Best of AW

Saturday, March 2, 2013

stupid athist tricks:Aussie Dave

Aussie Dave on CARM asks two of the stupidest questions I've heard in a while:

is it possible that the bible is a hoax, considering the fact that there are over 35,000 copies and portions of NT scripture and not a single original in sight? 
No. Hoax implies a ruse or a trick. your implications is that the bible was never written becuase there's no original? Or are you trying to say it was made up a hoax or a plot, conspiracy by people who never knew Jesus? Why would that be indicated just becuase they don't the originals?

the originals are gone and can't be found becuase they rotted away. they were copied. people kept copying it up to the point where they got printing becasue they liked it but that means the copies get old and rot and have ot be copied again so you have latter and latter copies.

that's seriously silly to think that makes it a hoax. that's saying telephones are a trick because there's no original phone you can call and talk to Bell.

And a bonus:-
Do they think it is rational and logical to believe in an invisible, incorporeal entity that has no sensory evidence of it's actual existence?
do you believe in subatomic particles? You can't see them. we don't even know what they are made of.

in the same therad Hooks comes to his defense:

 Originally Posted by Hooks View Post
Jesus, who Christians (what you call yourself) believe was God.

So if Jesus was a real person, then people could see him, touch him, hear him, and ask him questions.

Yet, the apologists of our time like you prefer to talk about metaphysical, unfalsifiable propositions about a generic god.

If you think there is evidence of God, why don't you start with the God who was allegedly incarnate?
 that's almost as stupid as the original OP. do we have to explain this to you?

you can't prove Jesus is God because he didn't have a birth mark sayign "this is god." if we could go back in time and see him (we can't) he would be just like a regular guy, he scratched he snorted and he went to the bathroom. He might have even had a disgusting trait like making little snorting noises when he laughed. so way to tell he's God unless he works a miracle. what sense does it make to argue about Jesus being God before you talk about God?

Originally Posted by skylurker View Post
Every mind we know is like that. Every mind we know of is tethered to a brain. To suggest otherwise is highly speculative.
obviously that's because we are biological organisms. I just said that's what our data base is limited ot. how can we say that God, who is not an organism is not biological would have to be the same? there's no basis for thinking that. you can't compare a universal mind on a such a grand scale with the little petty minds we have.

do you know that amoebas don't have brains at all? yet they hunt, the stalk, the eat, they avoid pain. there is concrete proof that all intelligence is not in brains.

Further there are no grounds to specially plead the case that a highly ordered mind was the first mover. As you pointed out order requires an orderer and a highly ordered mind goes against that principle.
that makes no sens at all. highlighter ordered mind goes against the principle of order, how do you figure? It's more likely that order implies an ordered since of organizing.

Even if one were accept the first cause argument a very simple non-conscious physical phenomena - say a quantum foam sea - is way more parsimonous the suggesting a God with many different attributes as identified by theism.
that's a groundless claim. It's true that god would not have to create much to get an evolutionary universe. So he wouldn't have to be complex it's also true that the concept of complexity is meaningless at the level of god.

the concept of simple vs. complex is totally meaningless when there's' nothing to compare too. god is the only eternal necessary aspect of all being so nothing else to compare to.

There is no known mechanisms where a bio organism hooks into a mind. I mean Decartes thought the pineal gland but we know now that was erroneous.
we dont' need a known mechanism. because we are not dealing with the known. it would be super stupid to think that the basis of all reality must follow the patters of it's creation on the level of our plane of existence.

we are like two fleas arguing if the ground on which they live is a living dog. you say "O we have no example of any mechanism for a living being having fur." that's right there are little dogs the size of fleas for them to compare it to. therefore fleas can't live on dogs.

The Cram de la cram of the stupid athiest tricks.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
they can't answer my arguments.


And why not? Is it because they are mentally inferior or because your arguments only make sense to you? 
he's actually saying that if you can't answer an argument that means it's not good. so that must mean if you can answer it, it's good. By that logic all the arguments that are beaten are proved! the best thing to do to be right in an arguemnt is lose? that's brilliant, Einstein.

He must not believe in the concept of reasoning. If you dont' answer an argument in a debate you lose that argument.

No comments: