Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
Moonhawk says I'm plagiarizing when I use a 2,400 year old argument that may, I say hesitantly, be in the public domain, and I call it name calling and this is double standards?
You copy pasted an entire passage from a website without making it clear it was a quote - nor citing your reference and seemingly passed it off as you own words. When I pointed out where these words came from and challenged over your lack of citation - your reply was essentially "why should I".Make out its name calling if you will - but that's pretty much the definition of plagiarism.
You think a 2,400 year old argument needs to be in my own words? What is the point of that?
Plagiarism implies stealing, show me I stole a 2,400 year old argument.
So the best that can be done is attack on this sort of thing. No wonder the argument has never been refuted.
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
2. Atheism is just a lack of belief? I wish you'd said that at the start of our exchanges and I needn't have bothered. So you don't believe in scientism, materialism, physicalism, naturalism or reductionism? Then you're either not a science fan, or you're an Aristotelian, and neither of those is true, so which belief entailed by rejecting theism do you hold? Lack of belief!? Oh dear.
Theism is defined as "belief in god or gods"the prefix 'a' means "without"
therefore in the most basic terms atheism means "without belief in god or gods"
That is its original etymology and is how I use the term.
To be without belief in something doesn't require any proof. I don't require proof to be without belief in the flying spaghetti monster for example. Similarly I don't need proof to support my lack of belief in a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. If people want to argue for the existence of these things - that's fine, but the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate such things - not for me to disprove them.
edit: It's generally understood where we get the definitions of words from - but just so I can't be accused of double standards:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engli...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engli...
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 18th April 13:46
Of course lacking a belief may need no further talk, but there are presumably still ideas in your head, and to the extent they tend to replace theism, they will be irrational and incoherent in the end. They will either be some form offs tocsin or some form of materialism.
Play word games if you like, but there will still be no rational justification for your views if you have abandoned theism.
ChrisGB said:
Nice avoidance of the argument again.
You think a 2,400 year old argument needs to be in my own words? What is the point of that?
Plagiarism implies stealing, show me I stole a 2,400 year old argument.
So the best that can be done is attack on this sort of thing. No wonder the argument has never been refuted.
We've been following your input carefully over the last few weeks, Chris, and we wonder if you would like to write Sheldon's parts for the show.You think a 2,400 year old argument needs to be in my own words? What is the point of that?
Plagiarism implies stealing, show me I stole a 2,400 year old argument.
So the best that can be done is attack on this sort of thing. No wonder the argument has never been refuted.
Think it over.
Kind regards,
The Writers Room BBT
Nick M said:
Moonhawk said:
Theism is defined as "belief in god or gods"
the prefix 'a' means "without"
therefore in the most basic terms atheism means "without belief in god or gods"
That is its original etymology and is how I use the term.
To be without belief in something doesn't require any proof. I don't require proof to be without belief in the flying spaghetti monster for example. Similarly I don't need proof to support my lack of belief in a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. If people want to argue for the existence of these things - that's fine, but the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate such things - not for me to disprove them.
This is pretty much the point I made somewhere earlier in the thread, but oddly enough Chris chose to ignore it...the prefix 'a' means "without"
therefore in the most basic terms atheism means "without belief in god or gods"
That is its original etymology and is how I use the term.
To be without belief in something doesn't require any proof. I don't require proof to be without belief in the flying spaghetti monster for example. Similarly I don't need proof to support my lack of belief in a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. If people want to argue for the existence of these things - that's fine, but the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate such things - not for me to disprove them.
He does seem to be a devout 'labelist' though...
Nick M said:
IainT said:
To be fair to Chris he thinks his teleological/Aquinan arguments do prove it so he is trying to create the extraordinary proof for his extraordinary claim.
Although I think he may struggle to provide extraordinary evidence to support his extraordinary claim...ChrisGB said:
Yes but to not believe in something that makes no difference is not the same as to not accept a rational proof out of a prior commitment to a science- attached ideology and the lifestyle that seems to justify.
Chris, it is only a 'proof' in the same way that Catch 22 is a proof...My non-belief is born out of a considered view that NOTHING I see in the universe requires a god for it to exist in the way it does, and neither do I see any evidence to sway that view. So, for me to be convinced otherwise will take some pretty compelling evidence - a lot more than some words which form part of a so-called 'proof'...
So please, do carry on trying to convince me - just do it with some evidence for gods rather than just words...
I just watched this and it reminded me of this thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo
It's a great, simple discussion on the determination of proof.
It's a great, simple discussion on the determination of proof.
mattmurdock said:
You aren't using an essentially 2,400 year old argument, because if you were you would reach the same conclusion as Aristotle, and you don't. His prime mover is a unintelligent, uncaring group of entities, effectively the underlying fabric or laws of the universe, and they guide nothing (as if they had a plan, or took any action, they would have potency and would not be the prime mover). So to keep associating yourself with Aristotle is nonsense, you are a pure thomist, and Aquinas was clearly trying to find a justification for God rather than coming to him from first principles.
I think this is a reasoned point Chris. Do you care to comment on how you draw a line from Aristotlean Deism to your Theist view?Timsta said:
Nick M said:
IainT said:
To be fair to Chris he thinks his teleological/Aquinan arguments do prove it so he is trying to create the extraordinary proof for his extraordinary claim.
Although I think he may struggle to provide IainT said:
mattmurdock said:
You aren't using an essentially 2,400 year old argument, because if you were you would reach the same conclusion as Aristotle, and you don't. His prime mover is a unintelligent, uncaring group of entities, effectively the underlying fabric or laws of the universe, and they guide nothing (as if they had a plan, or took any action, they would have potency and would not be the prime mover). So to keep associating yourself with Aristotle is nonsense, you are a pure thomist, and Aquinas was clearly trying to find a justification for God rather than coming to him from first principles.
I think this is a reasoned point Chris. Do you care to comment on how you draw a line from Aristotlean Deism to your Theist view?I am happy to "admit" I came to Aristotle as a reader in the 1990's, so his arguments already then had a long history of interpretation.
If anyone cares to unpack Aristotle's version we can test how far it has been improved.
To make the claim that this affects the argument I gave would however require showing that developments are wrong.
Presumably on the basis of the above you and Matt at least accept Aristotle's version, wherever he left it, as true.
Thanks for a substantive post Matt, until the end. You'll be familiar with the notion of projection in psychology, so I'll thank you for not giving us any more details about how you and your mum get it on. I hadn't guessed that that was the secret to your exceptionally happy life!
See my reply to Iain on Aristotle.
Your paragraph on essentially ordered:
Laws of the universe are at bottom causal regularities. Essentially ordered series act concurrently in every cause and effect, its just we often look at the accidental series over time, not the other. So the prime mover is sustaining every cause and effect, in other words the whole universe, as nothing in it is permanent. Remember the series is of potentialities being actualised, not of stones being moved - this is just a crude image.
The rest assumes you are a fundamentalist or have stopped learning theology at the age when Father Christmas seems real. Literal reading of Bible was out before the Bible itself was put together- it has to be read with Easter in mind, if you like.
It could have been such a good post Matt, shame, and such a different reply.
See my reply to Iain on Aristotle.
Your paragraph on essentially ordered:
Laws of the universe are at bottom causal regularities. Essentially ordered series act concurrently in every cause and effect, its just we often look at the accidental series over time, not the other. So the prime mover is sustaining every cause and effect, in other words the whole universe, as nothing in it is permanent. Remember the series is of potentialities being actualised, not of stones being moved - this is just a crude image.
The rest assumes you are a fundamentalist or have stopped learning theology at the age when Father Christmas seems real. Literal reading of Bible was out before the Bible itself was put together- it has to be read with Easter in mind, if you like.
It could have been such a good post Matt, shame, and such a different reply.
Engineer1 said:
ChrisGB said:
Agreed. Rational arguments don't cut it among atheists.
Arguments with proof or evidence will cut it logical arguments that end up circular based on 4 assertions.Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like materialism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.
Engineer1 said:
One of us asserting there is a God - those of us who don't accept this are saying prove he exists and not with circular arguments most of which are built on a foundation of theism so you need to dismantle the lot
You know how in a rational discussion you might actually SHOW how someone is mistaken, not just keep on saying they must be?. If its impossible to show that, you should reconsider the argument. What is circular? What is built on theism?Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like materialism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.
Glad I copy pasted that!
ChrisGB said:
You know how in a rational discussion you might actually SHOW how someone is mistaken, not just keep on saying they must be?. If its impossible to show that, you should reconsider the argument. What is circular? What is built on theism?
Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like materialism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.
Glad I copy pasted that!
But Chris, there is no evidence of anything other than materialism. You have lots of word games, but no actual evidence.Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like materialism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.
Glad I copy pasted that!
The amusing thing about these discussions is you can just change one word to 'make' the opposite true 
ChrisGB modified by rxtx said:
Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like theism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.
ChrisGB said:
Glad I copy pasted that!
ChrisGB said:
Then just show me where you refuted the prime mover arguments I've given, or any premise, and I'll shut up.
This is a classic tactic of theists. Try and flip the burden of proof. You assert something to be true - then challenge those who disagree to disprove your assertion - without ever having to prove your assertion to begin with.
Discussions like this always end up with statements like "you cant prove x doesn't exist" or "disprove y" knowing full well that's its virtually impossible to prove a negative.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff