tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post1672101934899366005..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Good luck with that, LarryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger259125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81977603725904379372011-03-21T07:20:46.457-05:002011-03-21T07:20:46.457-05:00I like Jack Dee's approach of asking that the ...I like Jack Dee's approach of asking that the theist provide their best reason for believing in God, and when refuted, getting them to acknowledge this rather than allowing them to simply move on to the next item in their grab bag of excuses to try to justify their beliefs.<br /><br />As he noted, most of these arguments appear to be post hoc rationalizations wheeled out to avoid the disconcerting feeling that comes from the realization that one's cherished beliefs are little different to the child who goes to sleep hoping that in the morning to find a coin in place of their tooth.seankehoe@rationalwikihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16977798966304460022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35035877288313073642010-10-17T20:34:15.405-05:002010-10-17T20:34:15.405-05:00"Atheists get away with murder. They should s..."Atheists get away with murder. They should say what kind of god they don't believe in, but always seem to dodge the question. It's pretty cowardly to refuse to define the object of your disbelief."<br /><br />I don't believe in blue gods, pink gods, spikey gods, blunt gods, spider gods, two-faced gods, thousand-faced gods, no-faced gods, angry gods, loving gods, peaceful gods, warlike gods, tall gods, short gods, fast gods, slow gods, smart gods, sheep gods, dead gods, old gods, elder gods, monkey gods, two-headed gods, thousand-headed gods, no-headed gods, transcendent gods, fallen gods and bored gods.<br />I am less certain about but still unconvinced in the existence of deistic gods, uninterested gods, evil gods, childish gods and gods who hold exactly the same views as I do.<br /><br />And that's not even the short list, which is why we tend not to define which god we don't believe in.Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13943897506846473122010-10-17T19:26:12.948-05:002010-10-17T19:26:12.948-05:00Lukas, Jeremy: I'm still both amused and bewil...Lukas, Jeremy: I'm still both amused and bewildered by the notion that Christians should be handsomely paid before presenting sound arguments for God, and that failure to pay them constitutes a lack of convinction on the part of atheists!<br /><br />That's a notion that takes absurdity practically to the level of performance art, and it's tempting to attribute such meta-nonsense to a Poe. You should always remember that there really are people in the religious world whose thinking is this upside down, though.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39192620108431384862010-10-17T13:38:42.793-05:002010-10-17T13:38:42.793-05:00>you cannot prove to me gravity without my inte...>you cannot prove to me gravity without my interacting with it... <br /><br />I may be misunderstanding, but I think I disagree with this. I was on a show with Russell once where he gave an example of an experiement where you demonstrate "sight" to a group of people living in a world where nobody can see--except for him.<br /><br />His suggestion was to create three identical boxes, where the only difference is one is a different color. To the blind species, the boxes would be no different; but to Russell there would be a visual difference. An object would be placed in the colored box. Russell would go away. The creatures would mix up the boxes, and Russell would come back and pick the right one without touching or examing them in any tactile way.<br /><br />He would be able to do this accurately every time. And even if the creatures didn't understand vision--they would be forced to accept that he is able to somehow experience a sense they do not have--a means of differentiating things at a distance, which none of them could do.<br /><br />So, without them being able to "interact" with vision, or experience vision, or even fully understand it--the repeatability and success of the results of the well devised experiement would demonstrate his claim to a degree they could not deny. He has "vision"--even if they don't know precisely--from an experiential standpoint--what "vision" is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54718383382405150722010-10-17T12:13:16.652-05:002010-10-17T12:13:16.652-05:00stan said: They should say what kind of god they d...stan said: <i>They should say what kind of god they don't believe in, but always seem to dodge the question. It's pretty cowardly to refuse to define the object of your disbelief.</i><br /><br />That's funny because one of the reason I am an atheist is because believers can't give any reasonable definition of what it is they believe. Granted, they try but badly fail every time and always fall back to saying their god is simply ineffible. That or they try to subsume something else, usually love, as their god.<br /><br />Then again, I'm thinking you might be a Poe. Your posts are ridiculous but they are lacking in the signs (poor spelling, bad grammer...) that indicate the messy mind that they would originate from. Especially the post to which I am responding that ends with asking us if we know what the word <i>definition</i> means. That just strikes me as being too ironic to be done by accident for some reason.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802892952926113605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50067521143971107582010-10-17T04:32:58.173-05:002010-10-17T04:32:58.173-05:00They should say what kind of god they don't be...<b>They should say what kind of god they don't believe in, but always seem to dodge the question. It's pretty cowardly to refuse to define the object of your disbelief.</b><br /><br />Are you trolling or are you really that phenomenally stupid?Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67599687331436224602010-10-16T21:13:42.518-05:002010-10-16T21:13:42.518-05:00So Stan, by your own admission, Christians aren...So Stan, by your own admission, Christians aren't prepared to show "the courage of their convictions" unless there's money in it? Well, that's an amusing reveal, though there may be more than a few Christians who take umbrage at your presumptuousness there. In any event, it probably explains why you haven't offered any arguments for belief in any of your comments so far, preferring to troll us with shifting-the-burden fallacies and sundry playground taunts.<br /><br />I'd say that if you can't pry a good argument out of a Christian without slaking his greed first, then Larry's point is pretty much made, isn't it.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63396834490465694222010-10-16T21:01:17.906-05:002010-10-16T21:01:17.906-05:00Larry, baby, put your money where your mouth is. ...Larry, baby, put your money where your mouth is. If you want some good apologetics written, offer a $1000 (or more) prize to whoever can provide a convincing argument for the existence of a god. Do you think Thomas Aquinas wrote for free? Or if you don't have the courage of your convictions - just say that and we can all go elsewhere.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05769594006929689067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45655701280811015122010-10-16T18:48:02.707-05:002010-10-16T18:48:02.707-05:00Atheists get away with murder. They should say wh...Atheists get away with murder. They should say what kind of god they don't believe in, but always seem to dodge the question. It's pretty cowardly to refuse to define the object of your disbelief. I hope atheists know what the word "definition" means...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05769594006929689067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28748165337524474002010-10-09T22:43:33.748-05:002010-10-09T22:43:33.748-05:00"Really shouldn't be bashing my religion ..."Really shouldn't be bashing my religion or my views though, I thought you wanted intelligent conversation about the proof of God."<br /><br />Yeah...when is that actually going to start again? Cause it sure as hell ain't from Marry.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19082458865268526202010-10-09T21:31:52.738-05:002010-10-09T21:31:52.738-05:00Does this mean I can't invoke the 5th law of t...Does this mean I can't invoke the 5th law of thermodeism?Spoondogglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12661366806187319654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40625251735521032532010-10-09T16:18:16.956-05:002010-10-09T16:18:16.956-05:00@Mary Really shouldn't be bashing my religion ...@Mary <b>Really shouldn't be bashing my religion or my views though, I thought you wanted intelligent conversation about the proof of God.</b> <br /><br />I am not bashing you at all. Believe what you want. I am fully bashing the Book of Mormon. You were asked to define the attributes of the god, whose existence you are arguing for. You derived these attributes from the BOM. I have every right in a reasoned discussion to question your sources. As for the evidence you stated for the BOM coins stones etc. Can you provide me a source for those assertion. Is there a reputable source that reports the connection between these items and the events of the BOM? Probably not. Is there eveidence of the providence of the BOM? Any? I seriously want to know if I am in error here.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04561589994502784257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36027391442935890292010-10-08T16:58:06.119-05:002010-10-08T16:58:06.119-05:00I agree that it often seems pointless to have thes...I agree that it often seems pointless to have these discussions and it certainly doesn't look like we made much headway with Mary.<br /><br />Still, it's worth doing, both for the reason Jeremiah mentioned, but also because it helps to clarify my own thinking. Often my thinking remains a bit fuzzy unless I am challenged to make it clear.<br /><br />Also, it's an opportunity to try out new arguments, which might come in handy in future discussions.<br /><br />All in all, it's only a waste of time if convincing the other person is your sole purpose.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24771721099666684502010-10-08T12:52:26.232-05:002010-10-08T12:52:26.232-05:00At this point we're all just Spankin' the ...At this point we're all just Spankin' the Mormon.Mark Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082856602483276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76165048818514840482010-10-08T10:26:04.671-05:002010-10-08T10:26:04.671-05:00@Ing
Well, I can't speak for the others but a...@Ing<br /><br />Well, I can't speak for the others but at least for me the replies weren't really for Mary's sake. She never responded to any of mine and that's ok. My take is that maybe sometime in the future some internet wanderer will happen upon this thread. Maybe they have never given much thought to religion and were curious or they are currently trying to figure out what to believe in their own lives. In any event the goal for me is to try and provide solid counter-arguments so that maybe someone reading this might read it and say "Ah, that does make sense." and hopefully start investigating the issue more. <br /><br />I mean for me when I was trying to learn more about economics I would visits sites and read what someone wrote and think "Yeah, what DO we do about that?" and then read some follow up comment where someone else explains a different take on it and it would get me thinking. So that is kind of the goal in my own responses.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37316068316972780792010-10-08T08:57:41.255-05:002010-10-08T08:57:41.255-05:00Jesus christ I can't believe all of you wasted...<b> Jesus christ I can't believe all of you wasted so many lines of text and accumulated hours on Marry. She's so uneducated and willfully ignorant that trying to reason with her is just going to be like dealing with a kid throwing a temper tantrum. Give it up, she's not going to learn anything and nothing she says hasn't been refuted a zillion bejesus times before. <br /></b><br /><br />I'm okay with that. I dont have a lot of practice with counter-apologetics (or any at all really) so I'd rather try it out on someone who is a lost cause instead of doing a poor job with someone who might actually see reason.Penny Costlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100523251079925953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12638025381025711232010-10-08T07:10:16.344-05:002010-10-08T07:10:16.344-05:00I think it was worth the effort, even though I nev...I think it was worth the effort, even though I never believed I'd change her mind.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56148378265239558202010-10-08T00:24:51.641-05:002010-10-08T00:24:51.641-05:00I'd like to interrupt your regularly scheduled...I'd like to interrupt your regularly scheduled program for a quick reply to the discussion at the beginning of the comments about the caller who talked about collapsing wave functions. First of all, I think this caller was poorly handled on the show. Either cut him off at the beginning and say "we don't want arguments based on quantum mechanics, because we think our audience doesn't understand them" or let him give his argument, instead of interrupting him all the time saying how the audience will not understand him. Okay, with that off my chest, let me give what I think was his argument. It's not a very good argument since most of his steps are highly speculative, but at least it's an idea I hadn't heard before.<br /><br />1) Every system can be described by a wave function and so can the universe.<br /><br />2) In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics the collapse of a wave function is directly related to observing or interacting with the system.<br /><br />3) In one of his books Roger Penrose hypothesizes that since consciousness observes itself, it is a self-collapsing wave function.<br /><br />4) The universe as a whole is not in an undetermined quantum state and hence its wave function must have collapsed.<br /><br />5) There is nothing outside the universe, so there is nothing external which could have caused the collapse of the universe's wave function.<br /><br />6) Hence the universe's wave function must be a self-collapsing wave function.<br /><br />7) Thus there is consciousness to the universe.<br /><br />8) This consciousness is a candidate for god.<br /><br /><br />Again, I think as it stands there are too many unsupported assumptions in this argument, but if you want to argue against the details of what the caller said (as opposed to general objections, such as "this is not the god the regular theist thinks of when (s)he says his/her prayers"), at least try to represent it correctly. For example, do not argue against anything existing outside the universe, because the impossibility of this was actually one of his points. So you're only agreeing with him on this. Arguing against that as if that somehow invalidates his argument, only shows that your not listening to or understanding his arguments.Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77958813016342788952010-10-08T00:04:34.050-05:002010-10-08T00:04:34.050-05:00Jesus christ I can't believe all of you wasted...Jesus christ I can't believe all of you wasted so many lines of text and accumulated hours on Marry. She's so uneducated and willfully ignorant that trying to reason with her is just going to be like dealing with a kid throwing a temper tantrum. Give it up, she's not going to learn anything and nothing she says hasn't been refuted a zillion bejesus times before. <br /><br />Cept God as an alien because that's the whole Mormon stuff....again cause stuff written by a sex crazed con man is SO reliable.<br /><br />Know what pisses me off most though? She comes in, yells at us for being "sign seekers" or whatever and why does she insist god is real? Because she got a prayer answered. Congratulations on not only surviving cancer, but finding a way to convince yourself that doing so makes you morally superior to everyone else who dies from the disease.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30289048044244505832010-10-06T22:04:09.383-05:002010-10-06T22:04:09.383-05:00take all the right equipment from this end to send...<b>take all the right equipment from this end to send and to receive and there you go now if only there was a physical box we could put all that equipment into so we could see it and use it.... oh wait, god did that.... its called our bodies..... </b><br /><br />So am I right in hearing that our bodies are designed with the ability to send prayer? So why is it you are saying us former theist must not have done it correctly? Sounds like a design flaw to me. If your omnipotent, perfect creator made our bodies with a built in communication system between us and himself, I would expect we'd ALL be able to pray successfully every time. (and if you're going to say that my "equipment" must be damaged, I'd blame that one on your god too)<br /><br /><br /><b><br />at some point God starts looking less like magic and more like science.</b><br /><br />When does this science you speak of start? We're all waiting. <br /><br />BTW, You gave the example of certain bible events looking like scifi. If that's the case, there's good reason for it. Scifi stands for Science FICTION. You are preaching to the choir by saying the bible resembles fiction. That's been our position all along. <br /><br /><br /><br /><b><br />you can describe a unicorn having never met one, you should be able to do the same about God.</b><br /><br />You're right, existance is not necssary to be able to describe things. However, if something doesnt exist, you need to get your description somewhere. <br /><br />The description of a unicorn is fairly agreed upon so I can pass along how a unicorn has been described to me by others and in storybooks, but since I dont believe in a god, and there are many descriptions and ideas of different gods, I have no reason to choose one description over any other, except to say "non-existant" pretty much sums up my own personal views.Penny Costlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100523251079925953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44144238488339146352010-10-06T21:03:43.406-05:002010-10-06T21:03:43.406-05:00I know I'm late to the game but Mary's chi...I know I'm late to the game but Mary's childish inanity has forced me out of lurking. <br /><br />I'll admit Admin has a good point in questioning Mary's supposed literary prowess based on her typing ineptitude (by the way Mary, my brother has four kids whom I regularly babysit while doing homework, I'm inclined to think your "it's these damn kids" excuse is completely bunk.)<br /><br />However, criticizing Mary's functional illiteracy is not my point. I don't even mean to question her supposed "studies" (however I do find her claims in that regard extremely suspect). My main objection is to her hidden assertion that what she's studying has any relation to reality. For instance, I've read Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and all seven Harry Potter books (shut up). All of those materials mention elves.<br /><br />Mary, do elves exist? If no then on what basis do you make this assessment?D-trainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08532618040426391685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63315648068075180712010-10-06T09:30:09.003-05:002010-10-06T09:30:09.003-05:00Also, keep in mind that within the scientific comm...Also, keep in mind that within the scientific community, there's an incredible amount of pressure to be unbiased and intellectually honest.<br /><br />It's not just how well you know the scientific method, or how well you know the material of your field, if you don't take all the precautions you can to minimize bias and assumptions within your publications, you quickly lose credibility. If you do this too much, you'll earn a reputation for being an scholarly hack.<br /><br />It's like your credit score. It can take years to build it up, but you can lose it in a day if you aren't careful.<br /><br />And believe you me, there's plenty of people out there perched, waiting to poke holes in your publication. They love pointing out assumptions. If they can successfully point that out in your publications, it basically ruins your efforts.<br /><br />Thus, the motivation is on the scientists to minimize subjective error.<br /><br />That's 100% <b>not</b> like religion.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35369257180142743622010-10-06T08:20:53.529-05:002010-10-06T08:20:53.529-05:00I find it odd that somebody who claims to be as we...I find it odd that somebody who claims to be as well-read as Mary does is so poor at spelling and grammar. It makes me a little suspicious about her claim.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435379042731604819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31397839122691264532010-10-06T08:09:04.559-05:002010-10-06T08:09:04.559-05:00which brings me back to my original post, you can ...<b>which brings me back to my original post, you can know God, but you have to experience him for yourself.</b><br /><br />Which brings me back to my original point.<br /><br />If I were to follow your method, how could I distinguish what I'm experiencing from <b>pure hallucinatory insanity</b>?<br /><br />Fin.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36403435060421043002010-10-06T08:08:39.933-05:002010-10-06T08:08:39.933-05:00Do you know what a "double blind" trial ...Do you know what a "double blind" trial is? It's a particular set up of an experiment where neither the testor nor the testee know what the correct answer is. That's a procedure to help minimize subjective error. It works very well. Do you know what a control group is? Do you understand why placebos are employed? These are all direct actions to minimize subjective bias, mimize error and maximize accuracy.<br /><br />On top of all that we have that peer review layer from opposing and contrary scientists to check on your work to make sure you did it right. Fame is to be gained from disproving something as well as proving something.<br /><br /><b>and when you lack that faith you test it for yourself. but if you are looking to disprove it, then you will find good evidence for you to disprove it, but it may not disprove it to the original....isn't this exactly why there are so many scientists with opposing views on nearly every topic...</b><br /><br />I've already addressed these concerns. Yes, there's a lot of differening opinions. That's how it's supposed to be. <br /><br /><b> nothing is provable, except to yourself.</b><br /><br />Again, it depends on what you mean by prove. If you mean 100% absolute, then of course not. If you mean "demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt", then of course you can. Your computer is running on science that's been "demonstrated beyond a reasonable double", but not "100% absolute".<br /><br />It still works.<br /><br />(Cont.)JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.com