'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[Radrook]

Not true. I have outlined my position on the subject and asked questions. I have never denied your position--I don't understand it well enough to do so.


Not true. I have outlined my position on the subject and explained why it it does not appear to me to be inconsistent.


Not true. I do not regard inductive and deductive logic as being irrelevant to the scientific method.


Not true. I do not consider you to be irrational, merely obscure and too ready to regard any response as an attack.

Well, if indeed you have outlined your position then that means that I must have responded to it and we simply agreed to disagree. About attacks, if you were subjected to a steady barrage of refusals to reason, immediate evasions, and annoying mantra-like chants as supposed responses, then you would tend to be a bit on the suspicious side as well.

As for being obscure, perhaps that is based on your inability to ask specific questions and responding with generalities which constitute nothing more than "No it ain't!"

BTW
I just reviewed whom I am speaking with and Lo and Behold! A fellow deist and a Christian to boot!

Please note that you did claim in previous post to be on a personal mission to prevent such inanities as mine from giving a bad name to the ID idea. So yes, you are in vehement opposition to what I am saying.


The problem is that we disagree on various issues.

But the one which really irks me is that two Christians should not be debating about the validity of whether an ID exists or not,. You see, two Christians agree and should make it clear to atheists from the outset that they agree. However, there is the problem! You don't seem to have that very important factor or agenda uppermost in mind.

Instead you seem quite comfortable in appearing to be in full support of the atheist concept and don't seem concerned if you are perceived in that negative anti-God way or not at all.

Kind Regards and God bless!

 

[Belk]

The claims are inferred from your condemnation of cogent reasoning as being relevant to the scientific method which reveals a deplorable deficiency in basic knowledge..

I made no condemnation of cogent reasoning being relevant to the scientific method.

BTW
There is NOTHING which I consider brilliant about the things I am saying.
As for standing on their own merits, that is true. However, their merit hasn't even been addressed yet. Instead all I get in responses is the mindless: ""Ï cain't see!"" or else the subject is suddenly shifted away from the immediate issue and another issue is immediately introduced which is responded to with the same ""I cain't see!" mantra-like chant. ..

If you get consistent responses then it would seem you should consider that the fault does not lie with the listener but the communicator.

 

[Radrook]

I made no condemnation of cogent reasoning being relevant to the scientific method.



If you get consistent responses then it would seem you should consider that the fault does not lie with the listener but the communicator.

Well, whenever I mention cogent reasoning as being essential to the scientific method all I get in response is that only falsification via lab testing can establish and prove truth. Or was it another person who made that ignorant claim?

About listeners vs communicators?
That was assumed to be true for six long, gruelling months at another website until the listeners admitted that they had understood me all along but that they had been behaving in a difficult way and feigning incomprehension on purpose because as atheists, it was their duty to do everything in their power to resist any and all attempts at proving religion's value.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, if indeed you have outlined your position then that means that I must have responded to it and we simply agreed to disagree. About attacks, if you were subjected to a steady barrage of refusals to reason, immediate evasions, and annoying mantra-like chants as supposed responses, then you would tend to be a bit on the suspicious side as well.

Bah! You responded by calling it "paradoxical and nonsensical," slandered the authenticity of my faith in Christ and moved on. (posts 550-552). Is that what you call "agreeing to disagree?"

But in reviewing those posts, particularly #552, it appears to me that your explanation of what constitutes design and how it is to be detected is the very thing you regard as self-evident and what we are trying to avoid seeing, is that right?

 

[Radrook]

Bah! You responded by calling it "paradoxical and nonsensical," slandered the authenticity of my faith in Christ and moved on. (posts 550-552). Is that what you call "agreeing to disagree?"

But in reviewing those posts, particularly #552, it appears to me that your explanation of what constitutes design and how it is to be detected is the very thing you regard as self-evident and what we are trying to avoid seeing, is that right?

It is indeed paradoxical and nonsensical for a Christian to vehemently oppose another Christian who is striving to establish the existence of our Heavenly Father. It is very unfortunate that you view that as a slander against the sincerity of your faith. I personally don't judge. I leave that to God. In fact, you might be very sincere in your efforts and genuinely view me as a danger to Christianity. But despite the sincerity involved I just don't see the logic nor the justification behind it. To me it comes across as similar to Saul who thought he was rendering a sacred service to God at one time when he was opposing the Christians.

About seeing what should be self evident-please note that in that case you aren't opposing me. You are actually opposing what Paul tells us in the book of Romans, that God's attributes and his Godship are clearly detectable in the things made.

Romans 1:20 ►
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Both Animal and Human Life Reflect God’s Creative Power

“Ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the seainform you. Which of these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.” (Job 12:7-10)

The Sky Points to God’s Glory

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” (Psalm 19:1-4)

Creation Was God’s First Missionary

“Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

Nature Brings Praise to God

“Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created. He set them in place for ever and ever; he gave a decree that will never pass away.” (Psalm 148:1-6)

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists...through-his-creation.html#yLFiccfz1sdip8ZV.99

 

[Belk]

Well, whenever I mention cogent reasoning as being essential to the scientific method all I get in response is that only falsification via lab testing can establish and prove truth. Or was it another person who made that ignorant claim?

I made no such claim. Perhaps before you condemn others you should ensure your understanding is correct? What I stated was that something being non-falsifiable does not make it "unassailable logic". It is only something that is falsifiable that is able to be shown to be true.

About listeners vs communicators?
That was assumed to be true for six long, gruelling months at another website until the listeners admitted that they had understood me all along but that they had been behaving in a difficult way and feigning incomprehension on purpose because as atheists, it was their duty to do everything in their power to resist any and all attempts at proving religion's value.

As an atheist I do not find this credible since that is not a position most would take. I find it much more likely you misunderstood their communication.

 

[Speedwell]

About seeing what should be self evident-please note that in that case you aren't opposing me. You are actually opposing what Paul tells us in the book of Romans, that God's attributes and his Godship are clearly detectable in the things made.

Read what I posted again:

"But in reviewing those posts, particularly #552, it appears to me that your explanation of what constitutes design and how it is to be detected is the very thing you regard as self-evident and what we are trying to avoid seeing, is that right?"

Notice that I was not attacking your position or denying it, merely trying to determine what it was. It's a yes or no question; can you answer it?

 

[Radrook]

I made no such claim. Perhaps before you condemn others you should ensure your understanding is correct? What I stated was that something being non-falsifiable does not make it "unassailable logic". It is only something that is falsifiable that is able to be shown to be true.



As an atheist I do not find this credible since that is not a position most would take. I find it much more likely you misunderstood their communication.

Not at all. They freely admitted at the end of six months that they had purposefully made believe that they were NOT understanding the logic I proposed and the they were being illogical on purpose. Don't believe it? I can probably dredge up the info after all these years but I won't because I gain nothing from you either believing me or calling me a liar instead.

As for your chameleon-like double talk, well, that is something that I don't involve myself in.

 

[Belk]

Not at all. They freely admitted at the end of six months that they had purposefully made believe that they were NOT understanding the logic I proposed and the they were being illogical on purpose. Don't believe it? I can probably dredge up the info after all these years but I won't because I gain nothing from you either believing me or calling me a liar instead.

As for your chameleon-like double talk, well, that is something that I don't involve myself in.

OBKB. You have fun with that.

 

[SteveB28]

Why would I try to falsify logically what has been proven logically non-falsifiable.

No, you're not paying attention.

I didn't ask you to try to falsify it.......I asked for you to give an example of how it COULD be falsified.

This is your huge problem..... you have NO means of falsifying this bogus hypothesis.

So it is useless!

 

[Radrook]

No, you're not paying attention.

I didn't ask you to try to falsify it.......I asked for you to give an example of how it COULD be falsified.

This is your huge problem..... you have NO means of falsifying this bogus hypothesis.

So it is useless!

Which demonstrates that you don't know what a hypothesis is and upon what a hypothesis is based. In fact, that comment demonstrates that you don't actually know what the scientific method really involves. Which in turn means that you are in no position to have a productive discussion about it. So yes! It definitely is useless!

BTW
The examples I provide are responded with : ""Ï can't see!"" Not because I don't write clear simple, detailed explanations. But because you disagree but cannot offer a logical rebuttal.
.

 

[Speedwell]

The examples I provide are responded with : ""Ï can't see!"" Not because I don't write clear simple, detailed explanations. But because you disagree but cannot offer a logical rebuttal.
.

To what? The description of design and its detection you offered in post #552?

 

[Radrook]

To what? The description of design and its detection you offered in post #552?

Instead of claiming inability to see why not attempt a genuine rebuttal?


Why not explain why you are easily able to see at point "A" but are suddenly, and inexplicably totally incapable of seeing at point "B" when required to be consistent in your modus operandi?

Don't tell me! You can't see! Which to me means that you won't see and that nobody is going to make you see cuz you don't wanna see..

Which is OK by me as long as I don't have to waste my time dealing with it.

Invincible Ignorance Fallacy

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply pig-headedly refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they don't prove anything; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

 

[Speedwell]

Instead of claiming inability to see why not attempt a genuine rebuttal?
Why not explain why you are able to see at point [A] but are suddenly, and inexplicably incapable of seeing at point when required to be sconsistent in your modus operandi? Don't tell me! Yu can't see!

You are being dishonest. I did not claim an inability to see, I just want your affirmation as to what I am supposed to be looking at--which you do not seem to have the intellectual courage to give me.

 

[Jimmy D]

You are being dishonest. I did not claim an inability to see, I just want your affirmation as to what I am supposed to be looking at--which you do not seem to have the intellectual courage to give me.

Don't worry mate, that's his stock answer.

 

[Radrook]

Don't worry mate, that's his stock answer.

When you begin offering rebuttals that are actually rebuttals that address my objections and my justifiable criticism of your methodology, instead of the mindless claim of a total inability to reason cogently retort when you feel cornered, then the discussion might just begin to develop along normal lines. In short, stop avoiding e issues I keep bringing up and reply to them directly as demanded by the rules of proper argumentation, and if you are totally unaware of the basic rules of proper argumentation, then you should not be striving to argue over any profound issues at all. You should be in a classroom learning those rules.

 

[Speedwell]

When you begin offering rebuttals that are actually rebuttals that address my objections and my justifiable criticism of your methodology, instead of the mindless claim of a total inability to reason cogently retort when you feel cornered, then the discussion might just begin to develo0p along normal lines.

So I gather that you are not going to stand by your assertions in post #552.

 

[Jimmy D]

When you begin offering rebuttals that are actually rebuttals that address my objections and my justifiable criticism of your methodology, instead of the mindless claim of a total inability to reason cogently retort when you feel cornered, then the discussion might just begin to develo0p along normal lines.

I think you've made the mistake of thinking that I actually read your post. You've been repeating the same thing for pages and pages and I gave up on your pseudoscientific nonsense a while back, I was actually talking to Speedy.

 

[Radrook]

I think you've made the mistake of thinking that I actually read your post. You've been repeating the same thing for pages and pages and I gave up on your pseudoscientific nonsense a while back, I was actually talking to Speedy.

Well, in that case you declare yourself totally irrelevant to the discussion or any possibility of it. Thanks for the honesty. BTW Funny how you claim to avoid pseudo science and are so keen to believe in the fairy tale of abiogenesis which has never been observed in nature nor can nature be forced into producing it in a lab. All you have is some chemical reactions with a ridiculous load of wishful thinking behind them. Something akin to the abracadabra or "Öpen says me!" idea.

Nothing more.

In contrast, the ID concept is solidly based on the vast observation of patterns which justifies our inductive leap. You have NOTHING to justify that leap but you make it anyway because if you don't then you are left staring horrified into glaringly obvious and the obvious is just too psychologically distressing for the atheist mind which needs and therefore vehemently demands a creationless universe in order to feel that all is right with its world.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you've made the mistake of thinking that I actually read your post. You've been repeating the same thing for pages and pages and I gave up on your pseudoscientific nonsense a while back, I was actually talking to Speedy.

There's nothing to discuss, anyway. Radrook has apparently backed away from his proposal that design is characterized by organization towards a purpose (if that's what he was proposing) and hasn't offered anything else to replace it.