Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I.D.I.O.T. s

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 7:31:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Intelligent Design Is Only Theism

It has been scientifically and judicially refuted. It relies upon the subjective opinion that this universe is somehow "better" than any alternative universe, simply because fragile, cabon-based life forms have managed to live in at least one very tiny, insignificant speck of a planet, in a tiny solar system, which is one of some 200 billion such solar systems in the same galaxy, which is one of over 200 billion such galaxies in the universe.

It's like a bacteria who believes that because he can exist in a microscopic skin flake, under a hair, on the scalp of a sleeping human, that it indicates that the human was "designed" specifically so that it could survive.

This is the epitome of theistic conceit and human self-worship.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 8:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 7:31:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
Intelligent Design Is Only Theism

It has been scientifically and judicially refuted. It relies upon the subjective opinion that this universe is somehow "better" than any alternative universe, simply because fragile, cabon-based life forms have managed to live in at least one very tiny, insignificant speck of a planet, in a tiny solar system, which is one of some 200 billion such solar systems in the same galaxy, which is one of over 200 billion such galaxies in the universe.

It's like a bacteria who believes that because he can exist in a microscopic skin flake, under a hair, on the scalp of a sleeping human, that it indicates that the human was "designed" specifically so that it could survive.

This is the epitome of theistic conceit and human self-worship.

Or the Olympic sized swimming pool was perfectly designed for the storage of one drop of water.

Quite easy to imagine a world with significantly more life exists, many orders of magnitude more.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 10:37:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 8:26:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how "theistic conceit" and "human self-worship" are relevant to the truth of the proposition.

That's probably because there is no truth to the proposition.

But the claim is that this universe is preferable to other potential configurations because humans can live in this universe. That somehow makes this universe "better" or "superior" in the eyes of many theists. So they can't accept the fact that this was just one of trillions of potential configurations, and is no better or worse than any other. So no matter which configuration would have emerged from big-bang, the odds against it are the same as the odds against this configuration. Therefore, there is nothing special about this configuration.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 1:35:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 8:21:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/28/2014 7:31:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
Intelligent Design Is Only Theism

It has been scientifically and judicially refuted. It relies upon the subjective opinion that this universe is somehow "better" than any alternative universe, simply because fragile, cabon-based life forms have managed to live in at least one very tiny, insignificant speck of a planet, in a tiny solar system, which is one of some 200 billion such solar systems in the same galaxy, which is one of over 200 billion such galaxies in the universe.

It's like a bacteria who believes that because he can exist in a microscopic skin flake, under a hair, on the scalp of a sleeping human, that it indicates that the human was "designed" specifically so that it could survive.

This is the epitome of theistic conceit and human self-worship.

Or the Olympic sized swimming pool was perfectly designed for the storage of one drop of water.

Quite easy to imagine a world with significantly more life exists, many orders of magnitude more.

If only imagination were 'proof'.

And if you came across a perfectly shaped swimming pool ... who in their right mind would thing ... agh, the wind did that?

Statistics clearly states that its FAR more likely that a perfectly formed swimming poll was engineered and build. So when you take the position that it happened naturally? That is a rather extraordinary claim is it not?

Saying that one can imagine it happening is hardly convincing arguementation, and indeed does absolutely nothing to address the basis of inductive logic - the FAR more probable explanation against ... the imaginary one?

Again, I keep seeing Beasty preaching that the statistical model has been disproven, but there is simply no disproof. No explanation of an alternative based on anything other than ... imagination.
bulproof
Posts: 25,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:35:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/28/2014 8:21:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/28/2014 7:31:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
Intelligent Design Is Only Theism

It has been scientifically and judicially refuted. It relies upon the subjective opinion that this universe is somehow "better" than any alternative universe, simply because fragile, cabon-based life forms have managed to live in at least one very tiny, insignificant speck of a planet, in a tiny solar system, which is one of some 200 billion such solar systems in the same galaxy, which is one of over 200 billion such galaxies in the universe.

It's like a bacteria who believes that because he can exist in a microscopic skin flake, under a hair, on the scalp of a sleeping human, that it indicates that the human was "designed" specifically so that it could survive.

This is the epitome of theistic conceit and human self-worship.

Or the Olympic sized swimming pool was perfectly designed for the storage of one drop of water.

Quite easy to imagine a world with significantly more life exists, many orders of magnitude more.

If only imagination were 'proof'.

And if you came across a perfectly shaped swimming pool ... who in their right mind would thing ... agh, the wind did that?

Statistics clearly states that its FAR more likely that a perfectly formed swimming poll was engineered and build. So when you take the position that it happened naturally? That is a rather extraordinary claim is it not?

Saying that one can imagine it happening is hardly convincing arguementation, and indeed does absolutely nothing to address the basis of inductive logic - the FAR more probable explanation against ... the imaginary one?

Again, I keep seeing Beasty preaching that the statistical model has been disproven, but there is simply no disproof. No explanation of an alternative based on anything other than ... imagination.

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 1:53:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:35:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/28/2014 8:21:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/28/2014 7:31:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
Intelligent Design Is Only Theism

It has been scientifically and judicially refuted. It relies upon the subjective opinion that this universe is somehow "better" than any alternative universe, simply because fragile, cabon-based life forms have managed to live in at least one very tiny, insignificant speck of a planet, in a tiny solar system, which is one of some 200 billion such solar systems in the same galaxy, which is one of over 200 billion such galaxies in the universe.

It's like a bacteria who believes that because he can exist in a microscopic skin flake, under a hair, on the scalp of a sleeping human, that it indicates that the human was "designed" specifically so that it could survive.

This is the epitome of theistic conceit and human self-worship.

Or the Olympic sized swimming pool was perfectly designed for the storage of one drop of water.

Quite easy to imagine a world with significantly more life exists, many orders of magnitude more.

If only imagination were 'proof'.
When it comes to Christians and the Bible, you'd think it was.

And if you came across a perfectly shaped swimming pool ... who in their right mind would thing ... agh, the wind did that?
And what about the shape of a swimming pool, would make it "perfect"? (The fact that you keep skirting that question is quite telling.)

Statistics clearly states that its FAR more likely that a perfectly formed swimming poll was engineered and build. So when you take the position that it happened naturally? That is a rather extraordinary claim is it not?
Once again; what about the shape of a swimming pool, would make it "perfect"? And what about a universe would make that universe "just right"?
You KNOW the answer. And you KNOW that the answer reveals your subjective bias. That's why you don't answer. So you already know that you're wrong, but you won't admit it.

Saying that one can imagine it happening is hardly convincing arguementation, and indeed does absolutely nothing to address the basis of inductive logic - the FAR more probable explanation against ... the imaginary one?
There is no universe which is statistically more probable than any other possible universe. Care to address that?

Again, I keep seeing Beasty preaching that the statistical model has been disproven, but there is simply no disproof. No explanation of an alternative based on anything other than ... imagination.
I've never once said anything about the statistical model being disproved. I'm simply explaining what it says and what it means. You don't understand it, but you insist it supports your stance. It doesn't.
There are more number cards in a deck than face cards (yes, since you're playing retard when it comes to potential universe configurations, we'll take it down to something you might actually be able to understand). Does that mean that if you draw a face card randomly, that the odds of picking that card were other than 52 to 1?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 1:57:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

I understand your difficulties, but the question is incredibly relevent.
Your inability to recognise that is a very big part of your problems and the reason you continually fail in any and all of your attempts at "intelligent" discourse.

Are you claiming that your god is incapable of creating a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 2:22:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

Isn't it terrible how insulting and nasty bulproof can be? Maybe you should start two or three (more) threads on the issue, while pretending to be innocent of instigating the problem.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 2:50:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:53:24 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:35:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/28/2014 8:21:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/28/2014 7:31:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
Intelligent Design Is Only Theism

It has been scientifically and judicially refuted. It relies upon the subjective opinion that this universe is somehow "better" than any alternative universe, simply because fragile, cabon-based life forms have managed to live in at least one very tiny, insignificant speck of a planet, in a tiny solar system, which is one of some 200 billion such solar systems in the same galaxy, which is one of over 200 billion such galaxies in the universe.

It's like a bacteria who believes that because he can exist in a microscopic skin flake, under a hair, on the scalp of a sleeping human, that it indicates that the human was "designed" specifically so that it could survive.

This is the epitome of theistic conceit and human self-worship.

Or the Olympic sized swimming pool was perfectly designed for the storage of one drop of water.

Quite easy to imagine a world with significantly more life exists, many orders of magnitude more.

If only imagination were 'proof'.
When it comes to Christians and the Bible, you'd think it was.

UNless of course you actualloy read it and the supporting academic works. If not, I can see how the embrace of sheer ignorance might influence that statement.


And if you came across a perfectly shaped swimming pool ... who in their right mind would thing ... agh, the wind did that?
And what about the shape of a swimming pool, would make it "perfect"? (The fact that you keep skirting that question is quite telling.)


Perhaps you should ask Envy that question?

Lets hope you have something other than silly claims and semantics? As usual though, that does not appear to be the case.

A statistics based case that refutes the math? Noticeably lacking in your 'proof'.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:00:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:57:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

I understand your difficulties, but the question is incredibly relevent.
Your inability to recognise that is a very big part of your problems and the reason you continually fail in any and all of your attempts at "intelligent" discourse.

Are you claiming that your god is incapable of creating a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

Go f*ck yourself.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:01:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 2:22:18 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

Isn't it terrible how insulting and nasty bulproof can be? Maybe you should start two or three (more) threads on the issue, while pretending to be innocent of instigating the problem.

Why don;t you explain what the hell a universe made up of diamonds has to do with this discussion?

I realize you tend toward the extremist support network, but I refuse to treat bulproof like a rational human being - he simply is not one of them. That he agrees with you? That would be a strike against him brother.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:17:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:01:53 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 2:22:18 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

Isn't it terrible how insulting and nasty bulproof can be? Maybe you should start two or three (more) threads on the issue, while pretending to be innocent of instigating the problem.

Why don;t you explain what the hell a universe made up of diamonds has to do with this discussion?
It would be one possible configuration.

But what isn't a possible configuration is a universe which would be "just right".

I realize you tend toward the extremist support network
No, i simply disagree with the mindless herd mentality.

but I refuse to treat bulproof like a rational human being - he simply is not one of them.
And what might exemplify your idea of a rational human being; one who continually shrinks away from answering what properties makes a universe "just right", and why? Or might you agree with me that such behavior demonstrates that someone knows they're wrong, but simply can't bring themselves to admit it?

That he agrees with you? That would be a strike against him brother.
According to you; who evades questions - the answers to which demonstrate the failure of your argument?

Bulproof can be irritating, cuttingly clever, poignant, sophomoric, insulting, evasive, and dead-on right. I seriously think what bothers you the most about him is how often he's correct, and likes to rub it in. But you invite that because you refuse to admit when you're wrong, even when it's obvious that you know you are.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:22:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:01:53 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 2:22:18 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

Isn't it terrible how insulting and nasty bulproof can be? Maybe you should start two or three (more) threads on the issue, while pretending to be innocent of instigating the problem.

Why don;t you explain what the hell a universe made up of diamonds has to do with this discussion?

I realize you tend toward the extremist support network, but I refuse to treat bulproof like a rational human being - he simply is not one of them. That he agrees with you? That would be a strike against him brother.

It is all about your statistical prognostications.
What is the statistical likelihood of such a universe existing?
You claim that our universe is impossible without someone's god creating it.
When questioned about a universe of intelligent diamonds you reject it and consider the idea pure nonsense.
From this we must, of necessity, deduce that this god you claim created this universe would be simply incapable of creating the diamond universe.
Why would you proffer such a position?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:30:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:17:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:01:53 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 2:22:18 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

Isn't it terrible how insulting and nasty bulproof can be? Maybe you should start two or three (more) threads on the issue, while pretending to be innocent of instigating the problem.

Why don;t you explain what the hell a universe made up of diamonds has to do with this discussion?
It would be one possible configuration.

But what isn't a possible configuration is a universe which would be "just right".

I realize you tend toward the extremist support network
No, i simply disagree with the mindless herd mentality.

but I refuse to treat bulproof like a rational human being - he simply is not one of them.
And what might exemplify your idea of a rational human being; one who continually shrinks away from answering what properties makes a universe "just right", and why? Or might you agree with me that such behavior demonstrates that someone knows they're wrong, but simply can't bring themselves to admit it?

That he agrees with you? That would be a strike against him brother.
According to you; who evades questions - the answers to which demonstrate the failure of your argument?

Bulproof can be irritating, cuttingly clever, poignant, sophomoric, insulting, evasive, and dead-on right. I seriously think what bothers you the most about him is how often he's correct, and likes to rub it in. But you invite that because you refuse to admit when you're wrong, even when it's obvious that you know you are.

So who is avoiding question Beasty?

There are two there staring you in the face.

#1 - please exlain the utterly inane comment about a diamond universe and how its relevant to anything at all please.

#2 - why anyone should engage bulproof and his chronic victimization/serial flame bait or pretend that irrelevant questions are anything other than sheer stupidity?

Feel free to answer some questions of you own.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:31:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:22:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:01:53 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 2:22:18 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

Isn't it terrible how insulting and nasty bulproof can be? Maybe you should start two or three (more) threads on the issue, while pretending to be innocent of instigating the problem.

Why don;t you explain what the hell a universe made up of diamonds has to do with this discussion?

I realize you tend toward the extremist support network, but I refuse to treat bulproof like a rational human being - he simply is not one of them. That he agrees with you? That would be a strike against him brother.

It is all about your statistical prognostications.
What is the statistical likelihood of such a universe existing?
You claim that our universe is impossible without someone's god creating it.
When questioned about a universe of intelligent diamonds you reject it and consider the idea pure nonsense.
From this we must, of necessity, deduce that this god you claim created this universe would be simply incapable of creating the diamond universe.
Why would you proffer such a position?

Go f*ck yourself.

Please stop stalking me. I have no desire to engage you. Period.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:43:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:30:39 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:17:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:01:53 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 2:22:18 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:47:17 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 1:39:10 AM, bulproof wrote:

What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?

The stalker is back with another totally irrelvant point.

Is go f*ck yourself clear enough for you?

Isn't it terrible how insulting and nasty bulproof can be? Maybe you should start two or three (more) threads on the issue, while pretending to be innocent of instigating the problem.

Why don;t you explain what the hell a universe made up of diamonds has to do with this discussion?
It would be one possible configuration.

But what isn't a possible configuration is a universe which would be "just right".

I realize you tend toward the extremist support network
No, i simply disagree with the mindless herd mentality.

but I refuse to treat bulproof like a rational human being - he simply is not one of them.
And what might exemplify your idea of a rational human being; one who continually shrinks away from answering what properties makes a universe "just right", and why? Or might you agree with me that such behavior demonstrates that someone knows they're wrong, but simply can't bring themselves to admit it?

That he agrees with you? That would be a strike against him brother.
According to you; who evades questions - the answers to which demonstrate the failure of your argument?

Bulproof can be irritating, cuttingly clever, poignant, sophomoric, insulting, evasive, and dead-on right. I seriously think what bothers you the most about him is how often he's correct, and likes to rub it in. But you invite that because you refuse to admit when you're wrong, even when it's obvious that you know you are.

So who is avoiding question Beasty?

There are two there staring you in the face.

#1 - please exlain the utterly inane comment about a diamond universe and how its relevant to anything at all please.

#2 - why anyone should engage bulproof and his chronic victimization/serial flame bait or pretend that irrelevant questions are anything other than sheer stupidity?

Feel free to answer some questions of you own.

Now see? A rational person understands the difference between asking someone a question numerous time and them evading the question, and someone simply being asked a question once, and answering it once. And in all actuality, I just answered your first question. And I also answered the two questions you left last night. Unlike you, I have no need to run from any of your questions.

But you're not behaving like a rational person, and you STILL refuse to answer my questions. As I've stated before; that shows that you realize you're wrong. And if you answer my questions, you'll have to admit that you're wrong. So you continue to pose and posture as though you think you're right, all-the-while demonstrating that you realize you're wrong.

#1: A diamond universe would be one potential universe out of all of the potential universe configurations, just as is this configuration. But no one is suggesting that the diamond universe is "just right".

#2: Because while bulproof sometimes just snaps back with a response which doesn't address the question because he knows the person he's debating is beyond any form of rational discourse, he tends to at least make sense with the responses that he provides. In contrast, no one should really attempt to engage in discussion with you as though you were a reasonable person, because the moment you start to realize you can't support your assertions, you become palpably angry, abusive, evasive and - in all honesty - behave rather alike a spoiled 14-year old girl. And even when you know you're wrong, you'll continually avoid answering questions which lead you to admitting that reality.

So... do you intend to continue evading my rational questions, or are you going to continue trying to bluff your way through like a menopausal donkey with PMS?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:47:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:43:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

#1: A diamond universe would be one potential universe out of all of the potential universe configurations, just as is this configuration. But no one is suggesting that the diamond universe is "just right".

A diamond universe could not create life could it. Niether could any of the other alternatives of too much or too little gravity.

A universe made of jello could not support life or any number of alternatives. Why mention any of them at all rather than address the probability at the basis of the proof?

Either a person does not understand or is just being dishonest, correct?

#2: Because while bulproof sometimes just snaps back with a response which doesn't address the question because he knows the person he's debating is beyond any form of rational discourse, he tends to at least make sense with the responses that he provides. In contrast, no one should really attempt to engage in discussion with you as though you were a reasonable person, because the moment you start to realize you can't support your assertions, you become palpably angry, abusive, evasive and - in all honesty - behave rather alike a spoiled 14-year old girl. And even when you know you're wrong, you'll continually avoid answering questions which lead you to admitting that reality.


And that is what we call balming the victim. Its not klike bulproof's antics have no lasted months and months. And as you can see, I have no problem answering questions - just not to an abusive stalker twit.

Your claim = the opposite in reality. That seems to be a problem for the extremist support network and its claims.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:06:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:47:07 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:43:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

#1: A diamond universe would be one potential universe out of all of the potential universe configurations, just as is this configuration. But no one is suggesting that the diamond universe is "just right".

A diamond universe could not create life could it. Niether could any of the other alternatives of too much or too little gravity.
Why is creating life so important? Why is it more important than creating diamonds or endless regions of homogenous space-time? Why is any one, better or more preferable than any other one?

A universe made of jello could not support life or any number of alternatives. Why mention any of them at all rather than address the probability at the basis of the proof?
Once again, why is the ability to support life preferable or superior? Is it because you're alive and you think you're more important than the whole of the universe? By the way, a universe made of Jello would contain gelatin which is a product of carbon-based animal biology. (The main ingredient in Jell-O - aside from sugar - is boiled out of hides and animal bones.)

Either a person does not understand or is just being dishonest, correct?
And in your case, it's pretty obvious that you're just being dishonest. So why try to continue the facade?

#2: Because while bulproof sometimes just snaps back with a response which doesn't address the question because he knows the person he's debating is beyond any form of rational discourse, he tends to at least make sense with the responses that he provides. In contrast, no one should really attempt to engage in discussion with you as though you were a reasonable person, because the moment you start to realize you can't support your assertions, you become palpably angry, abusive, evasive and - in all honesty - behave rather alike a spoiled 14-year old girl. And even when you know you're wrong, you'll continually avoid answering questions which lead you to admitting that reality.


And that is what we call balming the victim.
I don't happen to see bulproof as the victim, though it is clear you try to make him the victim. Do you see him as the victim? I was victimized by you from the very first time I encountered you and one of the first encounters I had with other atheists here was in the form of messages letting me know that you behave that way with everyone with whom you disagree. You're claiming that you're "better" than bulproof. You're not. While he can be just as abrasive, at least he's rational in his serious replies. And since this is supposed to be adult debate, when you're intentionally irrational, you're not behaving in the context of the forum.

Its not klike bulproof's antics have no lasted months and months. And as you can see, I have no problem answering questions - just not to an abusive stalker twit.
Nor is it like you've ever changed. In my first encounter with you, you tried to claim that I didn't know what I was talking about, then tried to claim, my knowledge came from atheist websites, then insisted I was wrong about the author of "Did Jesus Exist", and continued to insist that, despite having a second person correct you, right up until I sent you a link to the book at Amazon. And you NEVER did apologize for continually calling me a liar. So in what way do you see yourself as better than bulproof?

And why do you think you're not afraid to answer questions? You STILL haven't explained why a universe which can host life is better than one which can't.

Your claim = the opposite in reality. That seems to be a problem for the extremist support network and its claims.
The extremist is the one who holds devout beliefs devoid of evidence. That would be you.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:29:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:06:20 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:47:07 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:43:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

#1: A diamond universe would be one potential universe out of all of the potential universe configurations, just as is this configuration. But no one is suggesting that the diamond universe is "just right".

A diamond universe could not create life could it. Niether could any of the other alternatives of too much or too little gravity.
Why is creating life so important? Why is it more important than creating diamonds or endless regions of homogenous space-time? Why is any one, better or more preferable than any other one?

A universe made of jello could not support life or any number of alternatives. Why mention any of them at all rather than address the probability at the basis of the proof?
Once again, why is the ability to support life preferable or superior? Is it because you're alive and you think you're more important than the whole of the universe? By the way, a universe made of Jello would contain gelatin which is a product of carbon-based animal biology. (The main ingredient in Jell-O - aside from sugar - is boiled out of hides and animal bones.)

Either a person does not understand or is just being dishonest, correct?
And in your case, it's pretty obvious that you're just being dishonest. So why try to continue the facade?

#2: Because while bulproof sometimes just snaps back with a response which doesn't address the question because he knows the person he's debating is beyond any form of rational discourse, he tends to at least make sense with the responses that he provides. In contrast, no one should really attempt to engage in discussion with you as though you were a reasonable person, because the moment you start to realize you can't support your assertions, you become palpably angry, abusive, evasive and - in all honesty - behave rather alike a spoiled 14-year old girl. And even when you know you're wrong, you'll continually avoid answering questions which lead you to admitting that reality.


And that is what we call balming the victim.
I don't happen to see bulproof as the victim, though it is clear you try to make him the victim. Do you see him as the victim? I was victimized by you from the very first time I encountered you and one of the first encounters I had with other atheists here was in the form of messages letting me know that you behave that way with everyone with whom you disagree. You're claiming that you're "better" than bulproof. You're not. While he can be just as abrasive, at least he's rational in his serious replies. And since this is supposed to be adult debate, when you're intentionally irrational, you're not behaving in the context of the forum.

Its not klike bulproof's antics have no lasted months and months. And as you can see, I have no problem answering questions - just not to an abusive stalker twit.
Nor is it like you've ever changed. In my first encounter with you, you tried to claim that I didn't know what I was talking about, then tried to claim, my knowledge came from atheist websites, then insisted I was wrong about the author of "Did Jesus Exist", and continued to insist that, despite having a second person correct you, right up until I sent you a link to the book at Amazon. And you NEVER did apologize for continually calling me a liar. So in what way do you see yourself as better than bulproof?

And why do you think you're not afraid to answer questions? You STILL haven't explained why a universe which can host life is better than one which can't.

Becaus the proof is about a universe THAT CAN CREATE and SUSTAIN life.

Semantic BS as usual. Can't beat it? Strawman it.


Your claim = the opposite in reality. That seems to be a problem for the extremist support network and its claims.
The extremist is the one who holds devout beliefs devoid of evidence. That would be you.

Wow, thanks for proving that you are an extremist with a grudge.

Not only are you avoiding the 'diamond' universe, you are calling me a liar based .... your claim that you have read all manner of books, whose contents you cannot speak of with any level of intelligence?

You have been specifically challenged to explain just ONE of those works, by Lee Stroebel, and explain how you could read it - the story of ajournalist examining the evidnece you don't claim exists - who finds it so convincing that he drops being an atheist and converts to Christianity.

You come away from that 'convinced' that there is 'no evidence' for reasons you 'cannot explain' and indeed will not explain.

Somehow that makes me a liar when you cannot do that?

And its relevant several months later to yet another question you are being asked? Where is your statitical analysis of the naturalistic universe? the disproof you claim?

In short Beasty, it is you that keeps getting caught lying - and in typicla extremist support network behavior, when you cannot actuallu support your position you resort to character assassination.

That you find yourself defending an abusive stalker should give you pause. That it does not tell us much about your 'honor'.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:29:52 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 4:06:20 AM, Beastt wrote:

And why do you think you're not afraid to answer questions? You STILL haven't explained why a universe which can host life is better than one which can't.

Becaus the proof is about a universe THAT CAN CREATE and SUSTAIN life.
"The proof"? The proof of what? There is no metric for what makes a "better" universe, Neutral. There's only your subjective standards, based on your self-centered interests.

Semantic BS as usual. Can't beat it? Strawman it.
And this kind of crap from you is why you get treated as you do, and why you deserve every single bit of it.


Your claim = the opposite in reality. That seems to be a problem for the extremist support network and its claims.
The extremist is the one who holds devout beliefs devoid of evidence. That would be you.

Wow, thanks for proving that you are an extremist with a grudge.
And this is just more of your standard 12-year old with an 8-year old's mentality rhetoric. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're trying to discuss.

Not only are you avoiding the 'diamond' universe, you are calling me a liar based .... your claim that you have read all manner of books, whose contents you cannot speak of with any level of intelligence?
And yet I do. The problem is that you haven't read them, nor have you read any such collection of books which might allow you to recognize how wrong you are, and how right I - and others here - tend to be. You STILL can't grasp that an "atheist" is. You STILL can't grasp that big-bang WAS NOT an explosion. You still can't grasp that what you need for your pathetic little life is nothing more than a self-centered subjective view of what makes a universe "better", "preferable" or "superior" to any other.

You have been specifically challenged to explain just ONE of those works, by Lee Stroebel, and explain how you could read it - the story of ajournalist examining the evidnece you don't claim exists - who finds it so convincing that he drops being an atheist and converts to Christianity.
And my interest here is not to provide you with a book report for the only one of those books you appear to have read, so that you can disagree because you assess everything according to your subjective desires.

You come away from that 'convinced' that there is 'no evidence' for reasons you 'cannot explain' and indeed will not explain.
And I've started several threads here which confirmed that - threads in which you participated, and still couldn't provide any objective evidence.

Somehow that makes me a liar when you cannot do that?
it makes you a liar when you lie - like when you insist that G A Wells didn't write a book titled "Did Jesus Exist", and continue to repeat that lie, after you've been corrected, and compound that lie even further when you add more blatantly false assertions and never - not once - have you ever admitted you were wrong, or apologized for making false allegations. That's childish and immature.

And its relevant several months later to yet another question you are being asked? Where is your statitical analysis of the naturalistic universe? the disproof you claim?
Are you COMPLETELY brain dead! How many times does one have to explain to you, that I NEVER claimed to have disproved any statistical model. I SIMPLY EXPLAINED THAT MODEL TO YOU! I demonstrated that it doesn't say what you claim it says. And I corrected you on that in the past 2-hours, and yet here you are repeating the same false claim YET AGAIN! And this is why bulproof takes continual jabs at you, and why nearly everyone here cheers him on for doing so. Because you're an irrational idiot, and never seem to realize that being an irrational idiot, never gets you what you seem to want, yet you continue doing the same thing, and receiving the same results.

Face it, Neutral. You're intellectually out-gunned here. Not a little. Not just to a level which is significant. But DRAMATICALLY out-gunned. You're an absolute idiot, even compared to some of the least intellectually capable members here. And each time you have the opportunity to learn, and to start to correct the problems you cause for yourself, you instead repeat your same stupidity, refuse to EVER admit when you're wrong, and thus deserve every iota of abuse you receive here - AND MORE!

In short Beasty, it is you that keeps getting caught lying - and in typicla extremist support network behavior, when you cannot actuallu support your position you resort to character assassination.
You have NEVER caught me in a lie, because I don't lie. I have no need to lie. The truth works far too well to ever want to try to lie. And it kicks you in the A5S time, after time, after time!

That you find yourself defending an abusive stalker should give you pause. That it does not tell us much about your 'honor'.
Means a lot coming from a confessed murderer who rates his murderous actions as "honorable". Crawl away, Neutral.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:11:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:51:06 AM, Beastt wrote:


Semantic BS as usual. Can't beat it? Strawman it.
And this kind of crap from you is why you get treated as you do, and why you deserve every single bit of it.


Actually, THERE is the problem.

You continuously looking for an excuse to 'treat' people a certain way.

So let's back up extremist. Who started this thread? And the claim, totally unsupported, is that the fine tuned universe is fully disprove? And disproven by ...? Nothing.

When people don;t fall in line with your Nazist approach to discussion, you have 'an excuse' to 'treat' them in a manner that violates the forum rules.

As we can see:

#1 - You add nothing of substance about the topic of your choosing - disproving the Fine Tuned Universe theory (diamond universe that cannot support life as a possibility does absolutely nothing to disprove that theory).

#2 - You still haven't mentioned a damned thing about Lee Stroebel. For some reason though, people are expected to believe you read it when you claims are fundamentally opposing the claims of the book? Its not like you've not had months to offer up a critique of the book and utterly failed now is it? Yet you take this 'knowledge' and brow beat people for not reading ... right up until someone asks you why you think there is 'no evidence' in the book that drove a journalist to convert? Suddenly, you have an excuse to 'treat' people poorly?

Again, we can conclude from this extremist support network advertisement that all you are really doing is asking people to disagree with them so you can insult them, correct?

Not like there is a lot of 'evidence' or discussion flowing even in the topics of your choosing.
bulproof
Posts: 25,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:24:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
bulproof asked:
What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?
newt accused Beastt:
#1 - You add nothing of substance about the topic of your choosing - disproving the Fine Tuned Universe theory (diamond universe that cannot support life as a possibility does absolutely nothing to disprove that theory).

Is there anybody capable of connecting this nonsense?

I'm convinced that newt can't. (cue playgrond response)
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:27:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
bulproof asked:
What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?
newt accused Beastt:
#1 - You add nothing of substance about the topic of your choosing - disproving the Fine Tuned Universe theory (diamond universe that cannot support life as a possibility does absolutely nothing to disprove that theory).

Is there anybody capable of connecting this nonsense?

I'm convinced that newt can't. (cue playgrond response)

Go f*ck yourself.
bulproof
Posts: 25,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:32:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 5:27:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:24:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
bulproof asked:
What is the statiscal likelihood of a universe consisting of intelligent diamonds?
newt accused Beastt:
#1 - You add nothing of substance about the topic of your choosing - disproving the Fine Tuned Universe theory (diamond universe that cannot support life as a possibility does absolutely nothing to disprove that theory).

Is there anybody capable of connecting this nonsense?

I'm convinced that newt can't. (cue playgrond response)

Go f*ck yourself.

(cue playgrond response)
BillsaClone
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 6:33:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, it seems that just because humans find themselves amazed by the wonders of nature, that there must be a creative force which "caused" it? It is postulated that this cause is "god"! Yet in the Christian scriptures there are things which there is no record of "god" creating! Indeed things which were pre-existent to such creation, and possibly pre-existent to such "god"!

At 9/28/2014 8:21:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/28/2014 7:31:54 PM, Beastt wrote:
Intelligent Design Is Only Theism

It has been scientifically and judicially refuted. It relies upon the subjective opinion that this universe is somehow "better" than any alternative universe, simply because fragile, cabon-based life forms have managed to live in at least one very tiny, insignificant speck of a planet, in a tiny solar system, which is one of some 200 billion such solar systems in the same galaxy, which is one of over 200 billion such galaxies in the universe.

It's like a bacteria who believes that because he can exist in a microscopic skin flake, under a hair, on the scalp of a sleeping human, that it indicates that the human was "designed" specifically so that it could survive.

This is the epitome of theistic conceit and human self-worship.

Or the Olympic sized swimming pool was perfectly designed for the storage of one drop of water.

Quite easy to imagine a world with significantly more life exists, many orders of magnitude more.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 6:43:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 5:32:52 AM, bulproof wrote:

(cue playgrond response)

Hmmm .... someone doe snot want to communicate with me ... lets follow them around and demand answers to inane, non-relevant questions,and then scream that we are being flame baited all because I am abusive and cannot stay away.

F*ck off bully boy. There are plenty of other people on this forum for you to abuse and play victim too. A few them actually treat you seriously - I cannot, and will not.
bulproof
Posts: 25,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:33:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
LET"S ANALYSE this

At 9/29/2014 6:43:30 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:32:52 AM, bulproof wrote:

(cue playgrond response)
confirmed
Hmmm .... someone doe snot want to communicate with me
If that was the case he wouldn't post in a public forum, so not true.
... lets follow them around and demand answers
No bul hasn't demanded anything. This must be a serious delusion?
to inane,
No inane question were asked by bul. Perhaps more delusion?
non-relevant questions,
Once again all of bul's questions have been extremely relevant and very pointedly difficult to answer. Just more delusion?
and then scream that we are being flame baited
Well we can see that this is most certainly delusion.
all because I am abusive
All the readers are more than capable of recognising where the abuse originates and it's not with bul.
and cannot stay away.
Bul is under no obligation to stay away from a public forum, especially not in response to someone elses delusions.
F*ck off bully boy.
Where was that abuse claimed to have originated?
There are plenty of other people on this forum for you to abuse
As has been shown repeatedly, even under extreme provocation, bul does not succumb to the natural response of returning the abuse.
and play victim too.
There is no evidence of anybody playing victim except of course you.
A few them actually treat you seriously
Those with an ability to think, usually.
- I cannot, and will not.
The corollary may also be true.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:44:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:33:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
LET"S ANALYSE this

At 9/29/2014 6:43:30 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/29/2014 5:32:52 AM, bulproof wrote:

(cue playgrond response)
confirmed
Hmmm .... someone doe snot want to communicate with me
If that was the case he wouldn't post in a public forum, so not true.
... lets follow them around and demand answers
No bul hasn't demanded anything. This must be a serious delusion?
to inane,
No inane question were asked by bul. Perhaps more delusion?
non-relevant questions,
Once again all of bul's questions have been extremely relevant and very pointedly difficult to answer. Just more delusion?
and then scream that we are being flame baited
Well we can see that this is most certainly delusion.
all because I am abusive
All the readers are more than capable of recognising where the abuse originates and it's not with bul.
and cannot stay away.
Bul is under no obligation to stay away from a public forum, especially not in response to someone elses delusions.
F*ck off bully boy.
Where was that abuse claimed to have originated?
There are plenty of other people on this forum for you to abuse
As has been shown repeatedly, even under extreme provocation, bul does not succumb to the natural response of returning the abuse.
and play victim too.
There is no evidence of anybody playing victim except of course you.
A few them actually treat you seriously
Those with an ability to think, usually.
- I cannot, and will not.
The corollary may also be true.

More analysis of a person rather than a subject.

Hence, f*ck off.