Sunday, March 13, 2011

Atheist vengence: once you expose their treachery look out!

Photobucket


The emotionally backward individual who sent the hate mail last time has put up a thing of lies about me on his blog. he sent me hate mail, make absurd ridiculous statements calculated to do nothing more than hurt my feelings (as though i give a damn what this moron thinks). I exposed it showing everyone so the readership can draw conclusions themselves by seeing that can't take the responsibility for his own action,.

This is has so angered him that he put up this long insult thing. This is really stupid. the mina thing is dumb ass hate mail accomplished was to give me some material for the hate group theme on atheism. Now him is so angry like a good little emotionally stunted person that he does it some more only in a more grandiose way, thus demonstrating that he can't tell the difference in calling him on his actions and actually picking a fight with him.

here is a guy who obviously can't reason very well and doesn't understand personal responsibility.

He makes some comments about carm. Here's where he starts talking about me:


One of the most active of these trolls goes by the name of Metacrock. Metacrock is a morbidly obese man-boy who was banned from DebatingChristianity.com years ago for his bad behavior. He has found a home at CARM where name-calling and belittling non-believers is encouraged.
He's assuming I look the way I did in the photo which was taken in 1999. I had also lost 50 lbs when it was taken and others have said you can't tell form the photo how fat I look. He's just assuming. He's been reading about me on the net and is using a lot of old bagged to find ways to hurt me. why? because I made evil horrible mistake of getting him banned. that's right I made him get banned by reporting his slandering me.He's the big big man he don't let no body push him around and little things like being wrong aren't gonna stop him.

Debating Christianity was an atheist site, therefore specified in mocking and ridicule. So I was banned for fighting back and defending myself, of course. I have shown that atheist use mockery to force weak young people who are not committed but on the fence to give up their faith in order rto prevent begin bulled. This guy is one of the harassers. In just society he would be in jail for what he's doing. In a premisive society he's allowed to hurt people all the time and I sure does all the time.


Metacrock spends most of his time bragging about his fake education from a Christian school and insisting no one but him has ever been to college. His arguments are nothing more than, “you are stupid, I went to seminary.”

Fake education notice that the jackass links Loftus sight. He hasn't had the courage to actually ask John about me. John knows my education is real. he will tell the little misfit if head the guts to ask, he doesn't have the guts does he? If he did he would know. He still refers to it as fake even though I told him to check with Loftus and he's too cowardly to do it. The very quotation he links demonstrates not only friendship bewteen Loftus and I but also that Loftus doesn't regard my education as false. This idiot actually links to that to supposedly prove my education is fake.

Of cousre the lying emotional retard-ate says that I claim only I have been to college. that's obviously not the case.


Beyond this, Metacrock is either horribly dyslexic and/or a terrible speller.

ahahaha what a moron! can anyone really be that stupid? First of all, he's totally obvious to the fact that those are the same thing. If you are a bad spelling the odds are extremely high that you are dyslexic, which of cousre he doesn't know dyslexia form a hole in the ground. Not only is that tautology but can't he tell that I'm a bad speller just by looking? I'm sure the little miscreant regards dyslexia as something like retardation. He probalby thinks spelling is a sign of intelligent. most really stupid people do think that. As a matter of fact dyslexics do tend to have IQ's well above average. I was diagnosed as dyslexic and given treatment for it as a child back in the 1960s by Luke Weights the guy who discovered it and devolved the therapy at Scottish Rite Children Hospital.

It doesn't surprise me that this little lame brain is such a bigot he mocks and ridicules people with challenges. He did it on carm to in his other guise, not the grand wizard, the one on CARM


Half his statements are illegible and ramble on for paragraphs without ever coming to a clear point. The more upset he gets the worse his grammar. Because of his insecurity, based on his looks and troubled childhood, he starts overheating when anyone dares question anything he says, no matter how stupid or unsupported. His poor research is typical within Christian apologetics.

such a telling defect to get upset and become more dyslexia. I really gotta watch that. Of cousre he doesn't' bother to mention the reason I'm up set is because I usually 30 little misfit know nothing talking about evil and stupid I am and saying really stupid things, like you know, case in point here.



Here are typical examples of his posts:

"O sy professor, religious people are afraid to admit they aer agonized. religious peopel don't though hissy fits when one suggests they are organized."

"you are really ignorant and not very bright."

"Knock it off junior. it's gone on way too long to try that little ploy! hundreds of post since 2007.
don't you dare question that coward. can't stand up and face your opponent like a man. you play little girlie games."

Kind of makes a difference not knowing the context does it? Leave to lame brain not to think about that. Are these things 30 years apart? are they in the last five minutes? Where they in response to 30 knowing nothing mocking and ridiculing calling me names? He doesn't know he doesn't care. How can the context matter, I'm a Christian I have to be stupid. Do you really believe for a minute that if I was an atheist he would going to all this trouble?



"you know that's not true. you know what they are calling insults are things like "you don't have any studies." that's a big insult even though it 's true and not a real insult.
you are insulting, most atheist are. the majority of them are. You use that as a tool for character assassination. claiming that I'm always insulting is just part destroying the reputation. you could just as easily understanding it as defending myself if you wanted to.
Always talking about how bad I am is ad hom. you keep that going becasue that's your true purpose. Not reason, not ideas, not discussion, but emotionally huring Christians to feel like a big shot.t hat's your real game"

You get the idea.

I sure do. atheists really suck. T hey are such bastard they drive you to anger.

He seems to be mental disturbed.
ahahahahahah "he seems to be mental distured." O the expert on writing has a misatke. Maybe he's dyslexic?s Or just a bad grammar maker.

His constant bragging about his unimpressive education is a sad attempt to convince himself that he is worth the love that was refused to him by his mother.

Of course since he hasn't provided a context there's no establishment of the idea that I barg. H says I am but he doesn't document that. Then the Grand Wizard says my mother didn't love me. Like he really has some idea about it. this guy know 0 about my mother or me. He has 0 change of getting me to doubt my mother's love.

don't' you think it kind of says something about this guy as a person? If anyone out there can quote to me anything I've said (other than a remark I made to Hermit years ago and have apologized for several times) that's even close to being an a par with that kind of evil sick stupidity I will apologize profusely to all atheist.

this little retardant guy is putting my reporting his slandering me that got him banned,(his actions) on a par with him slandering my mother who died of Alzheimer as I took care of her and gave up my carer and basically ended my chance of any kind of life forever just to give me a few good years at the end. He thinks that's fair. What kind of seriousness self conceited little pig bigot pace of shit would think that way?

Is he really so far below the mark of rational healthy minded humanity that he can't see the distinction? I criticize people for not knowing what they criticize. I say things like You have not read that you don't have a right to critixize it. he says stuff like "your mother didn't love you" even though he has no idea who she was or what she was like.

O ye's a made a powerful statement for atheism here. I really want to consider the truth claims of group that has him for a member.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

An Example of the Maturity of the Dawkies (Atheist fundies)

Photobucket


Recently I had a little tiff with an athist on CARM. Back several months ago he got into a tizzy because I pointed out how little he knew about the things he was pontificating upon. He tried to get even with me by finding a page I wrote on another site, takings it out of context and putting it on carm to "show how stupid I am." That's totally against the board rules. So the dumb ass expects me to just offer myself as an exaple of what he thinks si stupid and not do anything about being slandered. What kind f idiot would think that way?Since that time he takes every opportunity to say "you bot me banned." He had nothing to do with it. I just, being the old meanie am emailed Di and said "ban this guy" for no reason. Like he played no role in his choice to slander me. "You got me banned." He has a four year old's understanding of personal responsibility. He pulled this whining ruitine again yesterday and I said pretty much what I just said. By mid day there was a post on my other blog:


The Birmingham Free Press said...

You are a morbidly obese man-boy. And you are genuinely stupid. Why don't you wash your hair?

You are obviously mentally ill. Why do you have to keep bragging about your shitty education from a Christian school? You know that's not normal, right? They obviously didn't teach you how to do research. Did our mother not love you? Why do you have to keep propping yourself up? That is an obvious sign of insecurity.

What you need is to finally know the company of a woman. I'm sure if you find a nice prostitute you can finally lose your virginity. It might clear your skin up. Then maybe you can think about moving out of your parents basement.


I find this displace of childish name calling rather amusing, and I had a good idea of who did it. There was another incident of his making comments on the blog in which he made it clear who he was. I don't know for sure so I wont name the individual but I find it interesting. I went to carm and refered to this guy as "Bringham." then the second comment appeared.


The Birmingham Free Press said...

Ha ha morbidly obese man boy is confused. Your research skills are horrible.

But I already knew that.

Maybe I'm from Satan.

Did you ever think of that?

Better watch you back.

Regardless of who did it, connected to this guy with the childish sense of his own responsibility or not, it's a priceless example of atheist group atheism at work. The big irnoy is it's all in the middle of a flap on CARM where Mat Hunt got wind of my quoting him below so they are trying to argue that because I referred to him as "pretender" then I'm slandering him (saying he doesn't have a degree). I have stated on this blog and on the other blog that I don't doubt his degree.

I do find it telling that the atheists on CARM work up a huge pile of acrimony over my implying that their resident scientist doesn't have a degree, while the past several years (2007 on) they have continually slandered me calling me a liar for saying I went to graduate school. Hunt put up his Masters thesis and said "here it is." He also put up some other document. I don't doubt that he has it, I just doubt that he's conducting himself as a man of letter becasue he wont discuss issues with me.

Yet I have done must as much to prove my doctoral work. I put up the phone number of the department secretary. I implored John Lofuts (punished atheist author) to call her and learn the truth, which he did. I made his email available to them. They will not contact either person to see that I really am a graduate student. they continue their slander and their lies that I'm not.

The old double standard. They do it to you the are perfectly justified and no amount of evidence can disprove their lies. You do it to them you are evil, and the worst scum of the earth and there's no justification for your treachery. In the middle of all of this we have this extremely childish and exaggerated hate mail where this guy is revealing his extreme immaturity. A perfect example of a hate group member in action.

BTW not that give a you know what about thta mental cripple's opinions but my Ph.D. work was in a secular program at a branch of the University of Texas (hook em horns) and SMU, where I got my MASTERS DEGREE, is a fine school.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Atheist Organizations Exist

Photobucket
atheism is not organized, just merchandised

I have demonstrated an organized movement to persuade people against religion. some atheists throng to counter the idea have gone so far as to claim there are no atheist organizations at all. There's a huge list of them. These are innocent groups that exist to argue that morality is not objective or something like that, to support humanism. You wont find Thrush on this list. The point is there is a lot of organizing among atheists. Much of it has an effect on producing an agenda that breeds a form of fundamentalism.

Just to prove that atheist organizations do exist:


International

[edit] Australia

[edit] Brazil

[edit] Canada

[edit] Croatia

[edit] Germany

[edit] Iceland

[edit] India

[edit] Ireland

[edit] Italy

[edit] New Zealand

[edit] Norway

[edit] Singapore

  • Humanist Society (Singapore)

[edit] Sweden

[edit] Turkey

[edit] United Kingdom

[edit] United States

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Secularism". Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 1989.
  2. ^ The Secular Coalition for America, which has been identified by Brights.net as representing the interests of "secularist organizations", describes its constituency as "nontheistic Americans", including those who go by the labels "atheist, humanist, freethinker, agnostic, skeptic, bright, ignostic, materialist, and naturalist, among others." Who does the Secular Coalition for America represent? at the Secular Coalition for America website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  3. ^ Some less common secularist labels include: apatheist, godless (in the non-pejorative, literal sense), ignostic, infidel (or unbeliever), heathen, materialist, or realist.
  4. ^ Atheist Alliance International website, 2008 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
  5. ^ The Movement, The Brights' Network, 2008 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
  6. ^ Presentation, European Humanist Federation website, 2006 (Accessed 10 April 2008)
  7. ^ Laïque (French): "secular"
  8. ^ About IHEU, IHEU website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  9. ^ The Norwegian Humanist Association, Human-Etisk Forbund website (English version), 2011 (Accessed 5 February 2011)
  10. ^ Membership, Human-Etisk Forbund website (English version), 2004 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
  11. ^ Leicester Secular Society website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  12. ^ South Place Ethical Society website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  13. ^ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the American Humanist Association, American Humanist Association website, 2005 (Accessed 8 April 2005)
  14. ^ Atheist Community of Austin website, 2009 (Accessed 16 August 2009)
  15. ^ "Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view." Camp Quest website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  16. ^ http://fellowshipoffreethought.org/
  17. ^ Find Us, SDNA, 2010

[edit] External links

Thursday, March 10, 2011

The Circular nature of atheist ideology

Atheism want to pass itself off as "scientific." So they cling to the scienistic idea that science is the only form of knowledge. They truncate the nature of truth to that which can be produced by their own methods. Anything else they reduce until they lose the phenomena. So at that point atheism can't have truth all it can have is circular reasoning.


atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.

Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.

Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."

Believer--why not?

Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.

Believer--how do you know that?

Atheist: because there aren't any


Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.

Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.



(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.

(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.

(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.

(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.

(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.

(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
__________________


Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARM




NWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.


Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?


I asked him what's ridiculous about it:

I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.


Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?

Monday, March 7, 2011

Atheits lying slander: How they Just Refuse to accept truth

the atheist pretender* who claims to have a degree in science.

Originally Posted by Mat Hunt View Post
Oh this is rich coming from you I must say!! Here is the man who invents concepts and then crowbars the notion of a deity into his arguments. Not just ANY deity though, the god of the bible.




I see you have learned to parrot back what you near these no knowing saying. Because they don't read theology and none of you has ever been to a seminary just by the general hatred you feel for Christians you assume you know more about it than someone who received Masters at a major seminary?

that's really brilliant. I know more than you do about scinece.

get it through your head little pretender. You don't know anything about ethology. you haven't read a single page. you can't name a theologian. you wouldn't have the sliest idea what you are talking about. I am spitting back the things I was tough in seminary by major theolgoians in the Methodist curacy how dare you try to tell me that you know more than I do? You don't know ****!

You would not know a single thing about theological concepts if one git you where you sit and gave you a head ache. you don't know **** from shinola about theology. have a Masters in it.

how dare you try to pass judgment on my views when you know nothing about the subject.


just more atheist gimmicky to dingoes ideas you can't understand or out argue. you can't deal with it becasue you don't know anything about so you just do a bunch of heckling like a kid on the play ground that's supposed to pass for "disproving it."

then you go "you are so insult." why the **** do think I am insulting! you are being grossly insluting. how dare you try to tell me I don't know my own field when you don't know it???

that's dishonest it's a con job it's a crime against reason its' slander I'm raise the bloody roof until they force you to stop slandering me.


*I did not call him a pretender to say question is degree. That is beside the point. In spite of his degree he is pretending to the commitment to scholarship and learning because he does not respect knowledge of any other aspect of he academy but his own.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Atheist "thinking"

look at all the ridiculously stupid things atheists say.

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?44007-Organizing-principles
Ironically the person who said this is called "Captain Obvious."
no 3 their great scholarly attitudes
I'm not gonna bother reading the whole thing...
but lemme guess.. "Anomaly! See? God exists!"


Originally Posted by Metacrock to electric skeptics View Post
no you haven't. you've making really petty picky silly little person jibes about me and one of you have answered of the major arguments of the op not one.
Electric skeptic in response to Meta

Why? All you'll do is claim "that's not addressing it!".
(that's becasue he hasn't actually discussed anything but how bad I am in several weeks)

Ben the Biased on CARM
to the cosmological argument:
Whoa, whoa! What "chain of dependent being we know?" I don't know of any such thing. I know of beings. I don't know that they form a chain, and I don't know that they're all dependent. Until this premise is established, the rest of the argument is irrelevant.
Originally Posted by catbarf (that's his screen name) View Post
Everything I have to say about the argument can be found several pages back, unaddressed by you. You have spent the intervening space on petty insults, ignoring criticism of your arguments or interpreting it as personal attacks.

Meta:
I answered it several pages back.
another Jim from Captain Obvious

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you know you are just harping on words. Its' a perfectly fine term it's used in philosopher if you don't know that you don't know much do you?

you don't have an argument. until you can give me one you just underscoring the fac that I just proved God's existence.

CaptainObvious:Ya... this isn't about words! It's about feelings!
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post
The grounding issue is immature, that is, not fully developed. It is an issue for people who want semantics and not realities to be their source of meaning. Grounding axioms means to find the basis for them in a particular CULTURE and then suggest that it holds meaning across all cultural boundaries.

I don't completely under this guy, but I like his ideas.
http://www.philapologia.org/blog/201...-moral-truths/

I don't completely understand it duh, but it must be in my favor. What a classic! (read it, it's says he's wrong)



Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
*Foundations of ethics: an anthology - Google Books Result
Russ Shafer-Landau, Terence Cuneo - 2007 - Philosophy - 504 pages
... the overall framework for moral theory that is a major concern of this essay. ... but builds them from one or another kind of supporting ground. ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=1405129514...

*singer
*good search:
The Ethics of Peter Singer - Vgweb Home Page
Given the importance of these axioms in the derivation of Singer's ethical rules they ... In S1 there are two major problems. Firstly there is the problem of ... Singer's concern of practical ethics means that he is not concerned with ... Even the very act of tilling the ground kills many earth-bound insect life, ...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...=Google+Search
http://www.vgweb.org/manussa/Singer.htm

*

http://www.csufresno.edu/philosophy/...masCUPR1-2.pdf



*A Companion to Epistemology - Google Books Result
Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa, Matthias Steup - 2009 - Philosophy - 799 pages
Here a major problem is to account for the grounding of memorial ... Social epistemology is also a major concern in my work, especially in my papers on ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=1405139005...


*Spinoza
The shape of deduction in Spinoza's "Ethics"
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
One of the most remarkable features of the Ethics is its axiomatic form. ..... A major concern is that experiments based upon a selected subset of tests are ...
http://www.wischik.com/lu/philosophy...-deduction.pdf - Similar

http://www.wischik.com/lu/philosophy...-deduction.pdf

*


*Immanuel Kant
What makes them true a priori is that they have a cognitive ground which is not in ... His concern that he might actually die before finishing his work, ..... Kant did not see that the predicates of the axioms of geometry contained any ..... This produces something that is one of the major paradoxes of Cartesian ...
www.friesian.com/kant.htm - Cached - Similar

*spring link has article about the medical ethics and how ground for fundamental principles is going to become the major concern in the next decade.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k2rq208567567866/
I don't see a single thing in any of those that speaks of grounding axioms. If you think there is something, could you quote it?



Ben the Biased:
I don't see a single thing in any of those that speaks of grounding axioms. If you think there is something, could you quote it?

Ben the Baised again:

Actually, I did some googling of my own, and I think I may have done your work for you. Check this out...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...28663066/pg_7/

Lawrence Vogel. First time I've ever seen anyone anywhere other than you speak of "grounding axioms." It doesn't make any more sense when he talks about it than it does when you do, but at least now I have to admit you're not the only one in the entire world who's ever talked about it. He also talks about "being itself." I'm guessing he's a hero of yours.

In other words he doesn't know what he's looking for so when it sees it he doesn't nkow it. I had eight examples of ethics's saying this but becuase they didn't say "metarock is right about grounding axioms" he couldn't figure out it was the same thing.


This idiot who calls himself Kanascity Dad calis to be an athist and a methodist. He knows nothign about methodism. Perkins is one of the major Methoidst schools it's word famous for beign liberal. He decided it can't be liberal I went there and im' a liar and I'm so stupid and eivl I must be lying to it must be conservative and I'm too stupid to know the difference. Hes' the one, the one who thinks all MEthodsts are atheits knows better what makes one liberal and one conservative. So how doese he do it? He decides to prove Perkins is conservtive by lookat their website and taking the first gernal statment.

KCDAD
The opening statement on its website...

"God is leading you on a journey"
Is he really??? That is a very fundamentalist approach to searching for meaning in one's life.
"Whether your vocation is as pastor, educator, musician, youth leader, missionary, scholar, or committed layperson, the faculty and staff of Perkins will work with you to gather the resources—spiritual, intellectual and financial—that will enable you to answer your special calling."
Of course he's so ignorant he thinks belief in calling is really wild and radically fundie as though no liberals believing in things like having a calling. It doesn't even occur to him to look at the things they sya or what they teach or what their doctrines or, much less the fact that if he's a Methodist he should know about it.


Diest in response:

kcdad, a human being is what he thinks he is. If someone reads a book, like the bible, and believes what it is he reads, he will adopt those things he reads that resonate with him and his personality. This is why we have muslims flying planes into buidings. This is why we have nut cases saying we're going to burn in hell. We have a good amount of people who believe that they are called by "God" to do X. As we have seen, this calling can be someone like Hitler who some say he thought God wanted him to do what he did, or at the other end of the spectrum the nuns who help needy children. Or....it could be a Metacrock who thinks God has called him to spread his message. There have beenmany such people over the centuries who think they have a calling. That they BELIEVE they do is all it takes. there is nothing stronger than the power of a belief, nothing.

Originally Posted by Corsican View Post
You know what Meta, reading this thread actually kicked me into bothering to go to your blog. Having read most of it, I'm putting you on my ignore list. Your ideas seem reasonable a great deal of the time, your arguments are a great deal more coherent than many other folks over here, but you're just so downright ignorant and rude towards atheism that every time I read something you post, you just put me in a really bad mood. So sorry fella, I appreciate your effort and your arguments, but your attitude is so utterly appalling that I'm simply not going to put myself through reading your comments from now on.

this is a serious point. don't get hung up on thinking you have to answer insults to atheism before you understand what the point is.

Christian,

We're just playing with you guys. There is a part in each of us nonbelievers that gets a kick out of watching believers attempt to explain what they claim to be unexplainable and to try to use logic and reason for ideas that are based in faith. There is no other place one can find such exquisite irony, its almost as if its a parody
.

He's so brilliant:

Me: "all religious language is analogical."

Him: You are speaking analogically.

Me: I know I just said I am

Him: that proves you are stupid becuase I know that and you don't.

Me: I just said it

Him: it's such an irony that you can't see that

Me: I can see it I just said it

Him: I know, that proves your stupid. I'm just joking now. I'm not really saying you are really stupid, even thou obviously you are. but I'm not saying it except when I am.



We enjoy watching so-called apologist trot out their complexly named "arguments" such as the Transcendental Argument For God and the Cosmological Argument, there are several versions of the Ontological Argument etc and still be unable to demonstrate God in a practical, independently verifiable way, the way all other truths are demonstrated.

which you do not understand and you have no concept about.

Its interesting to watch the way a person who considers themselves to be quite rational be confronted with a logical contradiction in their own beliefs, one they have ignored or missed. Usually they immediately suspend reason and logic rather than consider their position might be flawed.

yet when I ask you guys to say what the contradiction is you can't do it. I say "Name the fallacy" you don't name one. I say "what's the contradiction" If you say anything (usually don't) then I explain why it's not one you never answer it. you just come back a week latter and say "we proved you have a contradiction" I guess you figure in a week everyone's forgotten.



I just want to apologize on the behalf of all nonbelievers (yes, I am taking quite a liberty here!) for presenting problems and questions to you for which you have no real answers.
I see one of his many areas of ignorance is the term Passive aggressive. It's mealy mouths wimpy and dishonest to say keep pretending that you not being insulting but in every signal instance between every line there's an obvious implication that the person you speaking must be an idiot if you what you say is true.

what a coward. he can't just come out and say "you are an idiot becasue XXX" he has to couch in this fake passive aggressive Bs. I'm not really saying you are stupid except when I say you are.

And also to thank you for providing so much entertainment.
BT
well Thank you for being an idiot. It's cute.

This is about as clever as 8th grade gets. I thought of little jazzy remarks like this thought them cleaver and insightful in 8th grade. Now it's so juninule for an adult to actually think he's begin original and witty in gains something that anyone can thin to say as a child.

where's the seriousl point? O don't have one.I just thought I would do the same thing he's doing.

Hey I'm just joking man! I am not really insulting you, just because you coward and *******. I am not really saying that. even though you are, but I'm just being funny.

I'm just funn'n ya, a buffoon like you surely can appreciate that.



In response to my argument that scinece is not the only from of knowledge:


OK, let's just believe anything.

Maybe "you" are really a chihuahua riding in the cockpit of a huge thought-controlled robot at the center of the moon, who remotely operates slave human bodies such as "Metacrock" to do its bidding.

Maybe the chihuahua controls all religious people.

You can't prove it isn't true, any more than I can prove that other minds exist.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Atheists too Cleaver for Their Own Good

Photobucket


here is my argument:

Organizing principles

PhysOrg.com) -- For a brief instant,
it appears, scientists at
Brook*haven National Laboratory on Long Island
recently discovered a law of nature had been broken.

Remember the argument asserts that law-like physics would be better explained if it were the product of a mind, since the universe has to come to be as result of physics, not as a means of creating physics. Therefore, since laws can't be disembodied things just floating about with nothing to describe or make happen there has to be some higher organizing principle that contains them and makes them work and a mind works best for that description. Even though the experiment at Brookhaven (see image link above) seems to imply that laws were broken the fact that laws are broken implies that they do exist.

Physorg.com
March 19, 2010 By Suzanne Taylor Muzzin


"Parity was long thought to be a fundamental law of nature. It essentially states that the universe is neither right- nor left-handed — that the laws of physics remain unchanged when expressed in inverted coordinates. In the early 1950s it was found that the so-called weak force, which is responsible for nuclear radioactivity, breaks the parity law. However, the strong force, which holds together subatomic particles, was thought to adhere to the law of parity, at least under normal circumstances.

Now this law appears to have been broken by a team of about a dozen particle physicists, including Jack Sandweiss, Yale's Donner Professor of Physics. Since 2000, Sandweiss has been smashing the nuclei of gold atoms together as part of the STAR experiment at RHIC, a 2.4-mile-circumference particle accelerator, to study the law of parity under the resulting extreme conditions."




Mat argues:

Mat Hunt, the laws of physics.
carm, 2/15/11
The "Laws of physics"(no 1 in thread)

I see this term thrown about with no regard to what it means and I thought I would do an OP to clarify what it really means. In order to to this I must first explain how things are done in physics. The first point to address is how do physicists find anything out in the first place and the answer to that is experimentation, this can be measuring something, seeing how something interacts with something else, a whole myriad of possible techniques.

Once the data has been gathered than the next task it to see what information can be obtained from the data, as well as if it possible possible to codify the data in the form of an equation, such equations are usually known as laws. The more experiments performed more laws are obtained and then the physicist can start incorporating the laws to make more general laws that explain more of the experimental onservation. These new more general laws will in general have the ability to predict the outcome of experiments that have yet to be performed and can be used to test the robustness of the laws themselves.

These general laws can sometimes be made into more general laws which can describe a whole range of phenomena, these more general laws are known as a theory in physics.

What most people refer to as the "laws of physics" are these sets of equations that have been discovered by physicists which describe (in the majority of cases to a very high degree of accuracy) what appears in nature.

It is not that nature appears to be inherently mathematical in nature but that it can be approximated by mathematical laws to an incredibly high degree.


HRG: responds to Hunt

Beg to differ on this point - slightly. IMHO the process is not so straightforward as you described it. Equations are not always just a mathematical summary of the data; often they are conjectured or extrapolated, and confirmed afterwards on the basis of their predictions.

I'm thinking particularly of three examples, which were jumps into the unknown, as it were.:

Maxwell's introduction of the "displacement current" (the time derivative of the electric field), confirmed afterwards by Hertz'


Meta:
Unfortunately for him this actually doesn't disprove my argument at all. He wants people to think it does because it says what I'm calling "laws of physics are not really laws." At the same time that has not the impact it seems to because it doesn't deny the fact that there are question about the law like regularity of the Universe behavior and they are not answering those questions. So what if the equations point to other things, those other things seem to require mind and they have no answer for this. In fact what that really does is confirm what I've sound about the nature of science it tears down the assertion of a fortress of facts and shows that it's actually more a matter of accepting a philosophy. There is no atheist fortress of fact with a moutin proved truths explaining everything in the universe. This scientist is actually admitting that. Of course the atheists on that board refused to see that. Then went on making like he really gave me what for.

Originally Posted by Mat Hunt View Post
As a working scientist I know this stuff very well. As other people have said you are confusing the "laws of physics" with nature itself, that is why your "fire in the equations" thread is very laughable, you confuse term and write in very vague terms without bothering to define them (I am thinking "organizational principle" here).


Meta:
This is a beef about protocol. If he controls the terminology then his view is in charge and the gaps are assumed filled by his ideology. He's merely complaining because my terminology is not his, but he doesn't actually explain the questions or say my view is wrong. I tired again to bridge the gap by discussing that we are both academics and as people of learning we should be able to communicate ideas not just put down each other disciplines. I kind of included him in the mix of intelligent people and he sort of canned the "this is laughable" and discussed it a bit more. Although I didn't convince him. I think see some flaws in his view. I'm sure he sees many in mine.


Originally Posted by Mat Hunt View Post
Not too sure what you're saying here. I was saying that your starting point IMHO was wrong. Causality is a consequence of other things.
When we become sloppy with our language, confusion occurs. You wouldn't want to convnce someone of god because of sloppy language would you?




Meta:

"sloppy" is relative. You define "efficient" in way that fits your social milieu in the academy--sort of akin climate of opinion. I do the same but in a different end of the academy. Also we are on a message board. When I speak like an academic on this board people complain about it.

The argument C/e is a consequence is is not necessarily an answer to my argument because I say "where are the laws before the universe exists." So become, that is coming to be would seem to require c/e yet what is this c/e a consequence of if there's nothing to produce a consequence? Presumably c/e must exist before the bb expansion right? Otherwise would make it expand?

I realize there's a problem with using the term "before." I have read that scientist get around this problem be speaking of "beyond event horizon." am I using that correctly?

Mat Hunt

I think you're talking about how the universe evolved from the big bang right? the way the physics unfolded? Wouldn't this just be a property of the universe like anything else? again an abuse of terms here could lead to problems


Meta:
Sure it would be once there's a universe. Where does the universe come from? What makes it be a universe if not physical or natural laws?

I see that part of the issue has to do with the way ideas are presented. The scientist wants a presentation that is under his control. It's really a problem of language. For example taking issue with the term "organizing princely." Not a term used in scinece so he assumes it's not good. Yet it describes perfectly exactly what the atheists, skeptics, and "forces of science" (which of cousre can't include believers in God) mean when they say "laws of physics are only descriptions. of the way the universe behaves." For example the evolution of sub atomic particles into stars and planets. The whole thing is the result of gravity. Gravity forms abstraction to the center of mass, larger and large units form so that particles become atomic particles and then molecules, molecules begin to exert a gravitational force and attract enough to form elements. Then we get gas and gas begin to exert a real force from its center of mass and forms into actual matter. Then it's just a matter of more attraction until planet formation happens. Once all that is accomplished then we start seeing a similar evolutionary build up form amino acids to life to organisms and on an on until we have cosmologists.

Obviously this could be described as an "organizing principle" as gravity clearly is a principle and has an organizing effect. This can masqaurade as a description only but there's clearly a covert reference to some regularity beneath the surface. One analogy used an atheist in that discussion, not scientific but not criticized by the scientist as such, even though my terminology was, a reference to "square peg in round hole." There's an organizing tendency in the shape of the hole. That would be a metaphor for the way this gravity thing works. The shape determines what fits in and what comes out. We can say that's descriptive of behavior but it's also an organizing principle, moreover, someone has to put a round shaped hole there and someone has to put a peg into it. In the final analysis they atheists and skeptics wind up making a bunch of meaningless statements every bit as unscientific and veg as the science guy says mine are; things like "it happens this way because it just does." One atheist summarized their position with the scientific terminology "a big pile of stuff that just happens."

Some atheists took umbrage over the metaphor of a law giver. In those discussions they insisted upon the image of law giver being litteral. I must have ment that in the most rigid sense, even though I died it the whole way through and continued to say "I don't literally mean a law giver in the sense of Moses with the tablets." I think the way I express argument best is done above here, "higher organizing principle" as the product of mind would be better than the notion of a big law giver. Of cousre God can be a principle, mind can be a principle. Anything within the range of Spinoza's ground of understanding, Tillich's ground of being, Hegel's dialectic, Berkeley's observer, or the transcendental signifier would work.

The atheists think they are really saying something when they assert a "pile of stuff just happens" all they are saying is "let's not think about it." No one in scinece ever says that. Atheists argue "can't you believers just assert the idea that things could just happen for no reason" but we never hear scientists say "we don't really theorize about the origin of the universe, things just happen, why worry it's just a pile of stuff." Far from being an answer to the argument it's nothing but a challenge to keep it going. I had originally possed it as a dilemma. They never eve responded to the other side. The other side being without prescriptive physical law, if the regularity of the universe that is so dependable is just discretion of "the pile of stuff that just happens" then there's real reason to rule out miracles, they are not violating anything. most people will admit that our descriptions can't be perfect so miracles just become the more compete description and there's really nothing bar them. They never really answer that. They just say "they don't happen." But of course that's just because they rule them out on the basis that they don't happen, but tha'ts a hold over form the Laplace who believed prescriptive laws of physics. Without real laws and no causality the atheist view point is a self defeating proposition.


here are the brilliant atheist answers on CARM:

"Captain Obvious:"

I'm not gonna bother reading the whole thing...
but lemme guess.. "Anomaly! See? God exists!"
that' so stupid and I'm so brilliant I don't even have to read it or say anything. How is that for stupidity? such a brilliant thinker he doesn't even have to know what you are arguing.

what about the great scientist Mat Hunt who "claims" of have "Ph.D" and be a "scientist." he's a scientist like I'm the king of England. Getting him to make an argument is like pulling eye teeth.

Once again you restate you flawed argument and you add some ad hominims into the mix.

Give a definition of organizing principle, not examples, a definition.
Once again I'm right, you are wrong don't need to talk about it. the stuff he said before ("once again") was just as terse and taciturn. He's not made a valid argument since he came onto the board.

Atheists just want to have their little world of anger and stupidity where they can bully Christians and fume hatred against God and not be reminded that they are wrong, that can't make good on their claims.



Originally Posted by maybrick View Post
One question, are ALL professional historians Christians?

The answer (in case you are wondering) is NO.


What does that do to your argument from authority?
Nothing. I know plenty of historians who are not Christians who agree that Jesus mythers are idiots and Jesus existed. My committee chairmen said to me "why do you argue ith idiots?" meaning the mythers. He was an atheist. but he knew better than to be a Jesus myther.

On a related note, are ALL biblical scholars Christian?

Nope again.

I didn't make an argument from authority. you are not dealing with the evidence you are using slogans and stereotypes and you lumping in the existence of Jesus with theology about his status. that's a very thoughtless mistake.

So, people who have far more expertise in this sort of issue than either you or I do not accept the Bible as true (in a Biblical/religous/true sense).



stereotypical thinking again. you assume anyone who has more expertise than I would have to disbelieve the bible. there are plenty of find charcoals who are among the best in the world who believe the bible. Of course you are assuming I'm a fundie and you are assuming an inferential. both assumptions are wrong. you are confused because you don't know theology so you don't know the divisions or breaks and you don't understand what liberals are.

I'm not claiming its worthless, or totally fabricated, or a cunning plan by the Illluminati to control millions of sheeple.


I didn't say you have to believer every word either.

I am merely using what I have learned from highly qualified, professional academics who have used "valid historical and scholarship methods" to come to the educated and reasonable conclusion that, while the Bible can truthfully be claimed to be many things...it is not the word of god.


I didn't even say it was the words of God. you are not even willing to listen. you assume a bunch of things about what I believe. this is what angers me that atheist have it down the point where it's just all or nothing. the bible is either a pile of **** don't even acknowledge it's existence it has nothing at all historically or it's totally true and you have to believe every word. Obviously both choices are stupid.

why don't you actually listen to what people say?


Then the inimitable "Big thinker" comes out with this gem:

Christian,

We're just playing with you guys. There is a part in each of us nonbelievers that gets a kick out of watching believers attempt to explain what they claim to be unexplainable and to try to use logic and reason for ideas that are based in faith. There is no other place one can find such exquisite irony, its almost as if its a parody.

so all the feelings of hurt and insult being slighted saying I'm lying about my life of learning that means more to me than anything spiting everything I value about myself that's all just a little joke.


We enjoy watching so-called apologist trot out their complexly named "arguments" such as the Transcendental Argument For God and the Cosmological Argument, there are several versions of the Ontological Argument etc and still be unable to demonstrate God in a practical, independently verifiable way, the way all other truths are demonstrated.


Its interesting to watch the way a person who considers themselves to be quite rational be confronted with a logical contradiction in their own beliefs, one they have ignored or missed. Usually they immediately suspend reason and logic rather than consider their position might be flawed.

I just want to apologize on the behalf of all nonbelievers (yes, I am taking quite a liberty here!) for presenting problems and questions to you for which you have no real answers.
And also to thank you for providing so much entertainment.
BT
that's' mighty big of you. you know people say I'm insulating them but it was a joke too, I was just paying along with you.