Prove it or remove it challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Look you can pick whatever camp best suits you. I was simply trying to understand your viewpoint.

Going back to my original statement, I was interested in finding out why atheists (generally speaking) are so rude. So intentionally over the top rude.

Dawkins and Krauss and Harris et al, the guys on the debate circuit, openly and repeatedly recommend ridicule and rudeness as a tactic to be used against Christians.

What part of your moral foundation makes that right?

You say that you can show an idea to right or wrong often - please show me why you think it's right to be so offensive. Because to me it betrays an underlying contempt for other human beings who have done you no wrong.

They deal with incredibly rude Christians all of the time so it rubs off on them. When they are dealing with deniers of reality a bit of frustration sets in. I don't see them as all that rude. When they are talking with Christians they tend to be more polite than the Christians that they are speaking to.

Do you have an example of when they are rude to Christians?

 

[Paterfamilia]

They deal with incredibly rude Christians all of the time so it rubs off on them. When they are dealing with deniers of reality a bit of frustration sets in. I don't see them as all that rude. When they are talking with Christians they tend to be more polite than the Christians that they are speaking to.

Do you have an example of when they are rude to Christians?

I can sit here and search for examples of which there are many. Look at hitchslap's signature line.

More importantly, look at your own posts.

So my question is, what basis in your own moral ontology is there for speaking in such a way with such regularity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can sit here and search for examples of which there are many. Look at hitchslap's signature line.

More importantly, look at your own posts.

So my question is, what basis in your own moral ontology is there for speaking in such a way with such regularity?

What is wrong with what Krauss said there? And I am dealing with people that are rude, arrogant, and wrong themselves. If someone can be polite to me I can be polite to them. They may still be obviously wrong, but at least they might learn.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point of subjectivism is that there is no objective truth, and that it is totally up to us to decide what is true, and that our truth only applies to us.

Do understand? The subjectivist isn't a Christian who says "there is no objective evidence of God". The subjectivist says "there is no objective truth outside of my own thinking".

And yet we have tons of creationists on this board who reject the objective truth because of their subjective experiences.

A robust subjectivist is nearly always atheist.

Just the opposite, chief. We have thread after thread after thread of theists complaining that atheists will only look at objective evidence and will not accept subjective evidence.

They have to do some pretty intricate mental gymnastics otherwise.

You are doing backflips across the room right now.

 

[Paterfamilia]

You're still not understanding subjectivism. One of the primary claims of subjectivism is that there is no God or any transcendent reality at all. How can a Christian then be a subjectivist?

You are conflating with colloquial.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

 

[Paterfamilia]

What is wrong with what Krauss said there? And I am dealing with people that are rude, arrogant, and wrong themselves. If someone can be polite to me I can be polite to them. They may still be obviously wrong, but at least they might learn.

Krauss said to ridicule beliefs. In practice he ridicules people. Big difference.

In his three part debate with Craig he started the first debate with 15 minutes of ridicule and ad hominem attacks, along with unfounded direct accusations of deceit. By the end of the third debate he took it all back and conceded that Craig is a sincere upstanding fellow.

But then in his rockstar movie with Dawkins, they sit and ridicule and defame Christians to the cheers and applause of thousands.

My belief is that it's a debate technique intended to cow your opponent into submission. Christians are easy to cow because we want to be Christ-like and inoffensive. Our hope is that by some miracle you (atheists) won't end up on the wrong end of Gods judgement.

If you reject us, we don't want that rejection to be because we have been offensive personally.

Of course many Christians are guilty, myself included, of offensive language. It's just hopefully very rare and it's not our "go to" technique. We admit that it goes against our moral foundation.

 

[sfs]

Okay, probably the biggeSt change would be how we interpret our findings, how we ground new hypotheses and how we fund future research.

I think that's what I already said.

Were you looking for something different?

Well, yes. I was looking for how the finding would change how we study evolution. Just at the moment I'm studying the evolution of Bebesia microti. The people in the next offices are sequencing the genomes of a bunch of mammals to study their evolution (among other things). How will what we do be changed by any finding about the origin of life?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Well, yes. I was looking for how the finding would change how we study evolution. Just at the moment I'm studying the evolution of Bebesia microti. The people in the next offices are sequencing the genomes of a bunch of mammals to study their evolution (among other things). How will what we do be changed by any finding about the origin of life?

Interpretation of findings: let's say you find significant stretches of non-coding DNA. ITS easy to assume and make the attribution that by naturalist prediction those stretches are junk. The trash of the process.

On the other hand, if you believe in fiat of God, you make a very different conclusion, that there is a purpose for the non-coding DNA that we have yet to uncover. We should therefore redouble our efforts to figure it out because it may unlock the secrets to a cure for cancers, or muscular distrophy or even aging.

Ground new hypotheses: if we know the source of our beginnings, it would also change how we hypothesize explanations for what we find to be physical realities, and therefore next best research step as well.

Of course research follows the money and not the other way around. Demonstrating the areas of potential that are going to hit the public hot buttons will of course generate funding for that research. The areas that most fully validate whatever particular origins theory that is proven would be the areas that attract the most money, if experience is to be trusted.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ha ha don't start!!

Are you saying you're not being rude youre just being funny?? Ha ha

I'm saying that you came into this thread with all the bluff, bluster, condescension and derision of a cocksure theist, and when you're asked to provide some evidence for your claims, you paint us all as "rude." It's disingenuous.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Well, yes. I was looking for how the finding would change how we study evolution. Just at the moment I'm studying the evolution of Bebesia microti. The people in the next offices are sequencing the genomes of a bunch of mammals to study their evolution (among other things). How will what we do be changed by any finding about the origin of life?

Let me ask you or anyone a similar question: How does belief in evolution affect a person's effectiveness as a physician?

 

[Paterfamilia]

I'm saying that you came into this thread with all the bluff, bluster, condescension and derision of a cocksure theist, and when you're asked to provide some evidence for your claims, you paint us all as "rude." It's disingenuous.

This is false. Straight up hitch. I paint the rude people as rude after they've been rude. I may be a bit cocky. Condescending? I don't think so, you'd have to show me.

Bluff and bluster? Never.

I and one other are the only ones to own up to mistakes. We all make them. Any other adults on this thread?

Accepting hitch of course. No mistakes ever ha ha ha

Was that rude? Ha ha ha

 

[sfs]

Interpretation of findings: let's say you find significant stretches of non-coding DNA. ITS easy to assume and make the attribution that by naturalist prediction those stretches are junk. The trash of the process.

Well, it would be easy to do that, but also really stupid. Why would I make such an assumption? (We don't think most of the human genome is nonfunctional because we just assumed it -- you know that, right?)

On the other hand, if you believe in fiat of God, you make a very different conclusion, that there is a purpose for the non-coding DNA that we have yet to uncover. We should therefore redouble our efforts to figure it out because it may unlock the secrets to a cure for cancers, or muscular distrophy or even aging.

I can't follow your logic here. If we somehow knew that the first life appeared by divine fiat, why would that say anything about noncoding DNA that we see today? The noncoding DNA wasn't there in the first life -- it's appeared during the course of evolution. And why would divine fiat rule out junk DNA? Most of the universe has no purpose related to human life. Why should the genome be any different?

Of course research follows the money and not the other way around. Demonstrating the areas of potential that are going to hit the public hot buttons will of course generate funding for that research. The areas that most fully validate whatever particular origins theory that is proven would be the areas that attract the most money, if experience is to be trusted.

But the origins hypotheses you're talking about still have nothing to do with evolution, so why would they affect funding for evolution research? We research evolution because it tells us thing about the natural world; divine fiat origin of life won't change that at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is false. Straight up hitch. I paint the rude people as rude after they've been rude. I may be a bit cocky. Condescending? I don't think so, you'd have to show me.

Bluff and bluster? Never.

I and one other are the only ones to own up to mistakes. We all make them. Any other adults on this thread?

Accepting hitch of course. No mistakes ever ha ha ha

Was that rude? Ha ha ha

See, there you go, ha ha ha. Have I ever claimed I don't make mistakes, and when I do, that I don't own up to them?
Don't be silly.

 

[sfs]

Let me ask you or anyone a similar question: How does belief in evolution affect a person's effectiveness as a physician?

It's obviously important for a physician to understand evolution of drug resistance, and infectious disease physicians should know how evolution causes immune evasion and failure of diagnostic tests. But belief in larger scale evolution is probably irrelevant to most physicians' effectiveness. Many biomedical researchers, on the other hand, would be crippled scientifically if they rejected evolution.

 

[Paterfamilia]

See, there you go, ha ha ha. Have I ever claimed I don't make mistakes, and when I do, that I don't own up to them?
Don't be silly.

That's why I accepted you brother! Ha ha

 

[Loudmouth]

You're still not understanding subjectivism. One of the primary claims of subjectivism is that there is no God or any transcendent reality at all.

That has been pulled out of thin air.

"Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience".[1] In other words, subjectivism is the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth. The success of this position is historically attributed to Descartes and his methodic doubt.[1] Subjectivism accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law.[2] In extreme forms like Solipsism, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends solely on someone's subjective awareness of it. One may consider the qualified empiricism of George Berkeley in this context, given his reliance on God as the prime mover of human perception. Thus, subjectivism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

In no way does subjectivism say that there is no God.

How can a Christian then be a subjectivist?

I already gave you multiple examples.

 

[Paterfamilia]

It's obviously important for a physician to understand evolution of drug resistance, and infectious disease physicians should know how evolution causes immune evasion and failure of diagnostic tests. But belief in larger scale evolution is probably irrelevant to most physicians' effectiveness. Many biomedical researchers, on the other hand, would be crippled scientifically if they rejected evolution.

Well I am not a bio-medical researcher - I would have to take your word for it. But I know that when I was applying to med school and studying for the MCAT, evolution was a hot button topic. Anyone who rejected the theory was absolutely penalized.

The purpose of the universe is a subject for a different thread, but I do disagree with your assertion that it has no purpose.

Why would you say that non-coding DNA is not there in first life? I would cite that as an assumption, and probably a wrong assumption, based on your world view. An instance of the importance of understanding the first cause.

Do you have any evidence that first life had no non-coding DNA?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well I am not a bio-medical researcher - I would have to take your word for it. But I know that when I was applying to med school and studying for the MCAT, evolution was a hot button topic. Anyone who rejected the theory was absolutely penalized.

Baloney. There is no question on the MCAT asking if you accept or reject the theory of evolution.

 

[Paterfamilia]

That has been pulled out of thin air.

"Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience".[1] In other words, subjectivism is the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth. The success of this position is historically attributed to Descartes and his methodic doubt.[1] Subjectivism accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law.[2] In extreme forms like Solipsism, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends solely on someone's subjective awareness of it. One may consider the qualified empiricism of George Berkeley in this context, given his reliance on God as the prime mover of human perception. Thus, subjectivism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

In no way does subjectivism say that there is no God.

Wow you are a glutton for punishment ha ha. As I said, there are subjectivists that claim belief in God. But then they have to reconcile their "no external or objective" truth attributions.

Dude anyone can claim to be anything. Why someone would want to claim both camps I have no idea.

You say "In no way does subjectivism say that there is no God."

Okay, describe for me the God of the subjectivist. How does one reconcile that there is no objective transcendent truth, with a belief in God? Wouldn't belief in God entail belief in an objective truth?

This is falsified on the grounds of logical incoherence.

You prove every time that you post on the subject that you don't understand it. When will it be enough?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Baloney. There is no question on the MCAT asking if you accept or reject the theory of evolution.

I didn't say that there was. Are you now going to say I didn't experience what I experienced?