There's one thing that needs repeating for the sake of theists who ask why we're atheists, what proof do we have that their god doesn't exists, etcetera: Atheism isn't a belief in itself, it's a lack of belief. It is a negative belief.Theism is a positive claim, the idea that something called a "god" has some form of existence and an effect on the world. The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. It's the theist's job to sell their idea of god. We're atheists because we simply aren't buying it right now.
Imagine you answer the door, and find it's a salesman with a box covered in question marks. The first thing he does is ask you is for a good reason to not buy his product. That's what it's like to be an atheist.
1. Every theist has their own definition of "god." I don't keep a list of all of them. To put the exchange in other terms:
Theist: "What proof do you have that god doesn't exist?"
Atheist: "Which god?"
And even then, the answer isn't clear: Some Christians, for example, believe in a fire and brimstone god while other Christians believe in a peaceful, merciful god.
2. The burden of proof is on the 'salesman' to convince me his product is worthwhile, and to do that, he has to be able to define and demonstrate it to someone. I don't need to have a disproof. He needs to provide proof that his product works. Until I find a god who has predictable, repeatable effects on the universe, I'll simply file them all into the same drawer as other unproven entities like unicorns and psychic powers and do something more productive or entertaining with my life.
3. A lack of belief in something is supposed to be the default position in logic before evidence is presented. Theism has not earned this position due to its merits: From where I'm standing, theism is falsely elevated to the default assumption because of peer pressure, fashion, tradition, and other social pressures. I don't assume that those things automatically follow logic because I know human beings can rationalize just about any mistake they make with logical fallacies.
143 comments:
Or, you do not accept Him because you are afraid?
Could this be it? You realize that your life has not been as good as it should and you want to continue living the life you do? Be it stealing, lying, supporting murder of babies etc?
Could this be it? COULD this be the reason?
Nope. Not afraid, just like I'm not afraid of the boogeyman.
I have no interest in leading an immoral life, and in particular, I left my church because they were too permissive and I didn't want to be associated with that attitude.
It doesn't help that a lot of people like you try to argue that cowardice is a good thing via Pascal's Wager.
And besides, even if I were afraid (which would be just silly), what would my emotional state have to do with your failure to provide a sound theory of gods?
Yeah, I think you are afraid seeing your response, making up other excuses instead of facing the issue of your anger and hatred towards God.
Sad individual you are Bronze, so sad, and you will never learn as with the ignorant goons you got agreeing with you here, never helping you, I seem to be the only one.
It is quite ironic that you ignore and insult me instead of taking my words and Learn, imagine what you could learn from me, all the things I could teach you, instead you live in a world of empty looking up to people like Dawkins and PZ Myers and insulting wonderful people spreading love and knowledge like Ken Ham, building a MUSEUM to HELP people and SPREAD THE WORD making the world better.
What do you do... Oh.. Nothing, but lying to yourself, insulting other people that you cant accept being right and living in a world of fantasy. Sad indeed.
Gabriel - Open to HELP and Educate the Ignorant, if they wanted.
Right. Logical consistency is an "excuse," now, is it? Postmodernism at its finest: There is no such thing as objective truth, science is just another narrative. So sayeth Creationism.
So, tell me Gabe, how do you help me by lobbing all these evasive softball fallacies instead of something of substance?
Gabriel, I've wanted to ask you this for some time, but I never got around to it:
Is there any sort of mendacious dirtbaggery, any sort at all, that you do not painstakingly cultivate?
Bronze: When you start explaining why God Almighty does not exist, in rigorous detail, I promise you Bronze, I will answer one of YOUR questions.
But you would need to put some time on it, you know, use some Brain Power and Think, it would be to see you use your noodle for once instead of denying things, actually Calculating things.
Valhar2000: Thats the only thing you can come up with, insult. I guess thats what Atheism/Socialism leads to, lack of intelligence and insult.
Perhaps you should think why you deny the God Almighty instead of blindly do whatever your masters, be it PZ Myers or Bronze Dog, or perhaps Dawkins(?), tell you to believe? Deny God leads nowhere, accept reality and make the world Better.
Listen and Learn, especially to people like me, imagine what I seen and what I KNOW? Shouldn't you listen to people knowing more then you? Besides God, perhaps you should think about Jews and Negros too, do you want me to explain how AFRICA looks? Or the Ghettos in United States of America? Whiles WE, the White Man created the most powerful and Wonderful nation in the world, the negros decided to leech and destroy instead of standing up and WORK and IMPROVE, or are you going to make an example of some random negro that got Tax money to go clean himself up and Help, every day, to manage to go to a job? Yeah, thats why Africa is so WONDERFUL.
Whites and Blacks are EQUAL, just as America shows you, thats why Negros are so well educated and intelligent, just look out the window, you want STATISTICS?
HHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Gabe demonstrates his inability to grasp logic:
Bronze: When you start explaining why God Almighty does not exist, in rigorous detail, I promise you Bronze, I will answer one of YOUR questions.
1. Which almighty god? There's millions of them.
2. Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one claiming something exists. Should I start proving that unicorns don't exist by exploring the whole of time and space just to prove it? Why do that when I can instead wait for you to provide one unicorn?
Perhaps you should think why you deny the God Almighty instead of blindly do whatever your masters, be it PZ Myers or Bronze Dog, or perhaps Dawkins(?), tell you to believe? Deny God leads nowhere, accept reality and make the world Better.
Says the guy who spazzes out when we go all anti-authoritarian on him. Gabe, there is no such thing as authority in science.
Listen and Learn, especially to people like me, imagine what I seen and what I KNOW? Shouldn't you listen to people knowing more then you?
You haven't been doing a good job of showing any knowledge. You become evasive and lash out with ad hominem fallacies whenever we try to pull new information out of you. What do you expect us to think when you react that way?
Anyone with a brain would suspect that you've been bluffing the whole time, and we've been calling you on it ever since you arrived.
do you want me to explain how AFRICA looks?
By and large, a famine stricken, disease ridden, and/or war torn hellhole. You don't get "cool rebel points" by stating completely uncontroversial information that we already agree on.
Or the Ghettos in United States of America?
The dominantly black slums look a lot like the dominantly white slums, last time I checked.
Whiles WE, the White Man created the most powerful and Wonderful nation in the world, the negros decided to leech and destroy instead of standing up and WORK and IMPROVE, or are you going to make an example of some random negro that got Tax money to go clean himself up and Help, every day, to manage to go to a job? Yeah, thats why Africa is so WONDERFUL.
Correlation does not equal causation. This is basic knowledge among non-gullible people.
Whites and Blacks are EQUAL, just as America shows you, thats why Negros are so well educated and intelligent, just look out the window, you want STATISTICS?
And the straw man factory is back in overdrive because Gabriel can't comprehend that people would have opinions other than the ones he, Gabriel, faithful man and the god who defines God, dictated from his throne in heaven.
Either that, or he's just plain lying because the often demonstrated moral nihilism of Creationists says there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong."
Ah, what the heck. I'll have a bit of fun:
Premise 1: God, according to the average Creationist, has no cause, intervenes in the universe, and is unpredictable.
Logical extension of premise 1: Therefore god acts randomly on the universe.
Real world evidence, Exhibit A: The universe behaves in a consistent and orderly manner.
Conclusion: A random god is unlikely to create an orderly universe, and if he did, his random behavior would cover up the order. Therefore, because the universe is visibly orderly, he is highly unlikely to exist.
That you do not want God to exist does not make it so, your anger is clear and hatred obvious.
God Bless America
Says the guy who has to perform all sorts of distractions to avoid talking about the subject.
What does my emotional state have to do with the facts of reality, Gabe? What could you possibly hope to accomplish by changing the subject from gods to my emotional state?
Gabe: If you want a disproof of your god, you're going to have to define him/her/it. Note that this definition is going to have to be complete, both for the god's existence to be evaluated and to eliminate the possibility of the ever-expanding definition defence.
Some gods do run into disproofs, such as having an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god in a universe where evil exists. However, most visions of god simply have the issue of lacking any actual evidence, (often including evidence which would be expected should such a being exist).
BTW: We're still waiting on you to define white.
Hatred for what? Unicorns? Gnomes?
Gabe, the most you've ever gotten us is frustrated. Frustrated with your refusal to apply consistent standards in evaluating technological advancement by different cultures. Frustrated with your consistent refusal to define the terminology you insist on using. Frustrated with your consistent refusal to understand the purpose of fundamental scientific techniques. Frustrated with your consistent refusal to acknowledge the source of some of the basic, ubiquitous concepts that power the modern world. Frustrated with your consistent refusal to explain how melanin is supposed to correlate with any of the things you've claimed or insinuated it correlates with.
In short, frustrated with your consistent refusal to engage in honest, rational debate. Frothing at the mouth is not an argument, or, indeed, an especially positive image to project.
I'm moving past those frustrations to having fun with his flip-flopping, self-idolatry, and desperate need to change the subject to me.
I wonder if he's got a cork board with a lot of pictures of my avatar pinned onto it with string tying the images to crop circle conspiracy theories, newspaper editorials about alleged crocoduck sightings being covered up by evolutionists, and other crazy new age crap like that.
Seriously, Gabe, what's the point about talking about me personally, and not the issues, if it's not a distraction designed to waste time? What else could you possibly hope to accomplish?
Valhar2000: Thats the only thing you can come up with, insult. I guess thats what Atheism/Socialism leads to, lack of intelligence and insult.
Perhaps I should have made sure beforehand, but here goes:
Is this preachy Gabriel we're dealing with the racist who used to complain that science ain't shit, that he knows more than any of us because he travels a lot, that the movie "Schindler's List" is disgusting because it takes pity on the Jews and that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that too many Jews escaped with their lives?
If not, I humbly apologize. If so, however, I have not given you even a tiny fraction of the derision you deserve, my (dripping with sarcasm) good man.
Perhaps you should think why you deny the God Almighty instead of blindly do whatever your masters, be it PZ Myers or Bronze Dog, or perhaps Dawkins(?), tell you to believe? Deny God leads nowhere, accept reality and make the world Better.
I cannot let this insult stand! I do not bow down to PZ Myers or Bronze Dog or Dawkins! The only masters I serve are the Gods who made Heavy Metal.
Why is anybody still wasting their time on this moron? He's either incurably stupid or a flat-out, old-skool troll in the truest sense.
Possibly it's a way to hone debating skills? If we can get Gabriel to accept the scientific method, pretty much anyone else would be a cakewalk. (Except for DM, but that's because I'm not sure he actually... reads... things.)
That, and the lengths he'll go to to avoid addressing any of our points whatsoever are nothing short of incredible.
Here's how things look to us, Gabe:
Gabe: "It's obvious to anyone with a brain that [thing]."
Response: "Give us some clear evidence." or "Yes, so?" or "What are you even saying?" or "THE PLURAL OF 'THAT' IS NOT 'DOES'!"
(Okay, I think that last bit, by now he has to be doing solely to piss me off.)
On the other hand:
Statement: "Melanin does not correlate with farming ability." or "Travel and emotions are irrelevant to truth." or "Whatever you've just claimed about heredity is wrong in every conceivable respect."
Gabe: "WAAAH! YOU'RE FULL OF HATE AND FASCISM!"
Seriously, Gabe, you compare unfavorably with my internet debating technique back when I was ten. I've got an idea for how you can improve, but it might be a really bad one: find a community where people agree with you about... non-white people. Then, instead of talking about how the Jews are filing down your gold, or black people are no better than dogs, or how people who don't want to get heatstroke are lazy...
Discuss old video games. Make whatever statements you want about the decline of gaming (I'll be too busy playing Portal and making a danmaku game about GAY SPACE ROBOTS to care), and, if anyone disagrees, defend your statements with evidence. See what you learn from all that.
Possibly it's a way to hone debating skills?
That implies there's some debate going on. Debate requires that the participants be prepared to change their views on the basis of evidence and reason. I do not see that here. You might as well try and hone your debating skills against a particularly stupid chatbot.
If you want to hone your skills in any contest, you need a good opponent. Gabe's not even in the ring. See: http://cectic.com/069.html
Now, if that's your idea of fun, don't let me stop you, but let's not pretend that there's any possibility of winning.
I still find it funny that Creationists can accuse us of wanting to lead sinful lives when they worship a god who commanded genocide.
When we point this out, they invoke the moral nihilism of Divine Command Theory. In other words, there's nothing that is inherently evil. There's nothing that is evil in principle. There are no principles. If their random god randomly commands it, it's good. If god commands someone to murder, that murder is good.
There's a term we use for modern people who practice this sort of Divine Command Theory: "Serial killers."
Or, as I like to say: "If god exists, everything is permissible."
You believe in the "The Big Bang" without evidence, that everything exploded into existence, and then you have no problem denying God because you "dont see evidence"...
You dont see the contradiction in that?
Nah, of course not, your right, and you got plenty of buddies to agree with you, so no need to think further.
Gabriel - Make you Think Further
Are you really so oblivious, Gabe?
Cosmic microwave background radiation.
The nature of the expansion of the universe.
Are you really that far behind the times?
Big Bang Theory also doesn't state that everything "exploded into existence" - everything necessary for the formation of the universe was already there, condensed infinitesimally.
And to pre-answer your Argument from Ignorance, the fact that we don't know where all the infinitesimally condensed "stuff" came from does not make your god any more likely. Prior to invoking the supernatural we must first eliminate all natural causes; you don't get to jump straight to "it was magic".
Argument from Ignorance/Personal Incredulity summarized:
"You can't put 'I don't know' into an evidence locker."
But that's what Creationists want to do. "I don't know how X happened, therefore I do know with absolute certainty my god did it. Because the universe is limited to my imagination."
So anyway, Gabe: If Creationism is true, why does life look like a nested hierarchy instead of a mishmash of common characteristics randomly distributed?
In other words, why doesn't Earth life look like Spore creatures?
In other words, why doesn't Earth life look like Spore creatures?
Because no loving god would create a penismonster :P
Seriously, though, Gabe, you can't just assume that we know what the words you're using mean, when we tell you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
That you have not defined "white" (we have our own ideas, but I suspect most of them include e.g. Russians. Are they too pale for you, or something?), and you haven't told us which idea of God you're arguing for. Presumably, you intend to convert us to a particular denomination of a particular branch of Christianity. If I really wanted to troll you back, I'd convert to Unitarianism and watch your head explode.
Had a feeling someone was going to mention the vulgar creations of dirty-minded players.
Of course, I'm referring to the more "normal" creatures, like the built-in ones: Six-limbed centaur-like creatures living alongside monohoppers on the same planet. Ducks with crocodile heads, wolves with hooves, frogs with insectine mouths, and other crazy mix-and-match chimera where any exact feature can be found anywhere.
Evolution couldn't produce a Spore world because a species can't simply abandon its legacy. An omnipotent god can do whatever it feels like doing, and Creationists want us to believe it's just coincidence that theirs decided to operate under evolutionary restrictions.
Or worse, they believe in a deceiver god who followed those restrictions for the sake of getting jollies by fooling scientists.
Another important set of evidence for the big bang is that if it happened it places constraints on how physics works.
To date, experiment after experiment has found physics working within those constraints and no physics outside of those constraints.
NB: There is an issue with any question that boils down to 'what happened before the big bang?' in that we do not yet know the questions we need to ask to find out if 'before the big bang' is a meaningful statement.
So anyway, Gabe: If Creationism is true, why does life look like a nested hierarchy instead of a mishmash of common characteristics randomly distributed?
Wait a minute, you AGREE that Humans are at the top? You now AGREE there is a hierarchy?
Previously, I thought you said Human Whites where not above others, such as Monkeys or Negros, now you DO say there is hierarchy... But let me guess, you are going to "re-formulate" yourself now realizing your mistake?
To your question, I AGREE WITH YOU, we ARE a Hierarchy, the White Man, creating the most advanced and amazing Nation (or "group" if you prefer Darwinist) the world has ever seen, the FACTS are there, infront of you, everytime you switch on your Computer, your TV, you are using a Phone or even EAT, as the food produced created by White Minds and Technology.
That is, if you are willing to remove the blinders you got on.
Gabriel - Spreading Knowledge Step by Step
Wait a minute, you AGREE that Humans are at the top? You now AGREE there is a hierarchy?
The hierarchy is based off groups formed by dividing ancestry, not some vague concept of "better." Depending on how you draw the tree, you have the common ancestor at one end, and all currently existing species on the other, including humans.
No currently living organism is "higher" than any other currently living organism in evolution.
The nesting comes from new branches, i.e. reptiles branching into the crocodile/alligator family as well as dinosaurs, who branched into therapods, who branched into birds. That's what the nested hierarchy is. Each species retains characteristics from the "higher" group it belongs to, and each group gets its characteristics from the next higher group it belongs to.
A crocoduck would require a crossover between the separated crocodile and bird branches, and thus, according to evolution, it's impossible.
This is supposed to be basic knowledge, Gabe.
Some of the hierarchy as it involves humans, being rough with the language:
Eukaryotes -> Animals -> Chordates -> Tetrapods -> Mammals -> Placental mammals -> Simians -> Apes -> Homo family -> Homo Sapiens -> All 6-7 billion modern human beings.
Though you might want to watch AronRa. I might have missed some details.
In other words, as I understand "on top" in the context of cladistics, that would be, um, highly primitive pond slime, or something. Anaerobic. Because it's the common ancestor we all share. In other words, an unsophisticated prokaryote.
Alternatively, as the "base", it's the bottom, but we really only get to call one end an extremity.
If all you got out of that was "our butt is pond scum"... eh, there've been worse misreadings, as you've demonstrated amply.
Actually, in this case it's more about the groups high up in the hierarchy being broader, and the first life forms would be disqualified from being included in the lower groups because they would lack the traits that define those groups.
Of course, higher and lower aren't really all that interesting in this arrangement: Humans belong to one of the bottom groups, and every higher group that group belongs to, all the way up to essentially "Earth-originating life form" at the top.
I can just hear Gabe desperately trying to come up with an excuse to call this flip-flopping despite the fact that the nested hierarchy I describe is a defining characteristic of evolution. Even Darwin, outdated as he is, got the general idea right. The only exceptions (which would be horizontal gene transfers) I'm aware of involve viruses and bacteria, who can get away with it due to their small size.
And no, the nested hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with The Great Chain of Being, which does not exist. As for "Evolutionary Ladder," get your nose out of the comic books, Gabe. The "Evolutionary Ladder" is bullshit poetic license fantasy and sci-fi writers used to make The Great Chain of Being premise of their story sound more sciencey.
I remember a Darths and Droids comic where the players looked at the equipment lists, "Laser sword, plasma axe, electro staff? You're just taking medieval fantasy weapons and putting sciencey words in front of them!"
That's all the "Evolutionary Ladder" is: Something invented by lazy fiction writers and swallowed by gullible readers.
It must be sad to always have to ignore the real world just making bullshit comments eh?
I point out facts, you start rambling about something completely different, and, OH THE IRONY, claim that I am not "on topic". Funny funny funny.
You will never answer or actually address my points because you fear them, you realize you are wrong and cant learn. Just look at this Blog, if I say nothing, it Dies, it means that "stupid old Gabe" seem to have something intelligent to say eh? It seems that even your retarded followers, niggers and jews probably, seem to look up to me, They SAY, of course, how "bad" and "evil" and "stupid" I am, and yet, they come here to read and Respond.
But never my points, NEVER address the points, thats SCARY and demands THINKING, we don't want that do we? Using your brain, tough tough tough.
Perhaps one of these days you will face my points, THINK FURTHER, and realize... Learn, I can just see, wow, the amount of knowledge you would Gain Bronze by just ASKING me about the world, wanting me to explain how negros are in Africa or how spicks home nation(s) are, because I been there, I SEEN IT, something you never have nor ever will. Imagine what I could teach you.
But you do not want to, knowledge is the Enemy.
Gabriel - Teaching people to Learn
Wow. Talk about projection. We talk about one of the fundamental aspects of evolution which includes how it could be falsified, and Gabe starts rambling about how we can't address what he says.
So, Gabe, if Creationism is true, why is the world not like Spore?
Gabe, if mere morbid fascination is sufficient to qualify us for "looking up to you", then FATAL (nearly 60 pages of liveblog on TVTropes) is one of the most revered games on the internet.
Also, you have points? Could have fooled me.
(Huh. Thinking about it, FATAL is actually worse than Gabe. Huh. I mean, unless he's Byron Hall in disguise. Gabe, you don't have a genius former model for a wife, do you?)
And now I'll get to having fun with Gabe's desperate distraction:
He's quick to assume my life revolves around him, as if my blog is fundamental to my existence. No, Gabe. Get a clue. I have other things to do with my life, and my blog is a hobby. Hobbies are an optional part of life, and I just haven't been following this hobby with as much dedication.
The only reason things get lively when you show up is because you're a living joke. You're low-hanging fruit. It's easy to point out your numerous logical fallacies. It's easy to laugh at someone who is so ignorant of how the world functions despite traveling.
Here's the thing, Gabe: We put more thought into analyzing our boring everyday experiences than you did about your traveling experiences. You confessed your laziness and expect us to lower our standards to your level. You want us to worship you for your laziness.
You're even so gullible that you think that all "liberals" think alike and agree on all issues. It shouldn't be surprising to find out a genetic determinist is incapable of comprehending individual thought.
So Gabe, does the existence of your god really depend on how frequently I blog? Your comment certainly seem to imply that.
That's a rather pathetic god.
Gabe, the only reason that people don't address your points is that you haven't actually made one worth addressing in detail. No, wait, even your worthless points were addressed: Plugging your ears and going "LALALALALALA" to keep from hearing an answer doesn't mean the answer wasn't given.
You have made assertions, then either ignored or actively run away from responses that point out there are other, better, explanations for your observations.
You also have been repeatedly asked to define some terms you use. For instance, you have yet to define what you mean by white, (you won't even answer softball subquestions like "were the Franks white?).
Yeah. I've had to keep drilling on environmental causes of variation in human ability, but he just ignores them and changes the subject to me and my blog.
So, Gabe, why exactly is my blogging frequency of such paramount importance to you?
Why is my personal life of such great importance?
The only answer I've been able to guess so far is that those questions are meant to be time-wasting distractions.
Of course, I've accused him of believing in an epistemology where truth is an everchanging value, and for some reason, he seems to think it changes depending on the status of my life.
Curious how he doesn't deny either of these possibilities.
you won't even answer softball subquestions like "were the Franks white?"
I'd settle for "why are Russians not white?", because that gets me really confused about what definition he could possibly be using.
And of course he won't say one way or the other whether all truth is contingent upon details of your personal life. He's too busy emulating Ratzinger's attitudes towards the Nazis.
Your avoiding the facts that I am right, you do not respond to MY points and simple ignore them or say "you said nothing". Which is weird, because then you say I said ALOT....
Hmm, SO STRANGE!!!!
If I am so wrong, prove me wrong? Show me that negros and jews are equal to white man? Like, I don't know, perhaps a Jewish State must be the most advanced on the planet as a White one is, right? So show it, and Negro states must be equal, right? And spick states the same? Correct?
Because we are all Equal, so SHOW ME... Oh.. You cant... Rats....
Just curious, have you ever even been outside our wonderful Nation? Have you seen how it actually LOOKS OUTSIDE our borders? Or you taken it from some liberal movies telling you its "all the same" or "better" yeah? Thats it, right? You believe the movies you seen, like some useless jewish movie telling you how Great the Jewish world is, correct? Must be true, you saw it on TV.
And what do Gabriel know? Nothing right, he has only BEEN THERE, he has BEEN in Brazil, he has BEEN in Ecuador, Bolivia, Egypt, Namibia and Congo, he has EXPERIENCED the places, you haven't, but you know more, of course.... Because you do not agree with the facts, so you are right and the one knowing and experiencing the real world is wrong...
But when it comes to "science", then they are right because they say so.... hmm...
Hyp... Whats that word? Hypoc.... oh rats, im to stupid to spell, maybe you can help me.
Gabriel - Teaching others the best he can
Gabe goes back to compulsive lying:
Your avoiding the facts that I am right, you do not respond to MY points and simple ignore them or say "you said nothing". Which is weird, because then you say I said ALOT....
Hmm, SO STRANGE!!!!
Projection, again. You're the one who keeps ignoring what we say.
If I am so wrong, prove me wrong? Show me that negros and jews are equal to white man? Like, I don't know, perhaps a Jewish State must be the most advanced on the planet as a White one is, right? So show it, and Negro states must be equal, right? And spick states the same? Correct?
Because we are all Equal, so SHOW ME... Oh.. You cant... Rats....
Straw man fallacy. Duh. After all this time, you still don't know what my position is or what my disagreement with you actually is.
You don't know my opinion because you're too busy trying to give it to me.
Just curious, have you ever even been outside our wonderful Nation? Have you seen how it actually LOOKS OUTSIDE our borders? Or you taken it from some liberal movies telling you its "all the same" or "better" yeah? Thats it, right? You believe the movies you seen, like some useless jewish movie telling you how Great the Jewish world is, correct? Must be true, you saw it on TV.
The straw man fallacy, again. I never suggested the civilizations as a whole were equal. That's pure bullshit you made up to avoid facing the real people here.
The disagreement has always been about the role of genetics in those differences. I say it's not significant, and more easily explainable by environmental differences.
So, Gabe, why do you feel compelled to lie about us over and over again like this?
In summary: Gabe prefers to argue with figments of his imagination than dare acknowledge the existence of a real Bronze Dog who holds a real world opinion.
He's arguing things? I thought he was just insisting that controlled experiments are for ivory tower elitists and Hollywood perverts.
Gabe, let's try something else, again...
We agree that various countries show significant differences in quality of living, commercially available products, stuff like that.
You assert that these differences are so irrevocably and powerfully tied to race that there is no need to consider any other factor. (If you have said differently, please provide a citation. All comments are Google-indexed and permalinked, AFAIK.)
Please back up that assertion.
For bonus points, EXPLAIN WHAT THE HELL YOU MEAN BY "WHITE", YOU EVASIVE PILE OF SPARROW DROPPINGS.
*Huff huff*... Seriously, if we all say that we don't know what you mean by a term you're using, maybe the simplest explanation is, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT. (For example, Russians. What are they, then, if not white?)
Your avoiding the facts that I am right, you do not respond to MY points and simple ignore them or say "you said nothing". Which is weird, because then you say I said ALOT....
First of all Gabe: What does Ex 20:16 say?
All of your assertions have been responded to, often many times. In general those responses have done one of three things: Shown your observations to be incomplete, shown your logic to be invalid or shown that there are better explanations than the ones you offer.
Now, something you seem to not know that it is possible to put out many words where those words have no content of value.
As it stands, _you_ are the one ignoring things like a coward. If you weren't a coward, you would have answered the question of what you mean by 'white'.
Now get off your lazy, cowardly, ass and answer the question or admit that all your blathering has been no more meaningful than if you had been asserting gazorninplatz superiority.
MWchase: Not counting Slavs as white has a long history, like southern Europeans they only became commonly considered white in the latter part of the 20th century. Not that it really matters, given that Gabe isn't using a genetic definition of white, (consider how he treats Jews as a single race separate from the surrounding populations, which is wrong in two ways).
Ah, so he likes his racism like he likes his games: old-school. Gotcha.
Dear Shermer... I spoke with God yesterday.... Do you want to know what he told me?
CLOBBERING TIME
dawkins - got you...
who's the WINGNUT?
richarddawkins.net/videos/579240-the-truth-about-the-lunatic-religious-right-in-america?page=1
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - JAN 1, 2011
OMENS OF DEATH:
starseedshaman.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/redwing.jpg
an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....
freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24191
And Mabus/Markuze shows up. Jesus Tits, if Cocksnack shows up we'll have a troll reunion.
Ironic isn't it, without a man you hate so much this blog dies (just after Bronze said he would "revive it" but I didn't say anything for days).
Well, being that all of you deny God I would think you would enjoy this, a Christian man got refused a position he was the most qualified for because he was Christian.
Out of curiosity, how do God deniers like you guys feel about it? Do you feel happy or do you pretend that its "really sad" and you think the Discrimination Christians have to deal with is horrible?
Maybe Bronze could open a Thread/Post about it I would find it interesting to know what Atheist/Nazist/Communist/Racist really think about us "filthy Chrisitans".
Don't mince words now, Do let me know.
Gabriel - A Light in the Dark
If you're talking about Gaskell, try again. It's not discrimination based on religion. It's discrimination based on his ability to do his job without abusing his authority. It's about him being irresponsible and incompetent.
Of course, capitalism- and science-haters despise the idea of meritocracy, hence they want special treatment.
Of course, religious discrimination is wrong. That's why atheists like me are so big on preventing it. We're subject to far more discrimination. Why do you think a Texan like me blogs under a pseudonym? We can't express pro-American ideals without people like Gabriel accusing us without evidence of being anti-American.
So, Gabriel, can you link to any time I said anything positive about Communism? No? Thought not.
Can you link to anything positive I've ever said about the Nazis? No? Thought not.
So, Gabriel, why did you bring up this evasion and display of your ignorance about American subcultures?
I owned you so many times and you shown that you will never admit defeat, or you will simple pretend that you are right / I am wrong and then get "confirmation" from your blind sheep here believing that Majority = Fact.
And that you would even MENTION that I would be Ignorant of my own Nation and Culture and somehow pretend you are NOT Anti-American when being..... ANTI!!! Towards United States of America, The Greatest Most Powerful and Advanced Nation in the World, Dude, you truly live in a delusional world, which what makes me assume the logical conclusion that you are not a True American but rather some illegal spick or Negro living on the Hard Work the White man has done (You are using a COMPUTER aren't you? Watched TV lately? Any Medication?).
The Truth is very simple, What We have Created is an amazing world and I have no problem with Negros, Spicks or Jews taking advantages of does benefits -> BUT DO NOT PRETEND that it somehow Magically appeared, instead acknowledge Whites Mans Creation and admit their Superiority.
You yourself live in a Wonderful Society that would not exist if it was not for White Man, yet you seem to ignore, pretend or look the other way as soon as this fact comes up. Hell you give excuses for everything, if I spell something wrong (I type very fast) or some grammatical error (welcome to the real world) you start pointing that out instead of ANSWERING my Questions or defending the Points, you need EXCUSES and that is sad, I dont care if you or anyone else spells something wrong, or some error because of speedy typing or because being black or spick, I just want to know what they SAY, if I get it no problems, else I ask for clarification (which never happens as I am not stupid which most here seems to be not understanding the most basic things).
Look at the United States or Canada, these societies are built by White Man, look at Africa I know, you never been there, you know nothing about it other then what you read on Wikipedia or some Liberal/Atheist site, but they are sh!t, and its not a coincidence, when White man came to North America we had ignorant Savages living here, knowing nothing, we had created amazing Technologies and things they could only dream of, we built a wonderful Society with this and they complained wanting to live in huts, They still live there, in huts, no education, no technology, in the backwaters both mentally and practically because of their limitations.
Just like you go to Congo, you will see (I know, you never been to Africa and never will) All Technology, even the most BASIC thing like cellphones, computers, cars, batteries come from FOREIGN WHITE sources, if it is made by a negro or by some local it is because we GIVEN them the technology and (tried) to teach them, usually it "works", but less then the real deal, and thats the point, they are backwards monkeys.
Go to the Middle East, which you never will, same deal. Visit Australia, White man made a wonderful Nation, guess who is in the backwaters COMPLAINING? Yeah, the Aborigines living in huts not wanting to be civilized whiles White Man built a wonderful society.
I could go on, but you wont care, you just ignore it, as always, you are to afraid to debate it, Hell start topics about it is to spooky, being a Blog and All, perhaps other Intelligent people like me would come and then you would be forced to prevent us from Posting as you couldn't keep bashing a large amount of us calling us "idiots" and declare victory because you say so, no you would have to live in the REAL world.
Gabriel - Living Life and Spreading Truth and God
Wait, wait. Holding people to standards of evidence is "anti-american"?
This seriously explains so. much.
And since you brought up computers, what are your thoughts on Alan Turing, one of the great influences on the field of computer science?
Gabe, owning fictional Straw Dogs does not constitute victory over me. I am not Straw Dog. I am Bronze Dog. Duh.
I am pro-capitalism. You are a Communist who wants the government to subsidize lazy, anti-education rednecks for the whiteness of their skin instead of using the capitalistic/meritocratic practice of hiring the most qualified people to do the job.
I am pro-science. You are a religious nut who thinks science happens by magical genetic revelation, not by hard work.
I am pro-America, which is why I'm standing up against a flip-flopping Neo-Nazi Communist layabout like you who preaches the gospel of national laziness.
I am anti-Hitler. You are a Nazi sympathizer who called a movie made about the objective evils of genocide "pro-Jew propaganda." Hitler hated blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. You constantly whine about blacks, Jews, and homosexuals being treated under equal standards. Hitler was a Creationist. You are a Creationist.
Stalin gulag'd and executed people for believing in the modern synthesis of evolution. You reject the modern synthesis of evolution.
I want America to be a country respected for producing great scientists and inventors. You want to sit on your ass, playing WoW all day and you want your "whiteness" to take credit for stuff other countries do, like you did for Russia when they beat the US into orbit. If we followed your advice back then, we'd probably be bombed into oblivion by ICBMs by now.
I want to make America great. You want a free ride on our ancestor's laurels.
Oh, yeah. Another thing:
I believe truth is an objective value.
Gabriel seems to think truth changes whenever I make a blog post.
And since you brought up computers, what are your thoughts on Alan Turing, one of the great influences on the field of computer science?
Ironic you would mention a White Man as a great influence here, does not improve your position now does it?
It is quite sad that he was not treated earlier for his mental disease (he was a fagot) and committed suicide. Perhaps if he had gotten help to become normal or put on medication early enough he would have become normal.
In any case, how does a White Man doing good for the world suitable for you promoting negros, spicks and jews being equal to White man?
I am pro-science. You are a religious nut who thinks science happens by magical genetic revelation, not by hard work.
Or I am a Christian, Christianity who created the most Advanced Nation the world has ever seen.
You may find that if you look up on what Religious History people creating technologies have, it may not be to unlikely that they are Christian.
I am anti-Hitler. You are a Nazi sympathizer who called a movie made about the objective evils of genocide "pro-Jew propaganda." Hitler hated blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. You constantly whine about blacks, Jews, and homosexuals being treated under equal standards. Hitler was a Creationist. You are a Creationist.
Well, sure, I agree with alot of what Adolf Hitler did, so what? You look up to Atheist like Stalin, Mao, Aldous Huxley, how does that change anything?
I hate negros because of the BAD they do to the world instead of embracing knowledge and science making the world good, THATS ALL.
You reject the modern synthesis of evolution.
Evolution is an unproven Theory talked about in school like its fact, you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without even questioning it.
I want America to be a country respected for producing great scientists and inventors.
And thats what we are, we are a Nation of White men creating Amazing Technologies that the world throws themselves over. Move over to Africa and see how much they invent there, or Russia, or, even better and more ironic, Go to China or Japan and see how they take OUR technology and send SPIES to STEAL our technologies.
But you wouldn't know about that, negative things are bad, lets ignore.
Conversion therapy. Of course. I should have fucking known.
You know, he did get "treatment". By that point, it was realized that estrogen suppresses the libido, so... man-boob time.
Anyway, would you care to offer any evidence whatsoever that any form of conversion therapy works? Put out any anecdotes if you like, but I will, and I think all of us will, want solid science from you, if you're going to keep that up.
On a more "what the fuck are you smoking" note, the Soviet Union opposed the theory of evolution in favor of Lysenko's ideas. Privileging politics over science is not a way to get in our good graces. That applies equally to dictators who killed as many as possible to overwhelm people's emotional responses, and to crazed wingnuts to the right of Beck.
The problem, Gabe, is that you refuse to accept that hard work and science have any value. But those are some of the most important things that separated America and other first world nations from all the others.
That's why you focus so much on whiteness and its magical powers to do anything without having any mechanism of causation. You think you have a birthright that entitles you to all the credit for doing nothing. You think that America's greatness should be taken for granted, not something that has to be renewed with every generation.
If we don't keep pushing America's resources into further scientific, technological, and social development, we'll go down into a third world nation. Gullible nationalists like you just believe that's impossible. Patriots want to avoid that and will push for more education and science funding. Other formerly great nations fell into dark ages, therefore so could we. Of course, that's what you want to happen, Gabe. You want the American Dim Age to get darker.
And Gabriel, why would I look up to a man who would execute me for believing in science? Just admit it, Gabriel, you've never set foot in America. You've only seen it on television.
As for evolution, what challenges do you have? I don't even think you know what evolution is, because you're far too wrapped up in popular entertainment, treating it like gospel truth.
Evolution certainly beats the Random Theory of Randomness (AKA Creationism.) Once you cut through all the bullshit, that's what Creationism is: It tries to explain everything with random chance.
And Gabriel, why would I look up to a man who would execute me for believing in science? Just admit it, Gabriel, you've never set foot in America. You've only seen it on television.
WTF are you talking about???!?!???
Talk about going off-topic, not only insulting me calling me "Un-American", now you say I am NOT American, dude you are sick.
No wait, it makes sense, you, coming to my nation as an illegal citizen, want an excuse to blur the issue and start rambling about shit making no sense, yeah, it DOES make sense looking at it like that.
To start with, Why do I want to "execute you" for believing in science?
Second, Technically, AMERICA is a continent and our Nation is called United States OF AMERICA, but I do not want to confuse your little mind.
Third, I do not watch TV, just junk.
Funny enough, I am actually not at home at the moment, I am OUTSIDE United States, somewhere you never been and never will be, and even more ironic, its a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY full of POOR SPICKS, you know, does that do not exist and is a made up lies by us "Evil Whites" that created our world.
Lucky me We created COMPUTERS eh?
Gabriel - Starting to feel sorry for Bronze Ignorance
You ignorant twat, he was talking about Stalin. ctrl-f "executed" on this comment thread.
Anyway, provide a citation for any one of us denying the existence of impoverished nations. We're simply saying that whatever "race" you believe they have is incidental to their situation, economic and otherwise. For a start, I'd look into colonialism, the availability of natural resources, soil quality, mhc if you ever happen to go on a rez, stuff like that.
Here's a question: suppose you're suddenly cut off from everything you consider civilization, in any of these countries you go to to help. All alone, in a different infrastructure entirely from the USA's, how would you fare?
Right, right. The guy who is completely out of touch with what most American atheists actually believe, what non-conservatives actually believe, what mainstream science believes, considers hard work a sin, and considers judging individuals as individuals and hiring them according to actual ability a "Communist" practice suddenly spazzes out when I grow suspicious about his status as a citizen of the US.
Someone who tries to spread subversive, lazy, racial entitlement as a response to being (temporarily) outdone in the space race with Russia.
Suddenly, the guy who responds to requests for clarification about his beliefs with non-sequiturs about me allegedly being an immigrant suddenly thinks it's no longer fair game to have suspicions about another's citizenship.
Methinks Gabe protests too much, and to the wrong accusation.
It's also cute that you keep trying to lie about my position on the status of third world countries.
My position, Gabe, if you'd turn off the television and listen to the real me, not the cardboard sitcom stereotype, is that third world nations are crap for many environmental reasons. These environmental reasons are good enough to explain the crappy results, therefore there is no reason to yet consider a genetic one.
But you'll just ignore me and quote that ka-razy moonbat Straw Dog from some insipid TV show as if he were participating in the argument and deny my existence.
Oh, and Gabe, try learning how to read: STALIN would execute me (or at least throw me in the gulag) for believing in the modern synthesis of evolution. Why would I look up to a man that fanatical and delusional in his refusal to argue the science? I think your internal contradictions are showing, Comrade Gabriel.
I don't know what "ctrl + f" is suppose to mean, I am a PC user, perhaps this is a Mac thing?
Here's a question: suppose you're suddenly cut off from everything you consider civilization, in any of these countries you go to to help. All alone, in a different infrastructure entirely from the USA's, how would you fare?
It would be very difficult to find a society that do not have infrastructure like ours as WE usually given it to them, roads, electricity etc.
Could you be more specific?
As I am CURRENTLY (which I SAID) in a backwards third world country (does not count, right? Because that would screw up your false premise) I would say I would fair VERY WELL!!!!
I also been to worse as I lived in AFRICA, but do be more SPECIFIC and perhaps I can help you out, educate you about other places of the world, you may learn something.
Gabriel
Ctrl-F is usually a "find" function for browsers, allowing you to look up text strings.
Of course, you'd use it to speed up your keyword searches since you don't actually read what people write, you just scan for certain words like a bot. Take, for example, that time you made up some bullshit about my use of "nested hierarchy" to describe the relationships of all Earth organisms.
So, how's the Spore world explanation coming, Comrade Gabriel? Why doesn't Earth look like the game of Spore?
Apparently, the "f" stands for "fail". "control" is the PC (and linux) version. On Macs, it's "command". What the fuck do you do with computers that's never had you using a keyboard shortcut?
Where in Africa, exactly? I'm just saying, that's not terribly specific, and it's not as if we aren't capable of looking up names.
Anyway, what I meant was, first off... Do you believe you could ever end up in a situation where your only option for survival would be to integrate into a native group? I'm talking completely hypothetical, apocalyptic kinds of things cutting you off from all travel, but leaving the living conditions wherever you are about the same. If that happened to you, how do you think you would do? Would you redevelop any important inventions, stuff like that, I mean.
Wow you guys are ignorant, BEFORE teaching you some more things, This is what YOU said:
You ignorant twat, he was talking about Stalin. ctrl-f "executed" on this comment thread.
THIS "ignorant twat" was asking what the hell "CTRL + F" would have to do with "execution" and "Stalin", you did not respond, instead you started talking about Search Function (which generally CTRL + F is related to in Text Editors), but you are talking about STALIN and EXECUTION... WTF have this to do with anything?
If you want me to Teach you about computers, no problems, start a different thread and I help you out, but once again, what does CTRL + F have to do with Staling, Execution and so on?
You Said
-> he was talking about Stalin. ctrl-f "executed" on this comment thread <-
Completely confused on wtf this have to do with CTRL and F...
Anyway, I would love to answer the other things, but please, explain yourself here first.
He's telling you to search for what I have already said about Stalin in this thread, idiot, because you don't actually read what I say. You just search for keywords and ignore anything inconvenient.
Of course, this is where you'll claim that I ignore "inconvenient" facts that I've been agreeing about and explaining since you first showed up.
I have lived in Egypt, South Africa (considered "advanced" in African standard) as well as Namibia, Zambia, Congo and a large portion of South Africa.
Do you believe you could ever end up in a situation where your only option for survival would be to integrate into a native group? I'm talking completely hypothetical, apocalyptic kinds of things cutting you off from all travel, but leaving the living conditions wherever you are about the same. If that happened to you, how do you think you would do?
I would help them, educate them about the advanced world.
I dont know how detailed we could
regarding this, as it is completely hypothetical and "what if" scenario.
To avoid confusion amongst very ignorant people here, seen nothing, done nothing:
You have South Africa, A country (in South Africa.. Wow you guys must be confused now).
And you have SOUTH Africa, which refers to Southern Parts of Africa.
Because of you guys ignorance, I thought it was necessary to point this out.
Gabriel
Duh. We're not ignorant of the world just because some of us haven't put in frequent flier miles.
You're the one who has to pretend we believe in absurd things about the world to feel good about yourself and because you're gullible enough to believe TV stereotypes are more real than the people in this thread.
We know the world has a lot of really crappy countries. This does not affect our positions on race. This fact does not change the overwhelming influence environmental factors have on a individual's or a society's development. That's the elephant in the room you're trying to ignore.
Of course, you wouldn't dare recognize our real world opinions.
Of course he can't afford to read too closely and figure out what we actually think. After all, we're all vessels of Y'golonac.
Will probably step away some more. Bit preoccupied with homework (you know Gabe, for all its greatness, the USA never really transitioned to the metric system. Hell on engineers.), and getting worked up over conversion therapy won't help me get this done.
So, Comrade Gabriel, any progress on telling us the virtues of Creationism? The world still looks pretty orderly to me, and not like the chaos an unpredictable, baseless (and therefore random) god would produce.
Gabe: Once again I ask you to actually DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY WHITE.
Personally, I suspect that the reason you don't want to define it is because you don't want to lose the ability to claim the accomplishments of a people then later blame their problems on being "not white".
Now, to yet again point out a flaw in your thinking: You take the observations "this area is poor" and "this area is predominantly (race)" then conclude "this area is poor because it's predominantly (race)". You do not consider the possibility of the area being poor for other reasons.
Comrade Gabriel will never commit to a definition.
About the only time he showed commitment was that time he linked to a (weak, admittedly) scientific article that, unsurprisingly, agreed with me. After that, he immediately tried to backpedal.
Of course, we know he only posted it because he didn't bother reading it. He just skimmed for keywords involving the difference in IQ scores.
And even then, it didn't meet what I asked for: There was no genetic data used in the paper. No one looked directly at DNA.
Oh, yeah. I just remembered a contradiction that's still funny, and doubly so since Comrade Gabriel provided us with evidence for one side of the contradiction:
If the other races are too stupid to copy/recreate/improve upon "White" technology, how can any of them get high IQ scores, like some of the people in that study?
I think I can guess one response: Comrade Gabriel is going to disown IQ tests as a measure of intelligence.
You do not consider the possibility of the area being poor for other reasons.
No.
Here is where my extensive knowledge of the world, as I traveled, worked and seen this world you speak of, you clearly have not. Here intellect comes into play, and thus, you do not "like it" so it must be "wrong".
I try to take it slow as I noticed you guys did not want to continue the "hypothetical scenario" you started when you realized how much I seen, experienced and done, as well as I AM in one of does environments as we speak;
Basic Negro areas do not produce any advanced technology, the few things that could be defined as "modern" they do produce are either made by White sources (such as Apple, Microsoft, Ford etc) there with White labor, or local labor DIRECTED (Helped, Controlled) by White sources, or IMPORTED from White sources.
Thats how SIMPLE it is, you can study this yourself, find out if you "do not believe me", but thats how it is.
For example, recently the Chinese
where doing their best to steal Stealth Technology from us, now lets ignore that for a second (I need to end this post as I got other things to do), and just ask yourself, Why would they steal from AMERICAN Technology if everyone else is equal?
Why not Steal from the Japanese? Korean? Australians? Europeans? Canadians? ... No, its US AMERICANS that they seem to think have this good Technology.. I wonder why.......
Oh, that was rhetorical, Answer is; BECAUSE WE ARE THE BEST AND MOST ADVANCED!
Gabriel - GOD BLESS AMERICA AND EVERYTHING SHE STANDS FOR!!!
Comrade Gabriel:
Please define "Negro" followed by "Negro areas".
Next, don't complain that we are ignoring you. I'm asking you a question that relates directly to what you just said.
Finally, answer my question from several days ago: Why are Russians not considered "White"?
Gabe, you have yet to address even the possibility of technological and economic disparity being simply a combination of historic and geographic factors.
If you want to put the entire explanation on race, you need to show why other explanations are false. For instance, you need to show that an area being poor in year X doesn't have a large impact on how rich or poor that area is in year X+50.
You also ignore that other people than you can make observations. Including observations that are better controlled for environmental factors than yours.
For instance, I live in Toronto which is quite possibly the most multicultural and multiracial city on the planet. I get to observe people of all sorts of ethnic backgrounds, but who have had access to the same economic and educational situation: I see no correlation between anything that can be described as race and things like intelligence. The closest thing to a racial linkage is with new immigrants who are suffering from a mix of language issues and poor educational opportunities in their home country.
Not that your blatherings actually mean anything until and unless you actually define what people are 'white' etc.
IOW: Stop being a coward and answer the question. Exactly who do you mean when you say white? Either that, or admit that you can't and that all of your claims don't mean shit.
BTW: Way to list a set of places that have all had recent issues with industrial espionage. But are you sure you want to go down the 'technological transfer' road again? The last time around it ended with you hiding from all the places that Europe imported science and technology from.
If you want to put the entire explanation on race, you need to show why other explanations are false.
That is very interesting.
When Atheist deny God, on the other hand, they do not have to disprove Him, that they say he does not exist is "evidence enough".. I see a contradiction here.
But it is only valid when you want it to, right?
So far atheist do not provide any evidence to why God does not exist, and I noticed that one main premise amongst atheist is that they do "not have to" provide "any evidence", and now you make a 180...
Impressive.
Gabriel - Revealing the Truth about You!
Gabe, would you care to explain why you deny the existence of Poseidon?
Gabe, would you care to explain why you deny the existence of Poseidon?
And once again, hands down Gave WINS!
You haven't asked yourself why, after realizing you shot yourself in the foot, make a 180 and start asking ME about what YOU should ask yourselfs?
Chakat Firepaw wants ME to explain why OTHER reasons (you can make up an unlimited amount) are FALSE whiles Atheist, roughly 90% of you then tell ME that you DO NOT have to provide evidence that God does NOT exist...
I am SERIOUSLY, do you live in a complete deranged world where you ignore anything real and make shit up? This is PATHETIC, READ WHAT YOU SAID on PREVIOUS THREADS, there you do NOT have to provide evidence that God does not exist whiles claiming he does not, and then say I HAVE TO prove he exist (which I do) and you give OTHER explanations more "suitable" (world exist because big bang rather then God), but now you say I have to PROVE WHY NEGROS ARE STUPID FOR -OTHER- REASONS then race.
SERIOUSLY, are you guys for REAL?WOW you guys are stupid.
I don't want to know why I think I should deny his existence. I want to know why you think I should deny the existence of Poseidon.
I mean, I'm kind of assuming that's what you think, but it's a fairly safe assumption, all things considered.
So, again: supposing you deny the existence of Poseidon, and you believe that other people should as well, what reasons would you give for that disbelief?
MWchase
You should stop being so narrow minded and ask Chakat why I should have to prove that there is not OTHER reasons Race is the cause, completely changing topic.
Do you dare to Question your own team? Or you going to pretend that his question is valid and then completely ignore that you would have to provide evidence that God does not exist, ending up the complete opposite of previous claim? (demanding others to answer questions You do not have to).
I can guess the answer.
Gabe, there are a variety of competing hypotheses about the causes of poverty and crime. There are even more hypotheses about the existence of supernatural beings. Why should we privilege one such hypothesis by simply dismissing all of the others?
Interestingly, this is exactly back on topic. Check the post this is on.
(However, there is an out so far as supernatural stuff goes. If you present your precise idea of what "God" is, and it's logically inconsistent, it therefore can't be true. I cannot guarantee that this applies to your beliefs, though, because the prospect of elaborating on your positions seems to make your fingers seize up. In a vaguely similar vein, you have yet to demonstrate that your idea of race is reflected anywhere outside of your thoughts and experiences. By which I mean, how should we determine what race someone is? For example, is a picture sufficient? Video? Speech? In-depth interview?)
Gee, what a shock. Gabe the Coward continues to hide from the basic question of just who he means when he says white, leaving his entire thesis utterly meaningless tripe. Stop being a coward and answer the question Gabe.
To answer your question, (because, unlike you, I am not a coward). When you want to support a hypothesis other than the null hypothesis[0] you need two things: Evidence for the hypothesis and a lack of evidence against the hypothesis.
With the various versions of the god hypothesis[1], there is a serious lack of evidence for the hypothesis. This means that we don't have to go looking for evidence against simply because the hypothesis lacks positive support, remember that atheism is the null hypothesis.
With your hypothesis that race is the cause of economic and technological disparity, there is evidence which would tend to support it in that there are seeming correlations. However, you can't stop there. You have to also consider other ways that correlation could come about.
Speaking in general, the big three you need to look for are coincidence, common cause and reverse causation.
In coincidence, you have two things which happen together for no particular reason.
With common cause, there is some third element that causes both of the observations.
With reverse causation, it's the supposed effect which is actually the cause.
What all this means is that if you want to say "A causes B" you need to show at least the following four things:
A and B are correlated.
A and B have a causal link, (i.e. it isn't random happenstance).
A and B are not both the results of some other cause C.
B is not the cause of A.
For your particular hypothesis, you have two of these: You have correlation, and showing that any reasonable definition of race is not caused by economic or technological development is trivial. However, you have not shown a causal link, nor have you addressed the possibility of an underlying common cause, (i.e. that Europe, the place, happens to have been a really good place for things to get going in a big way).
One thing that hurts your hypothesis is people, like me, who have observations of situations where 'race' alone is varied and who do not observe the effects you claim will occur.
(BTW: "Chakat" in a name acts as a honorific. If you're looking to shorten it, the name is Firepaw.)
[0] The null hypothesis is a special case because it boils down to "the other hypothesis is wrong".
[1] One for each version of god.
Interesting;
Gabriel claims Gods existence, supplies evidence -> The opponents then say that Gabriel have to supply evidence that All Other claims of gods is not True and they do not have to prove that God does Not exist, QED.
Later On ->
Chakat Firepaw, on a different topic, demands that Gabriel is to supply evidence that Race is not the cause for the difference between intelligence, wealth, technology and advancements between the races -> A type of Demand that the Bronze Blog followers previously said they did not have to prove, BUT GABE HAS TO....
I know, you will continue to ignore this amazing contradiction and simple claim that "you are right" coz "you say so", to bad for you this is cached and saved for life on Google and you wont be able to pretend atleast one of you are completely deranged, but it would be mature of you to ADMIT your ignorance and ADMIT you where wrong, just retract your statement OR supply evidence that God does not exist, so you would not be a hypocrite.
It is very simple, if you want me to provide evidence that other reasons then race is Not the cause, you HAVE TO supply evidence that God does not exist, ELSE YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE not following your own stance. QED.
I am planning on going back home in about two months, possible visit Europe as well, I was thinking, perhaps I should take alot of photos from where I am now, a Third World Country, and from White Societies, I know you only seen other places on TV, but I could take some in London and New York for you, and then you can compare.
Anyway, I just read something interesting on the news which I would LOVE for you guys to explain, a woman asked why Apes do not evolve into Humans anymore, and wouldn't this contradict your belief in Darwinism? Has it stopped?
But this made me think even more, you always call me an Evil Racist, and how bad I am and all, and then you seem to forget that YOU are Darwinist and YOUR Religion teaches you that Blacks ARE inferior, just follow your belief, so, on a separate thread here, I want to ask you guys:
Imagine I am a Darwinist just like you guys, God does not exist and the Big Bang made the world in an explosion billions of years ago.
FINE, lets pretend I accept this, This is NOT an issue, I want you to explain something about your Religion (and mine in this scenario), so please stay on topic mmkay?
Here Goes;
So Darwinism is the Religion that Humans evolved from Apes, we are all fine with this, So then, what about Negros?
You always say how Equal Negros are, but according to YOUR OWN Belief we come from Negros, first we had Monkeys, then semi-monkeys (negro) and then Fully Negro (I guess?) and then White man, whiles other Negros became Spicks and Asians.
Correct? This is your belief, this follow Darwinism, and at the same time you scream and call me Racist and that Everyone is Equal, Yet YOUR belief system AGREES WITH ME!!!
Hell, I have no doubt you will turn around saying that Negros are inferior PROVES that Darwinism is Right, and then say they are all equal... Erh.. Somehow...
Gabriel - Fighting for Truth
The end result of speciation is multiple distinct populations that cannot interbreed and share a common ancestral population. In other words, humans share a common ancestral population with other apes, and will continue to do so. There is no great chain of being like you are implying. In other words, populations of non-human apes cannot evolve into humans because the point of divergence no longer exists.
Humans, all humans, have been mutating at an increased rate with the development of civilization, as technology lessens selection pressures, allowing for increased genetic drift. In the absence of selection pressures, genetics plays a lessened role, and that role has lessened all the more with our advances in science.
Another reason that the idea of progression is bunk in this case is, the population of Africa contains all of the genetic variation of humanity. Everything different is the result of bottlenecks and drift.
I was asking you why you don't believe in Poseidon because, as Firepaw was saying, we hold the null hypothesis with regards to Gods, which is that every other belief, which must posit a god, is wrong, and, in this case, I believe most of the competing ideas are just as wrong as each other. They are all patently false, and only admit to useful refinement in that they may, in time, be eroded to nothing.
In other words, we don't believe in Poseidon or YHWH for much the same reasons. Why do you believe in YHWH but not Poseidon? (If Gabe angrily asks who YHWH is supposed to be, I think that's bingo.)
By the way, if you don't believe that evolution occurred, do you believe in the Flood? Baraminology, which developed from attempts to rationalize away the logistical issues, actually posits a form of speciation at a rate that exceeds all scientific estimates based on evolutionary theory.
Speaking of, please define "religion" and explain how evolution fits that definition, or shut your wordhole.
(To put the "Africa's population comprises all of human genetic diversity" thing in words that I know Gabe will willfully misinterpret, it's somewhat like breeds of dog. Common genetic pool, with bottlenecks in different populations. In this case, the bottlenecks are artificial, and often not terribly sensible. Taking the metaphor a bit further than it should be, this would make Africans roughly analogous to grey wolves, and Gabe pretty much exactly a chihuahua.)
I will note that one of the less blatant mismatches in that analogy is the question of neoteny. All humans exhibit neoteny, while among wolves, only dogs do, AFAIK. For the record, dogs, dingos, and most things called wolves are considered subspecies of gray wolf.
The issue of neoteny is interesting, and pretty much irrelevant, because it's been observed to accompany domestication. (I don't know if any experiments have been done that demonstrate neoteny without domestic instincts. That would be interesting.)
So, Gabe, out of curiosity, can you see any way to get "black people are inferior" out of "the population of Africa contains all of humanity's genetic diversity, and all less diverse populations are roughly analogous to different breeds of dog"?
Because if so, in the sense of predicate logic, IF SO, that marks you as completely batshit and probably hopeless.
Minor quibble: Africa wouldn't have all the genetic diversity of the human race since new mutations would still arise from the populations outside the continent, but they would easily have the majority of human diversity.
I guess it also doesn't fit with how I said genetic change is accelerating. It's... basically, the mutations we see are nearly all neutral, unless you have a strong stance on paternity testing.
I'm kind of amazed that Gabe can get "great chain of being" out of evolutionary theory. Why, it's almost as if he refuses to properly read anything that might contradict his views.
Yeah, I remember that part now.
It's not so much that the number of mutations has increased, it's just that many negative mutations have been made neutral or even beneficial through social and technological effects on selection:
In the wild, without modern technologies, a negative mutation could be the difference between life and death. Now, in first world nations, there are a lot of things we can treat, and for genetic physical disabilities, there are plenty of non-athletic niches in society they can occupy.
There are also the alleles that none of us have a good version of.
For example, synthesizing vitamin C. Apparently, our ancestors ended up with an inactivated version of that gene around 60 Mya. (This is well before the emergence of humans. Not long after the disappearance of dinosaurs, in fact.) Now, clearly, we were able to muddle through, but this is a cautionary tale about making value judgments according to evolutionary history. If you use "more evolved" like it means "better", than that would imply that the inability of many primates to synthesize vitamin C somehow makes them superior to their ancestors.
And that's ignoring the fact that everything alive has a chain of living ancestors stretching as far back in time as everything else. Considering the length of generations in macroscopic lifeforms, the most evolved lifeforms on earth are probably protozoa.
HAIL OUR OMNIPRESENT BACTERIAL MASTERS.
First: Stop hiding from the question Gabe. Exactly who do you mean when you say white? Or are we to take from your continued silence on the question to mean that you can't answer the question?
Now, you should also stop lying. No one has actually asked you to disprove all other visions of god(s), just to state why you don't believe in them.
You also want us to disprove the existence of god. Fine, we'll look into that just as soon as you provide use with a meaningful description of your vision of god. Are you one of those who believes in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent version of the Christian god?
The reason the racial and god issues are different is that only one of them is there any evidence for your position. However, that evidence is also in agreement with a number of competing hypotheses, which means you need to deal with those hypotheses.
Here's another way of approaching the God thing:
Tell us about something that would be inexplicable if your God did not exist, and is explicable when your God is considered.
If nothing else, I expect the answer to be amusing.
I feel like getting this thread focused back on the burden of proof in regards to deities, so please hold further comments until Comrade Gabriel responds to this one:
So, Gabe, you want us to abandon the Karl Popper-style falsificationism that science is founded on and disprove the existence of your particular deity instead of tentatively accepting the null hypothesis of there being no deities.
So, to put other people's comments another way, this means, to be consistent, you must have solid disproof of all deities other than your own in order to deny their existence.
Or is there some legitimate reason why your particular god is not subject to the same standard of proof/disproof as other gods?
To do otherwise would mean that you're being inconsistent.
How do you respond to this?
So, Gabriel changes the subject when I put pressure on it. Big surprise.
He's been popping out straw men by the gross for years, and suddenly only now that I have a little bit of fun reversing his TV-inspired accusations, only now does the straw man become a fallacy.
Where have I ever endorsed anything "Communist," Gabe? Provide a link or admit you're lying and apologize.
Heck, I've been endorsing capitalism as the best response to racial issues: If it's true, capitalism and other meritocratic systems will still pick out the best qualified people. A hard worker is a hard worker. Full stop. That's why I went on that tear a while back trying to get you to discuss the implications of your theory.
But anyway, it's kind of hard to avoid straw men for someone who makes every excuse to not clarify his position on anything. Arguing with a limp noodle. Until Gabriel commits to a position, all I can do is have fun watching him flail.
---
After that, he ignores the other elephant in the room, namely that because of inherent human biases which no one is immune to, anecdotes are not useful as confirmatory evidence.
Except Gabriel's, for some strange reason.
Why does he get a super-duper special exception to this concept that science is founded upon?
He remains silent on that matter.
Huh. Looks like his comment got eaten. Retrieving it from email...
[Retrieved Comment. Twice. I tried posting it with the Anonymous option, and that one got eaten.]
Why do you call me "Comrade Gabriel"? Why are you so afraid of looking at yourself? Is it because you do not want to Face what you are? Liberalism and Communism is what YOU stand for, READ your own posts, so why do you call Someone who LOVES his Nation and knows what GOOD capitalism Does?
I know why, its the way people like you always do it, ignore reality and make a strawman to torch, its rather sad that you are so pathetic.
Just THINK about it Bronze, just THINK for a SECOND what I have seen, what Gabriel has DONE in this world, what Gabriel has EXPERIENCED, and then ask yourself "shouldn't I listen to him?". I mean I seen more then you could dream of, I done more then you could dream, I know more then you could dream. You will most likely never visit even a 1/5 of the places I seen, you will see and do nothing and Here you got Gabriel, OFFERING to help and Educate you FOR FREE, to HELP YOU and make you LEARN, He wants to SHARE his intelligence and Knowledge, and the only thing you do is to insult him, Is that really wise? When I am offering to Help You to Learn?
Just take Egypt, a Wonderful Country (we must assume you think, as its full of none-Whites, and None-whites are GOOD and EQUAL to Whites, or you going to change your mind now?) and Equal to U.S, the most powerful nation on the planet.
I been to Egypt little Bronze, have you? No, that is a true surprise, now, you want me to tell you some things about "Wonderful Egypt"? Being that I been there, lived there, and Know the Country, the places the speak about on the news, what they report, I been there, I visited it, I know the culture very well.
But you do not want to learn, instead you want to call Gabriel the opposite of what he is (communist), whiles thats your view, you seem ashamed of it for some reason, I wonder why, one second a "Liberal" the next second AGAINST Liberalism or Darwinism or Nazism.
Imagine what you could learn if you where open minded, but no doubt I am not the first to offer to Help and Educate you, I am not the first Bright Beacon to want to Help, Intelligence is nothing you want to see, and intelligent people like me are "dangerous", am I right?
Gabriel - Spreading Knowledge
So anyway, my response summarized to get the chronology back:
Subject change under pressure, yadda yadda.
Performs straw man fallacy while complaining about the straw mannish nickname I was doing a reversal joke with.
Recites his personal experience as if I should treat him like a god, just like every other anecdotalist woo I've dealt with before.
Sorry Gabe, no one is special. You are human, therefore I cannot use an anecdote as confirmatory evidence for a causation hypothesis.
So, Gabe, why no answer to my theological questions?
Sorry Gabe, no one is special. You are human, therefore I cannot use an anecdote as confirmatory evidence for a causation hypothesis.
Well, I am.
You want to simple DISCARD all my knowledge because it does not "suit you", how interesting, but OTHER people, like Dawkins is valid because his views suits yours...
How.... Interesting...
Hold on, if My knowledge of the world is not valid, how can OTHER peoples knowledge be valid? Following YOUR logic, nothing is valid other then Your Opinion, The Bronze Dog view, and the rest of us, whatever we know and experienced, is invalid... Pretty Amazing, sounds like you want to make yourself a God Bronze, am I right?
So, Gabe, why no answer to my theological questions?
Well, you want to be a God, we got that from the above, "only Bronzes view is valid" oh, thats wrong, forgot: "Others view is right IF it AGREEs with Bronze Dog, that is"....
I saw you ignored my point, or removed the entire post and then "re-posted it" because it "disappeared" (strange, because it came up when I posted it eh?), You do not want to address my knowledge and huge experience of the world? You have not thought about everything I seen and how much more I know then you?
I guess you feel uncomfortable, but you should really learn to criticize yourself instead of living in a deluded world young man.
Running away as always.
Also, The conflict in Egypt is, Egypt is a Country in Africa as I realize you do not know, quite interesting, and considering you think negros are equal to Whites and create the same, its weird you do not want to talk about it.
Okay, Gabe, do me a favor and try this: consider the direct questions people have asked you. Now, instead of addressing us, address the world at large. Right in this thread, next to (some of) the questions, tell anyone reading this who's "on the fence" see exactly what we're rejecting. Think what a victory it would be for you if you went and answered Bronze Dog's question:
So, Gabe, you want us to abandon the Karl Popper-style falsificationism that science is founded on and disprove the existence of your particular deity instead of tentatively accepting the null hypothesis of there being no deities.
So, to put other people's comments another way, this means, to be consistent, you must have solid disproof of all deities other than your own in order to deny their existence.
Or is there some legitimate reason why your particular god is not subject to the same standard of proof/disproof as other gods?
To do otherwise would mean that you're being inconsistent.
How do you respond to this?
That way, if some random person stumbles on this discussion, they can get immediate evidence of what intellectual cowards we're all being.
Gabriel really slips up revealing his self-idolatry by projection:
Well, I am [special].
Ladies and gentlemen: Gabriel actually admits that he thinks he's superhuman, beyond the mortal foibles of confirmation bias, selection bias, and so on so we can all just worship him as an idol.
Bullshit, I say. Gabriel, you are a mere mortal.
Hold on, if My knowledge of the world is not valid, how can OTHER peoples knowledge be valid?
Duh. Science. You work hard to control for alternative explanations, reduce human bias as much as you can with factors like blinding and randomized samples.
Following YOUR logic, nothing is valid other then Your Opinion, The Bronze Dog view, and the rest of us, whatever we know and experienced, is invalid... Pretty Amazing, sounds like you want to make yourself a God Bronze, am I right?
Says the guy who repeatedly demands that I worship at his altar of sloth and postmodernism.
You're dead wrong about what I believe, and obviously projecting your own beliefs onto me. At the start of your post you outright admitted that you believe you're inherently, magically superior to humans.
I'm just a mere mortal who uses logic to punch holes in your fallacious arguments.
But you think logic is an "excuse." Like so many drug addled postmodernists, you think that truth is "just another narrative."
Wake up, Gabe. You don't know a thing about what I believe.
Exactly, cowards, but I think it has a lot to do with stupidity, you have a very limited world view, you most likely been indoctrinated by your parents or some liberal Teacher telling you that you are a monkey, and therefor act like a monkey.
You need to use your BRAIN, the Brain GOD Gave You.
You cant blame me for being stupid, You are responsible for your own life, I only try to Help and Educate making the world better.
You're once again making shit up to chicken out of actually defending yourself with logic.
Ad hominem and straw man fallacies, pure and simple.
Of course, like all Creationists, you believe there is no such thing as truth, therefore lies are impossible, therefore you can say whatever you want without consequence.
Duh. Science. You work hard to control for alternative explanations, reduce human bias as much as you can with factors like blinding and randomized samples.
But.... But you just said that once Experience, Opinions and Knowledge is not Valid... But NOW IT IS if it SUITS YOU.... Correct?
Now "Science" a magic Being (not humans), Have "The Truth" and Thus shall Teach us.... Amazing...
What entity is this Science? Because Humans it can not be, remember? Being of opinion which is not valid (if they do not agree with you), and experience, not valid (if they do not agree with you).....
But you cant see your contradiction, you never will.
Gabriel attempts a desperate equivocation:
But.... But you just said that once Experience, Opinions and Knowledge is not Valid... But NOW IT IS if it SUITS YOU.... Correct?
Riiiiight. Laziness is equal to hard work because Gabriel says so, and therefore lazy people like him should earn as much recognition as people who actually do something about issues.
It's simple, Gabriel: Working harder and smarter to counteract your bad human tendencies is what earns confidence in conclusions. The more people who do this and arrive at the same conclusions, the stronger the confidence.
You, however, prefer to deify yourself as a god so that you, acting alone, can declare what is and what is not. And we are expected to worship your laziness because you say so.
In other words, Gabriel, it's not experience itself that's invalid, it's your confessed laziness about collecting experience that makes it useless as confirmatory evidence.
What I get from his lack of response to my comment is, neither logic nor flattery will sway Gabe to actually move the debate forward.
I mean, unless he thinks he has to play by some rules laid out by his conception of Bronze Dog, which is such a stupid idea it makes me go cross-eyed.
Gabe, why do you fight? Is it to convince us? To convince others? You've already said that we're totally hopeless to convince, so I'm honestly not sure what you plan to accomplish, unless an unspeakably huge martyr complex is involved.
He's trying to recreate the halcyon days of his self-esteem class where children are expected to mindlessly chant about how special they are and how everyone is special.
And consequently, how it doesn't matter how bad their grades are if they still believe that they're special. So the school board lowers standards so everyone can pass.
That's why he gets so spastic when we won't judge him by special just-for-him standards. Instead of wanting us to acknowledge hard, thoughtful, careful work, he wants us to just accept his specialness as inherent genius. Because it's easier to demand that society lower standards than it is for him to get off his ass and think about his experiences like an adult.
Here's a hint, Gabe: Scientists have to actually perform experiments or make observations under extremely tight conditions to earn respect for their ideas and defend them against peer reviewers who will look for every logical or methodological flaw in the study.
They don't give each other free passes like you're demanding.
Hahahhaha, you really are a card Bronze.
You made several statements before, Demands, that I prove to you that Other Gods do not exist, now I am to prove something to you. I given evidence for God, you ignore, one of your followers then tells me that I should provide evidence that other Gods do NOT exist, complete opposite of what you are saying now.
Its just.. I mean, are you guys for real or truly this blind? You dont know what you say? You ignore what you said? You never wrong, thus, anything you say is always right and you never have to reflect? Correct?
Your OWN charlies wanted ME to prove a NEGATIVE, to prove that gods that do not exist, do NOT exist, rather then accepting the EVIDENCE of the FACT of Gods existence, thats known as the SCIENTIFIC PATH, you ignore all evidence, the world came to be in a Big Explosion and POW, monkeys became Humans and here we are.
It is so sad Bronze, and completely ignoring that this man, older then you, more experienced and you and more intelligent then you, Just Wants To Help.
To you spit in your fathers face to? I bet you dont.
Gabriel - God Bless America
Gabriel has no self-awareness:
You made several statements before, Demands, that I prove to you that Other Gods do not exist, now I am to prove something to you. I given evidence for God, you ignore, one of your followers then tells me that I should provide evidence that other Gods do NOT exist, complete opposite of what you are saying now.
1. You were the one trying to shift the burden of proof onto non-believers in deities, so to be consistent, you either have to believe in all deities or possess a disproof for every other deity.j
2. The absurdity of that demand was supposed to strike you as silly and by extension show you why it's absurd to demand that we disprove something's existence rather than demand positive evidence.
3. What evidence for a god? Did I miss something? When did you allegedly provide it?
Its just.. I mean, are you guys for real or truly this blind? You dont know what you say? You ignore what you said? You never wrong, thus, anything you say is always right and you never have to reflect? Correct?
Straw man. Dead wrong. We subscribe to logic and science, not self-idolatry like you do.
Your OWN charlies wanted ME to prove a NEGATIVE, to prove that gods that do not exist, do NOT exist, rather then accepting the EVIDENCE of the FACT of Gods existence...
Straw man. They were saying that according to YOUR backwards epistemology, YOU have to demand of yourself disproof of all other deities. Of course, you recognized the absurdity and are now desperately trying to disown it.
You're the one who's being inconsistent, flip-flopper. They made those comments so that you'd expose your inconsistency.
...thats known as the SCIENTIFIC PATH, you ignore all evidence, the world came to be in a Big Explosion and POW, monkeys became Humans and here we are.
Right. Go right ahead and lie and/or conceal the details about what mainstream science actually says about those topics.
Of course, Creationism's worse off, believing that a random nothing storm stirred up a lot of nothing and just happened to randomly assemble a being of infinite power and complexity who just happened to want to create this specific universe.
Unless you've got a version of Creationism that doesn't rely on randomness and unpredictability I haven't heard about.
It's pretty bad when even your deliberately weak straw man is more powerful than what you're proposing. I'll take the theories that rely on less randomness and have greater predictive ability: Evolution and Big Bang Cosmology.
It is so sad Bronze, and completely ignoring that this man, older then you, more experienced and you and more intelligent then you, Just Wants To Help.
To you spit in your fathers face to? I bet you dont.
Unlike you, Gabriel, my dad WORKS to earn respect. You sit on your ass making shit up that coincidentally looks exactly like some of the really stupid stuff on television and other popular media. What are the odds?
Have you noticed a recurring theme I'm using to describe you, Gabriel? It's laziness. I reject your "evidence" because it's invariably lazy and sloppy in its methodology.
So, Gabe, which is it?
Is the burden of proof on someone who claims something exists, or on the person who doesn't believe that claim?
You've been flip-flopping on that for a while, now.
This is the wrong thread for it.
Start reading this; http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm
May help you understand the Fact of Creationism and understand the false indoctrination of Evolutionism you been swallowing.
Reading, and boy, it's already looking like boilerplate common Creationism. Behe? Irreducible Complexity? Seriously? How retro.
Creationist Claim #CB200, anyone?
You really need to get out more, Gabriel. Try learning something about how evolution works.
I'll continue reading, but I'm not expecting anything new. Creationists haven't had anything new in the last century.
I figured I'd read that until I hit something flagrantly wrong.
Creation is one of two possible origin explanations.
That was fast.
Anyone brave enough to report how it gets further on?
Yeah. Gabe's not even trying anymore.
Straw man characterizations of evolution allegedly being random. (It's just the mutations that are "random", and we use randomness as a filler since we can't predict which amino acids are going to get tweaked.) Natural selection and other pressures are NON-random.
And it lies about the lack of new species, and tries to cover them up by labeling them as "micro" evolution. Hint, guys: It's all the same stuff, just a matter of scale.
And it's getting into straw versions of the Big Bang. It's not "from nothing" or necessarily "without cause." It's an expansion of time an space from a singularity. There are a lot of hypotheses about what might have caused it, like intersections of branes in a larger universe, quantum vacuum events, and probably lots more the cosmology buffs could name.
Even if the physicists out there didn't have any hypotheses, it's more honest to say "We don't know yet" than to say our ignorance is evidence for a god. Of course, that's what Creationism often relies on. Argument from ignorance/personal incredulity: "I personally don't know/can't imagine it, therefore I do know it's my particular brand of god."
You can't put an "I don't know" in an evidence locker.
And C.S. Lewis. Fun. False Trilemma. You know the drill.
Gabe just got boring, again.
Oh, Gabe: Here's a list of the standard issue cookie-cutter Creationist arguments with responses.
I already knew or could figure out similar responses back when I was in middle school, just by paying attention to the Discovery channel and 7th grade biology.
Of course, it doesn't help that Creationists rarely bother with internal consistency.
So Gabe, when are you going to get around to answering all the outstanding questions which have been put to you and you are cowardly hiding from?
How about this: I'll pay you for some answers. If you answer one of them, I'll deal with a paragraph of that FAQ you pointed to. I'll even give you a freebie because I'm in a good mood.
There is much evidence against biological macroevolution.
This is false, but I'll give it a pass as a topic sentence.
Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence.
True, Darwin was working without several key pieces of information. He didn't even know about Mendelian genetics, (much less DNA), nor was he aware of plate tectonics. However, this is not a good line of argument for creationists as the new information is even better at supporting the overall theory.
One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually.
Well, this is simply false. We have very strong evidence of this sort of thing happening.
Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function.
While true, this does not actually support the claim it is intended to. There is no problem with some system developing a more complex version over generations, then losing the simple version. This tends to happen when the more complex one is the better of the two, and it alone is of more or the same net benefit as having both.
The development of "irreducibly complex" systems through evolution was actually predicted by Herman Muller, who termed it "interlocking complexity" in a 1918 paper.
Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved.
As a concluding restatement of an unsupported claim, this fails.
Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
This claim is simply false, there are many known transitional forms. A famous example, transitional between dinosaurs and birds, is Archaeopteryx lithographica.
Now it's your turn. For another paragraph, you need to come up with an answer to an outstanding question. Given I'm the one making the offer, I would prefer one of mine: Either your definition of white or a useful description of the god you believe in, (it would be enough to say that your god has the properties of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, if your god happens to have those two traits).
I've been a bit out of the loop on this one, but just to clarify all this, is Gabe arguing against evolution, even though he was using it to justify his racism a while ago?
I would point out one thing. I don't think there's much of a point explaining that DNA changes aren't random in the sense that if you know the exact history of the environment you can predict which one would change. Evolution works even presuming true randomness as the source of mutations (so long as the rate of mutation is small enough to not be catastrophic). There's also good cause to consider that at a very small level, things really are truly random in the literal sense, though I doubt that's enough to make a difference at the (comparatively) macro level of DNA.
I thought it was more that ability-to-spread is a biased fitness function, which is what evolution needs to produce results. As such, since mutations have biases orthogonal to all that (frame shifts, for example, can only do a limited number of quite a lot of things), the fact that genes that are more capable of spreading are, um, more likely to spread, means that the underlying randomness or lack thereof is irrelevant, since it doesn't touch fitness in a predictable fashion.
(I have to admit, I'm kind of curious about the actual qualifications for, and alleged properties of, all of the races that he believes in, as well as the various other things he's railed against. Thinking about this, I'm morbidly curious what it would look like if I meticulously documented all of the fashions in which my friends and I are supposed to be degenerate reprobates.)
Can any of you provide evidence that God does not exist? No, thought not.
Listen, you have the Bible, I suggest you sit down and read it. You can also go to Answers in Genesis, they may be able to help you out with anything you are confused about.
But you need to be OPEN MINDED and not so closed, you already decided what is Truth(tm) haven't you? And thats Evolutionism and anything else is FALSE, and that is the problem, you need to learn to be more open minded and open to Evidence and Reality rather then accepting anything Darwin or Dawkins says, or whats that guy PZ miers? You blindly watch these guys and accept anything.
Be open minded, LOOK at the world, you SEE that the world is perfect, everything Created has a CREATOR, you dont pretend your car or computer just came to be, you know a man (White man) made it for you.
How can you just ignore that as soon as you speak of God? Accept Jesus in your Heart.
Gabriel pretends we didn't take him to task for inconsistently believing in a backwards epistemology:
Can any of you provide evidence that God does not exist? No, thought not.
What happened to your evidence against all other gods? Or why does your god get a special exception?
Which is it, Gabe? Is the burden of proof on the person who believes in the existence of something, or is it on the person who lacks that belief?
You've been waffling back and forth since the start of the thread.
Are you fucking Stupid Bronze? YOU WHERE THE ONES SAYING I HAD TO PROVE OTHER GODS DO NOT EXIST.
YOU BRONZE!!! YOU YOU YOU!!!! ( consider all of you the same, as you are equally stupid so dont try to escape this).
You got panic when I turned the entire thing on you pointing this out that you never provided evidence for nothing, NADA, and now you say I am the one, I ALREADY PROVED GOD, you provided nothing, you simple say GOD does not exist because you do not want Him to exist, you are angry, maybe because you are stupid, or because yours parents are stupid or poor or whatever reason, you need to understand that God does nto go away because your a spick or your mother live on welfare, GET A JOB and DO SOMETHING with your life and pay taxes and then, maybe you will "magically" accept God, when you are happy and have money eh?
GET A JOB and STOP give excuses to everyone, if you read what your followers SAID you would SEE I refer to them all the time, instead you pretend I am the one believing in evolutionism and other ignorant stupid things.
GOD MADE OUR NATION GREAT if you have problems with it, GET THE FUCK OUT and move back to your spick country, you should be HAPPY and THANK people like me for HELPING PEOPLE LIKE YOU, its because of ME you can feed yourself, THINK ABOUT THAT.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Gabe fails the Socratic method:
Are you fucking Stupid Bronze? YOU WHERE THE ONES SAYING I HAD TO PROVE OTHER GODS DO NOT EXIST.
YOU BRONZE!!! YOU YOU YOU!!!! ( consider all of you the same, as you are equally stupid so dont try to escape this).
You are the one who started out saying we have to disprove your god, and when we asked you to live up to your own standard, you spaz out and try to disown your backwards epistemology.
So, Gabriel, which is it? Is the burden of proof on the person who believes something exists or on the person who lacks that belief?
Of course, everyone here knows that in reality, the burden is on the person making a positive claim of existence. Any literate person would know that our demands for disproof of other gods were intended to show your own inconsistency and the infinite demands of your previously stated reverse epistemology.
As for your "proof": What we've seen is just piss poor boilerplate Creationism that we have ready responses for. It's a rather large collection of straw men and arguments from ignorance. Answers in Genesis and such are the lowest hanging fruits.
Would you care to pick out ONE prized piece of evidence? ONE pro-god argument?
So, wait, are the people who do have jobs allowed to criticize you?
If so, Gabe, you're an intellectual coward, a man who switches positions so quickly it's a wonder you don't get whiplash. I see no evidence, when I read your comments, that you have advanced beyond the level of rhetorical ability I possessed at age 10, and that is in no way shape or form a compliment of my capabilities back then. The only way to make up for what I did was to take a careful look at myself, to investigate how debate is supposed to work. Will you do the same, or merely wallow in your own inexplicable feeling of superiority? I think we all know the answer, given your hilariously over-the-top response to having your ignorance about a particular subject pointed out. (Seriously, how on Earth does one set up as many computers as you claim without actually... looking at the keyboards?)
I will put it this way: you have failed to convince anyone of anything you say, because you haven't actually been trying. I'm sure it feels like you have been, but you're refusing to engage with genuine attempts to figure out the precise implications of what you say. In other words, we'd love to agree with you, if you're right, but without helping us see what you mean, it's impossible for us to evaluate the details. In other words, if you don't give us your definition of "white", then we can't compare your claims to what we know about the world.
In essence, everything you say boils down to "insane" ('I cried with joy thinking about how there was one less Jew in the world' [paraphrase]) and "obvious" ('Egypt is a shithole' which leads into the insane 'therefore, ancient Egyptians weren't all that great'). What you need to do to defend your hypotheses ('white people are the best' and 'the God of the specific branch of Christianity that Gabe believes in, exists') with some kind of test. In other words, something that we can't explain with all of the alternative hypotheses that we've put forward.
These include better soil quality in Europe, the after-effects of colonial occupation, prejudice and discrimination, and probably the political climate centuries past in what is now Italy. There is a fuckton of noise in societal development, and I only listed a few sources.
On the God front, there's evolution, which... happens. It's been observed, in the wild and in the lab. I mean, unless having evolution conclusively proved you wouldn't shake your faith in God, in which case why bring it up, if you don't see the ideas as contradictory? I mean, this is basic logic: if you insist "if God, then not Evolution", that implies "if Evolution, then not God". You're the one who set this up; would you like to back out of that logical obligation? I give you this chance to look like slightly less of a fool than you already do.
I wonder if Gabe is happy that God gave us an African-American Democrat to be POTUS.
Obviously he must, since by his own logic he'd have left for a "spick" country by now.
The thing that's really bothering me about Gabe, besides the horrifying attitudes, and all, is the fact that I'm having trouble getting a fix on his motivations.
Thinking about it really hard, I've come up with a hypothesis that would probably send Gabe into a frothing rage were I to present it, whether or not it's actually correct. Is anyone interested in that, or would they rather confine this discussion to the weakness of his arguments and debating techniques?
MW,
I think the weakness of his arguments and his shitty debating techniques have been exposed pretty well.
I think his motivation is that he enjoys a good trolling. He's one of those trolls who thinks that if one of us gets upset, he wins.
Your thoughts?
I ended up wondering whose benefit this is supposed to be for. The only sensible interpretation is that he's doing this for his own sake.
So, what I wondered then is, is there a sensible way to fit his White-man's-burden-tastic account of his own life into that?
I suspect he's trying to prove something to himself. Does that make any sense?
Now, this next bit requires a bit of a leap in logic on my part, IMO. I suspect he's fallen into the classic self-hating repressive asshole stereotype. In other words, Gabe, out of sheer curiosity, are you on the light side of biracial?
It's just, the whole, going to so much effort to 'uplift' them and that one anecdote he had about the girl talking about how much better he was, I really feel like there could be some kind of effort at denial there.
Something along the lines of "Blood is destiny and I have the best blood, just look at me, doing this... LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME"
I might as well put in my own bit of psychobabble, since he's made a lot of pointless ad hominems in response to our pointing out of logical fallacies and his humanity. I'll add my hypothesis about his psychology and then return to simply pointing out logical fallacies after this.
I think he's seeking attention and self-esteem he probably doesn't get elsewhere.
He has his own script and tries to pretend that we're playing along. He focuses on keywords, avoiding reading any complexity or nuance in our positions. He's incapable of thinking beyond absolute black and absolute white. He's conservative, therefore because we disagree with him on one or two issues, we must therefore be liberals who agree with a fixed set of propositions all liberals allegedly believe with absolutely no deviations.
Hence he called us "inconsistent" for trusting in the international consensus of hard working scientists who often stand against right wing fringe lunatics, but not trusting in certain other fringe lunatics who just happen to have anti-conservative views on the side.
He doesn't acknowledge the existence of our position because that in itself would be admitting he doesn't know anything about how real people think. He probably started trolling, thinking this would be an easy win like one of those Chick Tracts, but we defied his expectations by defying his script.
His arrogance won't let him admit that he was wrong about anything, including the stereotypes he was indoctrinated by tradition and popular media. Our mere existence is a threat to his fantasy world.
I constantly bring up the inherent laziness of using anecdotal experience (as opposed to rigorous scientific experiment and observations) and he simply ignores that particular difference, projecting his authoritarianism onto me, even though I reject the concept of authority in regards to science. The "authority" is in the work, not the person.
Of course, this is in utter conflict with Gabriel's authoritarian epistemology: He thinks he's inherently more "special" than any of us, allegedly being older, smarter, and more experienced. Anyone knows those things are worth jack squat if you're too lazy to double-check your work against bias and other known causes.
Even smart people are capable of being spectacularly stupid if they rationalize their position with lots of logical fallacies. Rather than face that truth, Gabriel decides he's superhuman, immune to the difficulties and uncertainty mere mortals live with. Thus we should bow before his divinity because he says so.
So anyway, back onto the topic of the burden of proof in regards to deities.
"Bronze: When you start explaining why God Almighty does not exist, in rigorous detail, I promise you Bronze, I will answer one of YOUR questions."
Gabriel, did you or did you not post the preceding comment in this thread at 6:35 PM CST, January 18, 2011?
Bronze, does comments was a direct reference to Your demand that others (me in this case) are to provide Evidence of things that do not exist (numerous examples can be found in this thread I think).
Now, I consider all of you to be the same, so I speak in plural when saying "you", and never make a specific definition of Bronze Dog or MWchase, and I think you are aware of this Bronze, so if you want to use a specific excuse (as I suspect you will, as always) and say You haven't said X or Y, please keep in mind that I am referring to You and your Followers.
I tried to Help you so much with the guidance of Jesus Christ, but you never want to take Love to your heart, it is sad you are such a Dark Person wanting to live such a Dark Life.
All I do is to Help you, provide you Science and Evidence of the real world instead of your Indoctrinated Evolutionism, trying to Spread the word of the Lord and just Help you become a real American, Proud of your White, Strong and Powerful Nation and understand why we are so Great.
Gabriel - One of Jesus Christ few Souls. Remember that I speak through the Lord and my word is of Love and only to Help your Soul.
Help you become a real American
Gabe, this may surprise you, but... I have a birth certificate.
Or are you using the Sarah Palin definition of "real American", which happens to exclude most places I've lived?
That silliness out of the way... Gabe, if you really think that science is backing you up on this, could you either explain said "science", or at least give us a(nother) link?
See, a key aspect of science is repeatability, and it's not as if we can just go back in time and eavesdrop on your life.
(Of course, if you would just explain how you determine people's race, we could verify that. I mean, unless you hand out questionnaires, or something. ... "Do you acknowledge that WHITE man is responsible for all things great?")
Alternatively, if you have an alternative to the theory of evolution, howzabout we evaluate it? (And anyway, if we can't tell what it is, we'd have no reason to accept it.) Here's a fun observation to explain: ring species.
(Also, wait, hold on, time out. The guy who thinks the Jews all need to die is "speak[ing] ... word[s] of Love"? Do you even think about the things that you think about?)
Fun. Gabriel avoids giving a simple yes or no.
I guess he can't confront his past flip-flopping, so he decides to ramble with no purpose in mind.
Why not Study Creation Science instead, you know, the Science that have dedicated millions on finding the truth whiles having to fight against the secular government that wants Evolutionism in schools?
Answers in Genesis, which can be found at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
is an excellent starting point if you want to learn about Creation and the Truth rather then your preconceived ideas of evolutionism that has been indoctrinated into you by the secular left (if there is any other then Left Secular, Ha).
But that demands you want to learn, and I KNOW you do not want that, you made it clear, There is only Your Truth, you wont take the Time and Energy to Study and Learn about Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible or any Creation Science because that goes against your Faith of Evolution.
And as I am one of Jesus apostles, You certainly would not listen to me, I go against everything you Believe in, BigBangs, Everything from Nothing, Monkeys giving birth to Humans and so on, That is Truth(tm) and you will never change your mind and no one can be wrong, thats what Master Dawkins says.
And hell, you probably tart talking about Global Warming and how we need to put Billions into "fixing it" whiles the snow is coming down.
I know your kind, your to Blind and Afraid to Face the Truth, you give me a one-liner and that is good enough for you, Pathetic.
Gabriel - Spreading Truth with Love
Right. Let's go straight to the lunatic fringe of Answers in Genesis, as if it hasn't been extensively discussed before and known to be full of the oldest Creationist canards.
It doesn't help your case that you mention, for example, "monkeys giving birth to humans" as a parody of evolution, which NO ONE claims.
Let me guess: It's okay for you to lie because your random god randomly declared lying to be moral.
Here's a challenge, Gabe: Save me some time of slogging through familiar territory full of old, weak arguments, and present ONE good piece of evidence for Creationism.
Funny thing: I was going to start a blogging session, and I think now I'll do a dissection of AiG.
Like I said, a short two liner is the best you can give, Fear is to prevalent, but I wont lose faith, I will try to Spread the Truth and Educate you and your Ignorant followers.
You should be able to "get it", if you are pure White with clean Blood, you should have the Genetic Ability to accept and understand Reality, if you are a Negro, Spick or Jew this may hinder you, worth thinking about?
Gabriel - Jesus Helper Ready to Fight for Truth
How exactly is my current conciseness relevant to the logical validity of my position?
Hint: It's not.
Gabe, how about you actually answer the questions put to you.
It it really so hard to post even a _single_ piece of evidence for your god or creationism?
Heck, why is it so hard for you to simply clarify exactly who you mean when you say white? Remember that the term has had its extent vary quite a bit over history, and you clearly do not mean the more common modern uses, (as they generally include Iberians, the European Jewish groups and the Roma, all of which you clearly do not).
Is it because you're afraid that your answers to those questions will hurt your position? Is it because you simply don't have answers to them? Or is it simply because you are an intellectual coward who is unwilling to face the court of ideas?
Post a Comment