Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth

Jim Spaza wrote:
Ken Rode wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:


<snip>

Either everything is designed, or nothing. Since there is no evidence
for a designer, an indeed no evidence that one is needed, we can
conclude there isn't one.


Why would this Supreme Being, an intelligent, self-aware,
self-determinant being, subscribe to an all-is-designed or nothing-is
strategy when creating this universe?

And a Supreme Being is needed. If you have ever told someone to NOT do
something immoral and expected them to obey because of the inherent
goodness or lack thereof of that particular action, then you have shown
a need for a Supreme Being. This is so because it is this Supreme
Being who alone can pass down standards of morality which all humanity
has to follow.

If morality is simply a human construct, then any action is permissible
if the majority says so...and the inherent evilness of the action which
you despise is simply a figment of your imagination. Now, because of
your own common sense, you know that some actions just are plain evil,
regardless of what others say. How can that be, if there is no Supreme
Being who has designed this into the universe?

[I've tried talking to you about morality previously, Jim. You obviously
got nothing from it, so I'm not going to keep trying. I will emphasize
that I find your second and third paragraph above to be egregious
examples of special pleading
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading). No supreme being is
needed.]


People usually respond to an assertion with the "you can't do that;
that's special pleading" when the examples are so strong and pertinent
that no logical reply is possible.

If one's ideas about morality, or anything for that matter, cannot be
played out logically in the real world, then all of their ideas on the
chalkboard are really just an academic exercise in wishful thinking.

So? What is your response to the facts that that all human-made
morality is dictated by the majority, changed by the winds of culture
and time, and are nothing more than one's personal desires?

Like I said, if you have ever told someone that some act is evil even
when the majority said it is OK, then you're stating that morality is
not just a human construct. And if it isn't a human construct, then
there is only one other Power in cosmos which could have created it.

Jim, you catch me in a bit of a foul mood tonight. I probably shouldn't
respond until tomorrow, but apparently I'm not showing good judgement
tonight either.

Regarding the above, I can only reiterate that I've tried talking to you
about morality previously, and it is obvious to me that no communication
on that topic was possible with you. That is, you show absolutely no
evidence of understanding what I was saying. I don't propose to continue
that discussion as it was hurting my brain.

<snip>

No evidence? Boy, are you a tough judge of what is evidence. And a
daft one at that. :-)

He meant what he said, Jim. You have presented absolutely no evidence
that would support your rather naked assertion.


Yeah, I have. And not just in this thread either. All over this
forum. The issue of morality above is such an example.

I suggest that you refer to:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evidence
It's clear that you have no clue what constitutes evidence. For future
reference, no-one's opinions are evidence. Yet that is all that you've
ever presented.

given the scarcity of life throughout the universe

Evidence?


When was the last time we found life outside of this planet? If life
was THAT abundant, then we would have seen, heard, sensed, or found
evidence of something by now. The bottom line is that you have zero
evidence, other than inference from subjective statistical chance, that
life exists elsewhere.

You think that humans are particularly well equipped to find life
elsewhere in the universe at this particular point in time? Perhaps you
have been watching too much sci-fi television.


Do we not have radio telescopes and computer systems capable of
discerning patterns in incoming signals...if we had any intelligent
ones?

I'm surprised that we are even looking for intelligent signals. Such a
waste of time and money. Fortunately, it isn't occupying all that many
people, and it isn't consuming a great deal of money.

Do we not have visual telescopes that can see deep into space and show
us not just the visual spectrum of light eminating from galaxies far
away but also the infrared and ultraviolet spectrums?

I see absolutely no relevance to this. What point is it that you are
trying to hide from everyone?

Have we not visited other planets with our probes?

I'd be hard pressed to call them "probes". Again, I think you've been
watching way too much TV. But I do see your point -- how many times must
we crash into Mars before we consider it completely explored?

How many planets do you think there are, Jim? How many in our solar
system that we have sent probes to? How many planets are there in our
galaxy? What percentage of these have we sent probes to? How many
planets are there in our universe? To what percentage of these have we
sent probes?

Yes, we have enough technology that something would have been seen or
detected by now if life was not very rare.

Humanity is at the beginning of its exploration of space, Jim, not at
its end as you would have it.

<snip>

Objective value outside of our own minds.

You must be joking. Value is a judgement, and judgements are only made
within brains.


So, if something is ever deemed important by some and it is asserted
that other people should find value in it too regardless of those
people's own desires, then you have just shown that either value is not
just a judgement within one's brain OR that some Power exists beyond
humanity which can impart absolute value.

Your conclusion in no way follows from the premises. I suggest that you
study some remedial logic.

For reference, if person A feels that person B should ascribe value to
something regardless of person B's current set of value judgements, then
person A has to undertake to have person B take on the same value
judgement. This is usually called "persuasion". The value judgement is
never outside anyone's brain, and there is no need for an external Power.

Really, Jim, this is quite simple and yet you got it spellbindingly
wrong. Why is that?

<snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... debunk an atheist's value system if there is no God and all morality is ... You make the assumption here that god is the necessary and sufficient ... We don't need a Supreme ... Guess what, Jim, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim ... Why does is matter if you don't dispute it. ... interpretation of the evidence. ... So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What is the Aquatic theory?
    ... How could that be, Jim? ... why are you still using as evidence features found ... >> moving through water is going to have some effect isn't it? ... > Here the assumption is that scientists didn't take a look at it; ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim ... interpretation of the evidence. ... So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to ... changes took place in the line from that LCA to chimps & ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Genetics of the British
    ... >>> wrong Jim Webster in Cumbria.) ... >>> There are various well established companies offering Computer Forensics ... > knowledge of what the courts require in the form of technical evidence. ... > usable in court as evidence. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
Loading