263 replies to this topic

[Spademan]

This thread is for deist and libertarians to defend their belief. I'm not interested in posting here to assuage my desire to promote teh funny anymore. I'm not interested in crushing abject idiots. Too few people to observe the conversation for it to be worth it in terms of education.I'm still willing to engage general "deist" and "libertarian" types who might be bright enough to stop being an idiot.BG types need not apply. Brv need not apply, he was already given a chance, said he'd read a book or two - but never did. Henry can save his ideological nonsense. I don't like when people don't make a real effort at discussion - and if you can't read a book or study a link, or are incapable of deviating from your ideology for a discussion, you aren't making an effort that is worth my consideration.For the rest of you: if you consider yourself objective and intelligent, if you consider yourself a critical thinker who is aware of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, a thinker who is familiar with logic and reason... and are still a deist or a libertarian - and want me to put effort into engaging your shit - defend yourself here and I'll engage you openly, honestly and with an effort that borders giving a fuck. Good luck.

[brvheart]

haha.EDIT: I laughed at this even before I saw that I was personally excluded, since even by the title it was obvious that you decided to make this thread for a personal discussion between you and Joey. EDIT2: What books did I say I was going to read? I don't remember that. DJ Vu: search help!?

[DJ Vu]

brvheart, on Saturday, January 14th, 2012, 7:36 AM, said:

haha.EDIT: I laughed at this even before I saw that I was personally excluded, since even by the title it was obvious that you decided to make this thread for a personal discussion between you and Joey. EDIT2: What books did I say I was going to read? I don't remember that. DJ Vu: search help!?

Leviticus.Is this thread for me? I'm not sure I have all the necessary qualifications.

[brvheart]

DJ Vu, on Monday, January 16th, 2012, 10:27 AM, said:

Leviticus.Is this thread for me? I'm not sure I have all the necessary qualifications.

1. ?? I've read Leviticus tons of times. I think you are remembering BaseJester's plea, not Spade's.2. Yes. Yes, it is. youtube

[Roll the Bones]

Is it either/or? What if you are an athiest libertarian? Are you just looking for religous or is it political discussion as well?

[phlegm]

http://www.bing.com/...b...0&FORM=LKVRshare with your buddies.

[brvheart]

Roll the Bones, on Monday, January 16th, 2012, 3:02 PM, said:

Is it either/or? What if you are an athiest libertarian? Are you just looking for religous or is it political discussion as well?

I believe Spade hates both groups equally.

[timwakefield]

phlegm, on Monday, January 16th, 2012, 5:19 PM, said:

http://www.bing.com/...b...0&FORM=LKVRshare with your buddies.

Well that was unrelated. The Wikipedia page on The Nairobi Trio is both amusing and also a good example of why Wikipedia is unfortunately not a definitive reference site (hint: impartiality, lack of). But any article that practically leads with the sentence, "People in gorilla suits have always been a comedy staple," will keep me reading. Anyway, yes this thread seems custom-fit for JJJ, although possibly people like Randy and Shake could make interesting contributions as well (by "interesting" I mean that I'm interested in seeing spade annihilate libertarianism). Frankly I'd like to see the Henries and brvhearts of the forum get involved too.

[DJ Vu]

What's wrong with you people? I barely even know what deism and libertarianism are and I'm so uninformed and noncommittal about these things that a clever demotivational poster could probably change my mind.

[timwakefield]

DJ Vu, on Monday, January 16th, 2012, 6:09 PM, said:

What's wrong with you people? I barely even know what deism and libertarianism are and I'm so uninformed and noncommittal about these things that a clever demotivational poster could probably change my mind.

Well I thought you leaned toward both of those philosophies, and moreover are "capable of deviating from your ideology for a discussion," and are "familiar with logic and reason," etc.Edit: Clever demotivational posters about libertarianism seem nonexistent. This is the closest I could get. It's got everything but clever.Mildly related, and awesome, and Shelby Fero.

[brvheart]

timwakefield, on Monday, January 16th, 2012, 4:35 PM, said:

Frankly I'd like to see the Henries and brvhearts of the forum get involved too.

All the people that would have posted were eliminated from participation, plus, this particular thread isn't really for me, since I'm not a deist or a libertarian. If Spade makes a new thread titled Jesus And Constitutionalism Defense, let me know.

[brvheart]

timwakefield, on Monday, January 16th, 2012, 7:09 PM, said:

Mildly related, and awesome, and Shelby Fero.

Only one out of three of these things are true.

[timwakefield]

It is undeniably Shelby Fero, and I think it falls within the bounds of being at least mildly related.

[speedz99]

Spademan, on Saturday, January 14th, 2012, 2:32 AM, said:

For the rest of you: if you consider yourself objective and intelligent, if you consider yourself a critical thinker who is aware of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, a thinker who is familiar with logic and reason... and are still a deist or a libertarian - and want me to put effort into engaging your shit - defend yourself here and I'll engage you openly, honestly and with an effort that borders giving a fuck.

It's not 2007 anymore, Spadey. I'm not sure anyone cares all that much about engaging with you about anything.

DJ Vu, on Monday, January 16th, 2012, 3:09 PM, said:

What's wrong with you people? I barely even know what deism and libertarianism are and I'm so uninformed and noncommittal about these things that a clever demotivational poster could probably change my mind.

Well, as for the deism thing, people tend to mistake your forays into the religion forum for an attempt to defend the possibility that there is a "god" as described by people who believe in that kind of thing. I realize you just jump in to argue against weak arguments, but you do tend to side with the religious folk.

[DJ Vu]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 9:27 AM, said:

Well, as for the deism thing, people tend to mistake your forays into the religion forum for an attempt to defend the possibility that there is a "god" as described by people who believe in that kind of thing. I realize you just jump in to argue against weak arguments, but you do tend to side with the religious folk.

I think I said my beliefs would probably be closest to deism.From wiki:Deism in religious philosophy is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe.The thing is, I don't think "reason and observation...can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator." My belief is more like, there might be some God out there who got the ball rolling, but I don't think he's some sort of puppetmaster controlling everything on earth.My biggest pet peeve when it comes to the God arguments are the ones that talk about the motivations or feelings of "God." Or limiting what an all-powerful and omniscient being would or wouldn't do.I guess I don't think there is proof that a God exists, but I'm not sure there is proof that one doesn't exist either and given the choice between the two, I just like the idea of one existing, even as it doesn't intervene in human affairs in any way.So I'm not really sure there's much for me and Spadey to discuss unless he wants to prove to me that a God cannot exist.Edit: Me and Spadey had a similar discussion starting here. He might not realize that was me because it was two names ago.

[brvheart]

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 11:40 AM, said:

Edit: Me and Spadey had a similar discussion starting here. He might not realize that was me because it was two names ago.

Oh crap. I think you just found the thread where I said I would read some books. I haven't found my posts yet, but I remember being directed to that video of that dude that was supposedly a Christian and then converted, and Spade said something about some books he read or something. I have a terrible memory.EDIT: I just ordered The Jesus Puzzle and A History of God from Amazon.

[DJ Vu]

brvheart, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 6:04 AM, said:

Also, I didn't see VB's video. Do you have a list of these books I should read? I'm interested.

Spademan, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 6:26 AM, said:

Watch the video's, they're well presented and should be of interest to believers and non-believers alike.

brvheart, on Friday, April 1st, 2011, 9:59 PM, said:

Spade, please give me some book titles. I don't have the links to any videos, and you certainly know which books I should read. If you tell me the titles, I will read the books. Scouts honor. (limited to 15 books for 2011.)

Spademan, on Saturday, April 2nd, 2011, 1:02 AM, said:

http://www.youtube.c...0C3C1D163BE880A is the first video of the series. If you're willing to put in the time and effort to read up to 15 books, watching an hour or so of a guy who, in a really non-confrontational way describes how he went from ardent believer to non-believer shouldn't be too much to ask. The books he discusses near the end of the series, "A History of God", and the rest, are what I'm talking about. Watch the video's first. They might even strengthen your faith, who knows.

brvheart, on Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 7:52 AM, said:

Ok, will do.

[Roll the Bones]

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 12:40 PM, said:

I think I said my beliefs would probably be closest to deism.From wiki:Deism in religious philosophy is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe.The thing is, I don't think "reason and observation...can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator." My belief is more like, there might be some God out there who got the ball rolling, but I don't think he's some sort of puppetmaster controlling everything on earth.My biggest pet peeve when it comes to the God arguments are the ones that talk about the motivations or feelings of "God." Or limiting what an all-powerful and omniscient being would or wouldn't do.I guess I don't think there is proof that a God exists, but I'm not sure there is proof that one doesn't exist either and given the choice between the two, I just like the idea of one existing, even as it doesn't intervene in human affairs in any way.So I'm not really sure there's much for me and Spadey to discuss unless he wants to prove to me that a God cannot exist.Edit: Me and Spadey had a similar discussion starting here. He might not realize that was me because it was two names ago.

This doesn't definatively explain it, but it goes a long way elaborating on Hawking's Weak Anthropic Principle,http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/145162445XA Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing Lawrence Krauss’s provocative answers to these and other timeless questions in a wildly popular lecture now on YouTube have attracted almost a million viewers. The last of these questions in particular has been at the center of religious and philosophical debates about the existence of God, and it’s the supposed counterargument to anyone who questions the need for God. As Krauss argues, scientists have, however, historically focused on other, more pressing issues—such as figuring out how the universe actually functions, which can ultimately help us to improve the quality of our lives. Now, in a cosmological story that rivets as it enlightens, pioneering theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explains the groundbreaking new scientific advances that turn the most basic philosophical questions on their heads. One of the few prominent scientists today to have actively crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss reveals that modern science is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing, with surprising and fascinating results. The staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories are all described accessibly in A Universe from Nothing, and they suggest that not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing. With his characteristic wry humor and wonderfully clear explanations, Krauss takes us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end. It will provoke, challenge, and delight readers as it looks at the most basic underpinnings of existence in a whole new way. And this knowledge that our universe will be quite different in the future from today has profound implications and directly affects how we live in the present. As Richard Dawkins has described it: This could potentially be the most important scientific book with implications for supernaturalism since Darwin. A fascinating antidote to outmoded philosophical and religious thinking, A Universe from Nothing is a provocative, game-changing entry into the debate about the existence of God and everything that exists. “Forget Jesus,” Krauss has argued, “the stars died so you could be born.”

[speedz99]

DJ Vu, on Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 9:40 AM, said:

My belief is more like, there might be some God out there who got the ball rolling, but I don't think he's some sort of puppetmaster controlling everything on earth.I guess I don't think there is proof that a God exists, but I'm not sure there is proof that one doesn't exist either and given the choice between the two, I just like the idea of one existing, even as it doesn't intervene in human affairs in any way.

Basically, you're an atheist who hopes he's wrong. I think I'm in a similar place.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, 6:59 PM, said:

Basically, you're an atheist who hopes he's wrong. I think I'm in a similar place.

Any idea on when you want to find out you are wrong?