The worst argument in the world?

[atheistgirl]

Case in point, not a few minutes old:

He’s not alone, either here, or in the wider world. Listen to what some very high powered, respected people are publically proud to declare about ‘‘atheists’’.

‘‘How can you have judgement if you have no faith, and how can I trust you with power, if you don’t pray’’

That’s a kicker argument right there huh?

youtube.com/watch?v=TS2uI7xusPI

Sarah x

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Wait a minute-this is totally wrong anyway! I said, as a thought experiment, specifically NOBODY was in a room-God included, since He would be included in the “Nobody”.

No, that’s a lie. You said “NOBODY, plant, animal, or human”.

That statement implies that you’re only referring to plants, animals, or humans. You’re not referring to Deities. Or even Cherubim and Seraphim for that matter.

Furthermore… doesn’t a plant necessarily have to be present when a tree falls? There’s a tree.

Furthermore… it is impossible to find a room that God is not in. That is heresy even for a “thought experiment” because that would be an experiment in which you are thinking of a room that God is not in. That is impossible. I cannot imagine a room that God is not in because He is in any room I could possibly imagine.

I’ve had enough of the Apologetics- Philosophy sub-forum. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “I don’t have to answer hypothetical questions”.
Mark Anthony:

This is totally wrong anyways

Not morally wrong. I think it’s morally wrong to even make up hypothetical questions which do away with God. God is omnipresent in all realms. Even hypothetical realms.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Okay, first off, I’m not sure why you felt the need to make a sarcastic response to my first post anyway. It’s just a dumb question.

No, that’s a lie. You said “NOBODY, plant, animal, or human”.

That statement implies that you’re only referring to plants, animals, or humans. You’re not referring to Deities. Or even Cherubim and Seraphim for that matter.

Not really. I said “nobody”, meaning nobody, and used “plants, animals, and humans” as examples, not as the only things that aren’t present.

Furthermore… doesn’t a plant necessarily have to be present when a tree falls? There’s a tree.

This isn’t worth responding to.

Furthermore… it is impossible to find a room that God is not in. That is heresy even for a “thought experiment” because that would be an experiment in which you are thinking of a room that God is not in. That is impossible. I cannot imagine a room that God is not in because He is in any room I could possibly imagine.

I’ve had enough of the Apologetics- Philosophy sub-forum. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “I don’t have to answer hypothetical questions”.

Not morally wrong. I think it’s morally wrong to even make up hypothetical questions which do away with God. God is omnipresent in all realms. Even hypothetical realms.

Good bye, then. I’m not really sure what to say. Your response doesn’t really offer any decent objections to anything I said except that what I said was somehow heresy.

Actually, you came so far from understanding what the point of me posting that little room example was that I doubt anything I could say would do anything towards showing you its actual relevance.

 

[markeverett49]

H
What Stove argued against is what he might have described as ‘social darwinism’ probably better described now as evolutionary psychology. Plenty of contentious stuff in that area, but it doesn’t detract from evolution itself.

I disagree. Darwin himself held it as crucial to his theory that all organisms leave behind as many offspring as possible. This is false (at least so far as humans are concerned.)He also held that infant mortality is always high, which is also false.

Stove also challenges important claims of Trivers and Hamilton, two of the most important neo-Darwinian thinkers around. Conversely, NONE of his claims (-in that ten item list) are directed against arguments advanced by Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer.

 

[Bradski]

I disagree. Darwin himself held it as crucial to his theory that all organisms leave behind as many offspring as possible. This is false (at least so far as humans are concerned.)He also held that infant mortality is always high, which is also false.

It is false as far as humans go. We aren’t, as ‘masters of our own domain’ necessarily bound by the dictates of evolution.

IStove also challenges important claims of Trivers and Hamilton, two of the most important neo-Darwinian thinkers around. Conversely, NONE of his claims (-in that ten item list) are directed against arguments advanced by Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer.

He has a few quibbles with ‘Darwinism’ which is not another way of describing the theory of evolution. Stove doesn’t have a problem with evolution itself. I don’t think it would be valid to make that suggestion.

 

[markeverett49]

It is false as far as humans go. We aren’t, as ‘masters of our own domain’ necessarily bound by the dictates of evolution.

He has a few quibbles with ‘Darwinism’ which is not another way of describing the theory of evolution. Stove doesn’t have a problem with evolution itself. I don’t think it would be valid to make that suggestion.

Both of these claims are problematic. First, we ARE ‘bound by the dictates of evolution.’ At least, that’s the theory. There’s no ‘get out of evolution free card’ for humans. Second, Stove thought that something like evolution must be true but at the same time he pointed out that several key tenets of Darwinism are obviously false. When several key tenets of a theory are demonstrably false, the theory needs revision. You just can’t keep claiming that ‘infant mortality is always high’ and ‘all organisms have as many offspring as possible’ when you know both are false in regard to humans (-and may be false by other species too) . The ENGINE of evolution is the struggle for survival brought on by an increase in population overwhelming a limited food supply. It’s part of the theory that that is how it always is, but we KNOW it isn’t always like that. So the claim is false.