, in order to present my position as absurd. agnostics do not allow for a 50/50 chance that god exists, such a percentage is illogical. perhaps you should read what twhitehead posted in the king tiger thread. he explains probability better, you might learn something.

agnostics do not know. they define their stance as a lack of knowledge, hence the name. knowing exactly how probable such a being would be constitutes knowledge, which the agnostics do not have.

"8-legged sharkspiders with toupées."
you were transported into another dimension where a race of mousecats did highly advanced genetic experiments, left, the sharkspiders made a civilization and some went bald, hence the toupees. you were transported back into our world, memories erased, but you still have some traces of them left. hence you mentioning 8 legged sharkspiders with toupees.


" There, from hence on forth there's at least a 50 percent chance that 8-legged toupée wearing sharkspiders exist."
there is at least 27% chance that you are human, at least 65% chance your mother was a woman, at least 0% chance you have 3 sisters and one brother and at least 1% chance that you ate some form of food in the last 1 month.
see? i can throw probabilities as well. without actually showing how you came up with them, they are meaningless.


"we can't say that something doesn't exist,"
science is about making statements backed by proof. lack of proof doesn't mean something doesn't exist. there wasn't evidence the photon existed. until there was evidence. the photons didn't actually springed into existence along with their proof.