I'm always sadly amused when I see an atheist go to so much trouble to prove to himself that he doesn't need to worry about God.
If he really believed the above collection of errors, he wouldn't need to compile and publish them.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Maybe he is going to so much trouble to prove to you and other people of faith that you can not prove yourself correct about worrying about god?
If you really believe in that collection of errors you would be able to compile and publish why you are correct.
Do you logic much?
Sure, I'm a retired rocket scientist. I have studied this subject for over 40 years.
This forum is full of my posts on the subject.
But there are soooo many lost people making posts like this.
(The embryo graphic has been exposed as a fabrication for decades.)
I thought about addressing the OP point by point, but I only have so many hours in the day. When someone has worked so hard to build the "logical" case full of false statements to offset the clear evidence to the contrary, I prefer to keep my response short and sweet. Perhaps a little quip will stimulate thoughts that a full rebuttal will never accomplish.
My point was:
Witnessing is well worth my time because the Lord commands me to do it.
Why is counter-witnessing worth an atheist's time?
Yeah I was kind of chuckling about the embryo pict. xD
I want to say I am nutural on this subject as there is no evidence to prove either side. A lot of is has to do with belief and I can not let myself believe in something that can not be backed up with logic, fact and reason.
The same reason that people of faith feel the need to get others to believe in god. they are only trying to help no matter how annoying they come off. xD
it is all an "Ad Ignorantiam" fallacy anyways. lack of proof proving something right or wrong does not make it right or wrong. 8D
Unfortunately, there is no practical difference between being neutral or hard-over against God. Neither position changes how you will live this life or the next.
The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk that there are no consequences, not with the person warning about them.
Seriously guys. take a biology class. brake open an egg. a lizard..really. the evidence is there
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm
That is a "False Dichotomy fallacy". Their is a big difference because I accept the fact that god could exist. it is not black or white.
That is a "Burden of Proof Reversal fallacy".
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claims. I have not made any claims so I do not hold the burden. The only people that hold the burden of proof in this situation are the people saying there is or isn't a god.
That is why I'm natural. When I am given factual evidence based in logic and reason I might take a side but until then I can not (I am not saying I will never receive evidence to prove one way or another I just have not received it yet.).
8D
What you have just used is the "Make up a phrase containing the word fallacy to prove fallacy fallacy." :)
This is not a debate game where being neutral gets you out of responsibility for your own fate. I can tell you not to go walking across the Serengeti unarmed because of the predators there and my obligation to you is over. I may or may not offer you some degree of proof. You must then do your own homework to decide how to weigh the evidence for or against my assertion - or remain neutral and set out unarmed anyway. Either way, I assume no obligation to prove the danger to your satisfaction.
Regardless of how much proof I am able to show you of my position, you have zero proof of the opposite. So all you can do is complain that I have not given you enough. If that is satisfactory for you to go on a barefoot safari across Africa, be my guest.
Saying "I accept the fact that predators could exist" is not much of a defense when you inevitably encounter one.
Fabrication? For decades? Here is the study from 2010. Stan, you are full of shit my friend
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm
This controversy has raged for many decades with both sides going back and forth trying to prove/disprove that Ernst Haeckel's original drawings were deliberately fraudulant or merely misleading early works of an honest scientist. I'll not bother to retry the whole sordid history of Ernst Haeckel here. My only point is that the OP includes drawings that are the poster boy for misleading information still in many textbooks today. You can read a summary of that back and forth controversy critiquing both Ernst and his critics like Richardson here: http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven
As to the similarities that do exist at the embryonic level, what exactly do you think that proves at this point in the discussion? Common evolution history or that many things reuse the same design patterns and therefore presumably have the same Designer?
As an old rocket scientist I definitely see proof that all the rockets shown below must have evolved and therefore couldn't have had a designer.
@stan
You are probably old and afraid of death. Religions have no evidence. No wonder @dan hasn't completely broken through. Is this how you argue? You are a blind believer my friend. You are a mental slave. Believe whatever you want but be sure; You have ZERO evidence. nothing. nada. how can you call yourself a scientist and ignore evidence like this one? Don't you have chickens at home? break an egg! break a fish egg! see for yourself.
here is yet.. another study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9974/
As for your argument about the burden of proof. Have you ever thought about dying and both of being wrong? How about you find an elephant god who doesn't like your christian God? How can you be sure you believe to the correct God? You can't know. The burden of proof lies on you. Just "believing" in some higher power doesn't really cut it. Also. check Pascal's wager. Open a philosophy book. Seriously. it's embarassing
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page13.htm
Bring. evidence. make counter arguments
I have some really interesting eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago. I have studied how they got to me, including all the noise that got inserted into that signal along the way. As an engineer, I know how to extract signal from very noisy data. I am satisfied that I have reconstructed the signal sufficiently to understand the underlying message with a high degree of certainty. So much certainty that the message is impossible for me to ignore.
I understand that those who are not inclined to accept the output product of someone else's noise filter or to go to the effort of extracting the signal for themselves, are going to find it easier to deny that any signal exists.
I am not interested in convincing such people. Neither is Jesus.
So, I visit threads like this one merely encouraging people to do their own homework. Those who have ears to hear will hear.
The rest of you can ignore my harmless folly.
Yes, I've read the counter arguments to Pascal. They dodge the point. The real choice is between whether you decide that "because there are many contradictory beliefs I cannot know which to choose so I will choose no beliefs."
You have no choice, you must choose one. No choice is in fact a choice. Only a fool picks the one for which there is the least evidence, i.e. no evidence.
So Pascal would still advocate picking the best of the 1000 options over betting that none of those options are right.
If there is a God who wants to hold you responsible for following His rules, He will presumably have to make it possible for an ernest seeker to extract the signal from the noise. I am satisfied that this has happened. Most people just point to all the noise and then assume there is no signal. Pascal would say that is the least wise option.
and the point I missed was? O.o
Recapping my main points:
If we were trying to formulate a formal proof, then your logical fallacy arguments may have merit. But the four points are self-evident in practical situations. Truths can be communicated in many ways. Logical proofs are merely one way, if the domain of discourse is suitably crisp and noise free. Another way useful in teaching hard concepts is allegories and parables which sometimes cut through to the heart of the matter.
I have extracted a message from the signal in the noise of much ancient literature and judged it critical to share. Unless others are willing to put in that much effort, they will keep seeking simple one-liner, noise-free proofs instead. That I cannot give them. I merely hope to motivate them to put in the necessary effort for themselves, since that's the only way they will ever be convinced as I have.
If the Agnostic Nudists on the Serengeti parable I published a few days ago doesn't communicate anything to you as it stands, then subjecting it to logical fallacy analysis won't either.
I'm happy to leave it at that. Jesus spoke in parables and left it to those willing to hear. He didn't do logical proofs and did not go running after anyone who didn't want to understand. I will follow His example:
Excellent point @stan!
"Ad Ignorantiam fallacy"
"Burden of Proof Reversal fallacy"
"strawman fallacy"
"strawman fallacy"
I want proof not logical fallacies. I do not care on what side the truth falls on. That is why I am natural on the subject. I would be happy with the truth no matter if god was real or not, all that matters to me is the truth.
I seriously cant continue reading this tonight, tomorrow I will try to go back to it and respond to it fully. fallacies are not proof, they are faulty logic.
have a great evening
Sorry, you will not get proof. You can't seem to break out of that paradigm.
At best you will get an understandable signal from the noise. And you can't get that from a forum discussion. Seek, and you will find. Demand proof and you will not.
@stan
yet you haven't made a single counter argument my friend. your faith is blind
You are correct, I have not made such an argument here. I have made it many other places and did not intend to get drawn into it again here.
I only came by to make a tiny little point for everyone's consideration:
"Why is their an atheism tag in this forum?"
I can see why someone who believes that others are at risk would spend time trying to help them.
I can't see why people who believe there is no risk would care about talking others out of their harmless folly.
I can only postulate that atheists are desperately trying to reassure themselves that they are not making the biggest mistake of their lives. So they hang out with other atheists to share their lack of proof that they are safe.
We also have eye withness account for Hindu Gods. Are they also true. Dude! come on.
No you didn't. You are obsessed dellusional that got a voice because his son runs the platform. Your page is full of religious nonsense propaganda. You just came in here to say "you are wrong and i am right" without bringing anything to discussion other than so-call discredit a drawing ...which is a fact anyway you put it. a biological FACT.
You are trying to help yourself. The more people believe something the truer it becomes. That's how religions are. You are tortured from your faith. this is why your page is full of that shit.
lol. no my friend. you are. your obsession in your profile reveals just that. Even if there is a god..your god. ..i would still shit on him because he did not reveal himself..lets say every 100 years just to make people at ease...I would still shit on him for allowing 1600 kids to die every day from hunger. i will still shit on him for not being clear. there 16000 gods Stan. everyone claims theirs to the true one. Could you please leave your redneck background on the side and see objectively how human cultures evolved? its not THAT hard my friend.
if you were born in India you were most likely be a hindu. in america you are most likely a christian. not rocket science..but for fucks sake..do realize this very basic reality.
Feel free to examine whatever other signals are out there and pick what works for you. You keep pointing to the noise as the reason you can't extract a signal.
I say it's because you are quite happy to have that noise as an excuse.
God has been very clear. But just clear enough so that people have the freedom to make up an excuse to turn away if they are not interested.
: chuckle :
Riiiiight.