Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My "Beef" With Atheists
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 46 of 123 (482606)
09-17-2008 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
09-17-2008 2:43 AM


You have repeatedly asked Rahvin to anser a question, that he has already clearly answered.
No and incorrect! He has not clearly answered yes or no, to a yes or no question.
It's as if I asked him 'if the sun is hot', yes or no, and he waffled around, giving some long dissertation, when all he was doing was dodging the question. The exact opposite of a clear answer, which he did give concerning the spaghetti monster.
Also, you suggested that Catholic Scientist should start keeping score, when it was blatently evident that he had in fact already started keeping score.
You must think I'm dumb. Ever heard of something like "go ahead, give yourself a pat on the back..." after said individual has already given themself a proverbial "pat on the back".
Did you come here just to sound dumb or attempt to be condescending? Well, you've exceeded in both, which is a disgusting combo.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 2:43 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 2:57 AM Watson75 has replied
 Message 62 by Agobot, posted 09-17-2008 7:34 AM Watson75 has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 47 of 123 (482607)
09-17-2008 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
09-17-2008 2:50 AM


I already told you scientist, I'm not arguing semantics with you.
If you want to dodge the issue, that's fine. Just do it somewhere else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2008 2:50 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 48 of 123 (482608)
09-17-2008 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Watson75
09-17-2008 2:51 AM


No and incorrect! He has not clearly answered yes or no, to a yes or no question.
Again, I think this comes down to a lack of reading comprehension. His answer could not be more clear. If you can only handle a pure binary yes/no answer, then I'm sorry - perhaps if you acknowledge Rahvin's excellent answer, and then politely ask if is able to summarise that to a yes or no, you may get your wish. Worth a try, at least...
You must think I'm dumb.
As a scientist, I just follow the evidence...
Did you come here just to sound dumb or attempt to be condescending? Well, you've exceeded in both, which is a disgusting combo.
I guess I'm just following the author of the OP - he seems to be the master of such attributes
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 2:51 AM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 3:11 AM cavediver has replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 49 of 123 (482611)
09-17-2008 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by cavediver
09-17-2008 2:57 AM


Remove the rafter from your own eye, before you even attempt to extract one from your neighbors.
In stating my question, I made it very clear it required a yes/no answer. He could answer either way, and then go on to explain why he chose that answer, but it needed to be yes/no. Nothing too hard about that. I did it. He did it with the spaghetti monster, but he couldn't do it with the "intelligence." That's because he didn't want to. Explain how 'waffling your way through an answer' is "clear". Maybe you need to start looking up definitions too.
Again, I think this comes down to a lack of reading comprehension.
I think for you, it comes down to the lack of an ability to read. Just go back, give it another shot, you might get it this time.
As a scientist, I just follow the evidence...
God, I hope you're not working on anything of consequence, with the drivel you've shot my way.
Forgive.
Oh, and cavediver, are you an atheist. Would you like to answer my question (yes/no) and stimulate debate?
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 2:57 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 3:25 AM Watson75 has replied
 Message 52 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-17-2008 3:37 AM Watson75 has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 50 of 123 (482613)
09-17-2008 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Watson75
09-17-2008 3:11 AM


Oh, and cavediver, are you an atheist.[sic]
Absolutely not!
Would you like to answer my question (yes/no) and stimulate debate?
Yes, ok, I will answer - there is nothing in anything I have seen in this Universe to suggest intelligence, other than that we see in ourselves (and that I see as originating naturally via the laws of physics, chemistry and bioilogy.) I cannot see how you phrased your question originally, but take this as a definite yes/no answer, whichever appropriately conveys what I have just said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 3:11 AM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 3:30 AM cavediver has replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 51 of 123 (482614)
09-17-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by cavediver
09-17-2008 3:25 AM


You've certainly just befuddled me. Are you using sarcasm? Please be more clear.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 3:25 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 3:38 AM Watson75 has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 52 of 123 (482615)
09-17-2008 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Watson75
09-17-2008 3:11 AM


The question was answered
As I understand it, the question is:
Do you believe this reality, this "something" you see around you, is at the very least "suggestive" of an intelligence that may be behind it?
Rahvin gave you a detailed reply to that question in his message 36. While he did not explicitly say "no", he did very strongly imply that his answer was indeed "no". An implication that is most effectively "no".
The poor quality of your message 1 has indeed turned out to be representative of your difficulties in communicating. As such, any complaints from you about others reading or writing abilities are rather laughable.
So, let's work harder at doing a better quality debate.
NO REPLIES TO THIS MODERATION MESSAGE. AS PER STANDARD FORUM POLICY, DOING SUCH MAY WELL GET YOU A SUSPENSION.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 3:11 AM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 3:59 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 53 of 123 (482616)
09-17-2008 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Watson75
09-17-2008 3:30 AM


Do you believe this reality, this "something" you see around you, is at the very least "suggestive" of an intelligence that may be behind it.
Absolutely, most definitely, not. No. Not a chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 3:30 AM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 4:03 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 54 of 123 (482617)
09-17-2008 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Adminnemooseus
09-17-2008 3:37 AM


Re: The question was answered
Adminnemooseus writes:
The poor quality of your message 1 has indeed turned out to be representative of your difficulties in communicating. As such, any complaints from you about others reading or writing abilities are rather laughable.
I'm sorry, I won't stand back and let you mock me, regardless of the consequences. So go ahead and ban my a$$ if you'd like.
And I don't even think he implied "no" he just couldn't answer a simple yes or no question, with a "yes" or "no." Pity.
'I suppose 'the existence of the universe suggests nothing more than the existence of the universe.'' Are you kidding me? (And this is not yes or no) All he did was re-state a statement. Classic atheist fodder. They cannot produce a real answer to the question because it means they're either admitting there's enough evidence to suggest an intelligence, which makes them agnostic or deistic (something they don't like, or want to be), and if they say "no..." you just don't sound too smart, because it's pretty easy to determine that the reality we interpret is suggestive enough of an intelligence to make atheism an irrational faith.
I welcome my martyrdom. Just remember, that's what always starts the movements.
Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : This message triggered in a [url=http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=36&t=5&m=347#347]4 day suspension.4 day suspension.[/color]

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-17-2008 3:37 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 4:06 AM Watson75 has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 55 of 123 (482618)
09-17-2008 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by cavediver
09-17-2008 3:38 AM


Absolutely, most definitely, not. No. Not a chance.
Interesting, I completely, and utterly disagree. I think most people would agree with me on this one as well, upwards of most of the world.
But hey, I gotta respect your view, as crazy as it may seem to me and others. Good debate.
But you know, that is my "beef."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2008 3:38 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Admin, posted 09-18-2008 8:16 AM Watson75 has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 56 of 123 (482619)
09-17-2008 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Watson75
09-17-2008 3:59 AM


Re: The question was answered
They cannot produce a real answer to the question because it means they're either admitting there's enough evidence to suggest an intelligence, which makes them agnostic or deistic (something they don't like, or want to be), and if they say "no..." you just don't sound too smart, because it's pretty easy to determine that the reality we interpret is suggestive enough of an intelligence to make atheism an irrational faith.
Well, before your inevitable suspension, perhaps you could fight your way through the conundrum I have just presented - I am not an atheist and I answered with a most definite 'no'. I'm an ex-phsyicist/cosmologist/mathematician so, at least on paper, I'm reasonably smart, and I have had the chance to look at most places in the Universe for this supposed evidence of intelligence. I have seen none. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 3:59 AM Watson75 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 123 (482620)
09-17-2008 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Watson75
09-16-2008 9:49 PM


The Almighty Plinky Plonk
Hi Watson
I am an atheist. You seem to have spent a lot if time and words saying not a great deal and nothing, as far as I can see, new.
In a world of "something" it hardly seems reasonable to assert that 'it came from "nothing"' as some sort of self evident truth. Therefore, to suggest that "something" came from "something" can be construed as a more reasonable stance.
Firstly, as has been pointed out to you already by both Rahvin and Granny M, this is a gross misrepresentation of most people's thinking. Secondly the very obvious question that has to be asked here is "If something must always come from something then how did the first something come into existence?" Who created the creator etc. etc. etc. The usual answer to this is some sort of bogus and ill defined concept of "eternity" or timelessness for which there is considerably less evidence than there is for the existence of reality. I.e. None.
As suggested in my post, I propose that atheism should vanish into either the belief set of agnostics, or deists. I mean, both just make more sense.
I don't know you exist. I don't know that anyone actually exists. I cannot prove with 100% certainty that reality as I know it exists at all. Nor can you. You could be a brain in a jar being subjected to various stimuli. You could be in a Matrix style version of reality. These rather pointless considerations however do not make me agnostic about the existence of my mother, brother, friends, this computer, the planet Earth or anything else that makes up reality as far as I am concerned.
PROOF
In the absence of proof there is no 100% certainty of anything. Evidence based investigation can never provide "proof" or 100% certainty. This however does not stop us "knowing" things exist with such a high level of certainty as for the miniscule amount of philosophical and theoretical doubt that we need to factor in to be all but meaningless and certainly not worth mentioning or considering at any practical level.
So if I cannot be 100% certain that God does not exist how can I be an atheist?
Well given that you cannot prove that your best friend actually exists, given that you cannot be 100% certain, would you honestly say that you are agnostic about his existence? Or would you say you know he exists in every meaningful way? Would calling yourself agnostic in relation to your best friend just be bloody stupid? Semantics gone mad even?
I would say yes.
I feel to go as far as being an atheist, requires some sort of inner "knowiness," or "truthiness" as Colbert might put it. Otherwise, it's the product of rebellion, and arrogance, as outlined in my post.
THE ALMIGHTY PLINKY PLONK
I have just invented a God. The great and almighty plinky plonk. Grand protector of those with silly names. Well I think I just invented him. Of course I could be misinterpreting some divine revelation made to me by the real plinky plonk. I could be too stubbornly atheistic to perceive the true origins of this "knowledge" of plinky plonk. But regardless of this I am as certain as it is possible to be that plinky plonk does not actually exist.
I am an atheist as far as plinky plonk is concerned. Are you? Or are you agnostic? We cannot prove he/she/it does not exist. Does it require some sort of inner "knowiness" or "truthiness" on your part to "know" that the whole concept of plinky plonk is in fact a complete pile of invented horse dung?
Well there is as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for plinky plonk.
I am as certain that God does not exist as I am that plinky plonk does not exist.
If that makes me an agnostic by your definition then I would suggest that your definition is misleading and silly.
If that makes me an atheist then, regarding plinky plonk at least, you can apply whatever criticisms you have of my position on God to yourself.
Enjoy
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box (no "/" at closer).
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 9:49 PM Watson75 has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 58 of 123 (482624)
09-17-2008 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Watson75
09-16-2008 9:49 PM


watson writes:
As suggested in my post, I propose that atheism should vanish into either the belief set of agnostics, or deists. I mean, both just make more sense.
I feel to go as far as being an atheist, requires some sort of inner "knowiness," or "truthiness" as Colbert might put it. Otherwise, it's the product of rebellion, and arrogance, as outlined in my post.
For me, if there is no scientific evidence of a God then the entire question of his existence is rendered irrelevant. In this sense God, as far as science is concerned, can be said not to exist. In the light of modern scientific discovery he is simply not required as a variable.
My take on Atheism is an implicit one - it isn't so much a question of whether God exists (which is currently unverifiable) but whether the universe around us requires his presence. Since science has so far consistently shown that the universe operates without divine intervention, then we can, at this time, simply discount God as a requirement.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Watson75, posted 09-16-2008 9:49 PM Watson75 has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 59 of 123 (482631)
09-17-2008 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Watson75
09-17-2008 2:27 AM


No beef
Yeah, you're example was just about as bad as it gets
You still don't get that it wasn't my example? It was a quote, to provide a definition, that quote happened to have an example... therefore not mine. I hope I have just about spelled that out enough for you. Perhaps in four days you can figure out that the example has not a damn thing to do with the fallacy that you employed.
Once you ignore it long enough you can use it again in different words. It seems to work for some people.
Incorrect. The world would perhaps be a better place if this was the case. But ebola as a sandwich spread has nothing to do with "making sense."
Hardly. You said "I mean, wouldn't you think it would make more sense that our world/universe had meaning, than if it didn't? and I am hard pressed to find meaning in Ebola, black holes, rust, earthquakes, or any other detrimental aspect of our meaningful universe. You talk about 'sense' and 'meaning' as if they have some point. You will have to do better than sense and meaning if you want to show some fault in atheism; unless you can explain away all the athiests who do find sense and meaning in this universe. (If perhaps just differently than you do)
In fact, a virus as a sandwich spread makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Neither does Dracunculiasis but at least my idea doesn't involve agony and screaming while your digested. I sleep much better knowing you have no evidence for a designer who goes about making nightmareish creatures like that.
I applaud your ability to keep the discussion going without once admitting that your argument was a fallacy. Its a skill that always amazes me.
Watson75 in message 54 writes:
I welcome my martyrdom. Just remember, that's what always starts the movements.
Prunes also work. If your looking to change minds however I would start with not asking Adminnemooseus to ban your ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Watson75, posted 09-17-2008 2:27 AM Watson75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 09-17-2008 6:40 AM Vacate has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 60 of 123 (482632)
09-17-2008 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Vacate
09-17-2008 6:12 AM


Easy way out
Vacate writes:
Watson75 writes:
I welcome my martyrdom. Just remember, that's what always starts the movements.
Prunes also work. If your looking to change minds however I would start with not asking Adminnemooseus to ban your ass.
Certainly. But if Watson is looking for an easy way out of arguments he can't win, then asking moose to ban his ass and comforting himself with the delusion of martyrdom would be an obvious strategy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Vacate, posted 09-17-2008 6:12 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024