1818 replies to this topic

[Deep Thought]

sthira: Of course there's evidence for Christianity: HIV. According to yall ztians, God gives AIDS to people he doesn't like. But like Sarah Silverman reminds -- when god gives you AIDS, it's an opportunity to make lemon-AIDS.

Evidence God doesn't like people with HIV. My church helps people with HIV. Do you? Do you think aids is evil?

My university helps people with HIV.
My physician helps people with HIV.
My countrymen sometimes help people with HIV.

My point is that what your church does, has little bearing on you outside of your being associated with them and vice versa in the strict meta-physical sense. I.e. the fact that your church does "good" deeds doesn't speak highly of God's character, because it is not God that commands them; their actions are only a reflection of the highly complex chemical reactions that go on in their brains, and the way they were nurtured.

I don't think AIDS is evil. An AIDS virus is not a living thing - it has no energy metabolism, no conscience and does not answer to objective morals. Though we may think of it as being evil.

Furthermore, there's no doubt in my mind that evil in the strict supernatural sense of the word does not exist exists.

Edited by Deep Thought, 28 January 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[Deep Thought]

johnross 47: In a general sense I can go along with much of this. This topic is going nowhere. SH keeps posting more and more clips of preachers claiming to prove the existence of a god; they are all wrong; all these arguments have been shown to be wrong over and over; no serious non-theist thinkers give them any time or credence. Even Plantinga accepts that if you deny his first premise then his version of the ontological argument fails;
ShadowHawk SH:
SH: First, you have not demonstrated them to be wrong. This is also a logical fallacy. I will show you soon what you actually contributed to proving them wrong http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

Second, Plantinga is right, if premise 1 of the ontological argument fails, the argument fails. You have not shown it to fail. “1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.”

I would say it fails for more reasons than that (as ignored by SH above) but it all goes nowhere.
SH: Nonsense read the argument. http://www.longecity...330#entry636990

We have occasional looks at the origins of the universe; again SH ducks the questions; SH: nonsense http://www.longecity...360#entry638337 we all agree it appears to have a beginning but don't share his enthusiasm for the unsupported jump of faith needed to say, "therefore it was a god". You might argue for ever about the definition of god; (religious people usually conduct those arguments with guns and swords; they obviously don't have much faith in reasoning) but there's not much to go on except holy books written by people who couldn't and didn't have any evidence or understanding of the nature of the problem.
SH: nonsense, we have argued these points throughout. http://www.longecity...360#entry638337
I suppose that if you aim towards the currently floated hypothesis that the universe began with a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum, you might propose that the, potentially, infinite vacuum could have an intelligence of sorts, arising from structure within it that we can't see. This is, of course, pure hypothesis and more or less incapable of evidential examination, and there is absolutely no reason to imagine that such an intelligence resembles any of the gods devised so far, or that it would care a toss about what people do in bed or on Sunday. Our universe might be a simple accident to something that big, or a brief and temporary amusement; a throwing of celestial mechanical dice to see what happens. Whatever, it's a long way from christianity.

SH: we have not argued for anything but the existence of God. Not which God. We will do that soon. http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

Why is it possible that a maximally great being exists? Even though there may be an infinite number of universes, we can't know for sure if the laws of physics are not the same.

But how far can the laws of physics be stretched? If there's a universe that destroys every other universe? If that was the case would have been destroyed - therefore I don't think there's an infinite variance of the laws of physics. And I think it's reasonable to conclude that a maximally great being definitely does not exist.

[johnross47]

johnross 47: In a general sense I can go along with much of this. This topic is going nowhere. SH keeps posting more and more clips of preachers claiming to prove the existence of a god; they are all wrong; all these arguments have been shown to be wrong over and over; no serious non-theist thinkers give them any time or credence. Even Plantinga accepts that if you deny his first premise then his version of the ontological argument fails;
ShadowHawk SH:
SH: First, you have not demonstrated them to be wrong. This is also a logical fallacy. I will show you soon what you actually contributed to proving them wrong http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

Second, Plantinga is right, if premise 1 of the ontological argument fails, the argument fails. You have not shown it to fail. “1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.”

I would say it fails for more reasons than that (as ignored by SH above) but it all goes nowhere.
SH: Nonsense read the argument. http://www.longecity...330#entry636990

We have occasional looks at the origins of the universe; again SH ducks the questions; SH: nonsense http://www.longecity...360#entry638337 we all agree it appears to have a beginning but don't share his enthusiasm for the unsupported jump of faith needed to say, "therefore it was a god". You might argue for ever about the definition of god; (religious people usually conduct those arguments with guns and swords; they obviously don't have much faith in reasoning) but there's not much to go on except holy books written by people who couldn't and didn't have any evidence or understanding of the nature of the problem.
SH: nonsense, we have argued these points throughout. http://www.longecity...360#entry638337
I suppose that if you aim towards the currently floated hypothesis that the universe began with a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum, you might propose that the, potentially, infinite vacuum could have an intelligence of sorts, arising from structure within it that we can't see. This is, of course, pure hypothesis and more or less incapable of evidential examination, and there is absolutely no reason to imagine that such an intelligence resembles any of the gods devised so far, or that it would care a toss about what people do in bed or on Sunday. Our universe might be a simple accident to something that big, or a brief and temporary amusement; a throwing of celestial mechanical dice to see what happens. Whatever, it's a long way from christianity.

SH: we have not argued for anything but the existence of God. Not which God. We will do that soon. http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

Each point you make is beside the point or fails to address it directly or with logical argument.
"Even Plantinga accepts that if you deny his first premise then his version of the ontological argument fails;" is what I said. I didn't use the word fail and nor did Plantinga....he accepts that some people simply deny the first premise....and he also accepts that it makes perfect logical sense to negate it. (I don't have the reference to hand because of moving house)
"I would say it fails for more reasons than that (as ignored by SH above) but it all goes nowhere" your objection is incorrect....you have presented no counters to my points; you didn't even try.
SH: First, you have not demonstrated them to be wrong. This is also a logical fallacy. Look again..

"they are all wrong; all these arguments have been shown to be wrong over and over; no serious non-theist thinkers give them any time or credence" Where do you see any claims about what I have done?

your whole response goes on like this. Red Herrings, Straw Men, Logical Fallacies; you've got them all.
This is why you are a waste of time, and wasting your own proselitizing time.

[shadowhawk]

sthira: Of course there's evidence for Christianity: HIV. According to yall ztians, God gives AIDS to people he doesn't like. But like Sarah Silverman reminds -- when god gives you AIDS, it's an opportunity to make lemon-AIDS.

Evidence God doesn't like people with HIV. My church helps people with HIV. Do you? Do you think aids is evil?

My university helps people with HIV.
My physician helps people with HIV.
My countrymen sometimes help people with HIV.

My point is that what your church does, has little bearing on you outside of your being associated with them and vice versa in the strict meta-physical sense. I.e. the fact that your church does "good" deeds doesn't speak highly of God's character, because it is not God that commands them; their actions are only a reflection of the highly complex chemical reactions that go on in their brains, and the way they were nurtured.

I don't think AIDS is evil. An AIDS virus is not a living thing - it has no energy metabolism, no conscience and does not answer to objective morals. Though we may think of it as being evil.

Furthermore, there's no doubt in my mind that evil in the strict supernatural sense of the word does not exist exists.

Here is one vote for HIV not being evil. a number of my friends died from aids. Is there any evil, in any way associated with AIDS? Oh, you did say there was no evil. Birds and other critters die, it is just natural. OK.

[shadowhawk]

sthira: Of course there's evidence for Christianity: HIV. According to yall ztians, God gives AIDS to people he doesn't like. But like Sarah Silverman reminds -- when god gives you AIDS, it's an opportunity to make lemon-AIDS.

Evidence God doesn't like people with HIV. My church helps people with HIV. Do you? Do you think aids is evil?

My university helps people with HIV.
My physician helps people with HIV.
My countrymen sometimes help people with HIV.

My point is that what your church does, has little bearing on you outside of your being associated with them and vice versa in the strict meta-physical sense. I.e. the fact that your church does "good" deeds doesn't speak highly of God's character, because it is not God that commands them; their actions are only a reflection of the highly complex chemical reactions that go on in their brains, and the way they were nurtured.

I don't think AIDS is evil. An AIDS virus is not a living thing - it has no energy metabolism, no conscience and does not answer to objective morals. Though we may think of it as being evil.

Furthermore, there's no doubt in my mind that evil in the strict supernatural sense of the word does not exist exists.

Absolutely sure. No doubt! Complex chemicals. Well you have it wrong about the Church.
How do you know?

[shadowhawk]

jojnross47: Each point you make is beside the point or fails to address it directly or with logical argument. ShjadowHawk, SH: Hardly. Show me. You have no real points

"Even Plantinga accepts that if you deny his first premise then his version of the ontological argument fails;" is what I said. I didn't use the word fail and nor did Plantinga....he accepts that some people simply deny the first premise....and he also accepts that it makes perfect logical sense to negate it. (I don't have the reference to hand because of moving house) SH: Perhaps it is because it doesn’t exist n the form you just stated it.

"I would say it fails for more reasons than that (as ignored by SH above) but it all goes nowhere"
SH: You gave no reasons nor did you make any valid points. You simply declared yourself a winner.

your objection is incorrect....you have presented no counters to my points; you didn't even try.
SH: First, you have no points to demonstrated them to be wrong. This is also a logical fallacy. Look again..

"they are all wrong; all these arguments have been shown to be wrong over and over; no serious non-theist thinkers give them any time or credence" Where do you see any claims about what I have done? SH: are you telling me these atheist debaters are not serious non-theists? http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480983
Do you really want to see your non existent clams?

your whole response goes on like this. Red Herrings, Straw Men, Logical Fallacies; you've got them all. SH: so do you!
This is why you are a waste of time, and wasting your own proselitizing time. SH: You have said this before.

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 January 2014 - 04:10 AM.

[sthira]

A world without God would be a far better, friendlier and happier place.

A world without God doesn't mean that world-anarchy will eminently ensue. 

Kick out god, and nothing changes (since god doesn't exist anyway) and everything changes for the better for us: one example: the centuries-old burden of hatred amongst people fighting over whose god is coolest disappears.  Bye, god.  Maybe we can all relax and breathe again without all these god people shouting over our higher sensibilities.

Kick out god, and we still adhere to the laws of the land and the moral codes taught to us by our societies and parents. 

End the belief in god, and we could learn to have greater respect for planet Earth and all of its beautiful life.  Human life is special and cool, sure, but we ain't the center of the shit.  If all humans disappear, then all beliefs in god disappear right alongside them.

Bye-bye, God.  Good riddance, and have fun being as non-existent as you've always been.

[sthira]

Here is one vote for HIV not being evil. a number of my friends died from aids. Is there any evil, in any way associated with AIDS?

General note of forum politeness: people, PLEASE learn how to trim your discussion, and refrain from reposting entire blocks of text. It's simple, please do it.

Meanwhile, SH has friends who died from HIV. I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your losses. Honestly, sincerely. In the same breath I'd also like to know if you believe as your Christian colleagues believe that god sent AIDS as a punishment not only to homosexuals, but god also is punishing the society that "permits" (haha such weird language) homosexuals?

Dear Shadowhawk: did god send AIDS to punish people?

[johnross47]

jojnross47: Each point you make is beside the point or fails to address it directly or with logical argument. ShjadowHawk, SH: Hardly. Show me. You have no real points

"Even Plantinga accepts that if you deny his first premise then his version of the ontological argument fails;" is what I said. I didn't use the word fail and nor did Plantinga....he accepts that some people simply deny the first premise....and he also accepts that it makes perfect logical sense to negate it. (I don't have the reference to hand because of moving house) SH: Perhaps it is because it doesn’t exist n the form you just stated it.

"I would say it fails for more reasons than that (as ignored by SH above) but it all goes nowhere"
SH: You gave no reasons nor did you make any valid points. You simply declared yourself a winner.

your objection is incorrect....you have presented no counters to my points; you didn't even try.
SH: First, you have no points to demonstrated them to be wrong. This is also a logical fallacy. Look again..

"they are all wrong; all these arguments have been shown to be wrong over and over; no serious non-theist thinkers give them any time or credence" Where do you see any claims about what I have done? SH: are you telling me these atheist debaters are not serious non-theists? http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480983
Do you really want to see your non existent clams?

your whole response goes on like this. Red Herrings, Straw Men, Logical Fallacies; you've got them all. SH: so do you!
This is why you are a waste of time, and wasting your own proselitizing time. SH: You have said this before.

You are really one of the most offensive people I've ever wasted time on. Are you calling me a liar? Really? Sitting there in California you know I'm not in the middle of moving house? You lie, you smear, you misrepresent and you constantly accuse everyone else of the things you do yourself.

[sthira]

Aww dear John, don't despair, and good luck with the moving.  As you're slinging around dusty boxes, just remember: SH's ztian god doesn't even rank in the top ten of today's most interesting and hip gods.  According to godchecker.com (pst: and that's using their patented GodRank™ technology) the angry old fart-knocker ztian god ain't even in the top 15.

Check out Raven!  

All Shall Worship Now The Great God Raven!  Way more interesting...

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: You are really one of the most offensive people I've ever wasted time on. Are you calling me a liar? Really? Sitting there in California you know I'm not in the middle of moving house? You lie, you smear, you misrepresent and you constantly accuse everyone else of the things you do yourself.

No I don’t know you are NOT in the middle of moving house. How could I. Have a nice move, by the way.
I lie, I smear, I misrepresent, and constantly accuse everyone of what I do? Show me where I did this?
http://www.longecity...420#entry639807

You are the one doing this in reality. Did you call me a liar? Ad Hominine and Name calling. Not unusual. Proof, see my next post.

[shadowhawk]

JOHNROSS 47, AN EXAMPLE OF ATHEISTS DERAILING THE TOPIC NAME CALLING, VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES and LOGICAL FALLACIES. And this is just one topic. http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
Oct. 23, 2013
His arguments always require a leap from logic to unsupported assertion. He just hides it better, in a flurry of showmanship, like a fairground snake-oil salesman.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619355
This is another piece of conjuring.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619380
I a not impressed by your reference to a God gene. That is tabloid press overinterpretation of shoddy research, the same as the silly idea that there is a special centre in the brain that works for religion.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619774
I struggle to cope with the idea that anyone could take such peurile nonsense seriously. Can you find anyone else on the planet who can't see the hilarious silliness is proposition 2? The cause of the universe is an unsolved question. I could say it was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden with as much justification and grip on reality.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619821
I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623323
I've put many logical points here.....you never address them....you either post another link or a short irrelevant insult. If you produced your objections to my posts in your own words and in the form of a proper logical discussion, I would treat you with more respect.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623447
I don't believe in any of the proposed gods. i have never seen a sound argument for accepting any of the god propositions. I do find the mental gymnastics of believers fascinating. From a psychological point of view, the mental gyrations of intelligent and educated believers tell us a lot about how the mind works, and the evolution of gods, from the completely understandable primitive forms to the modern versions, tells us a lot about the history of human understanding and culture.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623500
Once again you demonstrate your inability to deal with anything other than competitive quoting. The last few posts all dealt calmly and rationally with the problem of the possibility of evidence for any sort of religion, but you just declare it to be off topic
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623693
True believers are major practitioners of voluntary confirmation bias. Shadowhawk probably actually genuinely believes he has answered my points but in fact he has never even gone as far as to admit their existence
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623784
He teaches logic? At a university? Really? Which one; there's not a lot in Scotts Valley since Bethany U. closed down in 2011.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623912
the fundamental problem with all of these arguments is that they are trivial semantic tricks, but they have other flaws as well.

....he is indulging in dishonesty as well as cheap semantic trickery.
http://www.longecity...120#entry624206
Sarcastic remarks befitting a "teacher from hell" do nothing to advance the argument.

ID and its variants are an attempt to use pseudo-science and superficial compliance with scientific method to fake up an argument in support of the same old religious position its proponents have always held.

More "teacher from hell" fury
http://www.longecity...120#entry625186
do you read responses? If so do you understand what you've read? Do you struggle with reading comprehension? ....Do you write? Are you able to form your own thoughts and express them, or is it all just copy, paste, and videos of others' ideas? Do you have thoughts on these matters you're able to communicate?...I have asked him these questions too; over and over, and never had a meaningful answer. He raises a point then abuses you for being "off topic" or calls your answer a logical fallacy, but without ever offering any argument to back this up...This passage is a perfect example of the incoherent rage and misrepresentation that he resorts too...
http://www.longecity...120#entry625349
"There's no evidence of the supernatural claims of Christianity, but there's plenty of evidence of Christianity's brainwashing, as perfectly evidenced in this topic."
http://www.longecity...150#entry625777
what a load of rubbish. Talking fast doesn't improve the quality of the rubbish and just because he piles it high doesn't mean it turns to gold. These are just the same arguments we've seen over and over, and dismissed just as often. They didn't hold water last week and they'll still leak like sieves next week. The only difference this time is that the format is obviously aimed at bolstering the faith of the most credulous and uneducated believers.
I see no point in elaborating. You haven't given a reasoned objection on any of the many times I've elaborated before. If you can't participate like the adults on this forum why don't you go somewhere else?
http://www.longecity...150#entry625800

He's basically a religiously obsessed troll and I should just learn to ignore him.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626020
You may not have noticed but you're talking to yourself. You denied the existence and sincerity of everyone else's contributions so they've all gone away to somewhere an actual conversation is taking place.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627792
Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for crude errors and misunderstanding of basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words....much of this stuff is just a case of piling shit into very high heaps.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629696
So I gave you chance to act like a decent honest human. You failed. Goodbye.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630367
His ultimate justification for his conversion is that he had an experience; confusing events entirely in his brain with external reality, which is practically the definition schizophrenia. Many of the statements of religious people would be signs of mental illness if made outside a religious context. I've given him chance after chance to engage in a proper analysis of arguments but he only responds with abuse and derision. Looking over his performance in other topics I would have agree; there is a pattern.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630418
There is something quite self deluding about the believers claim to know what lies beyond current knowledge. The fact that science cannot answer the question might be regarded as a warning sign by sensible people, but the believer steps right in and says " We know the answer."
http://www.longecity...210#entry631071
You are more guilty of all these logical errors than anyone else Shadowhawk. You are entranced by cheap semantic tricks and shabby failed old "proofs" that nobody takes seriously, except W L Craig, who nobody takes seriously. Additionally you constantly abuse people in the most gratuitously insulting way, and presume to know things about them that, really, you clearly don't.
http://www.longecity...240#entry634080
The Kalam is a shabby seive....There are a huge number of flaws in this tired old argument. It should have been allowed to rest in its grave rather than being resurrected by Craig. One simple problem in it is that the argument as a whole is a compounding error.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634607
You've summed up this nonsense pretty completely. How can somebody who claims to be a teacher of logic possibly give this more than the few seconds needed to see that it is so trivially stupid that it it isn't even wrong. It's not wrong because it is so far from being any kind of coherent argument that it doesn't fit into any kind of error category. Don't expect any sort of reasoned explanation of why he thought it was worth posting; he never explains why he is shouting, "off topic", or "logical fallacy", or "straw man" or whatever is his insult of the week. I have never yet seen him explain any claimed logical objection. Not once. Not ever.
http://www.longecity...270#entry635057
As usual you have ducked the issue when somebody makes a criticism of your logic. Answer the point or admit you can't.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635439
I'm challenging you again...answer the point instead of pretending that nothing has been said. Prove your not a fraud.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635586
Like all these proofs, the immediate reaction to this, of any reasonable uncommitted person, is a strong feeling that it is nonsense; it looks like logic and it all seems to be in working order, but an ordinary grade BS detector tells you something is wrong. It's very wrong. This crock can be used to prove the existence of just about anything, gods, man-eating teapots, fairies, whatever you like. It's all in the definition used at the start. You can use it to prove god does not exist by negating the first premise. It is a great source of silliness because it is ultimately worthless.
http://www.longecity...330#entry636845
The argument is worthless because it can used to prove the existence of things, such as fairies, which are patently absurd. This alone is enough to expose it as a mere semantic conjuring trick. Powerful tools, like guns and modal logic, should not be put in the hands of infants, madmen or people with an axe to grind.
http://www.longecity...330#entry637384
One of the many difficulties involved in arguing with Christians is their incorrigible dishonesty. It's exactly the same problem as when creationists and intelligent designers say that they are not claiming that a specific god did it. ...
http://www.longecity...330#entry637969
find it hard to understand how a grown adult can seek to use such shamelessly aggressive denials when the facts are only a short scroll away....Just because something is possible does not make it actual, and when you combine it with the definitional issues you have chosen to avoid confronting, the whole thing is exposed as a steaming pile. S5 is a very dangerous piece of sophistry.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638268
No doubt you will declare yourself the winner simply by repeating all the rubbish over and over and ignoring all the other poster's points. Then you can reward yourself with some emoticons. Do you really imagine anyone will waste their time going back over your endless paste jobs? They don't suddenly become correct by repetition.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638353
The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638543
I would treat you with more respect if you behaved better. Everyone else presents points and addresses the points made by others. You keep trying to compel everyone to talk only to you. Your comment about trying to derail the topic is very revealing; do you start the topic with a rigid plan which concludes with us all converting? In an open discussion nobody should be dictating the proceedings. It isn't actually a crime to pursue the topic as we want, or to examine aspects of it that you find inconvenient.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638579

Logical fallacies galolre, name calling and attempts to derail the topic.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 January 2014 - 11:47 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I want to recap some reasons why people think that God exists.

• The kalam cosmological argument and the Big Bang theory
• The fine-tuning argument from cosmological constants and quantities
• The origin of life, part 1 of 2: the building blocks of life
• The origin of life, part 2 of 2: biological information
• The sudden origin of phyla in the Cambrian explosion
• Galactic habitable zones and circumstellar habitable zones
• Irreducible complexity in molecular machines
• The creative limits of natural selection and random mutation
• Angus Menuge’s ontological argument from reason
• Alvin Plantinga’s epistemological argument from reason
• William Lane Craig’s moral argument
• The unexpected applicability of mathematics to nature

In addition to these arguments for theism, Christians would make be some sort of minimal facts case for the resurrection, one that leverages the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. And some sort of case for the early belief that Jesus was divine. We will get to some of these evidences later onm

[sthira]

I want to recap some reasons why people think that God exists.

Haha!  Awesome!  I still think this thread could use a big ole slobby happy innocent healthy hug.  Imagine that!  A hug full of haters!  Hugging each other with stoic grit and determination hoping the entire "intimate" experience doesn't break down into godlessly heathenistically awful burning iches of sin.  And Hell!  To which love ALL shall burn in HELL for ETERNITY.  Exclamation point.

And here now behold, in the ancient halls of this newborn tech art of internet forums we have the mighty Shadowhawk compiling the world's finest arguments and videos for the Cheering of Christianization.  Breathtaking!  Oh!  Finely done, gentlemen, finely done!  Give that boy a brandy!  Give em a cigar!  What great art amongst such heartlessly cruel interlocutors, we clap our hands for you!  Cheer!  Oh!  Shadowhawk!  Magnificent!  What a treasure that you're compiling all this trash!  Kinda like the Walmart of Christianity.  Shop here for "Bravery" and turn down this aisle for "Wrath!". Boo-hoo no, not Christmas "Wreaths" but Christian WRATH!

Please entitle your monument to: (large caps, huge red font) Shadowhawk's Journey: From Trash To Wrath.  Your first book title!  Oh, totally do this, man.  Please self-publish all your work for Future Generations.  Exclamation points all around!

[YOLF]

Sorry for the exception, but why attack SH (rhetorical)? If he's doing all of this and genuinely believes literally in the sense that the uninformed do, you're just stoning him into his beliefs and reinforcing his ignorance unless I'm missing something, though it does look like he's giving a little. If that's the case you should be more humanist unless you want to punish him for being ignorant... Again, I'm keeping my assumptions unmade... I don't see a reason to attack him in any case, I'd just want to be sure he isn't leading anyone to ignorance.

[sthira]

Sorry for the exception, but why attack SH (rhetorical)? If he's doing all of this and genuinely believes literally in the sense that the uninformed do, you're just stoning him into his beliefs and reinforcing his ignorance unless I'm missing something, though it does look like he's giving a little. If that's the case you should be more humanist unless you want to punish him for being ignorant... Again, I'm keeping my assumptions unmade... I don't see a reason to attack him in any case, I'd just want to be sure he isn't leading anyone to ignorance.

Right on, man.  And trust me I think we're all being as gentle with this writer as possible.  Well.  Hmm.  Maybe sometimes lines get crossed over the thread -- smeared, scratched -- and it's hard to see out the window (so to speak since you're an artist).  Disrespectful and rude, awful language we've tapped here amongst us.  Is this healthy?  Tapping little violence.  Venting religious animosity on public forums -- is this good for society or not?  I don't know.  Maybe more information, more education, more quiet, reflective moments alone with these massively complex issues -- god, the universe, human ethics and behavior, historical tragedies -- maybe all would be healthier faced alone than internet shouting.  Maybe some venting is healthy.  Or are we just poking deep wounds?

You decide: The Cryonicsculture Cure

[shadowhawk]

STHIRA, AD HOMININE ATTACKS, NAME CALLING, OFF TOPIC DERAILMENTS, VIOLATION OF THE FORUM RULES, LOGICAL FALLACIES.
Atheists can’t stand a rational free speach discussion of the issues.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Ruels http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
Oct 9, 2013
The idea of God is passed genetically, God has been naturally selected. The idea could also be a virus we catch that has different strains, eg, Hinduism, Judaism, Baha'i... The idea of God could also be part of Jung's collective unconscious. Or whatever. The idea of God has many manifestations, some of which may be too wild and far out for suburban Christian heads. ...
no one knows if God is real or God is not real
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616774
Most of us (scientists, academicians, thinkers, artists) are trained to ignore Jesus people. As best as we can we try to ignore you. Dear God: Save Us From Your Followers. But you're noisy, you're persistent, and you're annoying. ...
we don't believe the same fucked up schizophrenic wrathful shit you do.... Do you realize how crazy you appear? Nope. So rather than engage you in crazy, we ignore you, we let you go away: just go: just go: and just go: and just go away and believe whatever you'd like. Go in peace, man: freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. ...Your history is a bloodbath. You've exiled, tortured, or killed those who won't adhere to your faith. You've done it before, you'll probably do it again. You'll exile, torture or kill we who don't find you pleasant or nice. History repeats itself, and as sure as the sun rises your violent history will attempt to repeat. Until then: go in peace, and we'll work to stop you from committing more violence.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618128
What I don't understand is the shame associated with the simple fact that we don't know if god exists or not. Do humble puja and repeat ten thousand times: we don't know. What's wrong with ignorance? Amazing things exist within this universe of which we're ignorant. Why then is ignorance of illogical, supernatural entities so shameful to religious people who must prove their gods exist or else all be damned?...
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623539
This is the better conversation to have, imho, rather than rehashing ad nauseum the same ole religio-shiz. We created mean, grandfatherly bearded sky god(s) and then dismantled them centuries ago. As Nietzsche wrote "...not everyone has gotten the news..."...we know that we don't know if god exists. We also know we don't know if other dimensions exist beyond these in which we're encased. We don't know what happens beyond the speed of light, for example, but we calculate that time and space "cease to exist." Past the speed of light is completely irrational to us -- like god -- but that doesn't necessarily mean new realities or dimensions cannot unfold past our reasoned limits. But until we have evidence of "more" than what's in this universe then it's faith and the wild ass speculation of scifi. Cosmology is fun! It's a pity that religiosity infects it in the pop arena.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623606
Do tell us how "we are getting close" God is coming soon? Do you have direct communication with the Almighty? Is He giving you a voice?
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623751
We see this reflected in you: you've been repeatedly shown you're mistaken in much of your copy and paste bold big-fonted words, and yet you keep shouting on and on in your threatening little charming cardboard cutout manner. Stick around and keep proselytizing for Jesus -- you're great, ur amusing us! Dance, little puppet for j-dolla bill.
http://www.longecity...120#entry625216
A few questions. First, do you read responses? If so do you understand what you've read? Do you struggle with reading comprehension?... A few more questions. Do you write? Are you able to form your own thoughts and express them, or is it all just copy, paste, and videos of others' ideas? Do you have thoughts on these matters you're able to communicate?
http://www.longecity...120#entry625294
Yeah, I agree he's a funny fellow. Generally, I'm not too interested in religious people or thought, and I'm not quite sure why I keep posting stuff here. SH is amusing, but I agree I'd like to see more original thought, and less of other people's ideas. If I want to know what some Jesus channel darling has to say I guess I'd find it on my own. He appears to be proselytizing for whatever reason, who knows....
http://www.longecity...120#entry625428
...if we're talking about the Xtian god of SH, then I'm with you: it's a myth that we've outgrown. It's dying a slow painful death, and we say good riddance. Once upon a time this Xtian god was clearly useful to certain sections of the human population (mostly white, power-holding males) but today it's antiquated and in need of updates.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635499
Maybe god doesn't want us to believe in god. Since god won't give us one clue or another, god wants us to be atheists. God is like way too almighty to be acknowledged. You know, like high school. God is the really boss kid and too cool to nod a simple "Hi!" to the rest of us dorks straggling in the hallways of life. ...
http://www.longecity...330#entry638013
If god sparked the big bang -- bully for you, god, thanks for our suffering little lives. But what does god's existence or non-existence have to do with anyone's daily life since god doesn't care one way or another about ongoing communication?
http://www.longecity...360#entry638099
God: Now I shall appoint you, Shadowhawk, as my hawkingly shadowy voice. On an internet forum about vitamins, thou shalt use giant, colored fonts to argue up my Being...
Shadowhawk: thanks, God, I'll post a bunch of random YouTube polemics, repeat ad nauseum lists of the names and descriptions of logical fallacies ("I teach logic" you know), and then I'll copy and paste other dude's sentences about your glorious glory, etc, etc....
God: thou shalt do these things and more, Shadowhawk, since I'm too almightily cool for any of those human fuckwads on that tiresome nootropically obsessed site
http://www.longecity...360#entry638109
Of course there's evidence for Christianity: HIV. According to yall ztians, God gives AIDS to people he doesn't like. But like Sarah Silverman reminds -- when god gives you AIDS, it's an opportunity to make lemon-AIDS.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639590
Jerry Fallwell says: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
Thus, God's existence is proven
http://www.longecity...390#entry639596
Haha oh shiiit this is so messed up. But I quote:
"God proved His love on the Cross. When Christ hung, and bled, and died, it was God saying to the world, 'I love you.'
Billy Graham
http://www.longecity...390#entry639598
Deuteronomy 23:1: "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
Durn, god, I don't know about you, god. But that shit just doesn't sound like a decent way for you to be behaving, dear god. God? Well, god or however we're supposed to address You. Your Youness. Your Highly High & All Alliness. Uppidy Upness, I mean, gosh god we don't even know how You would like us to address Your Youness since You won't say. Do You like our names? Do you, You? ...
But really it's a fucking insult to intelligence that the god-chase expressed so awfully in this thread continues ad nauseum. Let's kick god the hell out forever. Bye-bye god, fare thee well, god, and do come back if you ever feel like helping to relieve any of the suffering of your creatures. Meanwhile, we sinful and hated little humans will stick to science and technology to solve our problems and heal our wounds
http://www.longecity...390#entry639618
A world without God would be a far better, friendlier and happier place....Kick out god, and nothing changes (since god doesn't exist anyway) and everything changes for the better for us: one example: the centuries-old burden of hatred amongst people fighting over whose god is coolest disappears. Bye, god. Maybe we can all relax and breathe again without all these god people shouting over our higher sensibilities....Kick out god, and we still adhere to the laws of the land and the moral codes taught to us by our societies and parents....
End the belief in god, and we could learn to have greater respect for planet Earth and all of its beautiful life. Human life is special and cool, sure, but we ain't the center of the shit. If all humans disappear, then all beliefs in god disappear right alongside them.....
Bye-bye, God. Good riddance, and have fun being as non-existent as you've always been.
http://www.longecity...420#entry639870
Meanwhile, SH has friends who died from HIV. I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your losses. Honestly, sincerely. In the same breath I'd also like to know if you believe as your Christian colleagues believe that god sent AIDS as a punishment not only to homosexuals, but god also is punishing the society that "permits" (haha such weird language) homosexuals?...
Dear Shadowhawk: did god send AIDS to punish people?

http://www.longecity...420#entry639876
SH's ztian god doesn't even rank in the top ten of today's most interesting and hip gods. According to godchecker.com (pst: and that's using their patented GodRank™ technology) the angry old fart-knocker ztian god ain't even in the top 15....
Check out Raven! ...
All Shall Worship Now The Great God Raven! Way more interesting...
http://www.longecity...420#entry639909
Haha! Awesome! I still think this thread could use a big ole slobby happy innocent healthy hug. Imagine that! A hug full of haters! Hugging each other with stoic grit and determination hoping the entire "intimate" experience doesn't break down into godlessly heathenistically awful burning iches of sin. And Hell! To which love ALL shall burn in HELL for ETERNITY. Exclamation point.... And here now behold, in the ancient halls of this newborn tech art of internet forums we have the mighty Shadowhawk compiling the world's finest arguments and videos for the Cheering of Christianization. Breathtaking! Oh! Finely done, gentlemen, finely done! Give that boy a brandy! Give em a cigar! What great art amongst such heartlessly cruel interlocutors, we clap our hands for you! Cheer! Oh! Shadowhawk! Magnificent! What a treasure that you're compiling all this trash! Kinda like the Walmart of Christianity. Shop here for "Bravery" and turn down this aisle for "Wrath!". Boo-hoo no, not Christmas "Wreaths" but Christian WRATH!....Please entitle your monument to: (large caps, huge red font) Shadowhawk's Journey: From Trash To Wrath. Your first book title! Oh, totally do this, man. Please self-publish all your work for Future Generations. Exclamation points all around!
http://www.longecity...420#entry640001

FORUM RULES
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554

TO POST 433

[DukeNukem]

If any god actually wanted the world to believe in her or his existence, they could have done a far far better job than leaving it up to full-of-holes arguments. Why not have the face of god etched on the moon, always looking down on us to remind us of his ever-presence? Instead, we get horribly contradictory tomes like the Quran and Bible, that can't get any science right, make no correct predictions about our future, and are full of moral failings to lead us. If we are to believe the Bible, the points of lights in the sky (no one knew they were far-off stars during Biblical times) are suppose to fall to earth during the end-times. C'mon you gods -- know your science for crying out loud!

[shadowhawk]

MIND/BODY DUALISM

[shadowhawk]

DukeNukem: If any god actually wanted the world to believe in her or his existence, they could have done a far far better job than leaving it up to full-of-holes arguments. Why not have the face of god etched on the moon, always looking down on us to remind us of his ever-presence?

Would that do it for you, a face etched on the moon? The man in the moon. If only he was real we would have another believer. Sounds about right.

Instead, we get horribly contradictory tomes like the Quran and Bible, that can't get any science right, make no correct predictions about our future, and are full of moral failings to lead us. If we are to believe the Bible, the points of lights in the sky (no one knew they were far-off stars during Biblical times) are suppose to fall to earth during the end-times. C'mon you gods -- know your science for crying out loud!

This is called :

THE GARBAGE TRUCK FALLACY
1. A. Dumps a pile of issues all at once, so big that it would take B. writing a book to answer them all.
2. A. claims they win the issue when B. can’t or wont answer them.

Sometimes there are so many issues that is impossible to answer them all.
Sometimes there is a general charge about everything. Example, the Bible is unscientific.

We still call them “falling stars,” for crying out loud. Don’t we know our science?

[shadowhawk]

EVIDENCE
1. An atheist (or group of atheists) will demand evidence for God. OK
2. You respond by giving them evidence for God.
3. They just label it a fallacy (or worse, say that ‘arguments are not evidence’) and repudiate it.
4. They ask for evidence again.
5. You reply with, “I just gave you evidence, you didn’t address it. What do you mean by evidence?”
6. The atheist(s) reply, “STUPID CHRISTIAN! DON’T TRY TO REDEFINE EVIDENCE! GIVE ME EVIDENCE!!!11?

See below, Books but it will take some study. Evidence. Some think God is simple, don't read books, tapes, videos, or other peoples ideas.
See also next summary.

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Moreland and Craig)
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Moreland and Craig)
The Rationality of Theism (Copan and Moser)
The Existence of God (Swineburn)
Warranted Christian Belief (Plantinga)
Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics (Craig, Copan and others)
Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy and Science (Dembski and Licona)

[DukeNukem]

All of these arguments for god are flawed, outdated, or ignore counter-evidence.

Just saw this today on rebuking to silly moral argument for gods:

Paul Bloom debunks the “Moral Law argument for God”
http://whyevolutioni...gument-for-god/

[shadowhawk]

When do we have enough evidence? So far we have just presented evidence for God.

[shadowhawk]

All of these arguments for god are flawed, outdated, or ignore counter-evidence.

Just saw this today on rebuking to silly moral argument for gods:

Paul Bloom debunks the “Moral Law argument for God”
http://whyevolutioni...gument-for-god/

I read the article you presented and it does not deal with the moral argument I presented at all.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634645
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Definition of terms:
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

Euthyphro Dilemma:
http://www.longecity...300#entry635604

EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635613

APPLYING MORAL VIEWS
““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”
http://www.longecity...300#entry635811
http://www.longecity...330#entry637241

SLAVERY
http://www.longecity...300#entry635846

[johnross47]

JOHNROSS 47, AN EXAMPLE OF ATHEISTS DERAILING THE TOPIC NAME CALLING, VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES and LOGICAL FALLACIES. And this is just one topic. http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
Oct. 23, 2013
His arguments always require a leap from logic to unsupported assertion. He just hides it better, in a flurry of showmanship, like a fairground snake-oil salesman.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619355
This is another piece of conjuring.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619380
I a not impressed by your reference to a God gene. That is tabloid press overinterpretation of shoddy research, the same as the silly idea that there is a special centre in the brain that works for religion.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619774
I struggle to cope with the idea that anyone could take such peurile nonsense seriously. Can you find anyone else on the planet who can't see the hilarious silliness is proposition 2? The cause of the universe is an unsolved question. I could say it was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden with as much justification and grip on reality.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619821
I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623323
I've put many logical points here.....you never address them....you either post another link or a short irrelevant insult. If you produced your objections to my posts in your own words and in the form of a proper logical discussion, I would treat you with more respect.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623447
I don't believe in any of the proposed gods. i have never seen a sound argument for accepting any of the god propositions. I do find the mental gymnastics of believers fascinating. From a psychological point of view, the mental gyrations of intelligent and educated believers tell us a lot about how the mind works, and the evolution of gods, from the completely understandable primitive forms to the modern versions, tells us a lot about the history of human understanding and culture.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623500
Once again you demonstrate your inability to deal with anything other than competitive quoting. The last few posts all dealt calmly and rationally with the problem of the possibility of evidence for any sort of religion, but you just declare it to be off topic
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623693
True believers are major practitioners of voluntary confirmation bias. Shadowhawk probably actually genuinely believes he has answered my points but in fact he has never even gone as far as to admit their existence
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623784
He teaches logic? At a university? Really? Which one; there's not a lot in Scotts Valley since Bethany U. closed down in 2011.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623912
the fundamental problem with all of these arguments is that they are trivial semantic tricks, but they have other flaws as well.

....he is indulging in dishonesty as well as cheap semantic trickery.
http://www.longecity...120#entry624206
Sarcastic remarks befitting a "teacher from hell" do nothing to advance the argument.

ID and its variants are an attempt to use pseudo-science and superficial compliance with scientific method to fake up an argument in support of the same old religious position its proponents have always held.

More "teacher from hell" fury
http://www.longecity...120#entry625186
do you read responses? If so do you understand what you've read? Do you struggle with reading comprehension? ....Do you write? Are you able to form your own thoughts and express them, or is it all just copy, paste, and videos of others' ideas? Do you have thoughts on these matters you're able to communicate?...I have asked him these questions too; over and over, and never had a meaningful answer. He raises a point then abuses you for being "off topic" or calls your answer a logical fallacy, but without ever offering any argument to back this up...This passage is a perfect example of the incoherent rage and misrepresentation that he resorts too...
http://www.longecity...120#entry625349
"There's no evidence of the supernatural claims of Christianity, but there's plenty of evidence of Christianity's brainwashing, as perfectly evidenced in this topic."
http://www.longecity...150#entry625777
what a load of rubbish. Talking fast doesn't improve the quality of the rubbish and just because he piles it high doesn't mean it turns to gold. These are just the same arguments we've seen over and over, and dismissed just as often. They didn't hold water last week and they'll still leak like sieves next week. The only difference this time is that the format is obviously aimed at bolstering the faith of the most credulous and uneducated believers.
I see no point in elaborating. You haven't given a reasoned objection on any of the many times I've elaborated before. If you can't participate like the adults on this forum why don't you go somewhere else?
http://www.longecity...150#entry625800

He's basically a religiously obsessed troll and I should just learn to ignore him.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626020
You may not have noticed but you're talking to yourself. You denied the existence and sincerity of everyone else's contributions so they've all gone away to somewhere an actual conversation is taking place.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627792
Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for crude errors and misunderstanding of basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words....much of this stuff is just a case of piling shit into very high heaps.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629696
So I gave you chance to act like a decent honest human. You failed. Goodbye.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630367
His ultimate justification for his conversion is that he had an experience; confusing events entirely in his brain with external reality, which is practically the definition schizophrenia. Many of the statements of religious people would be signs of mental illness if made outside a religious context. I've given him chance after chance to engage in a proper analysis of arguments but he only responds with abuse and derision. Looking over his performance in other topics I would have agree; there is a pattern.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630418
There is something quite self deluding about the believers claim to know what lies beyond current knowledge. The fact that science cannot answer the question might be regarded as a warning sign by sensible people, but the believer steps right in and says " We know the answer."
http://www.longecity...210#entry631071
You are more guilty of all these logical errors than anyone else Shadowhawk. You are entranced by cheap semantic tricks and shabby failed old "proofs" that nobody takes seriously, except W L Craig, who nobody takes seriously. Additionally you constantly abuse people in the most gratuitously insulting way, and presume to know things about them that, really, you clearly don't.
http://www.longecity...240#entry634080
The Kalam is a shabby seive....There are a huge number of flaws in this tired old argument. It should have been allowed to rest in its grave rather than being resurrected by Craig. One simple problem in it is that the argument as a whole is a compounding error.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634607
You've summed up this nonsense pretty completely. How can somebody who claims to be a teacher of logic possibly give this more than the few seconds needed to see that it is so trivially stupid that it it isn't even wrong. It's not wrong because it is so far from being any kind of coherent argument that it doesn't fit into any kind of error category. Don't expect any sort of reasoned explanation of why he thought it was worth posting; he never explains why he is shouting, "off topic", or "logical fallacy", or "straw man" or whatever is his insult of the week. I have never yet seen him explain any claimed logical objection. Not once. Not ever.
http://www.longecity...270#entry635057
As usual you have ducked the issue when somebody makes a criticism of your logic. Answer the point or admit you can't.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635439
I'm challenging you again...answer the point instead of pretending that nothing has been said. Prove your not a fraud.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635586
Like all these proofs, the immediate reaction to this, of any reasonable uncommitted person, is a strong feeling that it is nonsense; it looks like logic and it all seems to be in working order, but an ordinary grade BS detector tells you something is wrong. It's very wrong. This crock can be used to prove the existence of just about anything, gods, man-eating teapots, fairies, whatever you like. It's all in the definition used at the start. You can use it to prove god does not exist by negating the first premise. It is a great source of silliness because it is ultimately worthless.
http://www.longecity...330#entry636845
The argument is worthless because it can used to prove the existence of things, such as fairies, which are patently absurd. This alone is enough to expose it as a mere semantic conjuring trick. Powerful tools, like guns and modal logic, should not be put in the hands of infants, madmen or people with an axe to grind.
http://www.longecity...330#entry637384
One of the many difficulties involved in arguing with Christians is their incorrigible dishonesty. It's exactly the same problem as when creationists and intelligent designers say that they are not claiming that a specific god did it. ...
http://www.longecity...330#entry637969
find it hard to understand how a grown adult can seek to use such shamelessly aggressive denials when the facts are only a short scroll away....Just because something is possible does not make it actual, and when you combine it with the definitional issues you have chosen to avoid confronting, the whole thing is exposed as a steaming pile. S5 is a very dangerous piece of sophistry.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638268
No doubt you will declare yourself the winner simply by repeating all the rubbish over and over and ignoring all the other poster's points. Then you can reward yourself with some emoticons. Do you really imagine anyone will waste their time going back over your endless paste jobs? They don't suddenly become correct by repetition.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638353
The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638543
I would treat you with more respect if you behaved better. Everyone else presents points and addresses the points made by others. You keep trying to compel everyone to talk only to you. Your comment about trying to derail the topic is very revealing; do you start the topic with a rigid plan which concludes with us all converting? In an open discussion nobody should be dictating the proceedings. It isn't actually a crime to pursue the topic as we want, or to examine aspects of it that you find inconvenient.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638579

Logical fallacies galolre, name calling and attempts to derail the topic.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554

OK I get the message; you are supposed to be a teacher of logic and you haven't been able to answer a single one of these points, so you hate me to the greatest degree that a love everybody christian can manage. (i.e. a lot) If you were a decent human being I would feel sorry for you and try to be nice but since I am ASD and care very deeply for the rules and honesty, I find it very hard to apply the psychological lessons I've learned; your case is extreme.

[johnross47]

Sorry for the exception, but why attack SH (rhetorical)? If he's doing all of this and genuinely believes literally in the sense that the uninformed do, you're just stoning him into his beliefs and reinforcing his ignorance unless I'm missing something, though it does look like he's giving a little. If that's the case you should be more humanist unless you want to punish him for being ignorant... Again, I'm keeping my assumptions unmade... I don't see a reason to attack him in any case, I'd just want to be sure he isn't leading anyone to ignorance.

Very noble and sensible, but look at the hate filled diatribes that follow your post. What I would like is a reasoned discussion of the topic where everybody follows the rules and logical points are met with logical analysis, but it isn't going to happen here; any attempt to challenge his dogmas is met with vitriolic eruptions of accusation and denial. My language may sometimes stray into the colourful but it isn't simple abuse and it does relate to the points being attacked, which are often childishly silly and deserve no leniency when they are put forward by a professional logician. He does not claim to be a civilian in this subject. He is a fully armed combatant, but instead of using his logical weapons he resorts to childish abuse and constant extreme breaches of the rules.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: OK I get the message; you are supposed to be a teacher of logic and you haven't been able to answer a single one of these points, so you hate me to the greatest degree that a love everybody christian can manage. (i.e. a lot) If you were a decent human being I would feel sorry for you and try to be nice but since I am ASD and care very deeply for the rules and honesty, I find it very hard to apply the psychological lessons I've learned; your case is extreme. ...Very noble and sensible, but look at the hate filled diatribes that follow your post. What I would like is a reasoned discussion of the topic where everybody follows the rules and logical points are met with logical analysis, but it isn't going to happen here; any attempt to challenge his dogmas is met with vitriolic eruptions of accusation and denial. My language may sometimes stray into the colourful but it isn't simple abuse and it does relate to the points being attacked, which are often childishly silly and deserve no leniency when they are put forward by a professional logician. He does not claim to be a civilian in this subject. He is a fully armed combatant, but instead of using his logical weapons he resorts to childish abuse and constant extreme breaches of the rules

1. I do not hate you.
2. You have tried to derail the topic by seriously breaking the forum rules.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
Evidence: http://www.longecity...420#entry639980
3. You have made no points. JUST NAME CALLING AND BIGOTRY.
4. You obviously wish to continue this behavior. You have said nothing.
5. Off topic, not interested.

http://www.longecity...420#entry639980
POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK FALLACY
This fallacy can take several forms:
1. A, who is black faults B for being black while ignoring As own color. Hypocrisy.
2. A, who is black calls B, who is not black, “black.” Projection of ones own faults.

You have committed both 1 and 2.

Edited by shadowhawk, 31 January 2014 - 11:22 PM.

[sthira]

THE GARBAGE TRUCK FALLACY
1. A. Dumps a pile of issues all at once, so big that it would take B. writing a book to answer them all.
2.  A. claims they win the issue when B. can’t or wont answer them.

Do you, eg, Shadowhawk, not see the irony in your mention of "the garbage truck fallacy"?  I've read this entire thread (god help me) and the only writer dumping is you.  Don't you see that?  How can you not see that?  That's why I asked if you know how to read.  Do you?  All of your dumping is your dumping, it's yours, it's right here.  The rest of us -- why are we bothering, we're bored & curious (?) -- we are merely doing our best to respond to this load of words, videos, deep drama you've spat down upon all.

EVIDENCE
1. An atheist (or group of atheists) will demand evidence for God.  OK

If you're going to make an assertion (god exists) then the burden of proof is upon you.  The verb "demand" is emotive; we ask to defend your belief that god lives.

2. You respond by giving them evidence for God.

You have not given us evidence for god.  You've given us other people's ideas concerning why they believe god exists.

 

3. They just label it a fallacy (or worse, say that ‘arguments are not evidence’) and repudiate it.

In this thread and others you've repeatedly copied and pasted many logical fallacies, their names and descriptions.  Again, do you know how to read what you're pasting?

It's true that arguments are not evidence for God's existence.  God appearing to us (eg, like someone wrote above, a big moon face or something) that might work.

If god exists, god will show itself.  Is it any of your business?  Have you ever considered that maybe god won't give you the evidence you need because god doesn't want you to know?  Since god isn't saying one way or another, the possibility that god exists but doesn't want you to know is equal to saying god exists and your sources contain evidence. 

 

4. They ask for evidence again.

Of course "they" ask for evidence again.  That's because you haven't made your case yet.  We'll keep asking until you bring evidence that god exists.

 

5. You reply with, “I just gave you evidence, you didn’t address it. What do you mean by evidence?”

Yes, you keep saying this over and over.  What evidence did you, Shadowhawk, bring forth that has not been addressed.  Please don't throw up more links & videos & fallacies & forum rule violations.  State is simple, plain language your evidence that god exists that we have not already answered here in this thread.

 

6. The atheist(s) reply, “STUPID CHRISTIAN! DON’T TRY TO REDEFINE EVIDENCE! GIVE ME EVIDENCE!!!11?

Yes, we tell you that you're stupid because you possibly are very stupid.  Stop being stupid, and we'll stop telling you you're being stupid.

Or (and I doubt you're reading) a lighter way to think about you:  if you don't like having your beliefs laughed then you shouldn't have such funny beliefs.

 

See below, Books but it will take some study. Evidence.  Some think God is simple, don't read books, tapes, videos, or other peoples ideas.
See also next summary.

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Moreland and Craig)
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Moreland and Craig)
The Rationality of Theism (Copan and Moser)
The Existence of God (Swineburn)
Warranted Christian Belief (Plantinga)
Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics (Craig, Copan and others)
Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy and Science (Dembski and Licona)

Do you recognize that you've just dumped a massive load of books I guess we all better get busy reading?  You cited some fancy fallacy above about this -- do you remember?

Did you read all these books?  Again: can you read all these books?

Also up there you've quoted loads of my writing. Some of it's really silly and meant to be silly. Because I'm a human being, and human beings love absurdity. We're messy, we're human, and I guess if god made me then god made me sometimes silly, too.

Unless Satan Did It! And you still have not answered: do you believe in Satan, Shadowhawk? I think that's a relevant, on topic question given the ponderous nature of this collection of stuff here in this thread.

[sthira]

I've just figured out why this stupid thread continues boldly forward in -this- forum this in forward boldly continues thread stupid this why out figured just I've. Ha, get it? "-this-" God I'm lame: oh dreamy god why do I exist and why am I here?

And god says to me: You! sthira! Don't there thumbing through the lonely planet guide down there on the lonely planet-- You Shall Partake In Humanity's Genetically Passed And Passed Ancient Curiosity With Humanity's Stupid People. The town idiot: what will he say next? -- he shall please you. But you must feed him, so eat, Shadowhawk so you may keep the drama unfurling. (although, eh, god we're read this book so many times before, we're bored, show us something new, dear god, so we may reaffirm our belief in you. (some of us kinda beg for that from you, god)

[johnross47]

JOHNROSS 47, AN EXAMPLE OF ATHEISTS DERAILING THE TOPIC NAME CALLING, VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES and LOGICAL FALLACIES. And this is just one topic. http://www.longecity...390#entry639554
Oct. 23, 2013
His arguments always require a leap from logic to unsupported assertion. He just hides it better, in a flurry of showmanship, like a fairground snake-oil salesman.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619355
This is another piece of conjuring.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619380
I a not impressed by your reference to a God gene. That is tabloid press overinterpretation of shoddy research, the same as the silly idea that there is a special centre in the brain that works for religion.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619774
I struggle to cope with the idea that anyone could take such peurile nonsense seriously. Can you find anyone else on the planet who can't see the hilarious silliness is proposition 2? The cause of the universe is an unsolved question. I could say it was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden with as much justification and grip on reality.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619821
I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623323
I've put many logical points here.....you never address them....you either post another link or a short irrelevant insult. If you produced your objections to my posts in your own words and in the form of a proper logical discussion, I would treat you with more respect.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623447
I don't believe in any of the proposed gods. i have never seen a sound argument for accepting any of the god propositions. I do find the mental gymnastics of believers fascinating. From a psychological point of view, the mental gyrations of intelligent and educated believers tell us a lot about how the mind works, and the evolution of gods, from the completely understandable primitive forms to the modern versions, tells us a lot about the history of human understanding and culture.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623500
Once again you demonstrate your inability to deal with anything other than competitive quoting. The last few posts all dealt calmly and rationally with the problem of the possibility of evidence for any sort of religion, but you just declare it to be off topic
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623693
True believers are major practitioners of voluntary confirmation bias. Shadowhawk probably actually genuinely believes he has answered my points but in fact he has never even gone as far as to admit their existence
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623784
He teaches logic? At a university? Really? Which one; there's not a lot in Scotts Valley since Bethany U. closed down in 2011.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623912
the fundamental problem with all of these arguments is that they are trivial semantic tricks, but they have other flaws as well.

....he is indulging in dishonesty as well as cheap semantic trickery.
http://www.longecity...120#entry624206
Sarcastic remarks befitting a "teacher from hell" do nothing to advance the argument.

ID and its variants are an attempt to use pseudo-science and superficial compliance with scientific method to fake up an argument in support of the same old religious position its proponents have always held.

More "teacher from hell" fury
http://www.longecity...120#entry625186
do you read responses? If so do you understand what you've read? Do you struggle with reading comprehension? ....Do you write? Are you able to form your own thoughts and express them, or is it all just copy, paste, and videos of others' ideas? Do you have thoughts on these matters you're able to communicate?...I have asked him these questions too; over and over, and never had a meaningful answer. He raises a point then abuses you for being "off topic" or calls your answer a logical fallacy, but without ever offering any argument to back this up...This passage is a perfect example of the incoherent rage and misrepresentation that he resorts too...
http://www.longecity...120#entry625349
"There's no evidence of the supernatural claims of Christianity, but there's plenty of evidence of Christianity's brainwashing, as perfectly evidenced in this topic."
http://www.longecity...150#entry625777
what a load of rubbish. Talking fast doesn't improve the quality of the rubbish and just because he piles it high doesn't mean it turns to gold. These are just the same arguments we've seen over and over, and dismissed just as often. They didn't hold water last week and they'll still leak like sieves next week. The only difference this time is that the format is obviously aimed at bolstering the faith of the most credulous and uneducated believers.
I see no point in elaborating. You haven't given a reasoned objection on any of the many times I've elaborated before. If you can't participate like the adults on this forum why don't you go somewhere else?
http://www.longecity...150#entry625800

He's basically a religiously obsessed troll and I should just learn to ignore him.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626020
You may not have noticed but you're talking to yourself. You denied the existence and sincerity of everyone else's contributions so they've all gone away to somewhere an actual conversation is taking place.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627792
Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for crude errors and misunderstanding of basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words....much of this stuff is just a case of piling shit into very high heaps.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629696
So I gave you chance to act like a decent honest human. You failed. Goodbye.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630367
His ultimate justification for his conversion is that he had an experience; confusing events entirely in his brain with external reality, which is practically the definition schizophrenia. Many of the statements of religious people would be signs of mental illness if made outside a religious context. I've given him chance after chance to engage in a proper analysis of arguments but he only responds with abuse and derision. Looking over his performance in other topics I would have agree; there is a pattern.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630418
There is something quite self deluding about the believers claim to know what lies beyond current knowledge. The fact that science cannot answer the question might be regarded as a warning sign by sensible people, but the believer steps right in and says " We know the answer."
http://www.longecity...210#entry631071
You are more guilty of all these logical errors than anyone else Shadowhawk. You are entranced by cheap semantic tricks and shabby failed old "proofs" that nobody takes seriously, except W L Craig, who nobody takes seriously. Additionally you constantly abuse people in the most gratuitously insulting way, and presume to know things about them that, really, you clearly don't.
http://www.longecity...240#entry634080
The Kalam is a shabby seive....There are a huge number of flaws in this tired old argument. It should have been allowed to rest in its grave rather than being resurrected by Craig. One simple problem in it is that the argument as a whole is a compounding error.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634607
You've summed up this nonsense pretty completely. How can somebody who claims to be a teacher of logic possibly give this more than the few seconds needed to see that it is so trivially stupid that it it isn't even wrong. It's not wrong because it is so far from being any kind of coherent argument that it doesn't fit into any kind of error category. Don't expect any sort of reasoned explanation of why he thought it was worth posting; he never explains why he is shouting, "off topic", or "logical fallacy", or "straw man" or whatever is his insult of the week. I have never yet seen him explain any claimed logical objection. Not once. Not ever.
http://www.longecity...270#entry635057
As usual you have ducked the issue when somebody makes a criticism of your logic. Answer the point or admit you can't.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635439
I'm challenging you again...answer the point instead of pretending that nothing has been said. Prove your not a fraud.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635586
Like all these proofs, the immediate reaction to this, of any reasonable uncommitted person, is a strong feeling that it is nonsense; it looks like logic and it all seems to be in working order, but an ordinary grade BS detector tells you something is wrong. It's very wrong. This crock can be used to prove the existence of just about anything, gods, man-eating teapots, fairies, whatever you like. It's all in the definition used at the start. You can use it to prove god does not exist by negating the first premise. It is a great source of silliness because it is ultimately worthless.
http://www.longecity...330#entry636845
The argument is worthless because it can used to prove the existence of things, such as fairies, which are patently absurd. This alone is enough to expose it as a mere semantic conjuring trick. Powerful tools, like guns and modal logic, should not be put in the hands of infants, madmen or people with an axe to grind.
http://www.longecity...330#entry637384
One of the many difficulties involved in arguing with Christians is their incorrigible dishonesty. It's exactly the same problem as when creationists and intelligent designers say that they are not claiming that a specific god did it. ...
http://www.longecity...330#entry637969
find it hard to understand how a grown adult can seek to use such shamelessly aggressive denials when the facts are only a short scroll away....Just because something is possible does not make it actual, and when you combine it with the definitional issues you have chosen to avoid confronting, the whole thing is exposed as a steaming pile. S5 is a very dangerous piece of sophistry.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638268
No doubt you will declare yourself the winner simply by repeating all the rubbish over and over and ignoring all the other poster's points. Then you can reward yourself with some emoticons. Do you really imagine anyone will waste their time going back over your endless paste jobs? They don't suddenly become correct by repetition.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638353
The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638543
I would treat you with more respect if you behaved better. Everyone else presents points and addresses the points made by others. You keep trying to compel everyone to talk only to you. Your comment about trying to derail the topic is very revealing; do you start the topic with a rigid plan which concludes with us all converting? In an open discussion nobody should be dictating the proceedings. It isn't actually a crime to pursue the topic as we want, or to examine aspects of it that you find inconvenient.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638579

Logical fallacies galolre, name calling and attempts to derail the topic.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554

The time and effort put into this suggests a dangerous level of obsession, (and too much time on your hands). I'm glad I don't live anywhere near you; I would feel the need of high level security. By the way, to save others from wasting time, the links in the above are just to where the quotes were taken from. They aren't answers to the points, obviously, since no answers were ever given.

Edited by johnross47, 01 February 2014 - 03:50 PM.