CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

Lunar Shadow · 09-02-2005, 01:30 AM

Sorry if you feel I have for gotten you Begivens I kinda just started replying to the bottom of the list.

Quote: (Originally Posted by bgivens33) ok, i'll bite... first of all... we'll start off with your "freethought manifesto".
"Given the presupposition that theism, (particularly xtianity) is a lie", last time I check, presupposition, is a fallacy... strike one. "They are often immature mentally and behave like tantruming children, irrational and subjective when it fails to go their way". Ad Hominem, strike 2. "2nd law of thermodynamics fails to support their position"... give me ONE reason why the 2nd law proves that theism is wrong...and you win. strike 3.

Did I say I wrote this? No I did not. That’s why the "Manifesto" is quoted or did you not see that? As for the Fallacies that you point our... I guess you could see them as fallacy if they are not view in context. The author of this has done a lot of research (I will give you the Ad hom). You guys make the assumption that I wrote this. Trust me if I had I would take credit for it. The author goes by the name ~ AUB ~

Quote: the "ocillating model" has absolutely nothing to do whether or not there is a god. Secondly, that model is a joke.

"Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model." Isn't that the same 2nd law that proves that there can't be a god?? HA! That quote is taken from the same site you quoted the definition for the oscillating universe.

Wait a second this is like the post calling the kettle black last time I check the cornerstone for Christianity violates 2lot (2nd law of thermodynamics). The resurrection violates 2lot. So how does this help your position at all?

Quote: You claim nobody has put forth proof of a God, but I on the other hand see no proof from you. More people are theist than are atheist, the burden off proof lies on you.

How does the burden lie on me? Just because there are more theists than atheists? In REALITY the burden of proof lies on the party that claims that something exists. Or do you normally ignore the scientific process when you have to prove something because you can not handle the responsibility?

09-02-2005, 01:30 AM	#22
Lunar Shadow USER INFO » Status: Wound Up Posts: 1,244 Joined: Jun 2005 Currently: Offline	Sorry if you feel I have for gotten you Begivens I kinda just started replying to the bottom of the list. Quote: (Originally Posted by bgivens33) ok, i'll bite... first of all... we'll start off with your "freethought manifesto". "Given the presupposition that theism, (particularly xtianity) is a lie", last time I check, presupposition, is a fallacy... strike one. "They are often immature mentally and behave like tantruming children, irrational and subjective when it fails to go their way". Ad Hominem, strike 2. "2nd law of thermodynamics fails to support their position"... give me ONE reason why the 2nd law proves that theism is wrong...and you win. strike 3. Did I say I wrote this? No I did not. That’s why the "Manifesto" is quoted or did you not see that? As for the Fallacies that you point our... I guess you could see them as fallacy if they are not view in context. The author of this has done a lot of research (I will give you the Ad hom). You guys make the assumption that I wrote this. Trust me if I had I would take credit for it. The author goes by the name ~ AUB ~ Quote: the "ocillating model" has absolutely nothing to do whether or not there is a god. Secondly, that model is a joke. "Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model." Isn't that the same 2nd law that proves that there can't be a god?? HA! That quote is taken from the same site you quoted the definition for the oscillating universe. Wait a second this is like the post calling the kettle black last time I check the cornerstone for Christianity violates 2lot (2nd law of thermodynamics). The resurrection violates 2lot. So how does this help your position at all? Quote: You claim nobody has put forth proof of a God, but I on the other hand see no proof from you. More people are theist than are atheist, the burden off proof lies on you. How does the burden lie on me? Just because there are more theists than atheists? In REALITY the burden of proof lies on the party that claims that something exists. Or do you normally ignore the scientific process when you have to prove something because you can not handle the responsibility? __________________ Lunar Shadow