Why I'm an Atheist

[Waffle Whiffer]

that's all conjecture at this stage - although Quadz et al may like to argue otherwise, since they have all the facts.

Yeah, imagine how different this thread might be, if these facts were somehow available to everyone, instead of hoarded by a select few!

If only there were some way--I don't know, some kind of technology--by which you could also gain access to this information.

Not a big truck per se, but, maybe a series of some fashioning. . . . Oh well, it's a pipe dream I guess. 


:flipoff:

hahahahahahahahahhaaha Now that's funny!

[quadz]

stream of consciousness string of non-sequitirs, unsupported inferences, and straw-men

whatever helps you sleep at night.

Yes, that must be it.

Here's an example of one of your oft-repeated straw men: "you don't see computers forming themselves and things _happen_ to be just the way they want?"

This is the "747" argument from the creationist camp ("you don't see a 747 forming itself...") and dates back at least to the Rev. William Paley in 1802 ("just as finding a watch would lead you to conclude that a watchmaker must exist, the complexity of living organisms proves that a Creator exists.")

This may have been an impressive argument in 1802, but it's a straw man now, and pointless to keep repeating it.

Here, I'll even do your homework for you:

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

Atom: A Single Oxygen Atom's Journey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth...and Beyond
Atom: A Single Oxygen Atom's Journey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth...and Beyond

[reaper]

Why do you presume to know the way god works?  In any event you have it all wrong.  Also I've read "the god delusion", and I don't buy those garbage arguments one bit.

[quadz]

Why do you presume to know the way god works?  In any event you have it all wrong.  Also I've read "the god delusion", and I don't buy those garbage arguments one bit.

[QwazyWabbit]

Why do you presume to know the way god works?

"I have no need for that hypothesis."

[fdrjk]

Why do you presume to know the way god works?  In any event you have it all wrong.  Also I've read "the god delusion", and I don't buy those garbage arguments one bit.

[Tubby]

We've spent the past 150 years since Origin of Species was published, accumulating knowledge about how evolution works, including effectively down to the level of information theory of how the process operates genetically.

As a result, we now have explanations for the questions above that Darwin was unable to answer.

And it is precisely these explanations of the evolutionary process at the genetic level which expose your various claims about natural selection as false. We don't have to wait for our "children" to disprove your claims--you were wrong sixty years ago.

Another intellectually arrogant rebuttal from Quadz, who asserts that "(he) now has explanations for the questions that Darwin was unable to answer", and which "exposes (my) claims as false".

Quadz, just a simple question: Do you think that in 10, 100, or 1000 years' time none of the facts you are espousing now might not be 'proven' wrong? Or do you think we - and especially you - have hit the evolutionary peak of scientific thought and that our descendents won't be laughing at many of our 'facts', just as we laugh at many of the 'facts' of our ancestors?

Like I said, you repeatedly cite physical and mathematical concepts as if these are immutable truths - but such truths break down utterly at the singulartity of a black hole, for example. And, were we able to witness the moment of the 'big bang', we would probably find physical and mathematical forces at work there / then which are also completely alien to us today.

In other words, Quadz, your books of facts may work fine in the world we currently find ourselves in, but that world isn't the only 'world' in the universe, and you must be either ignorant or arrogant not to understand or accept that.

[quadz]

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form:  When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards.  However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

Might want to try another approach, that one's pretty well-worn.

[Tubby]

Why do you presume to know the way god works? 

Reaper, why do you presume to know there is a god?

That's the whole reason we're debating this topic.  

[|iR|Focalor]

Quadz, just a simple question: Do you think that in 10, 100, or 1000 years' time none of the facts you are espousing now might not be 'proven' wrong? Or do you think we - and especially you - have hit the evolutionary peak of scientific thought and that our descendents won't be laughing at many of our 'facts', just as we laugh at many of the 'facts' of our ancestors?

A simple question? If it's so god damned simple, why can't you answer MY question... you know, the one I walked you through like a 5 year old.

Name me one single instance in which a previous "fact" is no longer a "fact". Keep in mind that I said "fact" and put quotes around it to emphasize it. People thinking the world is flat and that boats fall off the side and get eaten by monsters is NOT A FACT, and NEVER WAS A FACT.

[Whirlingdervish]

established scientific theory

This part.

I doubt it, considering the entire rest of the paragraph is an attempt to unpack what I think your grievance is with the concept embodied by the phrase "established scientific theory".

Let's try again:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form:  When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards.  However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

Is this an accurate summary of your position?  If not, why not?

You still haven't answered this 3 pages later...

If you'd like an answer to your question, try jotting some down to the multiple questions posed to you, which you promptly ignored and then attempted to bury with 3 more pages of bullshit smoke and mirrors posts.

Here I'll do it for you:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect.

Now we can all just go about our business. Thread closed.

[Tubby]

Might want to try another approach, that one's pretty well-worn.

Answer my question first, Quadz (just a simple yes or no will do):

Quadz, just a simple question: Do you think that in 10, 100, or 1000 years' time none of the facts you are espousing now might not be 'proven' wrong? Or do you think we - and especially you - have hit the evolutionary peak of scientific thought and that our descendents won't be laughing at many of our 'facts', just as we laugh at many of the 'facts' of our ancestors?

[Arm0r]

You're a fucking idiot Tubby.

[Whirlingdervish]

...come to think of it, I haven't seen you actually debate anything said yet, you obviously have your own set of views and "debating" isn't in your agenda.   Focalor had you pegged pretty well.

 

[quadz]

Quadz, just a simple question: Do you think that in 10, 100, or 1000 years' time none of the facts you are espousing now might not be 'proven' wrong? Or do you think we - and especially you - have hit the evolutionary peak of scientific thought and that our descendents won't be laughing at many of our 'facts', just as we laugh at many of the 'facts' of our ancestors?

This has been answered repeatedly on this thread (cf. Newton vs. Laplace for one example.)  Rehashed so often, in fact, that I've even incorporated it into my assessment of your own position:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of what others would term "established scientific theory", and my objection takes the following form: When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards. However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

Clear?  The answer is sitting right there, and look--it doesn't help your position at all.