religion

[obfuscator]

No, I've stopped responding to you because of your incredible use of ad hominem and straw man arguments.

 

What really did it for me is when you said you can't believe in God and be a real physicist.

 

I've repeatedly linked you to books with relevant articles, and instead of bothering to refute them, you've made idiotic, irrelevant claims like "anyone can write a book".

[obfuscator]

To be fair, delusion is defined by the Oxford Medical Dictionary (7th ed, 2007) as: "a belief that is held with unshakable conviction, cannot be altered by rational argument, and is outside the person's normal cultural or subcultural belief system [...] The abnormal pathology lies in the irration way in which the person comes to the belief."

 

For instance, it would be thinking I'm gonna get murdered because a blue car passed my house today. There's a difference between rational belief (the universe is so complex, someone of higher intelligence must have made it) and irrational conviction (the USSR was evil and godless, so God must exist).

 

There's also a difference between rational and truthful.

I've never claimed the state of the USSR is proof for the existence of God. What it IS proof for is that atheism may not be the best thing for society.

[Myweponsg00d]

No, I've stopped responding to you because of your incredible use of ad hominem and straw man arguments.

 

What really did it for me is when you said you can't believe in God and be a real physicist.

 

I've repeatedly linked you to books with relevant articles, and instead of bothering to refute them, you've made idiotic, irrelevant claims like "anyone can write a book".

 

It is true: anyone can write a book. Using these books as any sort of argument for the existence of God is just making an argument from authority. If the books have evidence for god, just tell me what that evidence is.

 

I also don't recall ever making ad hominem arguments. I'm sure I have written some straw man arguments but these may have been in response to other ridiculous arguments to demonstrate the fact that the arguments are ridiculous. If you think you have a logical objection to any of my arguments then simply respond to me and demonstrate how my argument is flawed, just like what I did to you.

 

I also would like you to quote when I said "You cannot believe in God and be a real physicist." Don't recall ever writing that.

 

I've never claimed the state of the USSR is proof for the existence of God. What it IS proof for is that atheism may not be the best thing for society.

 

I don't know nearly enough about the USSR to determine whether or not it is a good thing to look at to determine the success of an "atheist" state. It sounds to me like we just have another example of correlation...the USSR happened to be atheistic and it happened to fall. You'd need to demonstrate that the atheism actually had anything to do with the failure of the society. Hell, otherwise I could just say "A soceity existing on Russian soil might not be the best idea for soceity." The two might have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

Also, I don't even care about atheism being "good" or "bad" for society. What is good or bad for society has nothing to do with what is true about the physical world. Why bring it up?

[Zygimantas]

I might not think your claim is right, but I don't see a problem with it.

 

So everyone is free to just think whatever the hell they want to think about reality. Okay, great.

 

Pretty much. I don't know why one would restrict free thought. I mean its fine that you want people to side with you, but it doesn't mean you have to be against people who don't.

[Kimberly]

Of course not all christians are cut from the same cloth, but if the beliefs are followed properly it is very hard to see ill being done from such.

 

How is it that you're certain that your understanding of the bible is more correct than any other? This is what I mean by relying too heavily on the written Word.

[obfuscator]

 

It is true: anyone can write a book. Using these books as any sort of argument for the existence of God is just making an argument from authority. If the books have evidence for god, just tell me what that evidence is.

 

I'm not using books as an argument for the existence of God. I'm saying that the topic is complex enough that one must read a book in order to fully understand it. If you had any desire to be neutral and objective I'm sure you'd be willing to read books by theist authors. However, you've repeatedly expressed your desire to the contrary, which is why I don't think you've any desire to be persuaded whatsoever.

 

And before you ask - yes, I read books written by atheists. I've read God Is not Great, snippets of "letter to a christian world", "the God delusion", and others. I plan to buy the God Delusion once I finish reading the material on my to do list.

 

 

I also don't recall ever making ad hominem arguments. I'm sure I have written some straw man arguments but these may have been in response to other ridiculous arguments to demonstrate the fact that the arguments are ridiculous. If you think you have a logical objection to any of my arguments then simply respond to me and demonstrate how my argument is flawed, just like what I did to you.

 

I also would like you to quote when I said "You cannot believe in God and be a real physicist." Don't recall ever writing that.

 

If anyone is claiming that God does exist, there is simply no possible way that this person is well-versed in experience with making scientific claims or defending scientific arguments.

http://forum.tip.it/topic/285390-religion/page__view__findpost__p__4711423

 

Stuff like "this post is ridiculous" and "this is creationist babble" , "go back to school and pay attention in biology class" are ad hominem arguments. So is your "anyone can write a book" argument. If there's something wrong with what the book says - prove it. Don't mindlessly discredit the author.

 

 

I don't know nearly enough about the USSR to determine whether or not it is a good thing to look at to determine the success of an "atheist" state. It sounds to me like we just have another example of correlation...the USSR happened to be atheistic and it happened to fall. You'd need to demonstrate that the atheism actually had anything to do with the failure of the society. Hell, otherwise I could just say "A soceity existing on Russian soil might not be the best idea for soceity." The two might have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

Also, I don't even care about atheism being "good" or "bad" for society. What is good or bad for society has nothing to do with what is true about the physical world. Why bring it up?

 

I'm not talking about it failing. I'm talking about the enforced genocide of anyone who had the slightest inkling to be religious. I have better things to do then quote chapters of history books but basically, the atheism of communist Russia ended up with the most brutal dictatorship in the existence of mankind, and ultimately also led to its failure as a society. This book explains it quite well, if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297809199&sr=8-1

 

I've never used the state of the USSR as proof of existence of a God. I do use it to show why atheism may not be the best thing for the world, which is an argument in itself regardless of the existence of God.

 

By the way, if you'd like me to read any sort of atheistic literature in an attempt to prove your point, I'll be glad to do so. As I've already said, I have several other books to read first but I'll certainly do so when I have the time.

[obfuscator]

Of course not all christians are cut from the same cloth, but if the beliefs are followed properly it is very hard to see ill being done from such.

 

How is it that you're certain that your understanding of the bible is more correct than any other? This is what I mean by relying too heavily on the written Word.

 

I never said my understanding of the bible had anything to do it. My understanding of catholic theology (taught to me, by the way, by a parent with a masters degree in the subject) quite clearly shows that this action is immoral. (the shunning or vilification of a homosexual).

[Ginger_Warrior]

I never claimed you did think the USSR was proof of God...

[obfuscator]

I never claimed you did think the USSR was proof of God...

My apologies then. What I DO think is that it's a potent example of how an atheist society could be worse than a Christian one.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Stuff like "this post is ridiculous" and "this is creationist babble" , "go back to school and pay attention in biology class" are ad hominem arguments. So is your "anyone can write a book" argument. If there's something wrong with what the book says - prove it. Don't mindlessly discredit the author.

 

Those aren't really quite ad hominem, they just aren't really very good arguments.

 

 

I don't feel like going back through however many pages, so I'll ask a question of you:

 

Do you accept that the biological diversity we see today is a result of gradual change in organisms over billions of years, and that most organisms have a common ancestor?

[obfuscator]

 

I don't feel like going back through however many pages, so I'll ask a question of you:

 

Do you accept that the biological diversity we see today is a result of gradual change in organisms over billions of years, and that most organisms have a common ancestor?

 

Yes, that seems to be fairly reasonable. What I don't accept was that this was necessarily completely unguided.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

 

I don't feel like going back through however many pages, so I'll ask a question of you:

 

Do you accept that the biological diversity we see today is a result of gradual change in organisms over billions of years, and that most organisms have a common ancestor?

 

Yes, that seems to be fairly reasonable. What I don't accept was that this was necessarily completely unguided.

 

What evidence is there, in your mind, that it was guided? Is it simply that you can't accept it? An argument from incredulity doesn't fly.

[Myweponsg00d]

I'm not using books as an argument for the existence of God. I'm saying that the topic is complex enough that one must read a book in order to fully understand it. If you had any desire to be neutral and objective I'm sure you'd be willing to read books by theist authors. However, you've repeatedly expressed your desire to the contrary, which is why I don't think you've any desire to be persuaded whatsoever.

 

What is there to understand? What is there for me to read in these books? Claims? Pretty pictures? What is it? Give me a good reason why it wouldn't be a waste of my time and I'll read it. If its just going to be a bunch of philosophy and arguments from incredulence, then why should I read it? Am I really supposed to expect that all reasonable arguments for God are somehow contained only in these reccomended books? What reason do I have to read these books? Other than the fact that I could hear the same arguments said by different people.

 

And before you ask - yes, I read books written by atheists. I've read God Is not Great, snippets of "letter to a christian world", "the God delusion", and others. I plan to buy the God Delusion once I finish reading the material on my to do list.

The God Delusion is a really great book. Not just because I agree with its stance on God but because I feel the writing is very elegant.

 

 

Stuff like "this post is ridiculous" and "this is creationist babble" , "go back to school and pay attention in biology class" are ad hominem arguments. So is your "anyone can write a book" argument. If there's something wrong with what the book says - prove it. Don't mindlessly discredit the author.

 

These aren't really arguments. I'm not saying "You are wrong because this is creationist babble." Or "You are wrong because you can't even pay attention in class." These comments are just my linguistic embellishments.

 

"Anyone can write a book" is my way of saying "You're making an argument from authority - just because the book exists doesn't mean anything for your case." I see now that you are saying you aren't just trying to use the existence of books as support for your case, so don't worry about that now.

 

I'm not talking about it failing. I'm talking about the enforced genocide of anyone who had the slightest inkling to be religious. I have better things to do then quote chapters of history books but basically, the atheism of communist Russia ended up with the most brutal dictatorship in the existence of mankind, and ultimately also led to its failure as a society. This book explains it quite well, if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297809199&sr=8-1

 

Interesting. Again I have very little understanding of this branch of history, so I had no idea where you are going with that.

 

However, I still insist that this has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is not a particular doctorine or school of thought. Theres no immediate claim that these bad things happened BECAUSE of atheism. If the leaders were anything besides atheist, perhaps there would have been a different genocide.

 

I've never used the state of the USSR as proof of existence of a God. I do use it to show why atheism may not be the best thing for the world, which is an argument in itself regardless of the existence of God.

 

I agree. It may not be. As long as we're both on the same page that this doesn't influence the validity of theist claims for reality, then I don't have anything I want to discuss here. I understand that this is an important philosophical discussion to have, but I'm just limiting my involvement in this thread to representing the atheist standpoint on the physical world. I am not about to start writing about my views on whether or not it would be right to have people believe X Y or Z if they may or may not be true.

 

By the way, if you'd like me to read any sort of atheistic literature in an attempt to prove your point, I'll be glad to do so. As I've already said, I have several other books to read first but I'll certainly do so when I have the time.

 

I don't really make arguments based on books that I have read, so other than the literature I have written in the many pages of this thread I can't say I can reccomend any readings to further your understanding of my arguments. If you have any personal curiosities about atheist discussion, check out some videos on YouTube from the show called "The Atheist Experience". From the episodes I have seen, they do a pretty good job at explaining what atheism has to say about common theist concerns (they take calls from theists).

 

 

Yes, that seems to be fairly reasonable. What I don't accept was that this was necessarily completely unguided.

 

Nobody is saying that evolution, by necessity, needs to be unguided. The idea is that there is no evidence to support that it was guided and therefore it isn't included in the theory.

 

I actually agree that the idea of an intelligent overseeing force is comforting and "reassuring" in a way. In fact I will give you that philosophical reasons, I wish there WAS a god. I would love to be rewarded for living a good life and to have scumbags get what they deserve. But I just have no reason to believe that this is a reality.

[obfuscator]

 

What evidence is there, in your mind, that it was guided? Is it simply that you can't accept it? An argument from incredulity doesn't fly.

 

Hence the arguments I've been making about the supposed randomness of evolutionary creationism. I could certainly accept it if it convinced me.

 

 

 

 

What is there to understand? What is there for me to read in these books? Claims? Pretty pictures? What is it? Give me a good reason why it wouldn't be a waste of my time and I'll read it. If its just going to be a bunch of philosophy and arguments from incredulence, then why should I read it? Am I really supposed to expect that all reasonable arguments for God are somehow contained only in these reccomended books? What reason do I have to read these books? Other than the fact that I could hear the same arguments said by different people.

 

These books contain exactly what any book attempting to argue a topic contains - well thought out, sourced arguments for the existence of God.

 

These aren't really arguments. I'm not saying "You are wrong because this is creationist babble." Or "You are wrong because you can't even pay attention in class." These comments are just my linguistic embellishments.

 

"Anyone can write a book" is my way of saying "You're making an argument from authority - just because the book exists doesn't mean anything for your case." I see now that you are saying you aren't just trying to use the existence of books as support for your case, so don't worry about that now.

 

Fair enough to the second point. Your linguistic embellishments, however, don't help your case, and are unnecessary.

 

 

Interesting. Again I have very little understanding of this branch of history, so I had no idea where you are going with that.

 

However, I still insist that this has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is not a particular doctorine or school of thought. Theres no immediate claim that these bad things happened BECAUSE of atheism. If the leaders were anything besides atheist, perhaps there would have been a different genocide.

 

Perhaps, yes. But I think it's quite telling that every atheist state in history has failed, and not even that - been a brutal dictatorship. I do wish to reiterate, however, that this certainly isn't any kind of proof for the existence of God.

 

 

I don't really make arguments based on books that I have read, so other than the literature I have written in the many pages of this thread I can't say I can reccomend any readings to further your understanding of my arguments. If you have any personal curiosities about atheist discussion, check out some videos on YouTube from the show called "The Atheist Experience". From the episodes I have seen, they do a pretty good job at explaining what atheism has to say about common theist concerns (they take calls from theists).

 

I did watch the one posted on this thread. I'll watch some more.

 

 

Nobody is saying that evolution, by necessity, needs to be unguided. The idea is that there is no evidence to support that it was guided and therefore it isn't included in the theory.

 

I actually agree that the idea of an intelligent overseeing force is comforting and "reassuring" in a way. In fact I will give you that philosophical reasons, I wish there WAS a god. I would love to be rewarded for living a good life and to have scumbags get what they deserve. But I just have no reason to believe that this is a reality.

 

Yes, but that's precisely the argument i'm trying to present to you.

 

If evolution is not unguided, then some kind of creationary force (not necessarily a god as we envision) must have guided it.

 

The idea of God is both comforting and difficult. Comforting, because of the points you made. Difficult, because it dictates you must live your life in a difficult way. You must be selfless, and work towards an ideal greater than oneself. This attitude is very hard to prescribe to - which is precisely why true religion cannot be populist.

 

Has it occurred to you, I wonder, that some theists perhaps wish there is NO God? I don't believe in God because it comforts me, I believe in God because through logic and reason I have come to the conclusion that God must exist. I sometimes think life would be easier if God did not exist. However, just as you are unwilling to take a reassuring path for something you do not believe, I too refuse to take a reassuring path for something I do not believe.

[Myweponsg00d]

Hence the arguments I've been making about the supposed randomness of evolutionary creationism. I could certainly accept it if it convinced me.

 

"It's too random" is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy. And also, nobody is making the claim "Evolution was unguided." The idea is that we have no reason to think that it was guided. Nobody is saying that the evolution evidence we have should convince you that it is unguided. The evidence for evolution tells you that it happened. The lack of evidence for guided evolution is why we don't think it was guided.

 

These books contain exactly what any book attempting to argue a topic contains - well thought out, sourced arguments for the existence of God.

 

Then present some. I've presented some of evolutionary theory in this thread, so why not present whatever it is that supports your theory?

 

It's just hard to believe that there is going to be any sort of valid argument in these books. I didn't need to read a book to learn about evolution so why do I need to read a book to hear the arguments for god?

 

These aren't really arguments. I'm not saying "You are wrong because this is creationist babble." Or "You are wrong because you can't even pay attention in class." These comments are just my linguistic embellishments.

 

"Anyone can write a book" is my way of saying "You're making an argument from authority - just because the book exists doesn't mean anything for your case." I see now that you are saying you aren't just trying to use the existence of books as support for your case, so don't worry about that now.

 

Fair enough to the second point. Your linguistic embellishments, however, don't help your case, and are unnecessary.

 

Perhaps, yes. But I think it's quite telling that every atheist state in history has failed, and not even that - been a brutal dictatorship. I do wish to reiterate, however, that this certainly isn't any kind of proof for the existence of God.

 

I would say that it is more likely because the atheist leaders so far have been jerks. I'd like to see a democratic atheist state.

 

Yes, but that's precisely the argument i'm trying to present to you.

 

If evolution is not unguided, then some kind of creationary force (not necessarily a god as we envision) must have guided it.

 

....why?

 

The idea of God is both comforting and difficult. Comforting, because of the points you made. Difficult, because it dictates you must live your life in a difficult way. You must be selfless, and work towards an ideal greater than oneself. This attitude is very hard to prescribe to - which is precisely why true religion cannot be populist.

 

Has it occurred to you, I wonder, that some theists perhaps wish there is NO God? I don't believe in God because it comforts me,

 

On the contrary, many of your arguments seem to be "I just don't think it is possible...I mean, how could life be unguided?" This is an argument from personal incredulence. The basis of your argument is that the alternatives sound "too random". I think this sounds like some of your main points are argued just because you find the alternative hard to deal with.

 

I believe in God because through logic and reason

 

Mmmm, I would say through flawed logic and flawed reason. Theres a reason that no scientists have published peer reviewed work on the god hypothesis. To believe in god takes a logical mistake.

 

I have come to the conclusion that God must exist. I sometimes think life would be easier if God did not exist. However, just as you are unwilling to take a reassuring path for something you do not believe, I too refuse to take a reassuring path for something I do not believe.

 

Well if you truly only use logic and reason to arrive at your theism then you must not have heard all of the arguments for atheism.

[obfuscator]

"It's too random" is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy. And also, nobody is making the claim "Evolution was unguided." The idea is that we have no reason to think that it was guided. Nobody is saying that the evolution evidence we have should convince you that it is unguided. The evidence for evolution tells you that it happened. The lack of evidence for guided evolution is why we don't think it was guided.

 

You misunderstand my basic logic. Nothing can be "too random". It either is random, or it is not. There's no logical fallacy there.

 

If there is no God or creative force, the creation of the universe must have been completely self-initiated, with no outside influence of any kind, and thus, random. Not "too random", not "a bit random", not "realistically random", just random. Since random does not exist in our universe (I've asked you to prove me wrong in this regard which you've failed to do) it stands to reason that the universe could not have been created randomly - therefore some kind of rudimentary causality or creative force is required.

 

Why do you choose to think evolution was unguided, if, in your own words, there is no evidence in either direction?

 

 

Then present some. I've presented some of evolutionary theory in this thread, so why not present whatever it is that supports your theory?

 

It's just hard to believe that there is going to be any sort of valid argument in these books. I didn't need to read a book to learn about evolution so why do I need to read a book to hear the arguments for god?

 

Then how, I wonder, did you learn about evolution? I assume you were taught, or educated yourself in some way. The reason I don't quote these arguments is because, like I've said, it takes a book length dissertation to properly do so.

 

 

Yes, but that's precisely the argument i'm trying to present to you.

 

If evolution is not unguided, then some kind of creationary force (not necessarily a god as we envision) must have guided it.

 

....why?

 

Because nothing on earth is unguided. We have literally never witnessed anything on our planet without a creator or causality. I think it's an illogical assumption to assume that unguided creation (despite no evidence to prove such) is more logical then what we see in our day to day lives.

 

 

On the contrary, many of your arguments seem to be "I just don't think it is possible...I mean, how could life be unguided?" This is an argument from personal incredulence. The basis of your argument is that the alternatives sound "too random". I think this sounds like some of your main points are argued just because you find the alternative hard to deal with.

 

Absolutely - I personally am incredulous that you're attempting to argue something can come from nothing. The logical assumption, given no evidence, is to assume something has a creator (as per what we see in our lives) rather then an evidence-less straying from the norm.

 

Mmmm, I would say through flawed logic and flawed reason. Theres a reason that no scientists have published peer reviewed work on the god hypothesis. To believe in god takes a logical mistake.

 

Well if you truly only use logic and reason to arrive at your theism then you must not have heard all of the arguments for atheism.

 

Both these quotes seem to demonstrate you share the belief (with many other atheists) that theism is a character flaw. How is it, I wonder, that so many scientists, with decades of experience and multiple university degrees can believe in God? Are they somehow not real scientists?

 

Are atheists somehow more intelligent then theists? Do you, for example, consider yourself more intelligent then the president, for example?

 

Please note: none of this certainly proves there is a god - but I do think you're being incredibly pretentious about the issue.

[Stragomagus]

Quote

 

Then present some. I've presented some of evolutionary theory in this thread, so why not present whatever it is that supports your theory?

 

It's just hard to believe that there is going to be any sort of valid argument in these books. I didn't need to read a book to learn about evolution so why do I need to read a book to hear the arguments for god?

 

 

Then how, I wonder, did you learn about evolution? I assume you were taught, or educated yourself in some way. The reason I don't quote these arguments is because, like I've said, it takes a book length dissertation to properly do so.

 

There is absolutely no reason not to disclose your sources for the arguments you are presenting. Not doing doing so is tantamount, in my view at least, to their actual validity as doing so would actually help your argument if they are logically sound.

 

Quote

 

On the contrary, many of your arguments seem to be "I just don't think it is possible...I mean, how could life be unguided?" This is an argument from personal incredulence. The basis of your argument is that the alternatives sound "too random". I think this sounds like some of your main points are argued just because you find the alternative hard to deal with.

 

 

Absolutely - I personally am incredulous that you're attempting to argue something can come from nothing. The logical assumption, given no evidence, is to assume something has a creator (as per what we see in our lives) rather then an evidence-less straying from the norm.

 

You are putting words in his mouth as he has clearly said that neither you nor science has the answer to the creation of the universe via this line(somewhat paraphrased) "We do yet know what happened before the big bang"

 

You have also committed the fallacy of "Argument to Logic"

 

 

 

View PostMyweponsg00d, on 16 February 2011 - 06:33 AM, said:

"It's too random" is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy. And also, nobody is making the claim "Evolution was unguided." The idea is that we have no reason to think that it was guided. Nobody is saying that the evolution evidence we have should convince you that it is unguided. The evidence for evolution tells you that it happened. The lack of evidence for guided evolution is why we don't think it was guided.

 

 

You misunderstand my basic logic. Nothing can be "too random". It either is random, or it is not. There's no logical fallacy there.

 

If there is no God or creative force, the creation of the universe must have been completely self-initiated, with no outside influence of any kind, and thus, random. Not "too random", not "a bit random", not "realistically random", just random. Since random does not exist in our universe (I've asked you to prove me wrong in this regard which you've failed to do) it stands to reason that the universe could not have been created randomly - therefore some kind of rudimentary causality or creative force is required.

 

Why do you choose to think evolution was unguided, if, in your own words, there is no evidence in either direction?

 

He was referring to the logical fallacy of boiling the process down to only two outcomes when there could be more than 2.

 

Example of this fallacy is "you are either with us or against us".

 

You also committed the fallacy of "argument from ignorance"

Simply because your argument has not been refuted does not make it automatically true by default.

 

His fallacy call about incredulity still stands as you committed it again.

 

At this point in the thread I have counted well over 100 logical fallacy occurrences(including the trolls).

 

All fallacies are bolded.

[obfuscator]

 

 

There is absolutely no reason not to disclose your sources for the arguments you are presenting. Not doing doing so is tantamount, in my view at least, to their actual validity as doing so would actually help your argument if they are logically sound.

 

I haven't not disclosed my sources at all. I've repeatedly linked to said sources. What I'm saying is that I have no desire to spend hours typing chapters from books.

 

You are putting words in his mouth as he has clearly said that neither you nor science has the answer to the creation of the universe via this line(somewhat paraphrased) "We do yet know what happened before the big bang"

 

You have also committed the fallacy of "Argument to Logic"

 

Nor am I claiming to know the answer to the creation of the universe. I don't understand what you mean by that fallacy - all I can infer by this is that using logical arguments is somehow a fallacy?

 

 

 

He was referring to the logical fallacy of boiling the process down to only two outcomes when there could be more than 2.

 

Example of this fallacy is "you are either with us or against us".

 

You also committed the fallacy of "argument from ignorance"

Simply because your argument has not been refuted does not make it automatically true by default.

 

His fallacy call about incredulity still stands as you committed it again.

 

At this point in the thread I have counted well over 100 logical fallacy occurrences(including the trolls).

 

All fallacies are bolded.

 

Ahh ok, so what is the third option, pray tell? Something is random, or not random, or....? Please, enlighten me. As far as I can tell any sort of guidance or causality causes creation to fall into the "not random" category. Is something "partially" random? If so it is not random.

 

I also never claimed my argument was inherently true, I'm trying to demonstrate how I believe my views are more likely to be correct than not.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random?

 

Edit: and by "claim" I mean "widely-accepted fact".

[obfuscator]

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random?

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion.

 

As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random?

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion.

 

As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given.

 

http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612

That's the best overview description I could find of Bell's expiriment.

[obfuscator]

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random?

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion.

 

As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given.

 

http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612

Yet the question still arises that, if atomic radioactive decay is truly random, why is it linear and predictable outside of a single molecule?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random?

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion.

 

As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given.

 

http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612

Yet the question still arises that, if atomic radioactive decay is truly random, why is it linear and predictable outside of a single molecule?

 

The link I posted has nothing to do with radioactive decay.

 

Also, what? I'm not a quantum physicist but are you saying because we can run statistical analyses on the decay of certain atoms and determine a window for when that particle might decay it means that it's not random? Because that's fallacious.

[obfuscator]

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random?

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion.

 

As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given.

 

http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612

Yet the question still arises that, if atomic radioactive decay is truly random, why is it linear and predictable outside of a single molecule?

 

The link I posted has nothing to do with radioactive decay.

 

If, on the other hand, you try to predict something like the moment that a radioactive atom will radioact, then youll find yourself at the corner of [cabbage] Creek and No.

 

??

[Maulmachine]

I never claimed you did think the USSR was proof of God...

My apologies then. What I DO think is that it's a potent example of how an atheist society could be worse than a Christian one.

This argument is as fallacious as an ad hominem attack, as the USSR was not a society rooted in atheism, but a society rooted in communism atheism was a one of many characteristics of some communist leaders. It's but a reminder of the failing of communism. Your argument is equivalent to(Reductio Ad Absurdum) to saying that the USSR is a potent example of how a society with ice is far worse than a warmer one. Clearly we wouldn't acknowledge this statement as logical, so we must reject your statement as well. It's not only totally irrelevant, but it is also, from a logical standpoint, meaningless.