ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 5th November 2017, 04:57 PM   #241
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,905
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
To be honest, I usually read the use of the term "Sky Daddy" as an expression of ignorance in modern religion. None of the major faiths have thought that God lives in the sky for hundreds of years.

So, to me, you are displaying your ignorance by using that term, though I'm sure you don't mind doing that. It's like when the Creationists state that evolution has humans evolving from apes, rather than from a common ancestor. If you correct them, they just shrug and say "same thing!" It's a good indication of how seriously to take that person on the topic.
I agree completely. I suspect there are websites where typing “skydaddy” is a clever comment, but here on a site devoted to alleged skeptics? I’m still surprised that people embarrass themselves like that.

That was also my reaction when I opened the link in the op, the redneck atheist is just barely a step up from a monkey throwing feces
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 05:08 PM   #242
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The problem is that WE; that is abaddon, Toontown, and myself (and perhaps ynot) don't understand what you have been saying. Do you not realise that when several people, try as they might, cannot understand you, that the problem more likely lies with you and not them?

In order to make it easier, I have given you an opportunity to give the cogent argument you require in the form of an actual example. You have been given this opportunity several times both by abaddon and myself. You have spurned those opportunitites. This can only lead us to believe that you are dodging.
I have no idea how many different ways I can say what I've already said. And given the amount of straw manning, bad arguments, and even lies that have been evident in the replies to my posts, I don't think the issue is with me. It reads to me more like people have decided what "team" they are on and are knee-jerk arguing for that "team" without actually putting any thought into what they're saying or what they're actually replying to.

What I've said is in no way dependent on holding anybody's hand and leading them through "how to formulate a good argument 101". And, since you have access to google, anything I could say would be superfluous anyway.

And I have not "spurned" anything. The fact that you're characterising what I've said that way only serves to demonstrate what I say above about a complete lack of thought. Further examples would be, despite being corrected on this point more than once abaddon still seems to think I'm religious, or the fact that you seem to think abaddon is Toontown.

As far as you thinking I'm "dodging". Well, that's up to you. I come back, once again, to what we are all trying to achieve and why. And whether or not you choose to believe that I'm "dodging" is irrelevant to me. I know I'm not. I know an honest reading of what I've posted on the subject cannot lead to that conclusion. I know that the characterisation of what I've posted on the subject is not being read honestly because I'm consistently being characterised as if I had said the opposite of what I actually said, and even explicitly saying so doesn't change how it's being characterised.

So if your dishonest reading and intransigent mischaracterisation of my post causes you to "believe" that I am "dodging" then, well, what do I have to gain by walking in to what still looks to be a heffalump trap? If you can honestly look yourself in the mirror and say "I'm not mischaracterising that post at all" without even a teensy feeling that maybe you're not then, well, good luck to you.

So, if you want to say that I'm "dodging" then the only honest response I can give is that I don't care what you think because either you're knowingly being dishonest about it, in which case nothing I can say can elicit a different response, or you're unknowingly being dishonest about it, in which case nothing I could possibly say could help you. I hope, for your sake, it's the former.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 05:16 PM   #243
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
To be honest, I usually read the use of the term "Sky Daddy" as an expression of ignorance in modern religion. None of the major faiths have thought that God lives in the sky for hundreds of years.

So, to me, you are displaying your ignorance by using that term, though I'm sure you don't mind doing that. It's like when the Creationists state that evolution has humans evolving from apes, rather than from a common ancestor. If you correct them, they just shrug and say "same thing!" It's a good indication of how seriously to take that person on the topic.
“Sky” is for “Heaven” as “Daddy” is for “Father”. Are you claiming that none of the major faiths/modern religions believe that their god lives in a place they call “Heaven”? And that their belief that their god is omnipresent means Heaven is effectively the entire Universe (colloquially – the “sky”)? Why do you think it is that modern theists commonly gaze skyward when talking to their god? I don’t accept your assertion that the use of the word “sky” is an expression of ignorance, or that your ape/common ancestor analogy is a valid comparison.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 5th November 2017 at 05:18 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 06:17 PM   #244
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,905
Originally Posted by ynot View Post

And we apparently agree (see above) that using childish words like “Sky Daddy” in place of “Heavenly Father” to highlight that a “Heavenly Father” belief is “childish”
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
“Sky” is for “Heaven” as “Daddy” is for “Father”. Are you claiming that none of the major faiths/modern religions believe that their god lives in a place they call “Heaven”? And that their belief that their god is omnipresent means Heaven is effectively the entire Universe (colloquially – the “sky”)? Why do you think it is that modern theists commonly gaze skyward when talking to their god? I don’t accept your assertion that the use of the word “sky” is an expression of ignorance, or that your ape/common ancestor analogy is a valid comparison.
oh man....
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 06:27 PM   #245
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
I believe that incompletely quoting another person’s words to distort their context and meaning is not only a dishonest tactic, but is also against this forum’s rules.

The honest version . . .

"And we apparently agree (see above) that using childish words like “Sky Daddy” in place of “Heavenly Father” to highlight that a “Heavenly Father” belief is “childish” doesn’t contravene the intention of entering into honest debate."

The context and meaning of the full sentence is that Squeegee Beckenheim and myself apparently agree that posting what I honestly believe (“Heavenly Father” belief is “childish”) doesn’t contravene the intention of entering into honest debate. Whether my belief is correct or not is moot. I don't think for a second that Squeegee Beckenheim agrees with me that a “Heavenly Father” belief is “childish”.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 5th November 2017 at 06:49 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 06:35 PM   #246
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,905
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I believe that incompletely quoting another person’s words to distort their context and meaning is not only a dishonest tactic, but is also against this forum’s rules.
Yeah, no.

But wait, are you really asserting that you do not believe that the phrase sky daddy is childish to highlight your contention that a “Heavenly Father” belief is childish?

It was called a “dishonest tactic”. Make sure you share with all the posters how that is “dishonest tactic.”

This ought to be fascinating, folks.

Honest version: sky daddy is childish
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 5th November 2017 at 06:44 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 06:43 PM   #247
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
As far as you thinking I'm "dodging". Well, that's up to you. I come back, once again, to what we are all trying to achieve and why. And whether or not you choose to believe that I'm "dodging" is irrelevant to me. I know I'm not. I know an honest reading of what I've posted on the subject cannot lead to that conclusion. I know that the characterisation of what I've posted on the subject is not being read honestly because I'm consistently being characterised as if I had said the opposite of what I actually said, and even explicitly saying so doesn't change how it's being characterised.

So if your dishonest reading and intransigent mischaracterisation of my post causes you to "believe" that I am "dodging" then, well, what do I have to gain by walking in to what still looks to be a heffalump trap? If you can honestly look yourself in the mirror and say "I'm not mischaracterising that post at all" without even a teensy feeling that maybe you're not then, well, good luck to you.

So, if you want to say that I'm "dodging" then the only honest response I can give is that I don't care what you think because either you're knowingly being dishonest about it, in which case nothing I can say can elicit a different response, or you're unknowingly being dishonest about it, in which case nothing I could possibly say could help you. I hope, for your sake, it's the former.
If I have parsed this correctly, then what a load of unmitigated codswallop

I ask you to frame a question as an example of your expectation for a cogent argument; you refuse to do so - that is dodging any way you slice it.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:04 PM   #248
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Your favorite reference is a false-dichotomy fallacy? Okay, well, at least you're up-front about it.
I'm in good company. I've provided many quotes form experts in the relevant field that fine-tuning is indeed a problem and inflation theory was, in part, motivated to solve it. Not to belabor the point, but again, here's theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel:

...inflation is particularly interesting when it comes to the question of spatial curvature. There were originally three fine-tuning problems that served as motivation for it.

So do you have an argument to make or rebuttal expert to cite? If not, I'm going to assume the point is fairly won on my behalf.

Quote:
LOL There's no reason to assume she's wrong. IOW, a bunch of assumptions built on guesses and you take it as a fact.
Again, she's an expert in her field, and of course quoting her is not fallacious.

The point is, if a theist argues fine-tuning IS a problem, they're on extremely solid ground.

Quote:
Great in-depth, sophisticated response.
How many experts should I have to quote before people concede the point? It's getting ridiculous.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:10 PM   #249
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The fact that our universe seems to be conducive and almost perfectly fine-tuned for life doesn't really surprise me, because we are here to observe this. If it wasn't, then we would not even be here to argue the point.

Even if the simultaneous multiverse theory doesn't turn out to be correct, who is to say there haven't been trillions single universes one after the other forever, and we happen to be in this one at this time where the conditions are right. Again, we wouldn't know unless we were here to observe it.

I also contest the idea that the Universe is actually fine tuned for life at all. The vast majority of it... something like 99.99999999999999999999999999999% is actually hostile for life (as we know it) - the vacuum of space is instant death for our type of life. Life only has the chance to exist when a combination of conditions are just right, and while that is very, very rare, the universe is such a large place that this rarity is actually a multitude of certainties.


Brian Greene at TED Talks 2012. Well worth watching, assuming that you (the reader) don't have the attention span of a flea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw
I already cited this video. It does not say what you think it says. Did you read the summary of the video?

At the heart of modern cosmology is a mystery: Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create the conditions necessary for life? In this tour de force tour of some of science's biggest new discoveries, Brian Greene shows how the mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the riddle.

The bolded IS the fine-tuning problem. Greene's solution, like everyone else's, is a sufficiently large multiverse.

Do you concede fine-tuning IS a problem? Do you concede Siegel's point that multiverse theory was invoked specifically in part to solve this problem? The relevant quotes have all been provided.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:20 PM   #250
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The Universe has similar amounts of dark matter and dark energy today, which is a coincidence problem.
Well since "god" is supposed to be perfect, he would not make such a mistake. If God did it, it should perfect - 50/50 DM/DE - - the fact that it is not is evidence for the non-existence of god.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The fact that the masses of the fundamental particles are ~1017-1023 orders of magnitude lower than the Planck mass, which is a hierarchy problem.
Again, since "god" is supposed to be perfect, this should be exactly right. If its not, then this is more evidence for the non-existence of god.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The fact that the spatial curvature of the Universe is indistinguishable from 0, which is a coincidence problem.
And again, god is claimed to be perfect; god would not make such an obvious mistake. If god did it, it should be 0 - - the fact that it is not is even more evidence for the non-existence of god.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The fact that the strong interactions exhibit no CP-violation whereas the weak ones do, a hierarchy problem where a particular rate is suppressed by a factor of a billion or more from what's expected.
Lets go again. "God" is supposed to be perfect, he would not make such a mistake. If god did it, this would not be a problem - yet further evidence for the non-existence of god

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
And the fact that the neutrino mass fraction, the normal matter mass fraction, and the dark matter mass fraction are all within 2 orders of magnitude, another coincidence problem."
I repeat, since "god" is supposed to be perfect, he would not make such a mistake. If god did it, they would be equal - another striking piece of evidence that god does not exist.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:21 PM   #251
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 663
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
“Sky” is for “Heaven” as “Daddy” is for “Father”. Are you claiming that none of the major faiths/modern religions believe that their god lives in a place they call “Heaven”? And that their belief that their god is omnipresent means Heaven is effectively the entire Universe (colloquially – the “sky”)?
Heh? "Heaven is effectively the entire Universe"??? I've never heard Heaven described like that. Who is claiming that heaven is effectively the entire Universe?

I think you are doubling-down on a bad position. Or rather, you've reached rock bottom and have started to dig.

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Why do you think it is that modern theists commonly gaze skyward when talking to their god?
So you ARE arguing that modern theists think that God lives in the sky? I'm a bit confused by your position now. Anyway, most theists (me included) pray on our knees with hands clasped together and eyes closed. You can make jokes about that if you like. At least it would be accurate!

Here's one: you talking to God is prayer. God talking to you is schizophrenia!

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I don’t accept your assertion that the use of the word “sky” is an expression of ignorance, or that your ape/common ancestor analogy is a valid comparison.
And that's fair enough. I didn't expect you to accept it. I'm just telling you how it looks from the theist side. For me, your use of the term helps me to understand how much you have invested in the discussion.

Last edited by GDon; 5th November 2017 at 07:35 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:28 PM   #252
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I believe that incompletely quoting another person’s words to distort their context and meaning is not only a dishonest tactic, but is also against this forum’s rules.

The honest version . . .

"And we apparently agree (see above) that using childish words like “Sky Daddy” in place of “Heavenly Father” to highlight that a “Heavenly Father” belief is “childish” doesn’t contravene the intention of entering into honest debate."

The context and meaning of the full sentence is that Squeegee Beckenheim and myself apparently agree that posting what I honestly believe (“Heavenly Father” belief is “childish”) doesn’t contravene the intention of entering into honest debate. Whether my belief is correct or not is moot. I don't think for a second that Squeegee Beckenheim agrees with me that a “Heavenly Father” belief is “childish”.
I believe that you are writing both sides of this conversation and don't need me to participate.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:29 PM   #253
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I ask you to frame a question as an example of your expectation for a cogent argument; you refuse to do so - that is dodging any way you slice it.
And you are free to continue to mischaracterise what I've said on the subject like that, should you so choose.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:31 PM   #254
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well since "god" is supposed to be perfect, he would not make such a mistake. If God did it, it should perfect - 50/50 DM/DE - - the fact that it is not is evidence for the non-existence of god.



Again, since "god" is supposed to be perfect, this should be exactly right. If its not, then this is more evidence for the non-existence of god.



And again, god is claimed to be perfect; god would not make such an obvious mistake. If god did it, it should be 0 - - the fact that it is not is even more evidence for the non-existence of god.



Lets go again. "God" is supposed to be perfect, he would not make such a mistake. If god did it, this would not be a problem - yet further evidence for the non-existence of god



I repeat, since "god" is supposed to be perfect, he would not make such a mistake. If god did it, they would be equal - another striking piece of evidence that god does not exist.
We seem to be making progress. Have you come around to the fact fine-tuning is a problem and a motivation for multiverse theory was to solve said problem?

A yes/no answer will suffice.

Then we can talk about theism.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:00 PM   #255
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Heh? "Heaven is effectively the entire Universe"??? I've never heard Heaven described like that. Who is claiming that heaven is effectively the entire Universe?
Have you ever read The Bible (both versions), or is it that The Bible no longer of any relevence?

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I think you are doubling-down on a bad position. Or rather, you've reached rock bottom and have started to dig.
Well you would think that.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
So you ARE arguing that modern theists think that God lives in the sky? I'm a bit confused by your position now. Anyway, most theists (me included) pray on our knees with hands clasped together and eyes closed. You can make jokes about that if you like. At least it would be accurate!
Thanks for declaring you’re a theist as I wasn’t sure despite your avatar.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Here's one: you talking to God is prayer. God talking to you is schizophrenia!
Everyone that claims a god talks to them are schizophreniacs!!?? (nobody tell Moses). Even Jesus? Oh wait, some theists think Jesus sort of is god, so I guess that would make him a soliloquist or monologist, or a sandwich short of a picnic perhaps.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
And that's fair enough. I didn't expect you to accept it. I'm just telling you how it looks from the theist side. For me, your use of the term helps me to understand how much you have invested in the discussion.
Being a life-long atheist I have no personal experience of what it’s like to be a theist. Also there are so many different versions of religions (Christianity in particular) that it’s hard to know what each individual theist believes. Do you speak for all theists, or just ones that agree with your particular, current beliefs?

Please educate me – Does your god live anywhere? If yes, Where does your god live? Is that place called Heaven? Where is Heaven. Sincere questions I would appreciate answers to.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 5th November 2017 at 08:06 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:40 PM   #256
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I already cited this video. It does not say what you think it says.
yes, it actually does

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Did you read the summary of the video?
Yes, I did!

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
At the heart of modern cosmology is a mystery: Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create the conditions necessary for life? In this tour de force tour of some of science's biggest new discoveries, Brian Greene shows how the mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the riddle.

The bolded IS the fine-tuning problem. Greene's solution, like everyone else's, is a sufficiently large multiverse.
I see no argument purporting that the multi-verse in invalid... do you?

Also, it doesn't matter that it was postulated to solve a problem... that is what scientists do all... the... time....!!

What did Einstein do when his GR theory predicted that the universe must either expand or contract? He suspected that something else must be going on; that some invisible mass or energy must be acting. He postulated a Cosmological Constant as a mathematical fix. Turns out, he wasn't far off

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Do you concede fine-tuning IS a problem?
Yes, its a problem for theists. If god, allegedly the most perfect being, created the universe, it should be perfectly matched for life; it isn't. While it might be close, its a "no cigar" for god.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:56 PM   #257
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And you are free to continue to mischaracterise what I've said on the subject like that, should you so choose.
I am not mischaracterizing anything

I have made a very simple request

You have refused that request

Your bad!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 09:00 PM   #258
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
yes, it actually does



Yes, I did!



I see no argument purporting that the multi-verse in invalid... do you?

Also, it doesn't matter that it was postulated to solve a problem... that is what scientists do all... the... time....!!

What did Einstein do when his GR theory predicted that the universe must either expand or contract? He suspected that something else must be going on; that some invisible mass or energy must be acting. He postulated a Cosmological Constant as a mathematical fix. Turns out, he wasn't far off



Yes, its a problem for theists. If god, allegedly the most perfect being, created the universe, it should be perfectly matched for life; it isn't. While it might be close, its a "no cigar" for god.
No, it's a problem for cosmologists, as has been demonstrated time and again in quote after quote.

The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. ... In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flat...hrome&ie=UTF-8

You will notice there is nothing about theists there.

At this point, I'm going to assume you're either being willfully obtuse or can't understand the science.

ETA: I see another poster is having a similar problem with regards to you.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 5th November 2017 at 09:02 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 09:35 PM   #259
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
The fine tuning problem is no longer a problem for cosmologists. Not since they accepted the observational evidence and included inflation in the Standard Cosmological Model.

The multiverse is implied by inflation theory. Picking and choosing which implications of a theory are accepted cannot be justified. Accept a theory, accept all it's implications.

The multiverse is now a problem for theological fine-tuning advocates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#a309aa16c979
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 5th November 2017 at 09:43 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 09:48 PM   #260
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
The fine tuning problem is no longer a problem for cosmologists. Not since they accepted the observational evidence and included inflation in the Standard Cosmological Model.

The multiverse is implied by inflation theory. Picking and choosing which implications of a theory are accepted cannot be justified. Accept a theory, accept all it's implications.

The multiverse is now a problem for theological fine-tuning advocates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#a309aa16c979
Agreed.

But if these other universes are causally not connected to us, and that would appear to be the case, how do we verify they exist? Cosmologists are postulating something that might be unverifiable in principle. That has got some scientists understandably upset.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:45 PM   #261
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
No, it's a problem for cosmologists, as has been demonstrated time and again in quote after quote.
Yes its a problem for cosmologists, but only inasmuch as they have trouble understanding how it all works. However, the thing under discussion here is the reality or non-reality of god or gods. IMO, the fine tuning problem has no implications with regard to this discussion.

If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god really did create the universe, then the very fact that he/she has those attributes would mean that the universe would be perfect in every way, and it would be fine-tuned to absolute perfection. It clearly is not, therefore it wasn't created by any such god.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. ... In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe.[/i]
https://www.google.com/search?q=flat...hrome&ie=UTF-8
All very interesting indeed...

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You will notice there is nothing about theists there.
... and exactly my point.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
At this point, I'm going to assume you're either being willfully obtuse or can't understand the science.
I have been an amateur astronomer on and off for the last 40 years, and while I have only a laymans understanding of the science, I'm fairly sure I understand to a sufficient degree for a forum like this one.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 5th November 2017 at 11:16 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 04:52 AM   #262
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You have refused that request
Repeating this will not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 09:16 AM   #263
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
This thread so far:

"The provocatively irreverant approach that video took is counterproductive. That's now how persuasive argumentation should be done! Atheists can and should do better!"

"Yeah, he said 'sky daddy!'"

"Okay, show us an example of how you think it should be done better."

"Stop changing the subject! This isn't about me! It's about how badly that video sucks!"

"Yeah, he said "sky daddy!"
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 09:42 AM   #264
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
That's a generous reading of some people's responses thus far.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 11:40 AM   #265
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's a generous reading of some people's responses thus far.

I quite agree.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 01:21 PM   #266
Subduction Zone
Muse
 
Subduction Zone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hell, that nonsense video could have the secret to turning Panther piss into gasoline, but I ain’t gonna sift through 35minutes of **** to find the shiny penny at the bottom.
I can understand your point. Dusty is an acquired taste. He is highly entertaining and tends to combine just a little bit of ranting and hyperbole. Most of his claims are correct, but I would never use one of his videos as "evidence" when debating with Christians.

Christians are not going to watch this video, or if they do they will be distracted by all of his excesses. It is counterproductive to use this video if one wants to convince anyone. It is mainly "preaching to the choir".

So why are you still debating this? Why not just let it go?
__________________
humber:
Quote:
If you "feel" 1G for 1sec, how far you travel depends only on your mass.
Subduction Zone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 01:29 PM   #267
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I agree completely. I suspect there are websites where typing “skydaddy” is a clever comment, but here on a site devoted to alleged skeptics? I’m still surprised that people embarrass themselves like that.

That was also my reaction when I opened the link in the op, the redneck atheist is just barely a step up from a monkey throwing feces
Aren't we all?

As for 'skydaddy'. There is no question that the term is meant to mock the idea of a god. It's frustrating to nonbelievers that we are the ones discriminated against by people who believe a fairy tale is real. I respect the communities that are embedded the different faiths. But it also creates an us vs them mentality. You either believe in their fairy tale or 'skydaddy' or you're on the outs.

I try very much to respect every individual, but I cannot and don't respect every idea.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 01:55 PM   #268
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Subduction Zone View Post
I can understand your point. Dusty is an acquired taste. He is highly entertaining and tends to combine just a little bit of ranting and hyperbole. Most of his claims are correct, but I would never use one of his videos as "evidence" when debating with Christians.

Christians are not going to watch this video, or if they do they will be distracted by all of his excesses. It is counterproductive to use this video if one wants to convince anyone. It is mainly "preaching to the choir".

So why are you still debating this? Why not just let it go?

Quite simply because it's a welcome distraction for The Big Dog. It allows him to avoid answering other questions he doesn't have answers to.

Back in post # 233 I related the story about Lot in my own words using contemporary language but no cuss words and asked:

Quote:
Now can you explain this to us The Big Dog?

Why would God wipe out those cities, killing innocent children along with everyone else? How was it that Abraham managed to get the better of him in the argument? Why would God have such poor judgement of people thinking Lot was such a great guy? Why was Lot's wife treated so harshly for such a minor transgression?

If the story is allegorical what is the deep message being passed on?

This is, as I understand it, essentially what this thread is about. The video illustrates story after story from the Bible, illustrating extraordinary cruelty, unfairness, moral depravity, and stupidity, in the actions of God and his chosen people. Those critical don't challenge the veracity of the stories because they can't. Instead they challenge the manner in which the material is presented.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 02:39 PM   #269
Subduction Zone
Muse
 
Subduction Zone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 989
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Quite simply because it's a welcome distraction for The Big Dog. It allows him to avoid answering other questions he doesn't have answers to.

Back in post # 233 I related the story about Lot in my own words using contemporary language but no cuss words and asked:




This is, as I understand it, essentially what this thread is about. The video illustrates story after story from the Bible, illustrating extraordinary cruelty, unfairness, moral depravity, and stupidity, in the actions of God and his chosen people. Those critical don't challenge the veracity of the stories because they can't. Instead they challenge the manner in which the material is presented.
Sadly with many theists you could answer as politely and properly as possible and they will simply avoid that obvious self contradictions in the Bible. For example if abortion is so bad then why were priests allowed to do chemical abortions in the case of a cheating spouse? Highly dangerous chemical abortions that could leave the wife sterile by the way. It is in the Bible. One merely has to be able to understand that even in the Old Testament that euphemisms were used at times.
__________________
humber:
Quote:
If you "feel" 1G for 1sec, how far you travel depends only on your mass.
Subduction Zone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 03:13 PM   #270
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Subduction Zone View Post
Sadly with many theists you could answer as politely and properly as possible and they will simply avoid that obvious self contradictions in the Bible. For example if abortion is so bad then why were priests allowed to do chemical abortions in the case of a cheating spouse? Highly dangerous chemical abortions that could leave the wife sterile by the way. It is in the Bible. One merely has to be able to understand that even in the Old Testament that euphemisms were used at times.

When it comes to describing the nasty stuff like sex and sexual equipment, the euphemisms used are plentiful. No such delicacy however when it comes to the blood and guts stuff.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 03:22 PM   #271
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,905
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
This thread so far:

"The provocatively irreverant approach that video took is counterproductive. That's now how persuasive argumentation should be done! Atheists can and should do better!"

"Yeah, he said 'sky daddy!'"

"Okay, show us an example of how you think it should be done better."

"Stop changing the subject! This isn't about me! It's about how badly that video sucks!"

"Yeah, he said "sky daddy!"
odd how much you got wrong there, tho.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 04:39 PM   #272
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
odd how much you got wrong there, tho.
You still hanging around this "Atheist Bible Class", after all that complaining about the length and content of the video, and how much of your time you wasted watching part of it?

By now you must have spent twice as much time bemoaning the video's existence. Oh well. Now you know exactly how atheists feel about the bible's existence.

So perhaps the time you've spent mocking the "Atheist Bible Class" will not have been completely wasted, if you gain some insight into how atheists feel about having biblical hogwash taught in the schools. Particularly after so many atheists have had large chunks of their lives wasted while having endless reams of biblical balderdash drilled into their skulls in the churches.

<snip>

The Constitution bluntly forbids the government favoring one religion over another. But that prohibition doesn't seem to rule out teaching all beliefs (and non-beliefs) equally. Including atheism.

I can't speak for any other atheist, but I would be happy to see atheism given a chance to compete on an equal footing for the hearts and minds of the youngsters against all the bogus religious belief systems.

No guts, no glory, Christians.


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 0
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Loss Leader; 6th November 2017 at 05:28 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 04:50 PM   #273
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,905
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post

I can't speak for any other atheist, but I would be happy to see atheism given a chance to compete on an equal footing for the hearts and minds of the youngsters against all the bogus religious belief systems.

No guts, no glory, Christians.
Plenty of places would be right up your alley! USSR, Communist China, well golly just lots of places!

And, to be fair, I don't know "atheists" feel, I know how a tiny subset of atheists feel.

The subset that would watch the Redneck Atheist and perhaps those who think that "Sky daddy" is the type of juvenile mockery that they need to make their "arguments."
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 05:11 PM   #274
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Plenty of places would be right up your alley! USSR, Communist China, well golly just lots of places!

And, to be fair, I don't know "atheists" feel, I know how a tiny subset of atheists feel.

The subset that would watch the Redneck Atheist and perhaps those who think that "Sky daddy" is the type of juvenile mockery that they need to make their "arguments."
Balderdash. Those rat nests offered up no such equality and even-handedness as what I suggested, and what our constitution demands.

You want the Babble taught in public schools, you either have to choke off the constitution and the judicial branch of government and risk military intervention, or (possibly) agree to what I suggested, assuming such a compromise could be worked out.

No guts, no glory.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 6th November 2017 at 05:24 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 05:12 PM   #275
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Plenty of places would be right up your alley! USSR, Communist China, well golly just lots of places!
The UK, most of Europe...
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 05:19 PM   #276
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,905
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Balderdash. Those rat nests offered up no such equality and even-handedness as what I suggested, and what our constitution demands.

You want the Babble taught in public schools, you either have to choke off the constitution and the judicial branch of government and risk military intervention, or (possibly) agree to what I suggested, assuming such a compromise could be worked out.

No guts, no glory.
The what? The "Babble".... Oh wait, I just got that the "babble" is supposed to mean the "bible" !! WOWSERS!

Jeepers, that is almost as clever as "Sky Daddy." Is that something you came up with, or is there an official Atheist handbook that I can consult, because the arguments here make the Algonquin Round Table's discussion look like warm spit heated over a burning dumpster fire! Well done.

As far as guts or glory? I go with glory: bring on the "military intervention"!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 05:38 PM   #277
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
As far as guts or glory? I go with glory: bring on the "military intervention"!
How badly do you want one religion favored and taught in the public schools?

Go ahead. Make that move. Hell, the way things are now, you'll probably get clean away with it. The shot is there. This hinterland is a pale shadow of the once-great constitutional representative democracy the founders gave us. But not half as pale as it will be after a decade of government-sanctioned Babble School.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 6th November 2017 at 05:44 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 08:58 PM   #278
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Plenty of places would be right up your alley! USSR, Communist China, well golly just lots of places!

And, to be fair, I don't know "atheists" feel, I know how a tiny subset of atheists feel.

The subset that would watch the Redneck Atheist and perhaps those who think that "Sky daddy" is the type of juvenile mockery that they need to make their "arguments."
1. The USSR doesn't exist.
2. There are more and more nations who's citizens are predominantly atheist. Including most of Western Europe as well as Japan and South Korea. The Scandinavian countries are reported to be around 80 percent atheist. I'm not in favor of atheism by force or legislation. I'm thoroughly convinced that the more educated a society is the less superstitious it is.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 09:07 PM   #279
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm thoroughly convinced that the more educated a society is the less superstitious it is.
The research is a lot less sure than you are
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 09:18 PM   #280
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's a generous reading of some people's responses thus far.

I completely disagree.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.