to the Theists..Follow

No, it's because you really do write very poor questions. You use false dilemmas, misrepresent answers, load your language and basicly clumbsily design your questions to "trap" the answerer. It's not a matter of what the answerer believes that makes your questions seem leading, I could go through all of your questions and pick apart the fallacies if I felt so inclined.

Actually it is quite easy for the Ignorant to accuse others og ignorance:

Thus if:




IS a bit Beyond your comprehension, don't just Ignore it and wave your hand at me accusing me of "Knowing nothing" just because my ideas don't fit in with your own bleak and limited understanding of the way things work. Sit down, shut your maouth and aat least ATTEMPT to understand the things that you do not know and Who knows, mabe that you will become alittle more aware of the Universe that is around you instead of Quoting you Preacher OOPPSS I meant Teacher...

oops, wrong thread


putting it in the COOL thread

Edited, Mon Jul 18 14:03:39 2005 by Kelvyquayo

While I don't agree with Evil, I in no way agree to this responce. My biggest problem with Christians, is their ability to judge quickly with no real right to do so. Your responce should have been one of love, respect and one of welcoming. That is after all the Christian way.

False Dilemma: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

In question #1 you posit answer (A) animals have souls or (B) Animals are doomed. You do not allow for an answer where neither are accurate. In question #2, you posit that (A) We are as omnipotent as God or else (B) we are pets.

In both cases, you intentionally load the (B) answer to force the answerer to reject it as undesirable for the (A) solution. When the (A) solution isn't accurate, the person is supposed to reject the idea of a God because neither of your binary solutions applied. The obvious answer is to reject the question itself as a logical fallacy.

I said the Judaic afterlife was Sheol. The fact that they had an afterlife disproves the premise of your question as false.

You can't even debate your fallacies without using fallacies. Interesting.

Then find a non-loaded way to ask it. Or stop claiming that my noting it's loaded is an "attack" and own up to the fact that you're asking poor questions.

For a scientist, you have a lot of trouble with the word "logical" in the term "logical fallacy". I'd be noting the same if we were discussing zoology.

^^^
Yeah, but the Egyptians got the idea from Aliens, so they don't count.


Edit: Thanks Kelvy, now mine doesn't make sense. Leaving it in for posterity anyway.



Edited, Mon Jul 18 15:03:23 2005 by trickybeck

/nod

There comes a time where I don't really have to argue a point any longer because I've already laid my arguments out and assume the reader will understand me even if you don't.

Feel free to continue saying your questions were properly written and the only bias was in my mind. If you can find other people here to agree with that, let me know.

oh ok joph, your right, your questions are well laid out and unbiased, allowing the reader to understand your point, which is brilliant. My questions are loaded, ill based, and unfounded. Is that about right? But how can i ever win against someone with god on their side lol.

If you just wanted your points to be laid out for the people to make their own decisions, then stop attacking other people's points of views. If you think its so bad to make people question ther faith, then you might need to rethink your own.

Evilphysist(sp?) is the exact kind of individual that makes all athiests and agnostics look like a bunch of oxymoronic scientists. 'nuff said about that.

I believe in a higher power only because the smallest particals or any amount of energy, had to come from somewhere. Nothing is created or born within nothing. Was it a "Big Bang?" I think not.

"Big Bang" Is the violent explosion of very small agglomeration of matter(where there is matter there is anit-matter) of extremely high density and temprature. My point is that this "very small matter and anti-matter" had to come from somewhere and there is no statement on how this was naturally created. Do I believe the Christian/Jew God started this process? No. Do I believe any religion is right about how everything came into being? No.

As far as we on this damned blue marble life could have came here in a billion number of ways. We could have been placed here by design, and purpose. We could have originated from bacteria that landed here from a meteorite, or we could be an alien ant farm. Pick your dogma basically.

This planet is unique, as is this universe. Of all the universes we can see clearly into, this is the only stable one. (Which doesn't make mathematical sense.) If everything was chaos and didn't run into a plan there would be about half as many stable universes as there would be unstable universes. Most other universes have theses problems:

-Dual Stars within the universe:
These systems are unable to harbor life as the two suns would throw any hope of elliptical orbit out the window. They would pull planets back and forth and would be unable to maitain a stable temprature within the "green-zone"(the temprature where water would remain a liquid which is a requirement in even the most evolutionary scientists.)

Large Planets improperly placed or too close to smaller planets:
Earth is lucky to have its large planets like Neptune, and Saturn at just the right distance to block a barrage of meteors and astroids. If they were any closer the two planets gravitional pull would whirl Mars, Earth, and Venus in a collision course. And if those planets were too close to the sun, would also pull planets into its orbit.

The size and age of our sun:
If the sun were as much as 10% larger it would be much cooler and have more gravational pull, thus destroying the inner ring of planets, that much smaller and it would be much more hot and would cause a runaway green house effect on this planet way before bacteria would be able to settle in. Furthermore when compaired to about 65% of other suns we have the techonolgy to test, our sun is but an infant compaired to many other suns.

The size of our moon:
The Earth's moon is considerably larger than other moons to thier respective planets. The earth is lucky to have such a large mass to act as a gravitational anchor.

Our distance from the sun:
If earth's distance from the sun were as little as 1% more this planet would be unable to sustain liquid water, and if it were as little as 1% smaller it would cause... you guessed it a runaway green house effect.

The size of the Earth:
Earth is of perfect size. Much smaller and it would have too much density and much larger and it wouldn't hold an atmosphere.

Seperation of galaxies:
The milky way is very lucky in terms with how seperated we are compaired to other galaxies. If galaxies are too close they can run into each other which can and will destroy planets, swap planets and throw planets off of thier respective orbits.

Tetonic activity:
Earth is the only planet to have stable tetonic ativity that we know of. Too little and would trap vital oxides underground and too much and the land masses would slide into the ocean. Which would be bad because the land masses we find very convient to live on.

There are many more reasons why our planet, sun, neighboring planets, and finally galaxy seem unique in the universe. Which if going purely by "everything is chaos there is no plan" doesn't make sense. If it were chaos about half of all galaxies would show these traits and yet they all fall short for some reason or another. I believe this galaxy was "prepaired" for us. Was it the Christian/Jew God? Maybe, was it a pegan god/gods? maybee, the point is that these things are unknown and probably will never be known. I wish athiests and theists alike would admit that reguardless of thier bias and as much as mankind as developed much is widely unknown and that is the common trait on which these arguements starts... the unknown.

but once again you are putting forth an idea as if it is and undisputable fact. It's not, you know KNow, stop pretending that you do and ******** on other people for having thier own ideas you arrogant ****.

The whole idea about any god or goddess is that they have no need to be created. They are essances in themselves. They are to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. They are omnipontent. They are not of this plane and do not need to follow the rules and regulations of nature. They have no beginning and they know no end.



Let me point out that I said "A smaller planet would have too much density, too large and they would not be able to hold an atmosphere"

More desity = More gravity = crush everything. Most scientists believe ET's will either be carbon or hydrogen based. (as most elements combine these two with ease.) And will have very similar tolerances to things as human beings. The same tolerances to heat and cold, to water, ect. Also similar in the need to breath either oxygen or carbon dioxide, and reguardless of weather if they are carbon or hydrogen based they will need water to regulate bodily functions. You are accusing me of "not doing research" when in fact I looked at the mathematical impossiblities of our universe and concluded it didn't make sense that no other solar system even comes close to this one. You accuse these people for being "blind" and "ignorant" when in fact you are incapable of listening to others ideas. Which is a very facist way of thinking. Totally disreguarding my ideas and my research simply because it doesn't agree with that 'big-brain' of yours is insane. Rather than reply to me intellegently and comming up with a decent rebuttle, you attempt to bash me and degrade me in a inane childish manner. Try better next time please if you want people to take you seriously.

you AND your thread can go to HELL!

go to Hell and DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!