This Little Rant of Mine

It's a personal vent and observation in response to various statements, claims, and tactics I encounter, here and elsewhere. It can also serve as a handy place to refer people to, whenever such things come up for the billionth time. But what it is NOT is a debate challenge; it's just a rant, and I may add to it later.

The odds are that the first and most numerous responders (if any) will ignore all that and just engage in flaming as usual, so I'll ignore them in return, seeing that they may provide object lessons for some of these points on their own. I don't respond well to mocking or demands that I address every little grievance from every antagonist. If anyone does sincerely want to discuss a point rationally and honorably, fine; but I make no promises.

-------------------

1. It's the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not just the Tree of Knowledge.

2. If many cultures have a belief in a god, you say this proves that all gods are the same, but if many cultures have a legend of a global flood, you say this proves that there was never really a global flood. Maybe in your world a principle can reverse just by changing the names, but that doesn't work in mine.

3. The fable of the boy who cried wolf does not teach that no real wolves exist, just as false prophecies don't mean that no real prophecies exist.

4. People who can't spell or punctuate or put together a coherent paragraph should not lecture others on logic or offer to enlighten them.

5. Christians are forced to learn evolutionism, in schools, entertainment, even the news; don't act like we never heard your side. And remember that there are as many ignorant or stupid atheists as theists.

6. Disagreement is not a sign of hate or stupidity.

7. If you're sure the world would be a better place without religion, then explain why the regimes that tried eliminating it didn't exactly value human rights. And if the "they're not practicing real Christianity" argument is invalid for us, then the "they're not practicing real atheism" argument is invalid for you; see also point 2.

8. If you can't tell the difference between a human sacrifice and a self-sacrifice, then it doesn't surprise me that you can't tell the difference between an accident and a design.

9. If one witness to a crime says the perp was holding a gun and another witness says the perp was holding a knife, this is not a contradiction unless you can prove that the perp did not have one of each. Likewise, if one witness says there was one angel and another says there were three, this is not a contradiction unless you can prove that the first witness said there was only one angel.

10. Denial is every bit as much of a psychological crutch as faith.

11. Aging does not turn the colors in a photo brighter or deeper, it makes them fade. And if you're going to dismiss a photo due to scanning or compression etc., then don't say "pics or it didn't happen".

12. A possible explanation is not the only explanation until you can disprove all other possibilities; just because you can offer an alternative doesn't mean it falsifies the original.

13. Don't say you "just have questions" about something and then proceed to denounce it before anyone has had a chance to answer; loaded questions don't deserve a hearing.

14. If someone is asking a question of a group you're not a part of, don't derail the conversation and then get all offended or gloat that no one has an answer if your diversion is unsuccessful; if somebody ignores you, maybe they're just not playing your game.

15. If you believe anything that you can't prove, you have faith in it; faith in science is no different than faith in God; and BTW, the two are not mutually exclusive. Naturalism/anti-theism and supernaturlaism/theism certainly are, but those are not sciences but philosophies.

16. Fact is not up for popular vote; the number of people believing something to be true is not proof that it is, and there is plenty of historical evidence of the majority being wrong.

17. If your theory can never be falsified regardless of any progress science may ever make, then science has nothing to do with it; see also point 15.

18. "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement; likewise, "There is no god" is an absolute statement.

19. If God must answer to you, then you are claiming superiority to God; if so, I'd like to see you walk across my swimming pool.

20. Arrogance and humility only apply between equal beings; it is not arrogant for me to tell my dog to sit and I am not immoral to fail to humble myself before him. Likewise, God cannot be arrogant to humans, and it is not immoral for him to fail to humble himself before us.

21. It is psychotic to be obsessed with beliefs you don't hold.

22. If God has no right to judge you, then you have no right to judge God. And remember (or learn for the very first time) that not even God could choose whether to exist.

23. If you make a statement that something is a fact, the burden of proof is on you, even if that statement is "negative" For example, "there is no god" has the burden of proof because it states something as a fact: that no gods exist.

24. To select is to take a subset of what already exists, so it is impossible for "natural selection" to produce anything new; it can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. And if your faith in evolution is only concerned with "change", then don't use it as an argument about origins. If you have no theory about how anything first came into existence, just say so.

25. If you don't have the answers to everything you believe, don't demand them of others, no matter how much faith you have that the answers will be found someday.

You raise some good points, I'll only comment on some.

Darwinian theory is incorrect in it's explanation of origins. The fittest explains small minute changes, however the origin of species is something much more vicious, much more deadly. Solar Radiation and Magnetic Reversal.

God does not exist based on simple logic and deduction.

Science does not require faith, and there is a massive difference between not being able to prove something, and lacking the means or funds to prove something.


In the end, most of your points are just semantics, and lack any real guts. But the others are great.

Interesting post...

SnF

for another interesting perspective on the

Tree of Knowledge... Garden of Good and Evil

Please Visit Here

Originally posted by EvolEric
Interesting post...

SnF

for another interesting perspective on the

Tree of Knowledge... Garden of Good and Evil

Please Visit Here

Thanks, I'll check it out tomorrow, gotta get some sleep now.

Originally posted by Tephra
You raise some good points, I'll only comment on some.

Darwinian theory is incorrect in it's explanation of origins. The fittest explains small minute changes, however the origin of species is something much more vicious, much more deadly. Solar Radiation and Magnetic Reversal.

God does not exist based on simple logic and deduction.

Science does not require faith, and there is a massive difference between not being able to prove something, and lacking the means or funds to prove something.


In the end, most of your points are just semantics, and lack any real guts. But the others are great.

edit on 21-5-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your comment, and now I really must get some sleep. This time I really mean it. ;-)

Originally posted by EvolEric

Please Visit Here

Checked the link as promised... seen the nekkid picture before. This isn't a joke thread.

To borrow a quote from Tron: "End of line."

Originally posted by Tephra
Darwinian theory is incorrect in it's explanation of origins. The fittest explains small minute changes, however the origin of species is something much more vicious, much more deadly. Solar Radiation and Magnetic Reversal.

Do you propose a different origin of species? There has been solar radiation for a long time and there's evidence of several past magnetic reversals, and AFAIK nobody has connected them to the sudden emergence of new life.

Science does not require faith, and there is a massive difference between not being able to prove something, and lacking the means or funds to prove something.

Agree that science does not require faith... but evolution does. Science is restricted to that which can be observed and tested, but as long as evo can't prove that naturalism is the only explanation for what is observed, it has faith that its view is the right one. That was my point.

In the end, most of your points are just semantics, and lack any real guts. But the others are great.

Example of "just semantics"?

Nicely stated, S&F for the effort, but I'll tell you something that you probably already know... common sense, logic and reason are not widely held (or at least not widely displayed) on ATS. Too many people just parrot what they have heard (and rarely understand,) or even worse, post YouTube videos of some "genius" to make their points for them.

My learned response has been to just ignore those -- I can't debate points with a YouTube video, and the person who linked to it rarely understands the underlying facts and is just going to post more videos in reply to questions.

It's no wonder that a nation which has seen the likes of George Will and William F. Buckley supplanted by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would give rise to a generation that believes the stupidest claims that one can imagine are somehow proven and bolstered by videos of people whose main claims to fame seems to be a foreign accent, unmitigated arrogance, and the ability to fleece their followers with every bit as much aplomb as a 1980s television Evangelist.

Originally posted by adjensen
Nicely stated, S&F for the effort, but I'll tell you something that you probably already know... common sense, logic and reason are not widely held (or at least not widely displayed) on ATS. Too many people just parrot what they have heard (and rarely understand,) or even worse, post YouTube videos of some "genius" to make their points for them.

Thanks, and agree that this is a universal problem.

My learned response has been to just ignore those -- I can't debate points with a YouTube video, and the person who linked to it rarely understands the underlying facts and is just going to post more videos in reply to questions.

And when you choose to ignore someone, they often claim victory. But as you know, there's quite a difference between leaving because you can't answer, and leaving because you can't breathe due to the "stench" of a bad attitude or recognizing that communications isn't happening.

It's no wonder that a nation which has seen the likes of George Will and William F. Buckley supplanted by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would give rise to a generation that believes the stupidest claims that one can imagine are somehow proven and bolstered by videos of people whose main claims to fame seems to be a foreign accent, unmitigated arrogance, and the ability to fleece their followers with every bit as much aplomb as a 1980s television Evangelist.

Agree of course... but let's be fair and include with Rush and Glenn such luminaries as Bill Maher and Chris "Tingles" Matthews. ;-)

Originally posted by SaberTruth

My learned response has been to just ignore those -- I can't debate points with a YouTube video, and the person who linked to it rarely understands the underlying facts and is just going to post more videos in reply to questions.

And when you choose to ignore someone, they often claim victory. But as you know, there's quite a difference between leaving because you can't answer, and leaving because you can't breathe due to the "stench" of a bad attitude or recognizing that communications isn't happening.

Oh, I don't ignore them (well, not generally,) I just ignore their video and tell them that if they want to make a point, they'll need to make it on their own terms. One of the reasons that I generally don't provide "citations" for remarks that I make (apart from the occasional "for more information" link) is that in a spoken debate, it is the ideas and logic that undergoes examination, not whether this particular person agrees with you, or this book here has this useful quote. Those are supplementary, and I see an online forum debate no differently, so rather than trundle over to my bookcases and find a quote from some text from 1934 that agrees with me, I just make my point.

If someone wants to learn more from the 1934 book, they can find it themselves and read it, because that's where learning takes place, not in just listening to videos of people spouting off on things you already believe.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Originally posted by SaberTruth
1. It's the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not just the Tree of Knowledge.

I hate this one too. And there's a separate tree of life...

2. If many cultures have a belief in a god, you say this proves that all gods are the same, but if many cultures have a legend of a global flood, you say this proves that there was never really a global flood. Maybe in your world a principle can reverse just by changing the names, but that doesn't work in mine.

Few cultures have a legend of a global flood.

3. The fable of the boy who cried wolf does not teach that no real wolves exist, just as false prophecies don't mean that no real prophecies exist.

You're right...but the entire absence of real prophecies would be a reason to reject the idea.

4. People who can't spell or punctuate or put together a coherent paragraph should not lecture others on logic or offer to enlighten them.

...ironic.

5. Christians are forced to learn evolutionism, in schools, entertainment, even the news; don't act like we never heard your side. And remember that there are as many ignorant or stupid atheists as theists.

You may have heard it, but it doesn't seem like you understood it. Especially since you just used the term 'evolutionism'.

6. Disagreement is not a sign of hate or stupidity.

True, but it can be. It can also be a sign of ignorance. But it's a case-by-case thing.

7. If you're sure the world would be a better place without religion, then explain why the regimes that tried eliminating it didn't exactly value human rights.

*facepalm* Stupid argument. I think the world would be a better place without religion, but I don't think that we should forcibly eliminate it. I think people should be free to believe or not believe what they want, but I think the world would be a better place if everyone freely arrived to the atheist position.

And if the "they're not practicing real Christianity" argument is invalid for us, then the "they're not practicing real atheism" argument is invalid for you; see also point 2.

Atheism means not believing in a deity, it has nothing additional to that. Anything else done by an atheist is not an extension of atheism. Anti-theism is not a necessary consequence of atheism. Violent anti-theism is definitely not a necessary consequence.

8. If you can't tell the difference between a human sacrifice and a self-sacrifice, then it doesn't surprise me that you can't tell the difference between an accident and a design.

Well, the whole idea that the two entities are both separate and both the same thing sort of makes it both, doesn't it?

Oh, and I can tell the difference between accident and design...life is in the former category.

9. If one witness to a crime says the perp was holding a gun and another witness says the perp was holding a knife, this is not a contradiction unless you can prove that the perp did not have one of each. Likewise, if one witness says there was one angel and another says there were three, this is not a contradiction unless you can prove that the first witness said there was only one angel.

That's just illogical because the assignment of a numerical value tends to mean an exact measurement.

10. Denial is every bit as much of a psychological crutch as faith.

Yep, denial of scientific truth tends to go hand and hand with faith.

12. A possible explanation is not the only explanation until you can disprove all other possibilities; just because you can offer an alternative doesn't mean it falsifies the original.

Another illogical statement. It's impossible to disprove all other possibilities. Now, if the second explanation actually has evidence to support it and contradicts the first one then it would seem to disprove the original.

15. If you believe anything that you can't prove, you have faith in it; faith in science is no different than faith in God; and BTW, the two are not mutually exclusive. Naturalism/anti-theism and supernaturlaism/theism certainly are, but those are not sciences but philosophies.

Except that faith in science is non-existent because I can go to examples where it has been proven. Hell, what's the faith in saying "According to every single experiment that has been conducted on the issue, this is what happens"?

16. Fact is not up for popular vote; the number of people believing something to be true is not proof that it is, and there is plenty of historical evidence of the majority being wrong.

Yep, like Christians getting rid of that old ancient Greek idea of a round Earth.

17. If your theory can never be falsified regardless of any progress science may ever make, then science has nothing to do with it; see also point 15.

Actually...no. If science an be used as a method to support your claim, yet cannot be used as a means to disprove it, then it doesn't necessarily mean that it is entirely unscientific. The idea of a deity falls into the realm of science as there are always claims that whatever deity interfered with the natural world at some point or even repeatedly and constantly.

18. "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement; likewise, "There is no god" is an absolute statement.

Good thing that there are few (if any) people who claim that. "I do not believe in a deity" is not the same as "There is no god"

19. If God must answer to you, then you are claiming superiority to God; if so, I'd like to see you walk across my swimming pool.

Let me just fill it with custard. Also, I'm not a genocidal maniac....

20. Arrogance and humility only apply between equal beings; it is not arrogant for me to tell my dog to sit and I am not immoral to fail to humble myself before him. Likewise, God cannot be arrogant to humans, and it is not immoral for him to fail to humble himself before us.

Well, hard for a being whose existence is unsubstantiated to be much of anything now, is it?

21. It is psychotic to be obsessed with beliefs you don't hold.

Unless those beliefs are hurting people. It is psychotic to believe in something in spite of and in contradiction to evidence.

22. If God has no right to judge you, then you have no right to judge God. And remember (or learn for the very first time) that not even God could choose whether to exist.

Oh, I didn't know your deity wasn't omnipotent. Also, the difference tends to be when I judge people I just say that they did something bad instead of torturing them for eternity in my basement.

23. If you make a statement that something is a fact, the burden of proof is on you, even if that statement is "negative" For example, "there is no god" has the burden of proof because it states something as a fact: that no gods exist.

Good thing that I'm not stating that.

24. To select is to take a subset of what already exists, so it is impossible for "natural selection" to produce anything new; it can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

You're right. It's a good thing we have mutation in the form of duplication, substitution, insertion and deletion. Nobody is saying natural selection acts upon stagnation to produce new things.

And if your faith in evolution is only concerned with "change", then don't use it as an argument about origins.

Well, it's an argument on the origin of life in its present form. It might not have anything to do with cosmology, but it does have a concern with how life diversified.

And where's the faith in accepting conclusions derived from billions upon billions of empirical data points that would say otherwise?

If you have no theory about how anything first came into existence, just say so.

Well, I don't have any theories because I didn't bother to pursue my childhood passion for cosmology. However, there are many ideas. Great difference between science and religion: Scientists feel comfortable with question marks until they have something more concrete.

25. If you don't have the answers to everything you believe, don't demand them of others, no matter how much faith you have that the answers will be found someday.

Well, I do have the answers for everything I believe...or at the very least I can produce them. Of course, there are places where I'm comfortable with a question mark.

reply to post by Tephra


Prove it. You don't have any evidence to support these claims, do you? Where's the evidence that the mutations caused by the known methods between generations aren't enough? Where's the evidence to verify any of your unsupported claims regarding magnetic reversal and solar radiation?

Note the OP:

But what it is NOT is a debate challenge; it's just a rant, and I may add to it later.

The odds are that the first and most numerous responders (if any) will ignore all that and just engage in flaming as usual, so I'll ignore them in return, seeing that they may provide object lessons for some of these points on their own. I don't respond well to mocking or demands that I address every little grievance from every antagonist.

reply to post by SaberTruth


So disagreement counts as flaming now? I'm sorry, but you said some blatantly false things and some things which I simply disagree with. You're posting in a public forum, expect people to actually disagree with you.

Granted, this is what...the third time you've simply dismissed me?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SaberTruth

 

So disagreement counts as flaming now? I'm sorry, but you said some blatantly false things and some things which I simply disagree with. You're posting in a public forum, expect people to actually disagree with you.

Granted, this is what...the third time you've simply dismissed me?

It's in the Rant forum, I stated my purpose, and I also said up front before anyone commented that I wouldn't cave to the demands of every antagonist.

Ever consider that I might have a good reason to keep dismissing you? Do you think it might be from observing your obsession against Christianity, where you seem unable to restrain yourself from joining every single Christianity-themed thread, and your demanding and mocking attitude? I have and will continue to debate people who simply disagree, but not those who are out for blood. What you do is flame, not simply disagree. It's my opinion of you and you have only reinforced it in this, your latest object lesson proving my rant to be accurate. I guess I can thank you for that.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Ah, more condescension. Must be chilly up on that high horse.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
It's in the Rant forum, I stated my purpose, and I also said up front before anyone commented that I wouldn't cave to the demands of every antagonist.

And I'm not asking you to cave in to my demands, I'm not asking you to address any of my grievances either. I'm merely finding the accusation of flaming dishonest.

Ever consider that I might have a good reason to keep dismissing you?

Yes, lack of appropriate response.

Do you think it might be from observing your obsession against Christianity,

Yes, spending around an hour or so a day on an internet forum discussing what's wrong with Christianity is a hell of an obsession.

where you seem unable to restrain yourself from joining every single Christianity-themed thread,

I can find upwards of a dozen threads just on the current front page of "Religion, Faith, and Theology" which refute that statement.

and your demanding and mocking attitude?

Well, I reply to you in spite of your condescending and accusatory attitude. Didn't Jesus say something about splinters and eyes?

I have and will continue to debate people who simply disagree, but not those who are out for blood.

Again, accusation. I am not out for blood. I am out for discussion.

What you do is flame, not simply disagree.

Assertion without evidence. I find the fact that I've not been addressed by moderators for flaming sort of...contradictory to your statements.

It's my opinion of you and you have only reinforced it in this, your latest object lesson proving my rant to be accurate. I guess I can thank you for that.

Wow, apparently you can simply declare victory now. Oh, and I'm not mocking. I ridicule. Because certain things are ridiculous.

Like claiming evolution is a 'faith'.

I'm just going to say it this way: You've got nothing. In the 5, going on 6, years that I've been on here I've seen all types. You? You're the type who declares victory without even engaging.

Again, thank you for the object lesson.

(Oh, look! You just started another Christianity thread. Nothing to see here, move along...)

reply to post by SaberTruth


It's funny that you're calling me an object lesson when in doing so you're proving my point and therefore becoming an object lesson yourself. And yeah, I started one thread and ignored over a dozen, definitely proof that you're right.

Granted, if you'd bothered to address my points (something I don't see you ever doing), I'll be able to actually pick apart your arguments...and you'd hate for that to happen.

reply to post by SaberTruth


You seen it before?

cool

just bumping your thread dude

all i was doing

I find it interesting that you claim to be a christian sabertruth,yet you can dismiss the logic that someone might have to offer ,just because they can't write well.

So someone who can't read or write at all , has no wisdom to offer anyone?

You're not coming off as christian at all to me, just another selfrighteous a** ,who claims to have the answers.

Its christians like you who do more damage to that faith, then you realize.