Sunday Dispatch For Ironhorse

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ironhorse, this one's for you!

 

A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag):

 

"So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence.

 

Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist.

 

JASON S. SHAPIRO

Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/faces-of-worship.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

[ironhorse]

Ironhorse, this one's for you!

 

A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag):

 

"So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence.

 

Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist.

 

JASON S. SHAPIRO

Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/faces-of-worship.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

 

 

Thanks for the Dispatch ficino.

 

Mr. Shapiro seems to demand God must be brought to him in a test tube in order to believe.

A request he knows cannot be met.

 

The reason I would never ask him to prove to me that God does not exists?

 

He seems happy with his choice. I am happy with mine. 

 

 

It is interesting you posted this today because the following is the Sunday Dispatch I posted for today:

 

 

 

Sunday Dispatch.696

 

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

~ Charles Darwin

 

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

 

~Stephen Jay Gould,Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

[mymistake]

 

 

Mr. Shapiro seems to demand God must be brought to him in a test tube in order to believe.

A request he knows cannot be met.

 

 

 

You can only know that request cannot be met if God does not exist.  If an all powerful, all knowing God did exist then it would be possible to meet the request.

 

Gee Ironhorse, I had no idea you were an atheist. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Yeah, you walked right in to that one IH.  

 

Learn the difference between gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist.  

 

You are are a gnostic theist, I am an agnostic atheist.  The key difference between you and me is that you claim to "know" biblegod exists, while I do not think anyone can know that, theist or atheist.  You (think you) know and you believe in biblegod.  I don't know if biblegod is real and I don't believe he is.

 

If he did appear in a test tube or in any other verifiable form (which he purportedly is omni-able to do) then I would happily revise my belief.  That's another key difference between you and me, you are narrow minded, I am open minded.  I am capable of seeing and admitting when I am wrong.  You are not.

[Justus]

Your mistake again, while you think that whatever you believe is the absolute truth,  So are you now claiming for the Eternal God that He can do anything, 

or are you just claiming the your Bible told you that all things are possible with the eternal God?   Then maybe he lied to you?  

 

It is obvious that your own distortion of the Gospel has kept the Son from revealing Himself to you.  If no man come to the Father except but by the Son, and no man can come to the Son except the Father that sent the Son draws him, then I can see why you are so upset with Christianity, but where they lying to you or where you lying to yourself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You lying to yourself again by claiming to know what I hold as true simply by your imagination.     

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Your mistake again, while you think that whatever you believe is the absolute truth,  So are you now claiming for the Eternal God that He can do anything, 

or are you just claiming the your Bible told you that all things are possible with the eternal God?   Then maybe he lied to you?  

 

It is obvious that your own distortion of the Gospel has kept the Son from revealing Himself to you.  If no man come to the Father except but by the Son, and no man can come to the Son except the Father that sent the Son draws him, then I can see why you are so upset with Christianity, but where they lying to you or where you lying to yourself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You lying to yourself again by claiming to know what I hold as true simply by your imagination.     

 

Why would I claim anything about something I don't believe exists?

 

I'm not upset with xianity, I just think its a fairy story for gullible people.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm leaving Ironhorse and Justus to the tender mercies of Ficino.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I can't say it any better than Mr. Shapiro did:

 

"In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence."

 

Ironhorse and Justus have not stepped up to the 'burden of proof' requirement.  That requirement is not concocted by atheists;  it's endemic to assertive speech acts.

[Ravenstar]

It's like banging your head on a wall, isn't it?

 

Not upset with Yawheh… not angry at god, not pissed at Jesus… not upset with fairies, unicorns, Odin, Krishna, Zeus or Allah either. Their 'followers' irk me from time to time, the ideology can be troublesome but only because of the cause and effect thing.

 

If you don't have anything better than, "it's in an old book", then I can't swallow it… because there are MANY old books and I've yet to see it demonstrated that one is better than any other or has any basis in reality. The Edda's, The Tao Te Ching, I Ching, Guru Granth Sahib, Koran, Dhammapada, Nag Hammadi, Apocrypha, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Pyramid texts, Purvas, Chun Boo Kyung, Analects of Confucius, Avesta, Bible, Enuma Elish, Ugarit Texts, etc, etc, etc… how do I know which one is right? Maybe they are ALL wrong because NONE of them have anything other than hearsay, second hand news, and others 'experiences', even the 'others' are unknown. (Who wrote the Eddas? I don't know and neither do you.. oh wait - yes we do! Snorri Sturluson… he has a last name!  amazing)

 

Of course for those who do… I have some land in Florida I need to sell… ocean view! Give me a call!

 

No, it's simple really and it baffles me that religious people don't get this.

 

(edit: spelling)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

He seems happy with his choice. I am happy with mine. 

 

It seems to me that if you really were happy with your choice, TinPony, you would be both able and willing to answer questions concerning your choice and defend your choice against counter arguments.  You've demonstrated, however, that you are both unable and unwilling to do so.

[mymistake]

Your mistake again, while you think that whatever you believe is the absolute truth,  So are you now claiming for the Eternal God that He can do anything, 

or are you just claiming the your Bible told you that all things are possible with the eternal God?   Then maybe he lied to you?  

 

It is obvious that your own distortion of the Gospel has kept the Son from revealing Himself to you.  If no man come to the Father except but by the Son, and no man can come to the Son except the Father that sent the Son draws him, then I can see why you are so upset with Christianity, but where they lying to you or where you lying to yourself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You lying to yourself again by claiming to know what I hold as true simply by your imagination.     

 

 

Justus must be talking to himself again.  His words make the most sense if they are directed at himself.

 

 

 

 

 

By the way I am a gnostic atheist.  While I do not claim that I cannot be wrong there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates that humans create gods.  Furthermore Yahweh falls within the range of all the other gods humans have made.  I have offered to debate the merits of my position with Justus but so far all he does is troll.

[mikey101]

 

 

It is obvious that your own distortion of the Gospel has kept the Son from revealing Himself to you.  If no man come to the Father except but by the Son, and no man can come to the Son except the Father that sent the Son draws him, then I can see why you are so upset with Christianity, but where they lying to you or where you lying to yourself?

 

 

 

Christianity is not the only belief system in the world dumbass.   You fundamentalists are the biggest bigots I've ever seen.  Just because someone doesn't believe the same as you doesn't make them wrong and they aren't 'lying to themselves'.   This is why no one likes you fundies, you're total bigots.   Go masturbate and pray for Jesus to forgive you.

[sdelsolray]

 

Ironhorse, this one's for you!

 

A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag):

 

"So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence.

 

Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist.

 

JASON S. SHAPIRO

Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/faces-of-worship.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

 

 

Thanks for the Dispatch ficino.

 

Mr. Shapiro seems to demand God must be brought to him in a test tube in order to believe.

A request he knows cannot be met.

 

The reason I would never ask him to prove to me that God does not exists?

 

He seems happy with his choice. I am happy with mine. 

 

 

It is interesting you posted this today because the following is the Sunday Dispatch I posted for today:

 

 

 

Sunday Dispatch.696

 

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

~ Charles Darwin

 

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

 

~Stephen Jay Gould,Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

 

Here we have Ironhorse using another disingenuous technique frequently used by creationists and their ilk - The Quote Mine.

 

Actually, he uses two of them, no doubt copied and pasted from one of his favorite whore creationist websites.

 

I don't have time for both, but let's look at the first:

 

Ironhorse claims Charles Darwin said:

 

 

 

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

 

As a minor preliminary point, note how Ironhorse doesn't provide a proper reference for the quote, just that Charles Darwin said it, or wrote it, somewhere, sometime, some place.  Of course, none the dozens of creationist whore websites do either, which is further evidence that Ironhorse did not get this quote from the original source, but from a secondary source.

 

The quote is somewhat accurate, but not word for word.  It comes from Darwin's Origin of Species (Chapter 9 in the original edition, Chapter 10 in the 6th Edition).

 

However, when analyzing quote mining, it is important to see (from the original source) what, if anything, was removed, altered or left out.  In short, the context is critical., particularly when lying little creationists remove important contextual language.  And here, Ironhorse left out a rather important sentence.  Indeed, it was the very next sentence.

 

Here is the actual text (from Chapter 10 of the 6th Edition (note the last sentence in bold):

 

 

 

"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely, on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate, and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends, on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

 

Of course, Darwin spends the remainder of this Chapter discussing this, as he had previously it discussed in Chapter 6.

 

Ironhorse's conduct in promoting a disingenuous quote mine is further evidence of his shallow, myopic and empty character, and why he deserves the handles "Tin Pony" and "Pewter Jackass".

 

The Stephen Gould quote mine is even more interesting, but is more complicated and I don't have the time to deconstruct it right now.  Perhaps later.

 

 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

sdelsolray, you deserve more than one upvote from me for that.  Brilliant work.

[duderonomy]

sdelsolray, you deserve more than one upvote from me for that.  Brilliant work.

 

I concur. I gave him an upvote for that too, and I regret that I have only one upvote to give to that post.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Myopic... That's a new word. Interesting.

 

So burden of proof on us.

OK but question is if y'all haven't seen proof in 2000 years then why even till this day do you all continue to ask for evidence you know hasnt been answered or probably never will be.

 

Due to the sheer definition of science it defines God out of existence science definition itself does not allow proof or evidence to occur outside of science.

 

Is science axiomatic? Is science the only means for truth? Or you just use it because its consistent and reliable right?

 

If up until this very point science has only detected the natural what makes you think science will EVER be able to detect the supernatural. Unless the definition changes using the scientific method to detect supernatural is a category mistake.

 

Why use a natural finding tool to find something supernatural. That's like trying to find cotton candy with a metal detector.

 

The bridge from natural causation to supernatural causation cannot be crossed. The second something enters the natural world it is no longer supernatural it is now natural.

[mymistake]

OK but question is if y'all haven't seen proof in 2000 years then why even till this day do you all continue to ask for evidence you know hasnt been answered or probably never will be.

 

 

Because there are millions of self deluded people who demand that we adopt their religion, make us out as rude if we express refusal, and demand that we change the laws of the land to follow their delusion.

[bornagainathiest]

Myopic... That's a new word. Interesting.

 

So burden of proof on us.

OK but question is if y'all haven't seen proof in 2000 years then why even till this day do you all continue to ask for evidence you know hasnt been answered or probably never will be.

 

Due to the sheer definition of science it defines God out of existence science definition itself does not allow proof or evidence to occur outside of science.

 

Is science axiomatic? Is science the only means for truth? Or you just use it because its consistent and reliable right?

 

If up until this very point science has only detected the natural what makes you think science will EVER be able to detect the supernatural. Unless the definition changes using the scientific method to detect supernatural is a category mistake.

 

Why use a natural finding tool to find something supernatural. That's like trying to find cotton candy with a metal detector.

 

The bridge from natural causation to supernatural causation cannot be crossed. The second something enters the natural world it is no longer supernatural it is now natural.

 

A1,

 

I notice that you've waited a suitable length of time after ducking out here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66119-the-burden-of-proof/page-4#.VKu7ptKsWnI (post #69) and declining Joshpantera's offers in #105 and #107.

 

Yet what we wrote still stands.

And my offer to guide and teach you about cosmology remains open - yet you still decline it.  

Josh's offer to you to do the right and proper and intellectually honest thing is still open - yet you still refuse it. 

Your above post is just a re-hash of the "something actualizing it's own existence" post from that earlier thread.

So, what I wrote about you on Dec 23 seems to be true.

 

A1,

This is the second time I've presented you with links to information that totally destroys the basis of your Christianity.

In both cases your replies have been upbeat and enthusiastic.  You've eagerly anticipated looking at this material and have thanked me for posting it. You seem to treat this information lightly, as if it's just another thing of interest for you to learn - and not a fatal blow to your Christian faith.  As if nothing I've posted could ever threaten your beliefs.

Well... I smell a rat.  

Your reaction should have been one of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, when you realized that this info blows the need for the Christian Creator God out of the water.  Or, at the very least, I'd have expected you to resist and throw up a wall of counter-arguments or something similar.  But no... you seem to inexplicably happy..?

I can only put this down to two reasons.

First, you simply don't understand the seriousness of the threat this information represents to your Christian faith.

Or, you do understand and you've resolved to ignore the threat and/or deny it that it is a threat.

Therefore, I'm watching you VERY carefully friend and I'm finding it VERY hard to trust what you write.

BAA.

 

So you can't be trusted, can you..?

Whenever someone posts a link or some info that blows you out of the water, you just smile, blithely respond that it's interesting and that you'll check it out later... and then you ignore it COMPLETELY!  

.

.

.

With Inflationary and Ekpyrotic cosmology there is no bridge between supernatural and natural causation.

These paradigms are eternal.   They require no creator, no supernatural causative agent and are not self-actualizing.

You can run and dodge as long as you like, A1 but you've got nowhere to go.  Josh and myself and other Lions will always be here to keep you honest.

 

(Adds A1's name to list of Christians who won't keep themselves honest and who need us to do it for them.)

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

 

~Stephen Jay Gould,Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

Here we have Ironhorse using another disingenuous technique frequently used by creationists and their ilk - The Quote Mine.

 

Actually, he uses two of them, no doubt copied and pasted from one of his favorite whore creationist websites.

 

I don't have time for both, but let's look at the first:

 

 

The Stephen Gould quote mine is even more interesting, but is more complicated and I don't have the time to deconstruct it right now.  Perhaps later.

 

Good work, sdelsolray! Yesterday I found the Stephen Gould quotation all over the internet in creationist website, and in a few better documented pieces by ID advocates. It's from "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1): 119-130 (1980). I started to read that article but didn't have much time yesterday.

[mymistake]

I assumed the Gould quote was written a hundred years ago because it refers to a level of discovery we had over a hundred years ago.  Creationist like to ignore everything science has discovered recently.  So they will dig up quotes from the work of scientists in centuries past.  Today there is a lot more evidence of evolution.  No informed person would claim we don't find intermediary stages.  Every living thing is an intermediary stage between it's parents and offspring. 

[midniterider]

Your mistake again, while you think that whatever you believe is the absolute truth,  So are you now claiming for the Eternal God that He can do anything, 

or are you just claiming the your Bible told you that all things are possible with the eternal God?   Then maybe he lied to you?  

 

"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." John 14:13. But lo, the bible does not mean what it says, you took that outta context, you can't know what the bible means, etc.

 

It is obvious that your own distortion of the Gospel has kept the Son from revealing Himself to you.

 

How could a lowly sinner such as me distort the divinely inspired bible? Such power that humans have over the Word. Such power I have over the  Almighty! Woot! Shit, if a person has all this power over Jesus then he must not be very powerful at all. Like non-extistent.

 

 If no man come to the Father except but by the Son, and no man can come to the Son except the Father that sent the Son draws him, then I can see why you are so upset with Christianity, but where they lying to you or where you lying to yourself?

 

 There is no Jesus.

 

[midniterider]

 

He seems happy with his choice. I am happy with mine. 

 

It seems to me that if you really were happy with your choice, TinPony, you would be both able and willing to answer questions concerning your choice and defend your choice against counter arguments.  You've demonstrated, however, that you are both unable and unwilling to do so.

 

 

They believe in Jesus because they believe in Jesus because they believe in Jesus.

[midniterider]

Due to the sheer definition of science it defines God out of existence science definition itself does not allow proof or evidence to occur outside of science.

 

God really needs to stick up for himself. God? Any comments?

[midniterider]

So burden of proof on us.

OK but question is if y'all haven't seen proof in 2000 years then why even till this day do you all continue to ask for evidence you know hasnt been answered or probably never will be.

 

It's an attempt to get people to think about their own belief system and why it is absurd. Neither you nor I have been around for 2000 years so asking for evidence is not a pointless exercise. New people (who aren't aware of the detrimental effect of Christianity) are infected with Christianity all the time and so people also have to be inoculated against it all the time.

 

So why do you believe in something that for 2000 years has been shown to have no evidence and no foundation in reality?

[midniterider]

Due to the sheer definition of science it defines God out of existence science definition itself does not allow proof or evidence to occur outside of science.

 

Something that has never existed cannot be defined out of existence. :-)