[gatekeeper]

It's not the Secular Web that has a history of dishonesty:

Once upon a time, a rumor hit the internet that Flew had converted to Christianity. The myth appeared in 2001 and popped up again in 2003. On each occasion, Flew refuted the claim personally, standing by his response to its first occasion with his own reply for publication at the Secular Web (Antony Flew, "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!" 2001). So I was quite skeptical the third time around. But this time, things have indeed changed somewhat from where Flew stood in his 2001 article. Antony and I exchanged letters on the issue recently, and what I report here about his current views comes from him directly.

What does that remind me of? Ahh, yes, this.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The main thing I am trying to point out is, it doesn't take a crazy or small mind to look all around us, and see how it cannot be just an accident.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that view.

[xenu]

It's amazing how important some people think they are - that the universe was created for them.

It wasn't. Get over it.

BTW, plenty of christians become atheists and muslims, and ....
Means nothing, except to them personally.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by koogz:
The beholder in this case is God, and he is in each an every one of us, weather we believe in him or not.

Actually, this is what you believe whether others believe in it or not.

Your beliefs are not better than anybody else's. All you/we/they hold as truth and obvious has no more value than simple opinions.

[koogz]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Actually, this is what you believe whether others believe in it or not.

Your beliefs are not better than anybody else's. All you/we/they hold as truth and obvious has no more value than simple opinions.

Do you believe in gravity?

[ambush]

Wow, I really don't want to be 81 yr old and start getting senile and ****. Really.

[xenu]

Originally posted by koogz:
Do you believe in gravity?

Gravity is real. We don't need to believe in it.

[koogz]

Originally posted by xenu:
Gravity is real. We don't need to believe in it.

It is real?
Define real for me please.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by koogz:
It is real?
Define real for me please.

How do you define real?

[koogz]

I requested the definition first. Can you offer one?

Here is one definition of real:

"real

1. Not simulated. Often used as a specific antonym to
virtual in any of its jargon senses."

[chris v]

It's like f*cking Groundhog Day in here.

[xenu]

Originally posted by koogz:
It is real?
Define real for me please.

Why? Can't you tell the difference between real and not real?

It is obvious what I mean by real within the context of my statement.

[koogz]

Originally posted by xenu:
Why? Can't you tell the difference between real and not real?

It is obvious what I mean by real within the context of my statement.

Can you see gravity?
Can you touch gravity?

Prove it to me.
Prove to me, I should believe gravity exists.

Obvious?
It's obvious to me that God exists. The devil as well.

[xenu]

Originally posted by koogz:
Can you see gravity?
Can you touch gravity?

Prove it to me.
Prove to me, I should believe gravity exists.

Obvious?
It's obvious to me that God exists. The devil as well.

Are you floating away?

You don't need to believe in order to know gravity exists.

That doesn't hold true for your god, or your devil.

[Zimphire]

We will all find out in the end.

If I am wrong. Oh well. I led a good life.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
It's not the Secular Web that has a history of dishonesty:

What does that remind me of? Ahh, yes, this.

ABC news isn't a religious organization.

I was comparing ABC news to an atheist site. Which doesn't have a history of honesty either.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xenu:

You don't need to believe in order to know gravity exists.

That doesn't hold true for your god, or your devil.

You are comparing the natural with the supernatural. You fail before you begin.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are comparing the natural with the supernatural. You fail before you begin.

this message has been brought to you by:

PNAC� droid #20004050005055 version z

...please try our new FUD brought to you by the church of je$u$�!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
this message has been brought to you by:

PNAC� droid #20004050005055 version z

...please try our new FUD brought to you by the church of je$u$�!

FUD?

su�per�nat�u�ral __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(spr-nchr-l)
adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

BY DEFINITION, he failed before he began.

You cannot use the natural to try to explain or disprove the supernatural.

I really wish you'd stop a minute and think about the post before replying with verbal masturbation.

It makes you look less silly.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You cannot use the natural to try to explain or disprove the supernatural.

bull�sh1t

Pronunciation: 'bul-"sh1t also 'b&l-
Function: noun
Etymology: 1bull & 6bull
usually vulgar : NONSENSE; especially : foolish insolent talk

[Zimphire]

roberto, I've already smacked you down once on that.

BY DEFINITION, you cannot use the natural laws to disprove the supernatural.

Your debate tactics are nothing short of Jr High level trollings.

Either add something to the debate, or finish your homework before your mom catches you.

Unless you of course are attempting to say that the dictionary is BS, and nonsense.

[roberto blanco]

roberto, I've already smacked you down once on that.

pfff, you didn't do $hit.

BY DEFINITION, you cannot use the natural laws to disprove the supernatural.

even more,- you can't even proove that the supernatural exists, at all...

Your debate tactics are nothing short of Jr High level trollings.

Either add something to the debate, or finish your homework before your mom catches you.

more ad hominems by the PNAC droid...quick...come up with more...you're losing the debate here.

:: LAFFO ::

[Zimphire]

roberta the supernatural exists.

I showed you a definition.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

Those things do indeed exist.

Now say if they DID NOT exist. Even talking in a metaphorical sense. YOU STILL cannot disprove the supernatural with natural laws. Either way, you lose.

Now unless you can go and disprove that definition. You have no case.

Again, either put up or shut up.

The mods wont tolerate this type of trolling from you for very much longer I assure you.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Those things do indeed exist.

proof?

Main Entry: tooth fairy
Function: noun
: a fairy believed by children to leave money while they sleep in exchange for a tooth that has come out

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was comparing ABC news to an atheist site.

The Secular Web is, as the named indicates, secular, not atheist. Not that I expect ignorant people to know the difference.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
proof?

Now you are strawmaning.

You don't have to have proof to hypothetically explain the supernatural as we were doing.

Supernatural events have existed and monitored.

They call these events supernatural because they seem to not be bound by the laws of this world.

Now, if something didn't exist, how does it have a description?

Anything that doesn't follow along with the rules of nature is supernatural.

Not that any of this matters.

Said original poster I was referring to doesn't believe in the SN, he was hypothetically arguing by comparing it to a natural event.

I just responded saying basically hypothetically that comparison was wrong from the start.

So it doesn't matter if the supernatural has been proven or not.

Now that your strawman has been set a flame, You'll probably try to erect a new one.

This should be fun.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
The Secular Web is, as the named indicates, secular, not atheist. Not that I expect ignorant people to know the difference.

Then you weren't talking about what I was referring to, and then totally going off into tangents.

I said I would believe ABCnews which isn't spiritual based, and mostly secular. Than a site that was pro-atheist.

BTW secular humanism and atheism usually go hand in hand.

So enough with your pretentious "ignorant people" silliness.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Supernatural events have existed and monitored.

proof?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Now, if something didn't exist, how does it have a description?

tooth fairy, vampire, werewolf, gremlin, gnome, superman, batman...

[Zimphire]

roberto I've already set a flame your "proof" strawman. Go do us all a favor and read what I had to say about hypothetically arguing something as what was going on. You pulled the whole bait and switch argument in the middle because you got smacked down so hard on the first.

You went from saying that it was BS that the natural cannot disprove the supernatural.

To "The supernatural doesn't exist, PROVE IT!"

If you cannot debate honestly. You have no need to be here.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If you cannot debate honestly. You have no need to be here.

we've been over this before (countless times actually). there are rules to a debate.

and the rule is:'you make the incredulous claim, YOU PROVE IT!'

so go right ahead.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You don't have to have proof to hypothetically explain the supernatural as we were doing.

Supernatural events have existed and monitored.

They call these events supernatural because they seem to not be bound by the laws of this world.

Now, if something didn't exist, how does it have a description?

Anything that doesn't follow along with the rules of nature is supernatural.

Not that any of this matters.

This is surely some of the most retarded logic I've ever seen. Here's a synopsis of what you just said:

You don't have to have proof [dishonest argument #1]. But we have proof ("Supernatural events have existed and monitored[sic]") [dishonest argument #2]. But you can't prove the supernatural (even though you just said we have proof) [dishonest argument #3]. But it doesn't matter whether we have proof or not [dishonest argument #4].

I think there's some sort of rule against contradicting oneself that many times in a single post, but I won't hold you to it. Anyway, here's a chance to demonstrate your intellectual honesty and win a million bucks in the bargain: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html Just prove one itty-bitty little supernatural event. Not a big one, just a little one. Go ahead. And you can't back down and say they can't be proven, because you've already said they've "existed and monitored" (whatever that means). Go ahead - you're always telling us about the "supernatural," so it shouldn't be that hard to do.

There's nothing more intellectually dishonest than saying "I'm holding a piece of candy behind my back, but I'm never going to show it to you. I don't have to." But that's effectively what you're saying.

And please look up "pretentious" in the dictionary - your use of it is consistently improper and, indeed, pretentious.

One more thing: I trust you'll buy me lunch with your winnings, as a reward for letting you know about this terrific and easy-to-win prize.

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I said I would believe ABCnews which isn't spiritual based, and mostly secular. Than a site that was pro-atheist.

Repeating the claim that the Secular Web is atheist/pro-atheist doesn't make it true.

The only belief that matters regarding quotes is whether they are fabricated or not (and if not, the context and degree of accuracy). Here are two of the quotes of Antony Flew from the Secular Web:

I do not think I will ever make that assertion ["probably God exists"], precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

Do you think the quotes are fabricated? If you do, I suggest you write to Antony Flew and inform him that the Secular Web is lying about him.

BTW secular humanism and atheism usually go hand in hand.

Got any statistics to prove that secular humanists are atheists more often than not or are we supposed to take your word for it?

So enough with your pretentious "ignorant people" silliness.

As soon as you provide some evidence that that Secular Web is atheist/pro-atheist.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Unless you of course are attempting to say that the dictionary is BS, and nonsense.

Unfortunately, dict. don't help us much when it comes to philosophy.
Do yourself a favor and go study philosophy or theology in a University.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
we've been over this before (countless times actually). there are rules to a debate.

and the rule is:'you make the incredulous claim, YOU PROVE IT!'

so go right ahead.

roberto you are straw-maning again. I proves said claim I made. Back 4 or 5 posts ago.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
This is surely some of the most retarded logic I've ever seen. Here's a synopsis of what you just said:

You don't have to have proof [dishonest argument #1]. But we have proof ("Supernatural events have existed and monitored[sic]") [dishonest argument #2]. But you can't prove the supernatural (even though you just said we have proof) [dishonest argument #3]. But it doesn't matter whether we have proof or not [dishonest argument #4].

No, that isn't what I said. Not at all.

There are things that have been observed that cannot be explained by natural laws. But that doesn't matter in this context.

He was hypothetically speaking. And what I said is, even hypothetically you CANNOT use the natural to explain the supernatural.

I think there's some sort of rule against contradicting oneself that many times in a single post, but I won't hold you to it.

There was no contradiction.

The "prove supernatural exists" Was just a strawman made up by roberto after he got smacked down about the original hypothetical argument about disproving the supernatural using natural comparisons. Something that by definition cannot be done.

If you guys wanna spin this and argue about weather supernatural events have happened, go right ahead. It was never something I was arguing.

The strawmen are thick in here today.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ambush:
Unfortunately, dict. don't help us much when it comes to philosophy.
Do yourself a favor and go study philosophy or theology in a University.

Ambush just finish school. Then come back to us. You are a Freshman acting like you have a doctorate. Stop being pretentious.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Supernatural events have existed and monitored[sic].

There are things that have been observed . . .

. . . weather[sic] supernatural events have happened . . . was never something I was arguing.

The contradictions continue unabated.

The strawmen are thick in here today.

Indeed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Repeating the claim that the Secular Web is atheist/pro-atheist doesn't make it true.

AGAIN I said ABC news isn't a religious organization. (Hence IS secular.)
I was comparing ABC news to an atheist site. Which doesn't have a history of honesty either.

BTW do you actually think a site that names itself "http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml"
Are religious?

So I was comparing a SECULAR site that has no agenda. To a ATHEIST site that does.

Understand?

The only belief that matters regarding quotes is whether they are fabricated or not (and if not, the context and degree of accuracy). Here are two of the quotes of Antony Flew from the Secular Web:

Ok lets look at that.

"I do not think I will ever make that assertion ["probably God exists"], precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."

He is speaking that he would ever make that assertion because any assertion he made wouldn't be about the God how WE known him. He believes the God he believes in is a different type of being all together. Not that he doesn't believe in a being that created this all.

Do you think the quotes are fabricated? If you do, I suggest you write to Antony Flew and inform him that the Secular Web is lying about him.

Not fabricated at all.

Got any statistics to prove that secular humanists are atheists more often than not or are we supposed to take your word for it?

Um, secular humanism by definition is a philosophy that advocates HUMAN beliefs rather than Godly ones.
" the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural"
If God exists, he would indeed by supernatural. Beyond the nature of this world.

As soon as you provide some evidence that that Secular Web is atheist/pro-atheist.

Yeah I am sure it's full of spirituality.

From their own site



Read that last part in particular.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The contradictions continue unabated.

Because you took them out of context zigzag.

Not very honest of you.

I kept saying that they have been observed. (I've seen them myself) BUT THAT it didn't MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

You kept forgetting to quote that part for some reason. Why is that zigzag?

That never was my argument from the beginning.

That was a straw-man that roberto put fourth after he was smacked down to try to save face.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The "prove supernatural exists" Was just a strawman made up by roberto after he got smacked...

again, you didn't smack down anything!

Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

how is my asking you to prove a claim IN ANY WAY a 'strawman argument'? could it be another malapropism by the z droid?

the whole 'you can't prove that the supernatural doesn't exist through natural (rational) arguments' is the most dishonest, cowardice and chicken$hit position one could possibly take.

but even more, you cannot 'prove'your claim - AT ALL !

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I kept saying that they have been observed. (I've seen them myself) BUT THAT it didn't MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

no, that's _EXACTLY_ the point. you are making a phoney claim, and want to put yourself in a position, where you don't have to prove anything.

AND THAT'S A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, if i've ever seen one.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
again, you didn't smack down anything!

Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. It is not a logical fallacy to disprove a weak argument. Rather, this fallacy lies in declaring one argument's conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.

You indeed did that sir.

You took a weaker argument (That the supernatural doesn't exist, something I wasn't arguing) than ones opponent (me) was actually offering (That the natural cannot explain the supernatural)

So indeed it was a strawman.

Smackdown #2.

the whole 'you can't prove that the supernatural doesn't exist through natural (rational) arguments' is the most dishonest, cowardice and chicken$hit position one could possibly take.

but even more, you cannot 'prove'your claim - AT ALL !

Roberto you are showing you don't understand what the supernatural means.

Supernatural BY DEFINITION is anything that goes against natural laws.

So tell us roberto. How are you going to use natural laws to explain something that goes against such laws?

Explain to the class.

I expect you'll come back with another straw-man.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
no, that's _EXACTLY_ the point. you are making a phoney claim, and want to put yourself in a position, where you don't have to prove anything.

AND THAT'S A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, if i've ever seen one.

What "phoney" claim am I making roberto?

You make a lot of accusations. No facts to back them up.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. It is not a logical fallacy to disprove a weak argument....

oh, okay...now i see what you are trying to say (nice little spineless spin there).

i'm doing something completely different though, i'm putting in question the entire PREMISE of your argument. and that's not a 'logical fallacy', as you so wrongly put it, that's called being 'effecient'.

i'm not only swatting the cap from your head, i'm kicking the chair out from under your ass.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What "phoney" claim am I making roberto?

that the 'supernatural' exists.

just to bring things back on target:

Originally posted by xenu:

You don't need to believe in order to know gravity exists.

That doesn't hold true for your god, or your devil.



You are comparing the natural with the supernatural. You fail before you begin.

he wasn't comparing a physical phenomena (law of gravity) which exists in the 'real' world, which doesn't require blind faith to observe and experience, to a cultural, ethno centric myth, which of course is just that.

so they key word here is 'exist'. if you are talking about 'existence' as a mythological being, then you are right. (sidenote, - 'supernatural' and mythological are two different things)

but if indeed, you say that these things 'exist' like gravity, stones, trees humans...in a sence that they are physically prensent, then of course, the burden of proof will be on you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
oh, okay...now i see what you are trying to say (nice little spineless spin there).

Spineless spin? Where did I ever spin a thing roberto? You are being dishonest again.

i'm doing something completely different though, i'm putting in question the entire PREMISE of your argument. and that's not a 'logical fallacy', as you so wrongly put it, that's called being 'effecient'.

i'm not only swatting the cap from your head, i'm kicking the chair out from under your ass.

You aren't doing any such thing.

You need to re-read this whole thread. They were hypothetically talking about the natural and supernatural. Said person tried to use the natural to disprove the supernatural hypothetically.

I informed him by definition, the supernatural cannot be proved or disproved by the natural. WHICH IS TRUE.

You came back and told me it was BS. I showed you were it wasn't.

THEN you came out with the strawman of "The supernatural doesn't exist, so prove it"

Which IS a straw-man argument. Since we were talking hypothetically proving that the supernatural exists is irrelevant.

Understand?

So it doesn't matter if the supernatural exists or not in this argument. That is a strawman used to distract from the original argument. One which you said was wrong. One which I proved was right.

The one I indeed smacked you down on. The one that you are in denial of. The one you tried to spin into a argument on weather the supernatural even exists. And argument NO ONE was arguing until YOU brought it up to spin.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Because you took them out of context zigzag.

Not very honest of you.

I kept saying that they have been observed. (I've seen them myself) BUT THAT it didn't MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

You kept forgetting to quote that part for some reason. Why is that zigzag?

That never was my argument from the beginning.

That was a straw-man that roberto put fourth after he was smacked down to try to save face.

Well, the way your posts read, you seem to want to have it both ways, i.e. "We can observe and even monitor supernatural events, so we know they exist, but those of us who claim to have observed and monitored them can't prove it, and don't even have to." If this is your idea of intellectual honesty, so be it - it is, as you say, rather pointless to debate it, because you're essentially saying "You'll have to take my word for it."

A million bucks, just to demonstrate a single itty-bitty supernatural event. I'd take him up on it if I were you, so you can buy me lunch.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
that the 'supernatural' exists.

I believe the supernatural exists. I have seen it myself.

But again, that isn't what we are arguing here. Pay attention.

If you are arguing this, you are arguing with yourself.

So go right on ahead with your bad self.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Well, the way your posts read, you seem to want to have it both ways, i.e. "We can observe and even monitor supernatural events, so we know they exist, but those of us who claim to have observed and monitored them can't prove it, and don't even have to." If this is your idea of intellectual honesty, so be it - it is, as you say, rather pointless to debate it, because you're essentially saying "You'll have to take my word for it."

A million bucks, just to demonstrate a single itty-bitty supernatural event. I'd take him up on it if I were you, so you can buy me lunch.

zigzag, AGAIN MY ARGUMENT WAS NOT about proving if there is a supernatural or not.

GET IT?

If you and roberto want to argue about that between you two, go right ahead. Spin away.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Since we were talking hypothetically proving that the supernatural exists is irrelevant.

no, not at all.

if you say, for example:'count dracula killed my grandmother', then you are presupposing that 'count dracula' exists. right?

that ascertion is central to your argument, regardless of whether your grandma is dead or not etc.

now, if i told you 'count dracula' is a fictional character and doesn't exist, and i was right, - what would this mean for your 'ascertion'?

that you were wrong, - RIGHT! the only way to justify your first claim would be to establish the existence of count dracula.

QED

/aren't there any philosophy/logic students here. this should be very elimantary stuff.