My thoughts...

Upon reading another atheism =/= nihilism post on Google+ I responded with the following, I think, perhaps for the first time ever, I've managed to capture a big part of why I think the way I do about gods etc. I thought I'd post it here to share:

---

Here's a fun fact, none of what any human has ever done will have any lasting impact in the reality in which we find ourselves.

The greatest artwork will fade.
The most profound thoughts ever written will crumble and rot.
The most fantastic music will fall silent.
The most brilliant cities will fall to dust.

Our planet will eventually be destroyed by the very thing which allows our existence...

In the long run, literally everything of this planet will have been wiped from reality, to be consumed by the vast cosmos.

However, that does not mean we cannot enjoy being here, it does not preclude that we can love one another in our brief lives.

That we can laugh, sing and dream, we are so very very fortunate that we have this chance, that we are here and that we can shape our lives is the greatest fortune.

As an individual, as a person I hope to have every conceivable enjoyment during my brief existence, and I hope that I can help others have that same enjoyment.

To be alive, to think, to feel - every moment of it so precious, is a wonder and just to be here excites me.

I certainly need no god at which to pour my limited time and emotion, I would, in every circumstance rather that my love and attention be given to those around me, that my time is spent enjoying my own life and helping others enjoy theirs.

If I were to waste my efforts and resource on a god I would be doing a disservice to myself and to others.

Continue

I'm right, because I say I'm right!

Another Google plus special review...
Let's crack into it.
From a chap called Adam Dobrin that places the claim: "I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... "
like hundreds of people before him he's seen the pattern that nobody else can see! Better yet he has a 'verifiable pattern' - I'll be sure to undertake a verification of this later.

Adam Posted:

I think I've found a verifiable pattern that links ancient scripture, history, music, and Holy words... I'm very curious what you think. Here, I provide one example, which shows how a song "They Stood Up for Love" by Live ties the word "Menorah" to America's history... specifically the "Sons of Liberty."

It's my contention that this acronym is the "SOL" of God, which Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up. The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women; and this question ties the word Menorah (a light bringing device) to what I've called the Sang Rael--another pattern I'd love some feedback on.

-- edited out link --

I specifically discuss how this might prove the existence of God, by showing us that there is a hidden message that spans from the Bible to modern music--one that the prophets could not have known about, and the musicians of today most likely are going to be surprised to hear .. might be speaking the words of God.

-- edited out link -- talks about how the acronym for SEA shows us that there is a tie between Shekinah (the spirit of God) and "everyone," Holy Water. It ends up ambiguous, leaving the last "A" of SEA as having multiple possible suggestions: Adamah, Allah, etc.  I think the word "allah" leads us, to show that the "AH" in this context is an acronym for "All Humanity" and that this is confirmed strongly by the word Menorah, now a question through time:

Men, or All Humanity?

What do you think of the message?  I find it's existence to be compelling evidence to prove that we are literally the "light" of the Apocalyptic fire... one that might begin with 
-- edited out link --

I've taken out the links to what appears to be his blog, but I will be checking the content myself, I just don't wish to promote what I see as nonsense by linking to it.

---

1st paragraph breakdown:

Regarding the song: "They stood up for love" by Live - released in 2000
Claim: the word menorah (think Jewish Hanukkah...) is in his own words 'specifically tied, to America's history and more specifically to the group "Sons of Liberty"
First point to raise: the song does not include the word menorah. it does contain the word 'candle' but I would argue that a candle is a singular object and a menorah is a very defined thing which in itself cannot simply be called 'a candle'
From this I suggest this point Adam has simply injected a word that he has chosen as 'fitting' with no reason to back why that word is chosen.

P1 Summary:

• The reference word is seemingly chosen at random (or by subjective personal opinion)
• The reference word appears nowhere in the song against which it is referenced
• The 'Sons of Liberty' had no relevancy to either the song, it's lyrics or any form of Jewsih ideology.

---

2nd paragraph breakdown:

I'll start by stating that I personally find it very hard to read this paragraph in a format in which is actually makes sense. So this breakdown is based on how I've understood the details of this paragraph.
The term "acronym SOL of God" makes no sense, the acronym is of Sons of Liberty, and they in themselves have no reference to god, the group was formed in protestation of taxation.
Even if we read the acronym, Sol, commonly refers to the Latin for sun, and if it is related to a god then it is the god Sol a Roman deity, one that pre-dates the god of the Bible. to this end any reference to biblical interpretation is irrelevant.

Live sings he "gave to the one," and that this message, that the word Menorah "reveals" a question intended to be posed through time... to get us to wake up.

The song (and it's lyrics) seem quite intentionally bent toward the Christian ideas, which if my conjecture of Roman deity is even remotely accurate is, as I say, utterly irrelevant.

I would pose that Adam has specifically chosen to observe a song that he has a personal (subjective) affinity toward, which makes the choice of song to be quite ambiguous.
The last part of this details that a 'question' is revealed, however what follows is written as a directive not an inquisitive detail.
moving on the the next part:

The Sons of Liberty didn't really provide that.. specifically to slaves and women;

The Sons of liberty, at least from what I've found, had nothing to do with the 'waking up' of slaves or women, their history is steeped in political unrest and is directly caused by what was seen to be unfair taxation.
I'd like to add I'm presuming that in context the 'waking up' of slaves and women would be the act of emancipation of those parties, or somehow related to their respective freedoms.
In the last part of the 2nd paragraph Adam specifically refers to another hypothesis he's formed to be used as part of the supporting detail to this hypothesis, I would argue this is deliberately obfuscating details by presenting ever more personal and subjective interpretation.

P2 Summary:

• Seemingly random acronym chosen, based on nothing within the referenced song.
• Acronym definition presupposed, there are many other S.O.L acronym meanings.
• Acronym of English language referenced against Jewish concept (English/Hebrew not accounted for)
• Misrepresentation of argument - incorrect details of the Sons of Liberty group intentions.
• Song seems to be chosen based on personal affinity (subjective interpretation)
• Backing up fallacious presentation of details with a further (possibly) fallacious details.
• Possible deliberate obfuscation.

---

3rd Paragraph breakdown:

This paragraph is simply conjecture, it is a paragraph of personal contemplation and offers no basis on verification or even alluding to the format of the pattern that we are to be observing.
Adam does offer in here what appears to be a moment of hesitation or doubt by using the word "might" twice in the paragraph in place of assured words such as "definitively", or "certainly".
"might" Is a term used where one is not sure of that which is being referenced (in this context the reference point is God) it's inconsequential, but I find it amusing that the tone of language has altered from terms such as 'verifiable' (that which can independently and objectively be seen as truthful or accurate) to more vague terminology.

P3 Summary

• Personal conjecture
• Use of vague terminology

---

4th Paragraph breakdown:

This is another self-reference observation, claiming accuracy based on details of a previous assertion that was made and would appear to have equally little validity, is rife with subjective choices and details.
It further muddies the already unclear intention by adding a new deity into the mix (in this paragraph Allah is referred to) which again poses translational issues as Adam continues to reference English language observations, this time based on Arabic original content.
In this paragraph, Adam does however admit that the choice of acronym, and indeed the resultant meaning is one riddled with ambiguity.
It is this last part which I think clearly breaks down any veracity of any propose 'verifiable pattern'
I would propose that for something to be valid, it cannot allow ambiguity.

P4 Summary:

• Additional Obfuscation of original message
• Subjective (personal interpretation) of details.
• Further translational or linguistic barriers (English/Arabic)
• Self admission that there has been personal subjective interpretation and assertion of detail.

---

Wrapping up

I was about to list the various fallacy argument points that Adam has relied upon to act as cranes to his thought process, but instead of listing all the one I possibly could I'll give a few choice ones and link this page: 7 Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation
If I have any closing comment it is that the proposed verifiable pattern is with some certainty simply not present due to the heavy reliance on personal subjective interpretation and detail presentation.

---

Final choices to represent my thoughts on Adam's presented idea:

• Argument by Fast Talking (presenting a lot of detail for the reader to have to read)
• Circular reasoning (enforcing presupposition)
• Cherry Picking
• Etymological Fallacy
• Fallacy of Composition
• Oh.. and Occam's Razor needs to be brought in here too!

Most importantly, I can actually see no presentation of the pattern that Adam is testing and so cannot test it for myself.
As I see it the pattern is:

1. Choose a song (one you like is better)
2. Choose a random item or concept which is easily referable to the Bible, or Qu'ran (do other holy books count?)
3. Form a link for the song and that item/concept - how you go about this is up to you.
4. Choose an article of historical relevance (finding random wiki pages can help with this)
5. Form an acronym based on that historical reference, again what letters you choose here are up to you.
6. Explain how that acronym is intrinsically linked to the song - the reason you give is up to you.
7. Present your findings as proof to something (better to choose a god or other equally deep concept such as Death or single socks missing in the washing machine)

Continue

Occam's - For Shiva Kumar

This post for: Shiva Kumar

I would like to apologize for the length of this post, but I hope to highlight in as simple a way possible my reasoning for arguing against your position.

I remove god from the equation of creation by applying a reasoning tool known as Occam's Razor, I'll try to explain 'my version' of this-

[ link to an article on Occam's Razor here - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam's_razor ]

As I see things you would state that the order of creation is thus:

1. there was nothing
2. there is god
3. god creates everything
4. there is everything

At stage 2, a further question arises: How does god become if before there was nothing? (In addition please see infinite regression and infinite existence notes at the end)

This adds an additional unknown prerequisite before we meet state 3.

So this now becomes.

1. there was nothing
2. god came into being by unknown means
3. there is god
4. god creates our existence by unknown means
5. there is everything

This becomes a more complex idea. If we apply Occam's Razor, which seeks to simplify operations on the grounds that a hypothesis with fewer or simpler assumptions is more direct and therefore considered more accurate.

My argument against

I would then undertake the following simplifications:

1 there was nothing

I would rephrase this to: 1. there was an as yet unknown state
I believe this to be a more accurate statement based on what we can understand based on facts.

Based on everything we as a species have learned, there is nobody alive, nor has there ever been a verifiable historical source with authoritative knowledge of what 'was' or 'was not' before our existence.

2. there is now something

This is observed fact from an anthropological stance, there is observable existence and it follows that based on such fact;- Existence must have come about by some as yet unknown means.

So, and I hope you are following this example so far...

1. there was previous to known existence, an as yet unknown state.
2. there was presumed to have been an as yet unknown event to bring about our existence.
3. there is now existence.

My example includes only 3 stages of variables, where as the version which would include a god figure would have 5 stages of variables.

Additional argument against

I would further reinforce my argument at this point with a reasoning tool known as Newton's flaming laser sword. This states that anything which cannot be settled by experiment is not worthy of debate.

From deistic creation:

• We can test existence as we know it.
• We cannot test a means by which a god figure could begin to be (or to itself exist).
• We cannot test a means by which a deity might 'create' existence as we know it.

In opposition - by way of anthropological deduction:

• We can test existence as we know it.
• By extension: we can, within this existence find testable facts which pertain to the creation of this existence.
• We do not yet understand how existence came into being.

Once again, the arguments which preclude a deity are simpler, and can by Occam's Razor be thought to be more accurate.

Infinite Regression/Existence

This is another application of Occam's Razor-

Where god can be said to have existed outside of our reality (such argument would only further complicates the deistic creation argument) and/or has done so infinitely through all history.

With the same logic (ie that something can exist infinitely) we can posit that existence has been here and/or has been here into infinity of history.

Addendum:

I don't expect that you are willing to simply accept that any of the above should be 'true' however I would ask that you think on what I've written here, there are many resources that you can use to research for yourself.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

If you have any further questions, or wish to talk further on this, you know where to find me!

Continue

Update Time

I've been busy doing other things, and have fallen away from my 'anti-theistic' tendencies, but nonetheless I've added an additional page which is a repost of another Blog I found.

It handles some details of genesis and the how and why of the discrepancies against scientific principles. It will come in handy as reference in the future should I need it.

Science Fact Vs Bible Fiction

I've also added a link to another Blog I found and one which seems to merge quite well with my own style:

Http://www.godlessmom.com

(kudos for having a top level domain, I simply can't afford such luxuries!)


Am off to go and continue doing other stuff,

ta ta for now!

Continue

Oh... Jon O

For John Omoluabi

This is a dissection of the article you had linked : http://www.christianitytoday.com/ how i almost lost bible
perhaps it is with some irony that the action of linking this article as some form of evidence is in itself somewhat logically fallacious.

While I have used the appropriate name for fallacy where found I have not explained in detail why, but (rather foolishly) I take the position that the details of why are actually quite easy to see If you read the article and compare it to my notes.

For reference of what the terms of a fallacy may mean, please feel free to reference sites such as: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Begin the dissection!

1st Paragraph
raised by religious parent (it is accepted that children follow parent religion by 'peer pressure' alone)

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/religion-and-family-connection-social-science-perspectives/chapter-13-familial-influence
(best to skip to summary)

This part proves nothing other than (confirming) the fact that children are greatly influenced by their parents when it comes to religious matters. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

2nd Paragraph
In corroboration of early childhood (appeal to tradition), this does nothing other than to confirm the person has (a now ingrained) religious view.

3rd Paragraph
Contains subjective quote that adds/reinforces confirmation bias. Ends with Appeal to tradition (or perhaps even Appeal to ancient wisdom)

4th Paragraph
Opens with Argumentum ad populum and then enters the presumption of argument from adverse consequence, proposing by assumption that 'loosing faith' is a negative effect to be avoided.

5th Paragraph
Opens with Argumentum ad verecundiam with Ad nauseum (repetition of content does not validate it) followed by subjective content - possible appeal to motive/bribery by way of reinforcing confirmation bias)

6th Paragraph
I find no content of note other than reference to prior Argumentum ad verecundiam.

7th Paragraph
I find no content of note perhaps introducing an additional layer of Argumentum ad verecundiam.

8th Paragraph
Oddly this is the first example of any objectively recognised detail.


9th & 10th Paragraphs
(these roll together) I find these to be written in perhaps the most open format, perhaps subjective but at least written from internal rather than inferred external contemplations.

11th Paragraph
This approaches the primary Argumentum ad verecundiam but also introduces Appeal to loyalty (father)

12th Paragraph
by way of Argumentum ad verecundiam an additional Argumentum ad verecundiam is introduced.

13th Paragraph (and sub section)
I could find nothing of note other than a referenced Style over substance fallacy

14th Paragraph
This is entirely argument from adverse consequence.

15th Paragraph
This appears to be about how the writer is now accepting or reinforcing their cognitive dissonance.

16th Paragraph
Use of emotive language/reference (echoing the previously assumed argument from adverse consequence) more argument from adverse consequence.

17th Paragraph (and subsequent)
No content of note, seems to echo to previous Argumentum ad verecundiam


I find nothing within the entire article which alludes to veracity of any deity, it appears to be the story of how one indoctrinated child was about to learn about reality but thanks to emotionally invested arguments from authority was turned about such that the writer could find an appropriate comfortable level of cognitive dissonance.

Continue

Doubting Thomas

On request of Thomas Dawe (quote: "When you actually prove me wrong, I'll be happy to accept the fact.") I have put together the following dissection of a transcript of dialogue that we had engaged in:

To skip all the dialogue in which I highlight where the invalid statements are and go right to the conclusion of this article CLICK HERE

Thomas Dawe 5:06 PM

Didn't they predate Jesus?  No one really knows what they wrote about... especially since someone in power burned down their Royal Libary of Alexandria in the more recent history, probably to hide the truth about the past.  Just saying, Egypt probably isn't the best place to turn for facts due to the history there.  Of course, if they did find that historical vault under the Great Sphinx like Edgar Cayce predicted, someone knows the truth... and I wish they weren't bogarting it.

The claim being made: The total sum knowledge of the Egyptian empire was destroyed in the Greek fire.

Why the claim is wrong: There are many hieroglyphs readily available for study from ancient Egypt.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [1]

Thomas Dawe 5:21 PM

Yes, but as I said, the entire Library of Alexandria was burnt along with all of the historical and educational documents within.  They weren't just all about hyroglyphics on walls.  So it is impossible to say what sort of details they had when it is all ash now.

Secondary claim of the already stated detail now reinforced with counter claim against the veracity of hieroglyphs as a source of detail.

Rich Peall 5:26 PM+6

+Thomas Dawe they had reason to write about their pets via hieroglyph I think a GIANT F---ING FLOOD would get a mention.

Counter claim being made: the importance of such a significant event would not have gone undocumented

Rich Peall 5:48 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Thomas Dawe 6:04 PM

+Atavistic By Nature - I agree that it is a possibility that the 'heresy' contained within could have been the reason... well, unless it was Julius Ceasar who had it burnt.  Don't think he was a Christian.  But no one is really certain who was responsible. Stories vary.  Anyway, your whole argument is based on assumption, so seems like you're the one not equipped here.

Claim being made: “your whole argument is based on assumption”

Why this is wrong: you have no possible way at this time to understand how much or how little the person knows on this given subject

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [2]

Thomas Dawe 6:05 PM

Incidentally, the water erosion on the sphinx itself is proof of a flooding in that area at the very least.  Of course, it also predates written history.

Thomas Dawe 6:18 PM+1

Much of the bible was taken from earlier scriptures from other religions.  The flood, for instance, was a story 'borrowed' from Babylonian history (do a search on Gilgamesh Flood myth) - which may have even originated from stories from Sumeria.  So it is kind of silly to say that it didn't happen.

Claim being made: “kind of silly to say that it didn't happen”

Why this is wrong: argument from authority, if you research the idea of a substantial flood within the appropriate time period there is little actual geological data to support the hypothesis.

Supporting document: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [3]

[cont.]
It would probably be more accurate to say we don't know when it happened.  Scientists have proven that the sun is capable of bombarding our atmosphere with a surplus of hydrogen atoms

Claim being made: “Scientists have proven that the sun is capable of…”

Why this is wrong: I can find no document anywhere that any scientific study has either hypothesised this or stated it to be accurate – Claim made without proof.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [4]

[cont.]
which, when combined with our oxygen-rich atmosphere, will increase the amount of water significantly over an amazingly short period of time.  A great flood is indeed possible.  Doesn't take a god to make it happen though.  Just good, old-fashioned science.

Claim being made: “A great flood is indeed possible”

Why this is wrong: conclusion drawn on anecdotal and unsupported hypothesis (see above)

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [4]

Thomas Dawe 6:40 PM

Yeah, I sincerely doubt it was a world-wide flood.  However, when massive amounts of liquid supersaturate the Earth's crust, who is to say what might happen?   Could be serious techtonic plate changes on parts of the earth which absorbed some of the excess water. There is evidence supporting a 'growing earth',

Claim being made: There is evidence supporting a 'growing earth'

This is correct! There is evidence and study detailing how Earths size is increasing, sadly not for the reasons you have suggested but none the less the claim is accurate.

[cont.]
and evidence of underground oceans of water.  It all kind of goes hand-in-hand.  There is evidence of sea creatures found on top of mountains, for instance... suggesting that there have indeed been significant changes to our globe over the millenia.

The above two points are also correct! Again, not for the reasons you would assert, but that does not detracts from these two statements validity

[cont.]
What might such a natural disaster do to even our technologically advanced civilization?  Would we be reverted to the stone age?  How many generations would it take for us to forget just how great we were?  How long would it take for us to look back on the way it was as if it were just another Atlantis?

The above is nothing more than hyperbole and anecdotal inference and as such has no bearing on the validity of any other statements

[cont.]
Palentologists have found human remains dating back hundreds of thousands of years.   Plenty of opportunity for our ancestors to skirt disaster a few times.

Thomas Dawe 7:14 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Thomas Dawe 7:18 PM

+David Miller Prey tell, what happens to all the cosmic garbage that enters our atmosphere?  Is it incinerated into nothingness?  Several thousand asteroids hit our planet every day, that material is added to our planetary mass... aka, global growth.  Booyah.

The above is the beginning of the ‘new topic’ but as it is presented here is nothing more than a red herring (entering into a new topic to avoid properly engaging in the current topic)

Thomas Dawe 7:48 PM

+David Ripley Well, if insulting is your best come back, I will assume you have no rebuttal to the tons of cosmological debris that gets attracted by the earth's gravitational pull every day causing the earth to grow.  It's cool, you know... to admit that you're wrong once in a while.  It doesn't hurt anything but that over-sized ego you are sporting.

Claim being made: “…causing the earth to grow”

Why this is wrong: the current, and well supported details suggest the Earth is not ‘growing’ because of this effect, but the effect is considered it is more likely that the Earth is ‘shrinking’ (loosing mass)

Supporting detail: work and statement by Dr Chris Smith & Mr Dave Ansell of Cambridge University, http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0513/ijsrp-p17109.pdf

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [5]

Rich Peall 8:29 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Thomas Dawe 8:41 PM

+P. KEY I don't know.  What's a good daily average?  For the sake of arguments, let's say the earth gets pummeled with 500 pounds of cosmic debris a day on the average (just a guess estimating a mean weight of 1/2 pound per asteroid and 1000 asteroids a day - probably a low value).  That's 178000 pounds in a year. 178000000 pounds in a millennium. 89,000 tons every 1000 years.  Anyone who claims the Earth is not growing is clearly ignorant in the basic laws of physics.  Cause and effect kind of thing there.  The added material has to still be here, not like we have a lot of Earth ejecta. Now, it's no mount everest over a thousand years, but it would be in 2,000,000 years.  Yes that means we have added about 2300 times mass of Mt. Everest since the original formation of the planet...

... assuming that the whole 'Earth is 6000 years old' theory is hogwash, of course.

Claim being made: too many to list, a lot of random numbers and assertions to details which are apparently unknown to Thomas.

Why this is wrong: simply picking numbers out of the air to support your premise is an argument from ignorance and entirely fallacious.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [6]

Thomas Dawe 8:48 PM

[Content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Rich Peall 8:50 PM

+Thomas Dawe

I assume you know how to use Google?

Why not fact check your statements, then you wont look like a buffoon.

It seems that besides all your fancy numbers (which are wrong) your statement of Mass gain over time, is quite wrong, here - let me Google that for you...

Earth is loosing mass.

http://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/

Thomas Dawe 11:28 PM

+Rich Peall Word of advice, never use anything that starts off with "According to some calculations" as concrete evidence to support your claims.  It's guesswork at best, based on theories of what is going on deep within the earth, which no one can be certain about yet since we haven't even broke the crust.

Claim being made: “…of what is going on deep within the earth”

Why this is wrong: It’s actually a study of cosmological effect and nothing to do with anything ‘deep within the earth’

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [7]

Claim being made: “which no one can be certain about yet since we haven't even broke the crust.”

Why this is wrong: There are entire sub-categories of geological study that actually do know what is below our feet. And there is a plethora of material ready for you to look over.

Supporting detail: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/inside.html

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [8]

[Remaining content of post directed at unrelated 3^rd party]

Rich Peall 11:34 PM

+Thomas Dawe don't be so condensing when I present some 'real' detail rather than making up numbers on the spot to support random nonsense (exactly what you had done in your 3rd post up)

My post is supported by research, your post comprised of utter hyperbole.

Here's how it lands, You are wrong

Claim being made: Thomas is wrong

Supporting detail: this transcript

[cont.]
(if we follow the best available details we have) and you are attacking me because you have no better way to defend your arrogance.

(added edit) also:

"so I say again, how does anyone know what the Ancient Egyptians had written about?"

Historians/archaeologists know, because they can interpret what they (the ancient civilizations) wrote... Yes, there are entire fields of study in the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt (and other ancient written languages such as Sumerian)

How can you be so very ignorant in a day and age where information is readily available to you?

Thomas Dawe 11:39 PM

+Rich Peall  Actually, your link supports my assertion that we are gaining cosmic debris, I severely understated just how much we were gaining.  I was estimating low on purpose to make a point.  Your link however lacks any real proof that there is a consumption of matter going on.  It is an estimate based on a theory that someone came up with based on guesswork of what is going on within the planet.  If any one of the factors he was basing his calculations on are wrong, the whole calculation is wrong.  So you can't say it is empirical proof... it's not proof at all.

You claim that the same detail supports your argument but is dismissible in mine, this is a double standard. Either the detail is submissible and accepted or not, if parts of the detail are to be questioned then please provide adequate falsification of those details.

Thomas Dawe11:42 PM

[Content of post irrelevant to discussion]

Thomas Dawe11:46 PM

One more thing, +Rich Peall any idea just how much helium and hydrogen is being deposited into our planet from the sun? 

Claim being made: there is helium and hydrogen being introduced into our atmosphere from the sun

Why this is wrong: there is no data anywhere that I can see that suggests any such idea, a claim being made without any supporting detail, most likely based on an argument from ignorance, additionally subverting the topic once more with a second red herring.

Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [9]

[cont.]
Probably a lot more than you realize ... since this article doesn't seem to account for the sun's impact on the earth at all.  I can share a link with you about it if you would like to read about it.  However, if you're going to just keep on with this pissing match about something this stupid, then nevermind.

Rich Peall11:50 PM

1."your link supports my assertion that we are gaining cosmic debris"

No, it doesn't.. read it again, it clearly outlines loss of mass/weight. and that 'theory' has probably more statistical data than you could even comprehend to back up the claims it makes.

Oh, here's more information 'supporting' my claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

2."any idea just how much helium and hydrogen is being deposited into our planet from the sun"

Your turn now. Find me the data to support this claim.

I suggest the sun is a little too far away to 'deposit' anything as heavy as gaseous elements into our atmosphere, but I await the detail that proves my assumption incorrect.

"I can share a link with you about it if you would like to read about it"

Please do, I'm always open to new information.

Above contains counter arguments and supporting details to those counter arguments

Total number of times Thomas has been proven wrong 

(and has not given sufficient counter argument or evidence to otherwise have his original claim validated)

9

A full and uncommented version of the conversation can be found here: Saved Google+ Transcript PDF

Continue

Science Bitch!

As Jesse says.... Yeah, Science!

In a debate thread I came across, there was a situation in which an all too apparent troll, by the name Rodney Mulraney was busy being a dick. As Wheaton's Law stipulates that you should 'not be a dick' I feel compelled to call him out on the matter.

To that end, I've decided to conduct some scientific field research and present my paper:

Question:
Is Rodney Mulraney a douche-bag idiot?

Background Research: 
https://plus.google.com/+RodneyMulraney/posts

also: 
Other threads from communities made or engaged by Rodney Mulraney.

also: 
3rd party referential evidence by peers of Rodney Mulraney.

also:
My previous studies of Rodney Mulraney
1 - How To Be Illogical, A Study.
2 - The Moronological Argument - 2nd Expansion

Hypothesis:
Rodney Mulraney is a douche-bag idiot.

Test:
His further responses to this thread. (please note I have been blocked by him and as such can no more interact with him) I have saved a PDF print out of the post as evidence to the content)

For the test to be confirmed positive in effect; Rodney must at least present a majority or all of the following conditions as set out by definition:

1 - Douche-bag :
[informal noun]
An obnoxious or contemptible person, typically a man.

Obnoxious :
[adjective]
extremely unpleasant

Contemptible :
[adjective]
deserving contempt; despicable.

2 - Idiot :
[noun]
a stupid person

Stupid :
[adjective]
lacking intelligence or common sense.

Results:
Rodney Mulraney has, in the testing period, been a douche-bag idiot.
What follows are some points of evidence collated during this test.

• Insults
• Chosen example: describing 'atheists' as, Quote: "moronic "
• also: Directly at another participant - Quote: "Your brimming ignorance"

• Baseless assertions
• Chosen example: Quote: "Clearly you have no idea what evidence is" - no information of the other participants knowledge in regard to the subject 'evidence' has yet been given.
• also: Quote: "You are not a historian" - at no point has this point of information been validated or otherwise.

• Arrogance
• Chosen example: Quote: "considering (astiests) complete lack of any education and unwillingness to engage in rational debate" Giving the inference that Rodney is more educated and more consistently rational than those he engages.
• also: Quote: "is an example of the proof of my claim" An attempt to re-enforce his position by (incorrectly) using the words/posts of others thus ascribing greater importance on his position over theirs.

• Projection
• In positive respect, when referring to 'theists' his subject to promote - Quote: "generally tend to at least try to use logic and reason"
• In negative respect, when referring to 'atheists' his topic of opposition and seemingly done in  a defensive form - Quote: "Atheist ignorance"
• also: Quote: "Clearly you have no idea what evidence" 

Publish Findings:

My interim finding is that Rodney Mulraney is a douche-bag idiot. The evidence collected supports my hypothesis, At no stage during the test period was any evidence collated to provide any point of contrary information.

I would based on my study assert that he has demonstrated the following testable elements:

• to be obnoxious (for example: insulting)
• to be contemptuous (for example: displays of arrogance)
• to have demonstrated 'stupidity' he has on multiple occasion shown a high level of wilful ignorance of information as well as an unwillingness to accept factual details

This concludes that he does meet all requirements of the test.

I can with near certainty predict that in future Rodney Mulrany will be a douche-bag idiot.

From my findings I would propose the following:

It's not worth interacting with him.
He presents nothing in a conversation other than shallow, child-like negative responses and as such attempting to converse with him as one would with normal adults is ill advised.

Footnotes:
This study was conducted over a period of 24 hours.
This study is still ongoing in an effort to collate a wider field of results for analysis.
I have updated (as 15/03/2015) this page due to ongoing collection of evidence that to date has not falsified any of my observations in this study.

Continue

A Taste Of Herring & Ham

After a recent debate hosted by Answers In Genesis in what I can only assume to be a publicity push for their brand of nonsense there has been a little post-debate discussion and dissection of what had come to pass.

Personally I think that Bill Nye could have done a better job, but I do applaud that he called on the audience to think, to look for answers themselves and implored that education is paramount.

Ken Ham, someone for whom I have little respect as I consider that he actively seeks to promote ignorance and reduce the effect of generation on generation learning. recounted "there's a book (referring to the Bible) that answers that" more than four times during the debate.

but more so, on one topic, he became deliberately deceitful in how he answered.

I can only highlight how intellectually dishonest this man is and ask that others call him out also, his actions are dangerous, perhaps not with immediate effect, but through his actions he can potentially negatively impact peoples lives

So, without further ado -

An Exploration of the Red Herring fallacy, feat. Ken Ham

Continue

The naked Ont-illogical argument

A post by John d'Arke

+Rodney Mulraney sorry I'm late, but as promised here is a subtle critique of the Ontological argument. I'm sticking to just the classic form of the argument from Anselm (1078) because I have a life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument. Anselm argues:
1.Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2.The idea of God exists in the mind.
3.A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4.If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5.We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6.Therefore, God exists.

Specific critiques (watch closely for #5 & 6):
1 - nil
2 - agree completely - God exists [only] in the mind.
3 - nil
4 - agree - a real god would be greater than any imagined god (IF any god were real)
5 - this point assumes that God exists
6 - god exists, because we've assumed god exists (refer #5)

General critiques:
Imagining something - does not make it real
Imagining it is real - does not make it real.
Defining something so imagined as the greatest example of something that could exist, then imagining it would be greater if it were real and imagining that - does not make it real.
This.is.circular.logic!  
Nothing more than philosophical sleight of hand/parlour tricks.

(And, if I may add a little personal commentary, seeing such contrived, circular and flawed logic being used to 'prove' the existence of a god, leads me to even more strongly suspect that there is no valid, logical proof of god's existence - and that those who seek to so justify their belief are vainly and desperately clutching at straws to try to deceive their own cognitive dissonance and/or to trick and deceive others into following them.)

The Ontological argument could be used to assert absolutely anything For example (as I've stated before):
"I can think of no greater con than religion
<ontological logic>
therefore there is no greater con than religion"

This sets up a neat Morton's Fork http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton's_fork where either religion is the greatest con of all OR the ontological argument is flawed.  An even more elegant/self-defeating application would be:

"I can think of nothing more logically flawed than the ontological argument <ontological logic> therefore there is nothing more logically flawed than the ontological argument"

I think I'll wrap up there, for now. Because I'm not sure if anyone seriously believes this argument anyway. 

---

original post here: 

https://plus.google.com/104499905891403165360/posts/Lkv17mjojfa

Backup image of thread linked on the right →

Posted with permission of John d'Arke

Continue