Let's jump right back in...(there's a link to previous posts at the bottom of this entry)
6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind – Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe.
Actually, for once, the commenter has almost gotten something right. What we see from science and empirical evidence is no indication, no evidence that there is any consciousness to the universe itself that would indicate that it has anything in mind or that there's some puppet master behind the scenes pulling strings. Mutations are random. Particles can and do blink into and out of existence. Quantum mechanics works based on probability instead of certainty and we even have theorems that state that this is simply the way the world works. In short, we see no evidence of purpose. To brazenly state that one sees purpose is to speak beyond what evidence we do have.
As for the fine-tuning argument, there are many issues with that. For one, the Xian can't contend fine tuning and also that humans could not have arisen in this universe without divine intervention. Secondly, the vast majority of the universe seems rather inhabitable to humans. Third, we find that life can form and thrive in a vast variety of conditions, not simply those that support human life. Fourth, we have no evidence of the constants being tuned to any degree, we simply know that they are what they are. It's quite possible that we are one of many universes that have different values, or that many of these values are emergent properties that simply must be. Also, implicit in this is that the constants must be some value plus or minus some factor, but inherent in that are still infinite different possible universes that would still meet the same restrictions of this universe. Making the leap to a fine-tuned universe that was fine-tuned by a god is an unjustified leap.
7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe – Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe.
And, we're back to going off the rails. Nowhere does "Materialism predict complex life in this universe should be fairly common." Once again, I have no idea where this person gets their ideas from.
What we do understand is some of the conditions necessary for life as we know it. But, we don't know quite a bit, and it's rather unjustified to go on as if we do, yet this Xian seems to feel fully justified that not only is complex life can only arise in certain specific conditions that we know of, but that the Earth is the only place in the billions and billions of galaxies that this is the case. What presumptuous rubbish.
8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”.
Actually, it was evolutionary biologists that discovered that much of the DNA code is junk, end of story. If this Xian wants to try and argue that we don't have junk DNA, and that it's a testable prediction of his god, then I say, "Go right ahead. Please do."
This question has been empirically settled. Some creationists do try to make up data or claim that examples of functional non-coding DNA, that were already known to scientists, somehow disputes the claim of junk DNA, but they are simply making stuff up. The empirical evidence has been gathered, and the creationists lost...as they always do.
Other posts in this series.
33 comments:
"Every transcendent universal constant..."
I'd curious to know what, exactly, constitutes a 'transcendental universal constant.'
"... is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe."
That's like saying a blender is fine tuned to puree frogs. While this is technically true, it's highly doubtful that frogs would find this technicality very comforting.
Nonetheless, since, as far as can be surmised, death is the end result for all carbon based life, it is inaccurate to contend that the universe is fine tuned for carbon based life to exist.
No, the universe is fine tuned for carbon based death, and many humans find that technicality very discomforting. So discomforting, in fact, that they invent ridiculous ways of bullshitting themselves into believing they're going to live forever; more oft than not giving little thought as to what that eternal life is supposed to consist of.
GCT,
"It's quite possible that we are one of many universes that have different values,"
How do you know that it is quite possible that we are one of many universes? I know you are a hard evidence kind-o-guy. What is the evidence for multiple universes? It must be good evience since you say it it not just possible, but "quite possible."
This would be a good opportunity to show those pesky Christians what real evidence is, and how foolish they appear when they can't provide a shred of real evidence for their God.
CT,
It's also quite possible that a god exists, but we have no evidence for it. OTOH, multiverse theories are working towards putting forth testable predictions, which puts them leaps and bounds ahead of the god (less-than) hypothesis.
GCT,
I’m a little confused. You mean to say that there is no real evidence for multiple universes? How then is it “quite possible” that they exist? If there is no evidence for multiple universes, I don’t see how one can say anything at all about the likelihood that that they exist. One might even venture that it is unlikely that multiple universes exist if there is no evidence. You use this line of reasoning regularly with regard to God. No evidence? Sorry…No God. But wait, here you are now saying that it is quite possible that God exists. What gives?
I’m also a little sketchy on how theories enter the equation. If I have a theory that multiple universes exist, does that constitute a type of virtual evidence? What if I have a theory that God exists? Does my theory about God's existence give me virtual evidence as well?
How can I judge one set of virtual evidence to be leaps and bounds better than another?
Anything's "quite" possible.
Likelihood (probability) and possibility are, of course, two entirely different species.
Teapot: What if I have a theory that God exists?
If it stands up to rigorous logical scrutiny, you can claim to have a 'theory.' Short of that, you're left with a failed hypothesis.
Teapot: How can I judge one set of virtual evidence to be leaps and bounds better than another?
Assuming the hypotheses stand up to rigorous logical scrutiny, corroborating observation is the only means of 'judging one set of virtual evidence leaps and bounds better than another.' Short of that, rigorous logical scrutiny is the best you can do.
CT,
You're doing a lot of conflating terms. Theory isn't the same as hypothesis isn't the same as wild-assed guess. Possible is not the same as probable. When you clean up your language, you'll see that your objections are a bunch of straw.
Tyler,
I wasn’t actually trying to compare the value of theories relating to God or multiple universes. Both are theories that have no scientific evidence to back them up. I called them “virtual evidence” because they have no value as real evidence. The only purpose was to highlight that GCT knew that there was no scientific evidence of any kind for multiple universes, yet didn’t want to acknowledge that.
Christians get drilled regularly on this blog for having zero scientific evidence for the existence of God. To be consistent, shouldn’t the existence of multiple universes (based also on zero scientific evidence) be subject to the same skepticism? If not, then there is a different standard of reasoning being applied. Somehow multiple universes can be quite possible, but the existence of God is a foolish notion.
Curiously, GCT recently acknowledged that it is quite possible that God exists. However, all of GCT’s other posts seem to argue that there is no reason to think God exists. God doesn’t exist, yet God could quite possibly exist? Again, what gives?
CT,
It's not my fault that you consistently misrepresent the arguments made and/or ignore the clarifications given to you.
Having no reason to believe in god is not the same as there being no possibility of god as has already been pointed out. Please stop trying to flog the same dead horse as it gets rather tiresome.
Secondly, we do have some ideas of multiverses that do lead to testable predictions and do make the math work out, which would put them on a slightly higher level than any god hypothesis.
Third, your grasp of the issue at hand is sorely lacking. When the theist claims fine-tuning due to god, that is because one must rule out other possibilities. Since one can not rule out multiverses, it is premature and irresponsible to conclude goddidit. Now stop conflating, changing meanings, and trying to change the focus of the argument, because you're not doing yourself any favors.
Teapot: Tyler,
I wasn’t actually trying to compare the value of theories relating to God or multiple universes. Both are theories that have no scientific evidence to back them up.
"God" (whatever that actually is) is not/has no value as a theory. None. It is an (ill defined) hypothesis for which no objectively sound reasoning has been formulated to constitute a theory.
Multiverse concepts, on the other hand, are based on objective (mathematical) reasoning. However, that mathematical reasoning is, in all probability, as far as these theories can be taken, since it's improbable that other universes will be observable to us.
Teapot: I called them “virtual evidence” because they have no value as real evidence.
Mathematics has real (albeit abstract) value as evidence (when it is sound). Without it, Einstein would not have known to look, never mind where to look, for the real evidence of general relativity, for instance.
Teapot: The only purpose was to highlight that GCT knew that there was no scientific evidence of any kind for multiple universes, yet didn’t want to acknowledge that.
I'm not seeing any refusal or failure on GCT's part to acknowledge that there's no real evidence for multiple universes. On the contrary, actually.
Teapot: Christians get drilled regularly on this blog for having zero scientific evidence for the existence of God. To be consistent, shouldn’t the existence of multiple universes (based also on zero scientific evidence) be subject to the same skepticism?
No one, least of all GCT, has suggested multiverse theories should be immune from skepticism. I could be wrong, but I'd be so bold as to assert that GCT realizes that, in all probability, multiverse theories will never be immune to reasonable skepticism, as, as far as can be surmised at this point, other universes, should they exist, will remain unobservable to us.
Teapot: Somehow multiple universes can be quite possible, but the existence of God is a foolish notion.
Just because someone claims something is possible doesn't mean it isn't, in all probability, foolish to believe the possibility is real. It's possible there's an elephant in my front pocket, but it would be foolish to contend that possibility has any merit in the real world.
Teapot: Curiously, GCT recently acknowledged that it is quite possible that God exists. However, all of GCT’s other posts seem to argue that there is no reason to think God exists.
Any more than there's a reason to think there exists an elephant in my front pocket. As Rusty says, "In the physical universe we live in, it cannot be done."
Teapot: God doesn’t exist...
Straw man.
Teapot: ... yet God could quite possibly exist? Again, what gives?
You're giving fuel and a match to a straw man.
“Having no reason to believe in god is not the same as there being no possibility of god as has already been pointed out.“
I don’t think I ever said they were the same thing. I was merely pointing out that you seem to have two mutually exclusive positions, and one of them was inconsistent with the main message of the blog (there is no God). You have spent a good deal of time and energy building the Why I Hate Jesus brand. Why compromise it by saying that it is quite possible that God exists? I think this diminishes the brand and makes it harder in the future to put down Christians for their beliefs. None of my business really, but there are some discriminating consumers out there that may notice the decreased product quality and take their loyalty elsewhere.
“Secondly, we do have some ideas of multiverses that do lead to testable predictions and do make the math work out, which would put them on a slightly higher level than any god hypothesis.”
I figured if I asked you tell me what a testable prediction for a multiverse would be, you would probably just hand me a Wiki link, so I thought I would save you some time and check out some Wiki links myself. From what I can tell there are a subset of physicists that believe in a multiverse, but so far I don’t see any testable predictions.
"Third, your grasp of the issue at hand is sorely lacking."
That’s why I’m counting on you to educate me. Let ‘er rip Master Po.
CT,
"I don’t think I ever said they were the same thing. I was merely pointing out that you seem to have two mutually exclusive positions, and one of them was inconsistent with the main message of the blog (there is no God)."
You want to stop contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences. Here's you: "I didn't say that, but I'm going to turn around and continue to argue what I didn't say." You can stop trying to burn your strawmen now.
"Why compromise it by saying that it is quite possible that God exists?"
It's called intellectual honesty, something that you obviously struggle with.
"I think this diminishes the brand and makes it harder in the future to put down Christians for their beliefs."
So now it's about putting down Xians for their beliefs? Whatever. Are you cl in sockpuppet mode by any chance?
"From what I can tell there are a subset of physicists that believe in a multiverse, but so far I don’t see any testable predictions."
There are some that are testable in theory that we don't yet have the technology for, and may not ever be able to test. Let me make it clear that I don't believe that multiple universes exist, just that it is possible. And, it being possible, it blows the idea that it must be god out of the water, which is the point that you are missing. I can't tell if you are missing it because you are intentionally doing so, or because you can't understand plain English. So, which is it? Are you incapable of basic reading comprehension, or are you a sophist and simply dishonest person that thinks rhetorical points can be scored from erecting strawmen and subsequently burning them?
"That’s why I’m counting on you to educate me. Let ‘er rip Master Po."
Which is why I laid it out for you in the rest of the paragraph you quoted. Are you too stupid to follow it or are you intentionally playing games?
GCT,
Because you happen to believe multiverses are possible, that blows Goddidit out of the water? If I don’t recognize the elegance of this reasoning, I must be either stupid, playing games or don’t understand English?
Despite your patient efforts to enlighten me, I am afraid I don’t follow your reasoning to the same conclusion. Let’s assume for a moment that there are multiverses in existence. Now that we know that as an undisputed fact, how does that fact bear on the question of whether they were created by God or not?
Master Po, how is it that you can hear these things and I cannot?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo
CT,
"Because you happen to believe multiverses are possible, that blows Goddidit out of the water?"
I usually don't say things like this, but are you really that stupid?
Here's what I said:
"When the theist claims fine-tuning due to god, that is because one must rule out other possibilities. Since one can not rule out multiverses, it is premature and irresponsible to conclude goddidit."
How you can turn that into what you did requires a certain level of either stupidity or intellectual dishonesty. Which is it?
"Let’s assume for a moment that there are multiverses in existence. Now that we know that as an undisputed fact, how does that fact bear on the question of whether they were created by God or not?"
It would destroy the idea of fine-tuning.
"Master Po, how is it that you can hear these things and I cannot?"
You're either in way above your head or you're playing stupid in order to try and win some rhetorical point (intellectual dishonesty). I ask again, are you a sock puppet of cl's? Please answer this with a "Yes" or a "No." If you don't answer in the next comment, I might assume that your sophistry is simply too similar.
GCT,
"I usually don't say things like this, but are you really that stupid?"
Actually, my experience has been that you start with the stupid insults pretty early on in the discussion. It makes me wonder why you feel compelled to do that when you are trying to present yourself as a rational and thoughtful debater, but I suppose it has a purpose.
"Here's what I said:"When the theist claims fine-tuning due to god, that is because one must rule out other possibilities. Since one can not rule out multiverses, it is premature and irresponsible to conclude goddidit."
I would have to disagree with your assumption here. From my point of view, theists don’t claim that fine-tuning must be due to God because they have ruled out all the other possibilities. If they are theists, there ARE no other possibilities. The two go together (a belief and God and a belief that God created and fine-tuned the universe).
If you want to hold up a theist who says differently (that they only believe God fine-tuned the universe because they’ve ruled out the other possibilities), I can’t really speak to that. I’ve never met anyone with that point of view.
If one cannot rule out a multiverse, it isn’t premature or irresponsible for a theist to conclude Goddidit. As theists, they have no option but to believe Goddidit (regardless of the multiverse question).
So would the existence of multiverses would destroy the idea of fine-tuning for a theist? I don’t see that it would.
“I ask again, are you a sock puppet of cl's? Please answer this with a "Yes" or a "No."
No. Don’t know anything about your trauma at the hands of cl.
CT,
"Actually, my experience has been that you start with the stupid insults pretty early on in the discussion."
This is patently false, and I ask you to back it up or retract.
"It makes me wonder why you feel compelled to do that when you are trying to present yourself as a rational and thoughtful debater, but I suppose it has a purpose."
My points are built on rationality and logic. That you twist my words and ignore what I argue does not mean that my logic is flawed or that I'm being insulting. In fact, your tactics are rather insulting.
"I would have to disagree with your assumption here."
It's not an assumption.
"From my point of view, theists don’t claim that fine-tuning must be due to God because they have ruled out all the other possibilities."
Because they can't meet the evidential demands of their position.
"If they are theists, there ARE no other possibilities."
Which is begging the question.
"If one cannot rule out a multiverse, it isn’t premature or irresponsible for a theist to conclude Goddidit."
Actually, it is. The only possible, logical way for a theist to reach the "goddidit" conclusion is to rule out all other possibilities.
"So would the existence of multiverses would destroy the idea of fine-tuning for a theist? I don’t see that it would."
Which so elegantly displays the lack of rationality of the theistic position.
"No. Don’t know anything about your trauma at the hands of cl."
I'm still suspicious. And, no trauma, just annoyance. cl is an annoying git that has an MO very similar to yours. cl, is unwelcome here not because of trauma but because he violated one of the few rules that I hold: Do not make threatening comments. When he threatened me, he lost commenting privileges.
GCT,
“This is patently false, and I ask you to back it up or retract.”
Not too long ago had a discussion about abiogenesis. Ignorant… warped… absurd? These don’t seem like the words you use when respectfully disagreeing with someone in a rational discussion. In this thread you alone you called me stupid, dishonest, and unable to understand English. How do these insults help you present your case in a rational and logical manner?
"Here's what I said:"When the theist claims fine-tuning due to god, that is because one must rule out other possibilities.
What would you like to call this statement? A premise? A fact? You seem to be arguing that this statement is true even if it doesn’t make sense. Theists claim that fine tuning is due to God because of the Bible (Romans I:20), not because they have systematically ruled out the other possibilities. It seems like you are expecting theists to reason like atheists, but then, they wouldn’t be reasoning like theists would they?
“Actually, it is. The only possible, logical way for a theist to reach the "goddidit" conclusion is to rule out all other possibilities.”
Maybe you should survey some theists and see if they agree.
“one of the few rules that I hold: Do not make threatening comments. When he threatened me, he lost commenting privileges.”
Do you feel threatened by me calling you Master Po? I’ll stop.
CT,
You need to back up your accusations. What did I specifically say that was insulting, and did I "start with insults" as you so accuse. You can't back it up, so instead you resort to further vague accusations. It's a sign that you can't win your arguments, so instead you attack the person. It's called ad hominem.
"In this thread you alone you called me stupid, dishonest, and unable to understand English."
Because you are continually misrepresenting me in a manner that can only be described as such. Either you are blatantly stupid by reading X and replying that I said ~X, or you are intentionally misrepresenting, which would make you dishonest. Which is it?
"What would you like to call this statement? A premise? A fact?"
It is a logical conclusion. The theist has no logical recourse to conclude god unless all other possibilities are off the table.
"Theists claim that fine tuning is due to God because of the Bible (Romans I:20), not because they have systematically ruled out the other possibilities."
Exactly. And, like I said, it shows that they are begging the question. The only possible way they could come to the goddidit conclusion is by ruling out the alternatives. By going straight to goddidit, they show that they are assuming their conclusion. They believe goddidit, so they conclude that goddidit. It's logically and rationally wrongheaded. Thank you for pointing it out so well. You do my job for me.
"It seems like you are expecting theists to reason like atheists, but then, they wouldn’t be reasoning like theists would they?"
I expect them to use logic and reason. Apparently you think that's too hard or too much for theists to do? I don't. Now who is being insulting?
"Do you feel threatened by me calling you Master Po? I’ll stop."
Did I say that I did? You are a right proper git aren't you? Do you really not understand that I was talking about a past comment that got someone disinvited from commenting? I was not talking about this conversation. Why do you persist in trying to twist the conversation?
GCT,
Are you sure you're OK with me calling you Master Po?
I understand your frustration. Why can't a theist be.... more like an atheist?
It doesn't seem illogical for a theist to conclude that God fine- tuned the universe. You may argue that theists have made an incorrect assumption (that God exists), and think them fools for that reason, but you can't really say their logic faulty. It would actually be illogical for them conclude that the universe was fine-tuned for some reason other than God.
I think you just like the idea that Christians are incapable of using logic. It's easy to dismiss them that way.
I think this notion of multiple universes actually has a lot of value from a Christian standpoint. I particularly like Douglas Adam's take on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Total_Perspective_Vortex
I like the concept of the Total Perspective Vortex. It makes me wonder how far my arrogance would take me before being crushed by my own insignificance in this universe.
From a Christian standpoint, this is analogous to realizing how you compare to God.
Of course, from the atheist standpoint, the Total Perspective Vortex is a vending machine for fairy cake.
How do you think you would fare in the Total Perspective Vortex?
Sorry to digress, but I sense we are nearing the end of our discussion about theists and their basis for believing that God-fined tuned the universe.
Teapot: I understand your frustration. Why can't a theist be.... more like an atheist?
Say, I'm running low on grass, being winter here and all, and my horses are hungry. Can I have some of your straw? You apparently have plenty to spare...
Teapot: It doesn't seem illogical for a theist to conclude that God fine- tuned the universe.
If that were the case, a theist could make a logical argument for a god fine-tuning the universe. To the best of my knowledge, anyway, no such argument exists.
Teapot: I think you just like the idea that Christians are incapable of using logic.
On the contrary, many people who call themselves christians use logic, some of them very well.
Teapot: I think this notion of multiple universes actually has a lot of value from a Christian standpoint.
Except, you know, for the fact that, like germ theory, multiple universes would throw a tree trunk into the spokes of the christian theological tricycle.
Teapot: Of course, from the atheist standpoint, the Total Perspective Vortex is a vending machine for fairy cake.
On the contrary, atheists aren't the ones shoving money into the machine...
"GCT said...
CT,
"Actually, my experience has been that you start with the stupid insults pretty early on in the discussion."
This is patently false, and I ask you to back it up or retract."
I have spent a lot of time lurking on this blog, and I do have to agree with CT. While you do seem to love logic and debate GCT, you often use insult as a primary weapon instead.
CT,
"I understand your frustration. Why can't a theist be.... more like an atheist?"
Allow me to quote myself since you don't read what I write:
"I expect them to use logic and reason."
I find it typical for you that you ignored that and simply re-asserted what Tyler points out is a strawman...unless you are admitting that religious thought is not logical. I don't think that's the case from the rest of your comment, however. OTOH, there's a kernel of truth in that I think if people did approach religion with logic and reason, they would indeed drop their religious superstitions and "think like an atheist."
"It doesn't seem illogical for a theist to conclude that God fine- tuned the universe. You may argue that theists have made an incorrect assumption (that God exists), and think them fools for that reason, but you can't really say their logic faulty. It would actually be illogical for them conclude that the universe was fine-tuned for some reason other than God."
Really? By this logic, I can assume anything I want and simply claim that the assumed conclusions are therefore completely logical. Example: I assume that unicorns created the universe and now I am completely logical in concluding the unicorns are behind fine-tuning (which I simply assert exists) and I feel completely logical as you would have to conclude I am.
Hopefully the absurdity of that example helps you see why your statement is completely wrong. You can't simply use any illogical and irrational thought, then base conclusions off of it and claim to be logical and rational.
"I particularly like Douglas Adam's take on it."
You do realize that Douglas Adams is an atheist, right?
"Sorry to digress, but I sense we are nearing the end of our discussion about theists and their basis for believing that God-fined tuned the universe."
It should have ended long ago when it became apparent that you have no interest in dealing fairly in the discussion.
Dawkins86,
"I have spent a lot of time lurking on this blog, and I do have to agree with CT. While you do seem to love logic and debate GCT, you often use insult as a primary weapon instead."
Then it should be no problem to provide evidence for your accusations. I'm still waiting for it from CT, but perhaps you could help him out. Otherwise, I would ask you to retract. I would also say that it's rather rude to simply show up tossing about unevidenced accusations.
I'm sorry, but you're not that high on my priority list that I would actually go back and search through all the previous posts for individual examples. Maybe you should go back through and search for yourself. Maybe you don't even realize you do it. Whatever the case, no retraction is necessary. You often put on pompousness and pretend it is intelligence. Even when I agree with your point, I wouldn't align myself with you in a real life debate because of your attitude.
Dawkins86: You often put on pompousness and pretend it is intelligence.
There's some fuggin' irony for ya...
:chortle:
And there's some more.
How's that, exactly?
You come in here leveling accusations at someone then refuse to back those accusations up, as if people who know better are just supposed to take your word as, dare I say, gospel. If that's not the epitome of pomp pretending to be intelligence, I for one would be curious to know what is.
"I'm sorry, but you're not that high on my priority list that I would actually go back and search through all the previous posts for individual examples."
IOW, you have the temerity to make accusations but not the strength of your convictions to stand behind your words with actual evidence. You, of course see no problem with continuing with the accusations, and that's intellectually honest and shows integrity how?
I think you are CT are simply doing the whole, "Atheists are mean and insulting" stereotype, hoping that other theists will see that and see that it conforms to their stereotypical view, so that all you have to do is make the accusations and never back them up. I mean, all atheists are mean and rude and insulting, right? (And, here comes the inevitable, "I didn't mean all, I mean I have friends who are black, er, I mean atheist.")
"Maybe you don't even realize you do it."
There is nothing insulting about pointing out logical fallacies and bad arguments, nor with pointing out inconsistencies...unless you think that all arguments against your cherished beliefs are insulting and rude. If the latter is the case, then you'll just have to get thicker skin. Your beliefs are not immune from criticism (or am I being insulting again?) This is especially true when theists try to shove their beliefs down our throats through government coersion and other methods.
"Even when I agree with your point, I wouldn't align myself with you in a real life debate because of your attitude."
I think this speaks volumes (was that rude and insulting?)
Ok, you've just proven you can't even read. Same side.
And more irony from the ironically monikered git...
Dawkins86 says,
"Ok, you've just proven you can't even read. Same side."
Were I less charitable, I might point out that this could be considered insulting. I might also point out that the original statement that prompted this outburst would be, "Even when I agree with your point, I wouldn't align myself with you in a real life debate because of your attitude," which does not necessarily indicate what Dawkins86 is saying that it indicates.
But, I probably shouldn't point those things out, because it might seem insulting or pompous, right? Perhaps I need to simply sit there and take it while others use slings and arrows to attack me. I mean, once the atheist speaks up, then she's rude by definition, right?
Look at my username, and then consider why I might have said that you apparently couldn't read based on your statements pointed at me in the previous post. It's not that difficult. Here's a hint for Tyler. MY NAME IS NOT IRONIC!
"Look at my username..."
Yeah, and? In the anonymity of the intarwebs, it's meaningless.
"...and then consider why I might have said that you apparently couldn't read..."
Considering what you wrote (the statement I pointed out) you are in the wrong to imply that there's something wrong with my reading comprehension skills. This is especially so since now you are claiming that I need to make assumptions about you based on nothing more than a made up name for posting purposes.
"It's not that difficult."
No, it's not that difficult to see that you have made accusations that you've failed to back up, including your latest accusation about my reading comprehension (and Tyler's I suppose?) I'm with Tyler. It's rather ironic for you to come on here insulting and attacking while complaining about phantom attacks and insults coming from me. Methinks there's some projection going on.
Dawkins86: Look at my username...
DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!
Dawkins86: ... and then consider why I might have said that you apparently couldn't read based on your statements pointed at me in the previous post.
You didn't "might have said" anything about someone's "apparent" inability to read, liar. You stated outright someone proved that they couldn't read, liar.
Dawkins86: It's not that difficult. Here's a hint for Tyler. MY NAME IS NOT IRONIC!
What's not difficult is seeing the irony in someone who calls himself Dawkins (whether or not the allusion to Richard Dawkins was intentional) not backing up his claims (Mr. Dawkins backs up his claims) while accusing someone of being pompous, then in the next breath demonstrating true pomp by stating that someone is not important enough for you to bother backing up your claim, you ironic, pompous dolt.
Great post again. I think that the theist's assertions that "materialism predicts that life would be common" stem once again from his treatment of materialism as some monolithic organization making pronouncements from on-high, instead of what it is, a collection of disparate agencies and fields of study (such as various disciplines within science, etc) that are often at odds with each other but which are loosely united under a common philosophical banner.
Post a Comment