Bridge of Size

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@Vochensmut: Now that I

@Vochensmut: Now that I have defined atheism for you, lets move on to the rest of the utterly inane bullshit that spews from the tips of your fingers as they clumsily work their way across the keyboard regretting the nonsense you are forcing them to write.

RE: A world without God should display characteristics of a godless reality.
You win the idiot comment of the week award. The Flying Fucktard of Fraudulent Faith Award. A world without magical flying bunny rabbits should display characteristics of a world without flying magical bunny rabbits. A world without Zeus should display characteristics of a world without Zeus. If the world was without something, anything, how in the fuck would you know what characteristic to look for? A world not created by aliens should display characteristics of a world not created by aliens. WTF drugs have you been taking?

RE: God leaves behind fingerprints. (metaphorical I assume)
1. Life does not spring from non-life. (Can you prove the assertion?) We know for a fact that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can spring from non-life. CURRENTLY - the very best science we have, makes the assertion, "We do not know how life originated." WE DO NOT KNOW. You are asserting that you know and your god had something to do with it. Please demonstrate that your god exists and that it is alive (life can not come from non-life) and that it had something to do with the creation emergence / creation of life. WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU OFFER. So far you only have a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. (We don't know, therefore God.)

2. It is logically impossible for life to create itself. ANOTHER FALLACY. This one is called the "Black Swan" fallacy. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW LIFE CAME TO BE. Please demonstrate that life can not create itself. The fact that you have not yet seen it happen, does not mean it could not happen,. WHAT PART OF (WE DO NOT KNOW!) CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

3. Life comes from life is an observable norm on earth. YEP! That says absolutely nothing at all about the origins of life. NOTHING.

4. Please demonstrate a God behind the order of the universe and not natural causes. We know of and can measure, predict, and in some cases even control the natural causes of the universe. Where does your God fit in? Just another God of the Gaps bullshit assertion.

5. Invisible order: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... If it is invisible how can you call it order. Are you listening to the utter and complete nonsense corroding your brain?

6. Psychic Reality: WTF? You should not be high on your anti psychotic medication the next time you attempt a post. Trying to write a post when you are stoned out of your mind just makes you look like an idiot.

Vochensmut's picture
Before I comment on your

Before I comment on your above OP , you have not defined atheism for me but redefined atheism . A true atheist has the guts to say "There is no god " .
Psychic ? Really? That is simply a reference to the mind , the immaterial ? Your thoughts above were real weren't they ? Before they were entered above where did they exist ? Ok , I should have used the phrase " immaterial reality " .
Ad hominem ad nauseam infinitum .

Sheldon's picture
@ Vochensmut

@ Vochensmut

It's you who is contradicting the dictionary, by redefining atheism not Cognostic. Though since he is an atheist he'd at least be entitled to say if his atheism went further than the dictionary definition. Whereas you're just making a twat of yourself, for some inexplicable reason.

As for thoughts being immaterial, could please demonstrate objective evidence for human consciousness existing without a functioning physical human brain being involved?

Dear oh dear, have you ever heard of Occam's razor? You're adding something you can neither evidence or explain, or even properly define, so there's a clue.

Cognostic's picture
@VochensmutL A true

@VochensmutL A true atheist has the guts to say "There is no god " .

YOU KNOW YOU SOUND LIKE AN IGNORANT ASS. "A true atheist does not believe in God or gods." You are just wrong. An atheist who adopts an anti-theist position on the existence of some god that has been presented will assert that, THAT god does not exist and will be able to give you the exact reason why THAT specific god is FALLACIOUS. You can not assert a God exists without first defining it. If your definition is fallacious. we will be happy to call you on your idiocy.

David Killens's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

"yet somehow all living subjects were randomly chanced into existence"

Living beings were not randomly chanced into existence. Life began as a consequence of physics, taking the necessary molecules and atoms and adding energy under certain circumstances, to arrive at a predictable outcome.

As far as evolution, I do not deny the random mutations, but the forces of evolution decided what was to live, and what was to die. This played out over billions of years and trillions upon trillions of mutations.

"I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist ?"

Which is your right. But atheism is not based on faith but a critical and rational examination of the god claim, and not being convinced. With "faith", one could believe in anything and take any position. Faith does not require supporting evidence.

Vochensmut's picture
You said "the forces of

You said "the forces of evolution decided" >

How does a force decide anything ?

David Killens's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

"How does a force decide anything ?"

The forces of evolution decide what lives (and propagates and carries on the blood line) and what dies (end of blood line).

For example, hypothetically, a dog species lived in the far north. Some blood lines generated thinner fur. Some blood lines generated thicker fur. Over time, the ones with thinner fur died because the cold eventually killed them. The blood line with thicker fur survived because the thicker fur protected the dogs in the harsh cold conditions. They survived, and propagated, carrying on that blood line.

The environment ( temperature, food type, competition for food by other species, and prey type, (just a few examples), create the factors and pressures that are the forces of evolution.

Vochensmut if you must ask this very simple question, then you are hopelessly ignorant on what evolution is.

Vochensmut's picture
You are describing a

You are describing a microevolutionary process already built into dogs but what is the thought process of a force to create the first life form ?

David Killens's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

"You are describing a microevolutionary process already built into dogs but what is the thought process of a force to create the first life form ?"

Once again .. the term "microevolutionary" is a term invented by apologists, there is just "evolution".

Now you are attempting to move the goal posts or just displaying your extreme ignorance. The discussion was "evolution", and now you are talking about "abiogenesis".

But to reply to your question, there does not need to be a thought process. No god required.

I am not going to waste my time on one who is either a sock puppet or incredibly ignorant on the subject(s). I refer you to Talk Origins if you truly desire to learn why and how.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

I will no longer explain any processes, you must learn them at Talk Origins.

Vochensmut's picture
" there does not need to be a

" there does not need to be a thought process "

Thank you for the link David but trying to undermine my understanding of evolution is not helpful . Neo-Darwinian evolution must account for how the immaterial world of your own thoughts is even possible given the materialist worldview you seem to hold . Quantum theory , forces ,energy , molecules and multiverse scenarios all fall short . Bridge of Size is my attempt to give a very brief
summary of a conclusion reached by one of your own, Thomas Nagle , a philosophical atheist Harvard law professor whose book shook the atheist community to it's core several years ago . The book is called Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False . Check it out , available thru Amazon .
FYI - Microevolution , change within a species, was introduced by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and was coined as a term by a Russian entomologist Yuri Filichenko in 1927 , not an apologist .

LogicFTW's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut
Why should anyone try to discuss anything with you if you cannot even understand that evolution does not describe the origin of life? A fact pointed out to you multiple times.

It is a bit like saying: "I do not think you are a good driver," then ask: "how do cars get made?" 2 very different processes. 1 answer has little or nothing to do with the other.

Cognostic's picture
@Vochensmut: (FALLACY -

@Vochensmut: (FALLACY - Leading the Question). I wish you could see how ignorant you sound. You would be utterly and completely embarrassed.

RE: You are describing "microevolutionary" process. ALL EVOLUTION IS "MICROEVOLUTIONARY." THERE IS NO OTHER KIND OF EVOLUTION.

RE: "What is the "THOUGHT PROCESS" (WTF) of a "FORCE" to "CREATE" the first life form.

You have asserted 1. There was a "thought process. 2. There was a force. 3. There was a creator. Please demonstrate any one of these. Making assertions does not make the assertions true. If making assertions made assertions true you would be a dumb-ass.

Sheldon's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

Evolution makes no comment on or claims about the origins of life, it is the explanation of the origin of species and the diversity of life, it is objectively evidenced by the scientific theory of evolution. How life originated is irrelevant to the theory and the fact of species evolution through natural selection.

Though it is obvious that evolution is a completely natural material process,, and that it has produced massive complexity. Which of course refute utterly the creationist propaganda canard that complexity implies design. In the astoundingly unlikely event species evolution was entirely reversed or falsified tomorrow I would remain an atheist, because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or deities, and that of course includes you, or yoou would have dones so after being repeatedly asked to.

Your duplicitous attempts to misrepresent the definition of atheism simply indicate your desperation, and lack of integrity.

Sheldon's picture
Natural selection is how

Natural selection is how evolution determines what survives and what does not.

Vochensmut's picture
I respectfully disagree ,

I respectfully disagree , blind faith may require no supporting evidence but one can be presented with overwhelming supporting evidence and still choose not to believe . Faith not rooted in fact is a fool's game . Evolution at best is a low-grade hypothesis , a
mere theory concocted by men who were not there to see the process unfold .
Molecules, atoms , and energy are not living intelligent subjects , they are materials . How did non-living , non-intelligent natural phenomena get "together and decided to create a dream come true " ? Doesn't faith rest more firmly in the fact that a living , intelligent , super-natural being decided to create a dream come true , and here you are !

David Killens's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

"a mere theory concocted by men who were not there to see the process unfold ."

And you were there when your god created the universe?

Fellow forum members, should I stop because I suspect Vochensmut hopes to drag me down to his level and beat me with a stupid stick?

Tin-Man's picture
@David Re: "Fellow forum

@David Re: "Fellow forum members, should I stop because I suspect Vochensmut hopes to drag me down to his level and beat me with a stupid stick?"

As I have said in a previous thread elsewhere, a wise man once said:

"An intelligent person should avoid arguing with an idiot. For after only a few brief moments, an outside observer will view both subjects as idiots."

Just sayin'... *shrugging shoulders*...

Plus, ol' V has the distinctive stench of a dirty gym sock.

Cognostic's picture
@Tin: Right there with you.

@Tin: Right there with you. Once I feel like I am repeating myself, I just leave. Obviously the recipient is too much of a dullard to grasp anything at all that has been said. That's why I always applaud Sheldon. Damn, he can hang in there and hang in there and hang in there and say the exact same thing 25 different ways if he needs to. Amazing endurance. That's also why it is so much fun to see him reach the end of his rope. Those are the posts that are really worth reading.

Vochensmut's picture
Ad hominem ad nauseam

Ad hominem ad nauseam infinitum fallacy again ?

Sheldon's picture
Vochensmut

Vochensmut

"Evolution at best is a low-grade hypothesis , a
mere theory"

Oh dear...someone doesn't know what a scientific theory is. Is Einstein's theory of relativity "just a low grade hypothesis"? How about germ theory, or Newton's theory of gravity, and probability theory?

Tell us Vochensmut, can you list three scientific theories you deny, apart from evolution, and that don't contradict any part of your religious beliefs? I'm guessing not, and I'm also certain even you can see the obvious bias in that.

"Faith not rooted in fact is a fool's game.

Like creationism then, which is not supported by any objective evidence, and which has no explanatory power at all. The polar opposite of a scientific theory, which is defined as the broad explanation of a naturally occurring phenomenon, and contains sufficient objective evidence that is testable, observable and is of course falsifiable, again unlike the hokum unexplained magic of creationism which is unfalsifiable nonsense.

"concocted by men who were not there to see the process unfold ."

Like creationism then, talk about an own goal. The difference is that the fact of evolution can and has been observed. In the fossil record, in genetics, in living specimens. So before you trot out these creationist propaganda canards, you might want to do some research, as speciation has also been observed in real time in laboratories, thus we know for an objective fact it is possible, unlike creationist fantasy which no one can demonstrate is even possible.

Once again you are erroneously conflating evolution with abiogenesis. The scientific theory of evolution makes no assertions about the origin of life, none. Though youd have to be pretty stupid not to notice that while life, natural phenomena, and a material universe all exist as evidenced objective facts. The fantasy of creationism you're tacking on without any objective evidence does not.

We're right back where we started, with me asking you what OBJECTIVE evidence you can demonstrate for any deity or deities?

Your reticence on that, whilst typical of theistic apologists, is very edifying. Even Jo managed to throw that towel in right at the start, though sadly he doesn't grasp the significance.

Vochensmut's picture
Is a building inspector

Is a building inspector required to have expertise in every building trade involved in the process of construction to spot
a crack in the foundation ? In Bridge of Size I pointed out a crack in the foundation of atheistic materialism and I don't need
an engineer's attempt to explain it away with clever arguments . The invisible things of God are clearly seen and are understood by the things that are made . How can invisible things be clearly seen ? The world around you is the objective evidence you seek but patently reject so what more can be done for you ? Nothing , God is no under no obligation to give you or any other atheist anymore than what he has already given ?

In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't - Blaise Pascal

Sheldon's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

You pointed out nothing. You simply made broad unevidenced assertions that even a perfunctory glance at the dictionary disprove.

You'll have to do considerably better than that if you wish to be taken at all seriously.

Not believing that anything exists outside the material world as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for it, is not a contrary claim or belief.

No matter how many apologist rants post otherwise on here.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Just more unevidenced claims

@ Voldemort.

Just more unevidenced claims with nothing to evidence them except your fatuous opinions.

You have demonstrated ignorance of a building inspectors necessary knowledge as you have of atheism.

The " invisible things of god are clearly seen" did you read that after you typed it? Never mind it does seem on a par with the rest of your utterances.

" God is under no obligation" how do you know what obligations are, or are not on your invisible immutable god thing? When did you last chat and it informed you thus?

You are digging the same holes that every theist digs when trying to evidence your fantasy.

LogicFTW's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

blind faith may require no supporting evidence but one can be presented with overwhelming supporting evidence and still choose not to believe

What overwhelming supporting evidence??? Remember, anything written or said by humans is not evidence! Only when the written/spoken word can actually be tested does it become evidence!

Faith not rooted in fact is a fool's game .

Fully agree there. The question then is, if you say and know that, why do you have faith? Do you consider yourself a fool?

Evolution at best is a low-grade hypothesis , a
mere theory concocted by men who were not there to see the process unfold .

Who says that? You? Your priest/rabbi/whatever? In the scientific world, where they actually can test and measure and prove over and over again, evolution is extremely well evidenced and extremely well supported, it is right up there with the earth is a spherical shape and not flat. Seriously to me, your claim that evolution is a low grade hypothesis, is about as wrong as the people that claim the earth is flat and not spherical.

How did non-living , non-intelligent natural phenomena get "together and decided to create a dream come true "

We have some decent theories, but the correct answer here is "we do not know" the incorrect (completely unsupported) answer is: "we do not know therefore god."

NewSkeptic's picture
Damn, I thought the title was

Damn, I thought the title was "Bridge of Sighs", the great sort of trippy blues based rock song by Robin Trower. Would make a good thread of its own. Sorry for the interruption, carry on.

The sun don't shine
The moon don't move the tides,
To wash me clean

The sun don't shine
The moon don't move the tides,
To wash me clean

Why so unforgiving and why so cold
Been a long time crossing bridge of sighs

Cold wind blows
The Gods look down in anger,
On this poor child

Cold wind blows
And Gods look down in anger,
On this poor child

Why so unforgiving and why so cold
Been a long time crossing bridge of sighs

Vochensmut's picture
Great gutsy blues tune !

Great gutsy blues tune !
And so the lyrics do remind me of that perennial sigh in all of us ..... What of
this nagging guilt and when forgiveness ? When will I cross over from the prison house to enjoy the city
longed for where the guilty become the guilt-free ?

David Killens's picture
@Vochensmut

@Vochensmut

"And so the lyrics do remind me of that perennial sigh in all of us ..... What of
this nagging guilt and when forgiveness ? When will I cross over from the prison house to enjoy the city
longed for where the guilty become the guilt-free ?"

Wow, and coming from a person who accepts that he is born of sin and bears the guilt of jesus' death.

Darn it, now I have to ask Tin-Man if he has a spare Irony Meter, mine just broke.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Tin-Man's picture
@David Re: Irony meters

@David Re: Irony meters

Sorry, dude, but there will be a severe shortage of irony meters for quite awhile. Not only have all of mine been busted for a few weeks, but there have been a couple of Irony Meter factories that have exploded within the last two to three weeks due to theist posts that were of magnitudes never before imagined. Alas, we just have to take greater care when reading for awhile until the factories come back online... *mournful sigh*...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@David and Tin Man

@David and Tin Man

Sorry guys, we are on the blacklist from just about everyone . They will not supply us with irony meters.

I have tried to get a source through back channels but even North Korea is refusing to supply. The U.N. are looking to pass a resolution banning the sale or supply to any AR forum member.

The only light at the end of this tunnel is the wording of the sanctions treaty. It does say when the level of religiosity falls below 50% worldwide then we may be taken off the banned list and just put on restricted supply .

In the meantime I have some reconditioned pre WW2 units for hire, they Don't detect all the ironies but at least are repairable with a welder.

LogicFTW's picture
In the meantime I have some

In the meantime I have some reconditioned pre WW2 units for hire, they Don't detect all the ironies but at least are repairable with a welder.

Are they those the really heavy ones?
Made out of solid iron?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.