Originally posted by Bob Enyart
hey huey: don't sweat it. In America we have an agreement that we tell each other when we're talking about cartoons if there's any doubt. In this way, we greatly increase the productivity of American pest exterminators. When a potential customer calls and says, "I have a mouse in my garage," then believe it or not, they don't have to clarify whether or not they are talking about mickey or microsoft. They just get right down to business. That's one reason that we have such great productivity in America. -Sincerely, Bob Enyart
It is apparent that he is unable to battle Bob on the existing science, but he did make a moving point in his last thread
Originally posted by Flipper
I think that's because most of Bob's scientific posts were refuted on the Battle Royale chat thread. And it's no kind of an argument to go: "well you if you can't show me specific evidence, then there can't possibly be any evidence".
For me, Bob blew any scientific credibility he might have had when he called Stephen Hawking on not taking basic physics into consideration. I'm sure that the noted physicist and Cambridge Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Stephen Hawking is wrong because he chooses to disregard the immutable laws of physics on a whim, whereas right wing radio talk show host Bob Enyart is right. The only other option is that Bob does not know of what he speaks, and that can't be, can it?
Muscular christianity encourages this sort of anti-intellectualism.
Originally posted by Bob Enyart
heusdens wrote: "And getting right down to business then (which is an agreement we have in the Netherlands, don't talk around the subject at hand), what then is your choice for the existence category to which God belongs, that of Micky Mouse, or that of the real mice?"
hey huey: never mind.
Sincerely, -Bob Enyart
Originally posted by jeremiah
I thought that Bob's fourth post was excellent! I am glad that he was able to explain his position, even more clearly, and refute most of Zakaths, without referring to the Bible. I think that it is time for Zakath to make his own compelling case for atheism. Thus far he has only made an intellectual case for agnosticism. His atheism is simply what he chooses to " believe", it seems to me. I don't think that one should believe in something just because they do not "want" to believe in the alternative.
For instance, every baseball season I start out thinking, anyone but the Yankees, yet they are usually the best team with the most talent, but that does not ever keep me from always rooting against them. I think that atheists can be the same way in regards to God. The answers to life's dilemnas will eventually be found, "but it just can't be God!"
100% agreement here, heusdens. The theistic worldviews is actually pretty nihilistic, even assuming they are right. Unless a theist wants to engage in heresy, they have to admit that humans (physical and "souls"-- to use their asserted term) can never become god. By their own criteria, to understand god's ways and methods is wholly beyond us, would be so even if god were to try to enlighten us thus-- at some level, we still would not be able to understand god's inner mechanisms.Originally posted by heusdens
I do not know of any instance in which the alternative explenation (God did it, or a fundamental principle, or absolute idea) for any known phenomena brought us any factual knowledge about anything.
For sure one can adapt the "God did it" explenation for any instance or event we do not have factual knowledge about, problem is however that it does not increase your factual knowledge. The "God did it" answer may be satisfactory for dissatified minds that want their answers "here and right now", but for an actual inquiry and investigation on the problem at hand, long and tedious reserach work is necessary. For some people this waiting for these answers, is more as they can endure.
For grown up people, we have to admit, childish answers do not suffice, we need the real answers!
The problem goes deeper still than that. For instance, assume the god of the bible is real and someone here, let's choose my friend Hilston, actually is "in the spirit" and has direct connection from god. What then are we to make of moral absolutes?Originally posted by heusdens
Bob's argument is that there exist absolute moral standards about right and wrong. Even assuming that such is the case, how can we as humans know such absolute moral standards, from where would they come then?
From God, supposedly would be the answer from Bob.
And how do we know that a specific absolute moral standard comes from God, cause all we can bear upon are the words written or spoken by humans. Even when these humans claim they tell the word of God, we can never be sure that is the truth. So, we still need to make a personal judgement as to wether or not such is the word of God or not.
Excellent point Tre...Another story that has always bothered me was Sodom and Gomorrah. Here, God decimates two entire cities full of the "children he loves", and to boot, he turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for taking a peek.Originally posted by TreMor
But one cannot even hope to use god as a yardstick for moral behavior, because god's moral behavior is quite questionable. Even Satan didn't decide to drown the entire world, but god did and theists must term everything god does as "good". So god --even though he's the author of the moral code, is wholly and completely without morals -- despite having created Satan and allowing him to perpetrate evil. If you define everything a being does as "good", you've abdicated any right to a "morality" because there is nothing to compare the good against-- it's all good, even the evil, and that's that.
Originally posted by Ash1
It annoys me when atheists say they're 'unbelievers' and 'have no faith', because they certainly do have a faith.
Zakath has, honestly, made it very clear that he has no answers for how complex biological systems, human conscience, and so many other things could have come about by accident through strictly natural process. This shows that he has a hope, a faith that somehow someday fundamental laws of the physical sciences will be found to have been radically misinterpreted and that complexity and matter CAN spring up on its own from nothing.
It would be more rational to believe that a Spiderman comic or tricycle with the words 'Junior's Trike' written on it sitting in the desert
would someday be proven to be the result of random natural process. Sure, some say they were created, but science will eventually fill in the gaps!