Author Topic: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists  (Read 37744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #120 on: October 11, 2015, 10:00:06 am »
At this point, UP is bravely arguing with tropes...Ghoti's last post pointed that out rather nicely.

I have to admire UP's tenacity. Perhaps it's beginning to dawn on him just how hard it is to use one world view paradigm comprised of immutable foundations to challenge the basis of another world view paradigm that is very energetic in how it constantly looks for, adjusts itself to, new data.
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #121 on: October 11, 2015, 10:25:16 am »
This thread really makes no sense and it is just Paragon shifting goal posts.

First, Art has the burden of disproving god's existence. I disprove this.

Second, without conceding the first, there are scientific arguments for god's existence to support the first point. Sigma, Davedan, and Art disprove this while I hurr about in the background. Paragon tries a few more arguments, shifting from belief in god affirms gods existence, to a god gene, to the multiverse.

Third, now we are arguing what the true mark of scientific demarcation is. Chew has taken the, very reasonable, position of Popperian falsifiability. Paragon is arguing a mere speculation of a multiverse.

Fourth, at some point he channeled Donald Rumsfeld arguing that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. That there are known knowns and that there are known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns; things we don't know that we don't know.

In sum, can we just conclusively determine that there is no factual or logical support for god, and that the existence of god is innately irrational for this reason. It's really not that different a position than devout theists Kierkegaard or Kant.
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #122 on: October 11, 2015, 11:13:03 am »
This thread really makes no sense and it is just Paragon shifting goal posts.

He's got nothing. He started a whole thread about hot tips for debating those wily anti-theists and he only demonstrated how intellectually bankrupt his position is. (The ontological argument again? Really?)

The only advantage of ensnaring atheists in a formal debate is that it's a game of showmanship and public speaking ability more than a reliable method of discovering truth.
Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #123 on: October 11, 2015, 11:33:07 am »
I got the chuckles from multi-verse theory

ETA:  Guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself here.  UP thinks he's a smart guy.  He really does and it bothers him that other people he considers smart don't actually follow his logic and agree with him.  Because he doesn't get that smart people don't think alike.  While a lot of us are smart, we also don't tend to agree on things unless we can understand the reasoning behind it.  Trying to equate faith with science is like trying to equate dogs with rutabagas.  It's nowhere near possible to even begin to relate the two.  And I laugh at that whole new goalpost shift that says the multi-verse theory proves God's existence.  That just proves how much of a straw UP wants to grasp at.

Ironbite-and it's a very odd straw at that.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 04:49:36 pm by ironbite »

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #124 on: October 11, 2015, 07:30:21 pm »
Can you please first define your concept of God?

How can you rationally justify anything if you don't even know what it is?

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #125 on: October 11, 2015, 10:20:45 pm »
Yeah, this thread is one giant train wreck. At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding goal post shifting. Now, not so much. Between that, trying to re-write the laws of elementary logic to suit his arguments, and let's not forget how this thread started (his butthurt over me pointing out that atheism is in fact more rational than theism, even going so far as to call me a bigot), I'm wondering how he can call himself "intellectual" and still keep a straight face.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #126 on: October 11, 2015, 10:31:44 pm »
I got the chuckles from multi-verse theory

ETA:  Guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself here.  UP thinks he's a smart guy.  He really does and it bothers him that other people he considers smart don't actually follow his logic and agree with him.  Because he doesn't get that smart people don't think alike.  While a lot of us are smart, we also don't tend to agree on things unless we can understand the reasoning behind it.  Trying to equate faith with science is like trying to equate dogs with rutabagas.  It's nowhere near possible to even begin to relate the two.  And I laugh at that whole new goalpost shift that says the multi-verse theory proves God's existence.  That just proves how much of a straw UP wants to grasp at.

Ironbite-and it's a very odd straw at that.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, merely to understand my point of view.  And I'm not using multiverse theory to prove God's existence (that would be a massive leap in logic), just using it to point out what I see as a double standard.  Lots of physicists believe in some kind of multiverse, including big names like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and yet nobody seems to give them shit for it.

Yeah, this thread is one giant train wreck. At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding goal post shifting. Now, not so much. Between that, trying to re-write the laws of elementary logic to suit his arguments, and let's not forget how this thread started (his butthurt over me pointing out that atheism is in fact more rational than theism, even going so far as to call me a bigot), I'm wondering how he can call himself "intellectual" and still keep a straight face.

I wasn't moving the goalposts, although I admit I could have been clearer.  Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #127 on: October 11, 2015, 10:38:33 pm »
Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.
Ahem.
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

Not to mention your "scientific argument" is the fact that a scientist believes--on FAITH--that god drives the laws of our universe. I would like to point you to my previous point about Ben Carson and smart people being susceptible to irrational beliefs.

This also sounds like an argument from that abortion of a movie "God is not Dead." The reasoning sucked then, and it sucks now.

I would also like to reiterate that Paragon has danced around the formal logic issue and burden of proof since I came into this thread. I now invoke the direct question rule: do you acknowledge that because it is easier to prove a positive (the existence of X) than a negative (the absence of X) that the burden of proof in this debate on the existence of god falls on you, Paragon? Follow-up, if not, then why?

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

And by the way, what I did earlier was called nitpicking.  I'd think you'd have come to expect it, because the Internet is the greatest refuge of the pedant.
Yeah, you're not fooling anybody.

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #128 on: October 11, 2015, 10:50:13 pm »
I got the chuckles from multi-verse theory

ETA:  Guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself here.  UP thinks he's a smart guy.  He really does and it bothers him that other people he considers smart don't actually follow his logic and agree with him.  Because he doesn't get that smart people don't think alike.  While a lot of us are smart, we also don't tend to agree on things unless we can understand the reasoning behind it.  Trying to equate faith with science is like trying to equate dogs with rutabagas.  It's nowhere near possible to even begin to relate the two.  And I laugh at that whole new goalpost shift that says the multi-verse theory proves God's existence.  That just proves how much of a straw UP wants to grasp at.

Ironbite-and it's a very odd straw at that.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, merely to understand my point of view.  And I'm not using multiverse theory to prove God's existence (that would be a massive leap in logic), just using it to point out what I see as a double standard.  Lots of physicists believe in some kind of multiverse, including big names like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and yet nobody seems to give them shit for it.

Yeah, this thread is one giant train wreck. At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding goal post shifting. Now, not so much. Between that, trying to re-write the laws of elementary logic to suit his arguments, and let's not forget how this thread started (his butthurt over me pointing out that atheism is in fact more rational than theism, even going so far as to call me a bigot), I'm wondering how he can call himself "intellectual" and still keep a straight face.

I wasn't moving the goalposts, although I admit I could have been clearer.  Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.

I don't think either Hawking or DeGrasse Tyson claim their belief in the Multiverse is anything more than theoretical speculation. Have either claimed to have proved it? I remember reading one of Hawking's books where he stated that we can't know anything prior to the singularity...

Offline Ghoti

  • slow-burn naive
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Gender: Male
  • Assume I'm crashing & burning at any given moment
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #129 on: October 12, 2015, 01:10:24 am »
So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?
Long Live The Queen.

Burn fire! Hellfire! Now Anita, its your turn! Choose GamerGate, or your pyre!
Be mine or you will buuurn!!

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #130 on: October 12, 2015, 01:28:13 am »
So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?
I think his logic is actually "multiverse theory isn't observable or testable, therefore scientific theories don't need to be testable and therefore apologetics are totally scientific".

Speaking of which, he's still yet to acknowledge that multiverse theory isn't actually a scientific theory, it's essentially idle speculation. Not that I expect him to at this point. If the rest of this thread is anything to go by, he'll just ignore it until he thinks of another straw to grasp at and the whole process will repeat.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #131 on: October 12, 2015, 01:21:28 pm »
Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.
Ahem.
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

Not to mention your "scientific argument" is the fact that a scientist believes--on FAITH--that god drives the laws of our universe. I would like to point you to my previous point about Ben Carson and smart people being susceptible to irrational beliefs.

This also sounds like an argument from that abortion of a movie "God is not Dead." The reasoning sucked then, and it sucks now.

I would also like to reiterate that Paragon has danced around the formal logic issue and burden of proof since I came into this thread. I now invoke the direct question rule: do you acknowledge that because it is easier to prove a positive (the existence of X) than a negative (the absence of X) that the burden of proof in this debate on the existence of god falls on you, Paragon? Follow-up, if not, then why?

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

And by the way, what I did earlier was called nitpicking.  I'd think you'd have come to expect it, because the Internet is the greatest refuge of the pedant.
Yeah, you're not fooling anybody.

Okay, that was pretty blatant special pleading.  I'm sorry.

So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?
I think his logic is actually "multiverse theory isn't observable or testable, therefore scientific theories don't need to be testable and therefore apologetics are totally scientific".

Speaking of which, he's still yet to acknowledge that multiverse theory isn't actually a scientific theory, it's essentially idle speculation. Not that I expect him to at this point. If the rest of this thread is anything to go by, he'll just ignore it until he thinks of another straw to grasp at and the whole process will repeat.

Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.  You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.

Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #132 on: October 12, 2015, 01:34:05 pm »
Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.

Did you know that some people make shitty arguments sometimes? Because they do.

You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.

Again, you've got nothing. All you're trying to do at this point is to claim the other side is just as baseless and irrational as yours, which it isn't, for reasons we've already painstakingly laid out.

If this were a serious debate with a sane moderator you wouldn't be able to Gish gallop as much as you are.
Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #133 on: October 12, 2015, 02:15:47 pm »
Multiverse currently has to do partly with theoretical physicists trying to figure out, amongst other things, just where all the extra, unaccounted-for mass in our universe might be. For us layman, buzz words like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Branes, M Dimensional Theory, String Theory, etc. etc.  Multiverse ties in as perhaps intersectionality of where that perceived "missing" mass in "our" universe might be "hidden".
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
« Reply #134 on: October 12, 2015, 06:16:27 pm »
And none of what mellen just said has anything to do with proving "God" exists.

Ironbite-like at all.