Exposing Atheistic Myths

[skepticalbip]

A cartoon taken from Berkeley? WTF?

Don't you have the source for the Locke quote you claimed was Locke's position? Surely if Locke stated this in one of his papers then it should be available, even though Google doesn't think so.

The quote is explained in the video!!!

No doubt but I don't want to hear a skewed anti-locke idea of what he said (or may have said). I want to read Locke's words if indeed he actually wrote them. I've seen and read too fucking many claims about opponents on theistic sites that were invented, not real.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nothing in there is a refutation.

It just makes God an accessory before, during and after every crime ever committed. Epstein raping young girls, witch hunts, racist rental practices, people threstening MAGA wearers.... you're okay with a system that makes your god an accomplice?

 

[abaddon]

It is interesting that God is the solution for getting rid of evil materialism, but never for getting rid of evil.

 

[Half-Life]

A cartoon taken from Berkeley? WTF?

Don't you have the source for the Locke quote you claimed was Locke's position? Surely if Locke stated this in one of his papers then it should be available, even though Google doesn't think so.

The quote is explained in the video!!!

No doubt but I don't want to hear a skewed anti-locke idea of what he said (or may have said). I want to read Locke's words if indeed he actually wrote them. I've seen and read too fucking many claims about opponents on theistic sites that were invented, not real.

You can search for his writings. They are very long.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

But, he believed that matter has an underlying substance that was imperceivable. But, if it's imperceievable how does he perceive it to be there? So, he said matter is also perceivable, but yet still imperceievable.

Berkeley didn't have this dilemma.

 

[Half-Life]

Nothing in there is a refutation.

It just makes God an accessory before, during and after every crime ever committed. Epstein raping young girls, witch hunts, racist rental practices, people threstening MAGA wearers.... you're okay with a system that makes your god an accomplice?

God is always watching, Keith. It doesn't matter if you're an immaterialist, or a believer who has never heard of immaterialism.

He's not an accessory. He lets us have free will.

 

[bilby]

No doubt but I don't want to hear a skewed anti-locke idea of what he said (or may have said). I want to read Locke's words if indeed he actually wrote them. I've seen and read too fucking many claims about opponents on theistic sites that were invented, not real.

You can search for his writings. They are very long.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

But, he believed that matter has an underlying substance that was imperceivable. But, if it's imperceievable how does he perceive it to be there? So, he said matter is also perceivable, but yet still imperceievable.

Berkeley didn't have this dilemma.

Matter does have an underlying substance that is imperceivable. Unless you are claiming the ability to perceive atoms and molecules.

 

[skepticalbip]

No doubt but I don't want to hear a skewed anti-locke idea of what he said (or may have said). I want to read Locke's words if indeed he actually wrote them. I've seen and read too fucking many claims about opponents on theistic sites that were invented, not real.

You can search for his writings. They are very long.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

But, he believed that matter has an underlying substance that was imperceivable. But, if it's imperceievable how does he perceive it to be there? So, he said matter is also perceivable, but yet still imperceievable.

Berkeley didn't have this dilemma.

I have read John Locke but have never seen anything like what you claimed to QUOTE from him. Since you were supposedly quoting him directly (including the quotation marks) I assumed you could offer a citation. Apparently you just blindly accepted that nonsense in the cartoon as absolute truth.

I'll offer you a small free lesson... If you want to understand what someone's position is and their explanation for that position then read what they say it is not what their detractors claim his position is. It can help prevent you from looking like an idiot.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nothing in there is a refutation.

It just makes God an accessory before, during and after every crime ever committed. Epstein raping young girls, witch hunts, racist rental practices, people threstening MAGA wearers.... you're okay with a system that makes your god an accomplice?

God is always watching, Keith....

How could you possibly think that? You have spent pages declaring that you can never know anything exists outside your own mind. Apparently, by your claims, you are only imagining that there is a god while knowing it isn't possible to know such a thing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nothing in there is a refutation.

It just makes God an accessory before, during and after every crime ever committed. Epstein raping young girls, witch hunts, racist rental practices, people threstening MAGA wearers.... you're okay with a system that makes your god an accomplice?

God is always watching, Keith. It doesn't matter if you're an immaterialist, or a believer who has never heard of immaterialism.

He's not an accessory. He lets us have free will.

So, god is invented to solve the problem of persistence, then an excuse is found tpo solve the problem of god not lifting a goddamned finger to stop any single crime no matter hiw horrific.

Wouldn't it be far more parsimonius to allow matter to objectively exist, and no gods required to explain the existence of rocks, razors, watches, bullwhips, Harlequin babies, child cancer, miscarriages....?

Or... some actual evidence for your god claims. That'd be cool.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No doubt but I don't want to hear a skewed anti-locke idea of what he said (or may have said). I want to read Locke's words if indeed he actually wrote them. I've seen and read too fucking many claims about opponents on theistic sites that were invented, not real.

You can search for his writings. They are very long.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

But, he believed that matter has an underlying substance that was imperceivable. But, if it's imperceievable how does he perceive it to be there? So, he said matter is also perceivable, but yet still imperceievable.

Berkeley didn't have this dilemma.

I have read John Locke but have never seen anything like what you claimed to QUOTE from him. Since you were supposedly quoting him directly (including the quotation marks) I assumed you could offer a citation. Apparently you just blindly accepted that nonsense in the cartoon as absolute truth.

I'll offer you a small free lesson... If you want to understand what someone's position is and their explanation for that position then read what they say it is not what their detractors claim his position is. It can help prevent you from looking like an idiot.

Oh, the cargo was loaded, the manifest sent to the insurance company, the passenger tickets counted, the gangway lifted, and the lines cast off. The tugboats are even back to their wharves.

That ship has sailed..

 

[atrib]

As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.

If that is the case then my original point was quite valid. If laws are derived from reality, then it makes no sense to talk about a new phenomenon you haven't previously encountered as the "breaking of physical laws". If a phenomenon happened at all, then it hasn't broken any laws, it just needs to be incorporated into your existing sense of nature and natural laws.

I agree with you. Now all you/theists have to do is to demonstrate that these seemingly miraculous events actually happened, so we can then go about the business of incorporating such events into the known laws of nature.

Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.

All the evidence we have today tells us that humans can't walk on water or fly up into the atmosphere without the aid of some technological device. Such a claim goes against everything we know about how the natural world works. And we have very little evidence to support the claim that such events occurred, as reported in the Bible. Therefore, the probability that these claims of a seemingly supernatural nature are true is extremely small.

If theists were somehow able to reproduce such events under controlled, repeatable conditions, and demonstrate that these events were being driven by the will of their god, that would be a different matter. But that is not the case. Pending such demonstrations, it would be unreasonable, or even foolish to believe the proposition that a god exists that can bend nature to its will. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[atrib]

Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle. Energy had to be added to the universe in order for the event to happen. The problem is the same as the one Descartes encountered in explaining how a dualistic self interacted with the physical self. There needs to be a rational explanation.

There's that "had to be" along with the "laws" and "must" and "fixed" already in play. Even if there are, for unexplained and inexplicable reasons, laws that matter and energy must follow, how can we know what those laws are except by observing what does and does not happen? Unless we know something about the ultimate source of fundamental order in the universe, science can only ever be a descriptive enterprise.

And? .....
Because we don't currently understand why the universe is as it is, we should believe in gods. Is that your argument?

 

[Half-Life]

God is always watching, Keith. It doesn't matter if you're an immaterialist, or a believer who has never heard of immaterialism.

He's not an accessory. He lets us have free will.

So, god is invented to solve the problem of persistence, then an excuse is found tpo solve the problem of god not lifting a goddamned finger to stop any single crime no matter hiw horrific.

Wouldn't it be far more parsimonius to allow matter to objectively exist, and no gods required to explain the existence of rocks, razors, watches, bullwhips, Harlequin babies, child cancer, miscarriages....?

Or... some actual evidence for your god claims. That'd be cool.

You can. But, then you are not taking empiricism seriously. Remember Berkeley arrived at this position via empiricism through the senses, not mere belief.

 

[Rhea]

Even John Locke saw how ironclad the argument is, and you guys consider him a genius.

And, maybe don't tell people what they think? You keep wanting to do both sides of the argument yourself. That's just you talking to yourself in front of people... it's kinda nutty looking.

I thought the Catholic Church frowned on masturbation, Half-Life. You should go to confession for self-pleasing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle. Energy had to be added to the universe in order for the event to happen. The problem is the same as the one Descartes encountered in explaining how a dualistic self interacted with the physical self. There needs to be a rational explanation.

There's that "had to be" along with the "laws" and "must" and "fixed" already in play. Even if there are, for unexplained and inexplicable reasons, laws that matter and energy must follow, how can we know what those laws are except by observing what does and does not happen? Unless we know something about the ultimate source of fundamental order in the universe, science can only ever be a descriptive enterprise.

And? .....
Because we don't currently understand why the universe is as it is, we should believe in gods. Is that your argument?

Some people are comfortable enough with themselves to admit, "I don't know".

Some people need the self assurance of knowing so claim they know, "god did it".

 

[Politesse]

I agree with you. Now all you/theists have to do is to demonstrate that these seemingly miraculous events actually happened, so we can then go about the business of incorporating such events into the known laws of nature.

Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.

All the evidence we have today tells us that humans can't walk on water or fly up into the atmosphere without the aid of some technological device. Such a claim goes against everything we know about how the natural world works. And we have very little evidence to support the claim that such events occurred, as reported in the Bible. Therefore, the probability that these claims of a seemingly supernatural nature are true is extremely small.

If theists were somehow able to reproduce such events under controlled, repeatable conditions, and demonstrate that these events were being driven by the will of their god, that would be a different matter. But that is not the case. Pending such demonstrations, it would be unreasonable, or even foolish to believe the proposition that a god exists that can bend nature to its will. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes. It was the odd inconsistency of the position that bothered me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

God is always watching, Keith. It doesn't matter if you're an immaterialist, or a believer who has never heard of immaterialism.

He's not an accessory. He lets us have free will.

So, god is invented to solve the problem of persistence, then an excuse is found tpo solve the problem of god not lifting a goddamned finger to stop any single crime no matter hiw horrific.

Wouldn't it be far more parsimonius to allow matter to objectively exist, and no gods required to explain the existence of rocks, razors, watches, bullwhips, Harlequin babies, child cancer, miscarriages....?

Or... some actual evidence for your god claims. That'd be cool.

You can. But, then you are not taking empiricism seriously. Remember Berkeley arrived at this position via empiricism through the senses, not mere belief.

Are you sure? Because you seem to be hampered when it comes to reading for content. I mean, you constantly fail to summarize the posts you read here, and misremember conversations you actually participated in.

You cannot even quote your sources, much less explain them.

So, when i see evidence for your, or anyone else's god, i will evaluate it.
Without a reason to add one or more to the mix, i won't.

 

[Politesse]

Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle. Energy had to be added to the universe in order for the event to happen. The problem is the same as the one Descartes encountered in explaining how a dualistic self interacted with the physical self. There needs to be a rational explanation.

There's that "had to be" along with the "laws" and "must" and "fixed" already in play. Even if there are, for unexplained and inexplicable reasons, laws that matter and energy must follow, how can we know what those laws are except by observing what does and does not happen? Unless we know something about the ultimate source of fundamental order in the universe, science can only ever be a descriptive enterprise.

And? .....
Because we don't currently understand why the universe is as it is, we should believe in gods. Is that your argument?

Nope.

 

[atrib]

And? .....
Because we don't currently understand why the universe is as it is, we should believe in gods. Is that your argument?

Nope.

Good to know. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, if there is no mind to perceive it doesn't look like anything. 'look' implies perception. No thinkee no lookee, savy?

How can the Earth look like anything but the Earth, at least within the visible spectrum of our eyes.

Wow, this philosophy stuff is way cool. Can you earn a living with it?

Oh, you guys really are amateurs.

Consider color. Is the grass actually green? No, but our mind perceives it that way. A colorblind person would conceive grass color differently. Thus, it can not exist in objectivity, something that is both completely green and completely not green via law of non contradiction.

Everything we observe encounters this same problem. Still unrefuted.

This is an old recurring theme on science and philosophy. You are not as profound as you think you are. You can stat yet another thread on perception, reality, and objectivity.

I will say green is band of wavelengths of light which can be experimental measured based on Systems International units. How you experience those green wavelengths is part physiology, eyes nerves brain, and part subjective in the brain. Both objective physical sensing of color and subjective responses are functions of the brain.

It would be a derail here. Move along folks nothing to see here....