Balloon guy 158 Posted September 15, 2011 Author Share Posted September 15, 2011 Well, except for the ones that ruin his story like Australopithecus.Charles Oxnard would disagree. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Charles Oxnard would disagree.You mean Charles Oxnard the evolutionary biologist?One way to get famous is to write a single scientific paper that creationists find and use to try and shelter themselves from the avalanche of data against their position. You don't even have to be a creationist or conclude that they are right. I am strongly considering doing this. Maybe you can be the one who "discovers" the paper. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 15, 2011 Author Share Posted September 15, 2011 You mean Charles Oxnard the evolutionary biologist?One way to get famous is to write a single scientific paper that creationists find and use to try and shelter themselves from the avalanche of data against their position. You don't even have to be a creationist or conclude that they are right. I am strongly considering doing this. Maybe you can be the one who "discovers" the paper.I will totally split the book sale proceeds! Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 seems to me it's a question designed to make fun of how ridiculous a stance it is to say that alien life wouldnt invalidate the bible (further than it already is).I wouldn't, and it isn't.You mean Charles Oxnard the evolutionary biologist?One way to get famous is to write a single scientific paper that creationists find and use to try and shelter themselves from the avalanche of data against their position. You don't even have to be a creationist or conclude that they are right. I am strongly considering doing this. Maybe you can be the one who "discovers" the paper.Don't you need to be semi-famous first? (In a sciency sort of way) Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 Part two of the debateVox Day makes the case that the existence of evil requires the existence of GodThe other side cliff notes his points as follows:In summary, Vox's argument thus far is twofold, the first providing the foundation for the second.(A) There is (1) a mountain of testimonial evidence of interaction with gods, (2) testimonial evidence is generally reliable, thus (3) it is ahistorical and denialist to dismiss all such testimonial evidence, and therefore the evidence suggests gods are real.(B) (1) Evil exists, (2) potential differences between one's consequentially safe desires and one's moral sense can be observed, (3) the moral sense is informed by a source external to the conscious mind, and (4) Man's moral sense has not greatly changed over time, then the existence of evil logically indicates the existence of a definitive moral law that is as constant and as arbitrary as most, if not all, of the physical laws of the universe.The conclusion of (B), that this law means a lawgiver who meets the definition of God, is an element, or at least subset of the set of likely "gods" established by (A).He then goes on to argue that A3, B3 and B4 are false statements which negate his assertions that this proves God exist.His rebuttal to the above is included at the link also Link to post Share on other sites
YonYonson 156 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Dammit. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Haha. People said they saw god, so there is a god. People are mean, so there is a god. Logic is funny. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 Haha. People said they saw god, so there is a god. People are mean, so there is a god. Logic is funny.Short cutting the lesson may get you by in vet school, but in life it leaves you looking silly. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Short cutting the lesson may get you by in vet school, but in life it leaves you looking silly.OHMYGODYOURESODEEP! Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Oh, I don't want to get sucked into this.....but I think A2 is so dumb I want to punch A2 in the face.Our legal system only allows testimonial evidence when it can be cross-examined for a reason. It's not all that reliable. Here is some logic:All people in the modern era who think god speaks to them are crazy. Therefore, it is logical that all the testimonial evidence from past concerning interacting with gods was probably from the nut jobs of those past eras. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 I'm sure the other side will just tear those arguments up then right? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Oh, I don't want to get sucked into this.....but I think A2 is so dumb I want to punch A2 in the face.Our legal system only allows testimonial evidence when it can be cross-examined for a reason. It's not all that reliable. Here is some logic:All people in the modern era who think god speaks to them are crazy. Therefore, it is logical that all the testimonial evidence from past concerning interacting with gods was probably from the nut jobs of those past eras.You beat me to it. A2 is about as wrong as you can get. The reliability of testimonial evidence has been absolutely destroyed by cognitive psychologists.If he's getting away with premises like this I can't see how any argument he makes is worth reading. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 You beat me to it. A2 is about as wrong as you can get. The reliability of testimonial evidence has been absolutely destroyed by cognitive psychologists.If he's getting away with premises like this I can't see how any argument he makes is worth reading.Well if the other side's 5 word synopsis of his opinion of what Vox's contention is, is enough for you to make up your mind, then I guess its more effort than most atheist give to actually challenging their own narrow minded beliefs.Go forth knowing you have survived another assault on your beliefs without a single dent in the blinders you have affixed to your brains. ( I guess they are leather since the metal would mess with them MRI thingies? )Anyone who reads it can just skip to the rebuttal to see this simpleton's foolish notions destroyed with ease.In fact it would best not to look at anything that ever challenges your beliefs. Because its science and all that. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 bg can you type that shit with a straight face? Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 bg can you type that shit with a straight face?Almost never, I'm pretty sure. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Well if the other side's 5 word synopsis of his opinion of what Vox's contention isWell that's all you posted. I don't really feel compelled to read either side in this "debate". If you want to post some of his own words that you find particularly compelling I'll probably read that. Go forth knowing you have survived another assault on your beliefs without a single dent in the blinders you have affixed to your brains. ( I guess they are leather since the metal would mess with them MRI thingies? )Even my wedding ring is non-ferromagnetic. "assault": haha. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Even my wedding ring is non-ferromagnetic.Yeah, but that's just because you're a cheap bastard. Link to post Share on other sites
Tactical Bear 3 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 bg can you type that shit with a straight face?I've read some of VoxDay's stuff, and I'm still sure he's a wicked satirist. I've read him compare atheism to Aspberger's. Hold on, we all assume BG's a satirist, too, right? That he's playing a really, really impressive character? Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 i'll give BG credit for nothing. i'm fairly certain he believes all that stuff. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Well that's all you posted. I don't really feel compelled to read either side in this "debate". If you want to post some of his own words that you find particularly compelling I'll probably read that.I understand. The new atheist like PZ Meyer ( the guy the debate is named for ) have decided that getting beat in debates is getting old so the best thing is to stop debating and just know he is right about his 'science'.Even my wedding ring is non-ferromagnetic. "assault": haha.I know, assault implies you guys even have a strong hold...the correct word should have been rout.Non-ferromagnetic wedding ring? I guess you knew it was love when she showed you that. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 I've read some of VoxDay's stuff, and I'm still sure he's a wicked satirist. I've read him compare atheism to Aspberger's. Hold on, we all assume BG's a satirist, too, right? That he's playing a really, really impressive character?No, wrong on both counts.I actually believe in God, and so does Vox Day Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Isn't gold non-ferromagnetic?I think I read somewhere that the price of gold has been going up. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Hold on, we all assume BG's a satirist, too, right? That he's playing a really, really impressive character?He really believes in the whole christianity thing, but most of what he says is still just to annoy atheists. He knows how ridiculous some of it is, though he'd never admit it. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Isn't gold non-ferromagnetic?Yes, but its not safe for MRI because its conductive (the gradient magnets going on and off can create currents in conductive loops). So I should have said non-ferromagnetic and very low conductivity. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 He really believes in the whole christianity thing, but most of what he says is still just to annoy atheists. He knows how ridiculous some of it is, though he'd never admit it.You know to annoy an atheist?Tell them they aren't perfect. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now