Two points:

1.) I can’t believe you bothered to write that post. Like the crystal post above, you completely ignored my point for something that you probably think is funny. You can’t win this debate, because you are not smart enough.

2.) Tin foil hats don’t work. As designed, they would act as a dish to amplify any signals. To have any hope of functioning, they would have to encase the brain, which would be fatal in most cases.

When did I say I wish you didn’t vote? Here’s a tip, those voices you hear in your head, they are not me.

No I don’t wish you don’t vote, I wish you were smart enough to vote responsibly. That’s how I feel about everyone.

And saying, “That boy’s too stupid to vote.” isn’t undemocratic. Signing up a bunch of democrats and then throwing away their registration cards in undemocratic. Jamming a phone number set up to help people vote is undemocratic. Throwing black people off the vote registration list because they share the same last name as a convicted fellon is undemocratic.

There has never been a more undemocratic group of liberals than the contemporary liberal.

They are well represented here. You must be proud to count yourself among them.

I would pity him if he didn’t vote. As it is, he’s dangerous.

He’s a lost cause, but maybe pointing out how stupid he is, will convince more reasonable people not to follow suit.

Pardon me.

I shall never make that mistake again.

I’ve discussed the link between parsimony and God’s nonexistence… many, many times. You are the one who is shrugging it off without responding to it. If you want an excellent breakdown of the association, read a bit of The God Delusion… that is, if you can bear it.

“Because if I’m right — if I’m right — you have made a tragic,tragic error.”

Yep, you’re right on this point. So you’re saying I should believe in God, and go to church, and eat crackers and drink wine out of fear? You’re telling me that THAT constitutes belief? Besides that, I could make a prediction that a giant meteor is going to hit the U.S. in exactly a month. IF I’M RIGHT, and you don’t build yourself a bomb shelter in your backyard, you have just made a tragic error, haven’t you? But the probability of me being right is very, very, very small. Probably still better than your prediction of God’s existence though.

You said that when you turned 40 you had a revelation. I’m asking you to please share it with me, so that I can change my mind and become a believer, and repent for my sinful behavior. Not sharing the proof of God’s existence seems to be sinful to me… aren’t you supposed to spread the word of Christ? Think that’s in the Good Book somewhere…

“You have chosen reason as superior to faith, but it is still a choice.”

Oh, thank you, Frank. You’ve FINALLY admitted that faith and reason are diametrically opposed to one another. Essentially, you’ve admitted that your beliefs are unreasonable. If a major part of your identity is wrapped up in religion, which it seems to be… you’ve admitted that you are an unreasonable person. Fuckin-a, pal! Thanks for making my argument for me.

I believe the score is somewhere around 126-2, with me leading. Would you like to pack up your things and go home yet?

I can’t prove God exists, and I’m fairly certain that if I could prove God existed for a thousand people in a row, you wouldn’t be satisfied when it was your turn.

People who speak glibly of “turning on to faith” as soon as they “see a sign” never see a sign. That’s anecdotal, I know, but I have told many people many a time, “Remember that incident” or “that conversation”, and they never see it as a sign that God exists, even though I, or someone else, might.

It is better, I feel, to be in the dark from time to time, than to stand, as you do, with the light behind you, so that you darken your own world.

And yes, I know that this is a depressing and inconvenient point of view… and I believe that I’ve been more unhappy since I’ve come upon these realizations.

What does one say to that?

And, of course, you can’t end your plaintive soliloquy without a jibe at me.

Because if I’m right — if I’m right — you have made a tragic,tragic error.

And, yes, I looked up parsimony, not because I never heard of it, and not because I didn’t know what it meant. I looked it up to see if I could find a link to the concept of parsimony via-a-vis the existence of God.

I believe you shrugged it off, without refuting it. Say what you will, I know this: A believer cannot be persuaded not to believe by reason, and a nonbeliever cannot be persuaded to believe by faith.

You have chosen reason as superior to faith, but it is still a choice.

I’m sorry my experience means so little to you, but that makes you just like all the other young liberals that post here. It is, in a sense, part and parcel of liberalism to distrust experience and tradition.

The famous story Mark Twain told about his father comes to mind.

I don’t care, and never said I did, if you give a damn about my near-pity for you. I was addressing CSS.

You can call me arrogant and self-important if you like. It’s a convenient way to avoid the irrefutability of my arguments. Just because I reiterate them doesn’t mean they are not valid. You have yet to address my points regarding the scientific method and parsimony. Why haven’t you, Frank?

“Are you interested in learning when I confirmed, for myself, that God most definitely exists? I was 40 years old! And I had been around the world, and back again.”

It is of no consequence to me, or to the veracity of this discussion, how old you were when you “confirmed” the existence of God. Nor does your traveling experience matter. What does matter, though, is this confirmation you speak of… please share with us your proof that “God most definitely exists.” I told you, if I see some evidence, I’ll change my mind and admit that I’ve been wrong all this time. Again, my guess is that you can’t supply this evidence.

It’s actually quite difficult to not believe in God. Besides the obvious social stigma associated with atheism, I’d genuinely like to believe that there’s a supernatural father figure looking over everyone and everything. But I’ve learned to believe what I can perceive; what can I see, hear, taste, touch? I don’t believe things just because they’re convenient to my worldview, and I don’t believe things in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Why does the world have to have a purpose, Frank? Short answer: It doesn’t. If it helps you to think of it as “bees in a hive,” then so be it. In fact, the very notion of “purpose” is unparsimonious (your favorite concept, have you looked it up yet?). The fact of our existence has no bearing on whether we have a “purpose,” or whether there’s “meaning” to our existence. And yes, I know that this is a depressing and inconvenient point of view… and I believe that I’ve been more unhappy since I’ve come upon these realizations. A difference between us, Frank, is that I’d rather be outside the cave and unhappy than locked up in the dark and satisfied.

I’m sorry, Frank, but you’re wrong. About practically everything on this topic. I actually wish that you weren’t though. Honestly.

Acting like you’ve been all around the world searching for meaning, and now you’ve decided God doesn’t exist. The arrogance and self – importance ooze from every pixel of your comments. You and the pompous CSS both.

Are you interested in learning when I confirmed, for myself, that God most definitely exists? I was 40 years old! And I had been around the world, and back again.

Don’t pity me, you selfish prig. It’s easy not to believe in God, and you call me lazy. What’s the world all about, then? An accident? A tautology, where we are all here for each other, but none of us has a purpose, like bees in a hive?

No, my preening, condescending friend, it is I, who know what awaits you — the foolish regret you will fell when you find that there is a God — I pity you.

Why do you bother responding? You said nothing.

Of course I don’t think I’m a god. But I’m also smart enough to realize complexity and organization is not indicative of design. After all, crystals have both, but they are created through natural processes. We know these rules right down to the atomic level and there’s no gap for god to fit in.

The null hypothesis… The null hypothesis… The null hypothesis…

Ooooh, how irreverent! How defiant!

And, he defines reality, too!

I guess you don’t believe in any other God but you, eh, butthead?

The Moron:
“C.S.S.: Maybe not to you — but that’s not my concern.”

No, it doesn’t imply a designer in reality. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own reality.

Thanks for calling me “Sir.”

You have by no means “handed my ass to me.” You have simply repeated yourself.

Don’t think so?

I will ascribe to the null hypothesis. Namely, that there is no God.
Apr 2, 2007 2:51:58 PM

it’s scientifically proper to go with the null (e.g., the nonexistence of God).
Apr 2, 2007 8:57:42 PM

The default option is the absence of God… the null hypothesis is what a scientist is left with
Apr 3, 2007 1:03:04 AM

You’re a fullout liberal, OK: pedantic, dogmatic, intolerant, arrogant, and rude.

1) mambochicken says, “Roll out the insult machine, I have nothing to say.”

Where did I insult anyone? Sure, I implied that you were being lazy by implicating God as an explanatory tool… but it’s more of a descriptive term than an insult. If I wanted to insult you, I’d call you a self-deluded ignoramus who is scientifically-illiterate, a pompous jackass, and who has an unhealthy obsession with his own personal belief system. Plus, I’m pretty sure I had A LOT to say in that previous post, otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to respond so vigorously to it in the first place.

2) “There is no “burden of proof” — this isn’t “Inherit the Wind”, and you’re not Spencer Tracy. If you believe something to be true, then you don’t know it to be true, and that’s that.”

No, that’s not that. If we’re going to be scientific about this, the absence of God is the null hypothesis, and the presence is the alternative. The default option is the absence of God… without evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis is what a scientist is left with. And you, nor anyone else, has presented evidence pointing to the existence of God. I readily admit that I MIGHT be wrong… but it’s highly unlikely that I am, and I need to see Jesus descend from the heavens and start healing lepers before I’ll change my mind. Give me one good piece of evidence for the existence of God, Frank, and you’ll see me change my mind in a heartbeat. But you won’t, because you can’t.

3)”No one is asserting that there are or are subterreanean sun-dwellers (who, if they did exist, would be subsolar surface dwellers, would they not, Mr. Wizard?).

You are asserting that God does not exist because in you’re quasi- (or should I say pseudo- ?) scientific way, you have good reason to believe He doesn’t. Good for you.”

OK Frank, I am asserting there are superintelligent subsolar surface dwellers. They have X-ray vision, and the females in the population have telekinetic powers. They’re all 4 feet tall, with a body mass of 21kg. The most common name in the population is Greg. Prove me wrong. Oh, wait… you can’t? Then by your logic, I guess you have to believe that what I said is true, don’t you? If not, please tell me where I’m mistaken.

4) “I love the First Amendment, too, because it keeps guys like you from going to the Supreme Court to have religion declared illegal.”

I would never do that. You do realize that you’re talking to a fullout liberal, right? I respect people’s right to have religious views. But their beliefs aren’t necessarily correct, are they, Frank? Explain to me why you don’t believe in Zeus, or Zoroaster, or Vishnu.

5)”Maybe it can be, but we don’t know that, do we? There are lots of things that are unexplained in the universe, and you know it — I hope.

So, you ought to say, at the very least, “[A]ll observable, replicable phenomena in the universe might someday be explained… ”

That means that someday there might be demonstrable, incontrovertible replicable evidence (a rather awkward usage, not universally accepted — I’d go with “evidence that can be replicated”) that God did, and does exist.”

Sure, there are some things that we don’t have a full grasp of yet. But just because we don’t understand them yet doesn’t imply the existence of God, no more than our lack of understanding of quantum physics a century ago implied the existence of God. What is needed is demonstrable evidence, unexplainable by the sciences, that a supernatural being (e.g., God) exists. Just because string theory isn’t complete yet doesn’t say that God is around.

If that evidence were to come to light, Frank, you’d see me convert in a heartbeat. Why? Because I’ve learned to believe what the data tell me. I don’t accept things on faith alone. If evidence comes to light (with the understanding that it’s highly unlikely that it will) that God exists, I’ll be right there with you, and pray that I’m forgiven for my transgressions. But I’m not holding my breath.

6) “And I’m certainly no lazier and less curious than someone who symbolically crosses his arms, and says, “Nah – I don’t believe it. Nope. And you can’t prove it. So there!”"

Frank, I’ve thought long and hard about the existence of God, and organized religion in general. I grew up Presbyterian, spent time as an agnostic, and then moved to atheism. I am certainly not lazy in this regard. And I’ve demonstrated that I’m not merely crossing my arms and refusing, as you claim. I have a clear, objective reasoning behind my understanding of God’s non-existence. It’s unparsimonious, it’s unnecessary, it’s frankly a ludicrous idea. Give me evidence otherwise, Frank. Please, I’d love to hear it. You, on the other hand, epitomize laziness. You don’t question your beliefs, and you just outright reject every counterargument because they don’t fit in with your view of the world. Considering your old age, I suppose its too late to hope that you’d try to have an open mind.

Frank, I’m not going to post to this thread again unless you have some new things to say. My educated guess is that you won’t. You consistently get your ass handed to you, post after post. Just quit. You lose. Good day, sir!

C.S.S.: Maybe not to you — but that’s not my concern.

Because it doesn’t. Complexity and organization doesn’t imply a designer.