Saturday, October 10, 2015

Silver Screen Science

Of course there's more than a touch of Macgyver and Scientism here. Still...
"‘THE MARTIAN’ VS ENVIRONMENTAL DEFEATISM:
“The message of this story is clear: There is nothing man can’t achieve if he is willing to ‘science the s*** out of it,’”

Andrew Klavan writes:
Compare this to the ceaseless carping demands of modern environmentalism: ”Don’t move! Don’t dig! Don’t explore! Don’t go! Don’t build! We’ll all die! Stuff will run out! People will be exploited! Air will turn solid! Heat will kill! Cold will freeze! Huddle in! Return to the earth! Go small! Die stupid!”

It’s nonsense. Our resources won’t run out because our only true resource is the bottomless human imagination and its infinite cleverness. Oil was just goo till we turned it to energy. We’ll do the same with sea water and atoms and shoelaces and whatever else we need until we reach new planets with new stuff to make into energy and go on from there.

So thanks, environmentalists! Now shut up and buzz off while we make use of the earth and explore the universe.

If only real-life NASA took the same advice – back in March, Charles Bolden, its administrator, was heard muttering to Ted Cruz, “We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don’t know it — and that’s understanding our environment.”

Wow, I thought NASA had better telemetry systems than that. But it is true, I suppose — you never know when you’re going to go sleep one night and wake up the next morning to find that Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island have suddenly gone missing. Perhaps Bolden should sell that story to Ridley Scott?
"

From Instapundit.
Cape Canaveral couldn't be built these days due to the endangered sand chigger...

12 comments:

JBsptfn said...

You guys need to check this blog entry out, as well as the comments:

God is a myth-Blogspot-The Pros of Atheism

This guy claims that Atheism and Materialism make more sense. Also, Steve11 posted on that Challenge to Atheists thread again.

Phoenix said...

You forgot to mention that Chatpilot first has to approve comments. I invited him over,let's see if he bites.

JBsptfn said...

He did approve my comments on there. Maybe I was a little arrogant with him (when I said that the facts aren't on his side), but him and the morons that commented on there just seem like troll babies that probably go on exchristian.net or something.

JBsptfn said...

Phoenix,

He did approve your comment. Here is what he said:

"Perhaps, you will be the Atheist who finally get to put Stan in his place."

Not my goal nor my intent. People in my opinion are free to believe what they want to believe as long as it in my opinion does not harm anyone else or impose on the beliefs of others.

Onto your so called challege. The challenge is to prove that God does not exist which I will admit outright is impossible to do. I don't think that the existence or nonexistence of God could be proven conclusively but I do think that there is a higher probability that he does not exist.

The so called challenge is actually not a valid challenge because of my above stated reason. First off contrary to science religion is not based on evidence it is based entirely on belief or faith on stories narrated from ancient texts based on ancient myths and superstitions of the day. All these ancient texts reveal the ignorance of the world and the universe we live in and how things work. For instance the Bible states in one tale that the sun and the moon stood still in the sky! This demonstrates a lack of understanding of cosmology which in those days is quite understandable. You can't claim that this tale was meant as a metaphor when in fact it is presented as historical.

It is errors of this nature that reveal the true nature of these ancient texts: man. There is in my opinion no hint of so called divine inspiration which in my view does not exist. Thomas Paine said it best: Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man...But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. (The Age of Reason)

Subjective evidence does not count as evidence for the existence of God because I am convinced that they are caused by mental states. As a former believer I spoke in tongues, had visions, what I thought were divinely inspired dreams, prophesied, and believed that God spoke to me in my head all the time. The first thing I did when I left the church was to find ways to explain all of these experiences. I am satisfied with my search and the answers I have found to date.

Regarding the burden of proof once again no matter how you choose to define or redefine it you as the claimant are the one who has to prove the existence of God. I don't believe he exists because I see no need for a God in my life nor even a trace of a God in the world. What some theists refer to as intelligent design I refer to as nothing more than an interpretation of believers that ignores the overwhelming choas in nature and the universe. Both of these things contradict the view that the earth and the universe was made specifically for man as taught in the Bible.

Phoenix said...

I may have been a bit arrogant too in my response to Chatpilot and Steve11. It was up late and blame my lack of sleep. Anyway,I did respond to Chatpilot and this what I posted.

"Not my goal nor my intent. People in my opinion are free to believe what they want to believe as long as it in my opinion does not harm anyone else or impose on the beliefs of others"

That's rather noble of you but I'm afraid the FFRF's blog which you recommend as well as a host of others do in fact care and wish to obliterate religion and belief in God off the face of the earth.


"Onto your so called challege. The challenge is to prove that God does not exist which I will admit outright is impossible to do. I don't think that the existence or nonexistence of God could be proven conclusively but I do think that there is a higher probability that he does not exist"

Then you have failed as an Atheist. One, Atheism is a negative worldview and two, it demands proof for all propositions. Yet you cannot satisfy this criteria, an internal paradox.

"The so called challenge is actually not a valid challenge because of my above stated reason. First off contrary to science religion is not based on evidence it is based entirely on belief or faith on stories narrated from ancient texts based on ancient myths and superstitions of the day. All these ancient texts reveal the ignorance of the world and the universe we live in and how things work. For instance the Bible states in one tale that the sun and the moon stood still in the sky! This demonstrates a lack of understanding of cosmology which in those days is quite understandable. You can't claim that this tale was meant as a metaphor when in fact it is presented as historical"

First of all the challenge is valid because one can prove a negative and given the worldview per Atheism as stated above. Secondly, you have not given reasons but mere assertions. Thirdly, Atheist claims are not based on scientific evidence,it's a superstitious belief system until proven otherwise. Attacking Biblical stories is a strawman since I did not cite my specific theistic views. Exposing errors in the bible only disproves the claim that the bible is inerrant, a claim I did not make.

"t is errors of this nature that reveal the true nature of these ancient texts: man. There is in my opinion no hint of so called divine inspiration which in my view does not exist. Thomas Paine said it best: Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man...But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. (The Age of Reason)"

Sir, I cannot take your quote seriously and must dismiss it out of hand because it was relayed by a third party and not directly from Mr. Paine himself. Your quote violates its own condition.

"Subjective evidence does not count as evidence for the existence of God because I am convinced that they are caused by mental states."

Your conviction is stated without scientific proof.

Phoenix said...

(Continued)

"As a former believer I spoke in tongues, had visions, what I thought were divinely inspired dreams, prophesied, and believed that God spoke to me in my head all the time. The first thing I did when I left the church was to find ways to explain all of these experiences. I am satisfied with my search and the answers I have found to date."

You are very much still a believer, albeit to a different ideology.

"Regarding the burden of proof once again no matter how you choose to define or redefine it you as the claimant are the one who has to prove the existence of God. I don't believe he exists because I see no need for a God in my life nor even a trace of a God in the world. What some theists refer to as intelligent design I refer to as nothing more than an interpretation of believers that ignores the overwhelming choas in nature and the universe. Both of these things contradict the view that the earth and the universe was made specifically for man as taught in the Bible"

The standard of evidence for the burden of proof and rebuttal is the same on both sides of the fence. The standard Atheist dodge of not being able to prove a negative is both false and intellectually irresponsible.
"Some" theists may have evoked ID but I did not and I'm more interested in the answers for Atheism that your search led you to.Such as, does truth exist and how can we know it per Atheism or Philosophical Materialism.

Stan said...

“Not a real challenge”: This is the “safe place” refuge for intellectual cowardice. Do not address the challenge; DENY that it even exists in reality, or at least his reality.

This person appears to be a “mere Atheist”, one who is stuck in denialism. He merely denies all responsibility for his belief, claiming not to see the marks of a deity anywhere. He merely denies all responsibility to defend his belief, despite claiming to base his belief in logic and fact. He merely denies that subjective evidence is any sort of evidence, yet that is the totality of his own escape into the cherished VOID of Atheism. He even merely denies his own experiences with Just So Stories of his own creation and application, stories which satisfy his need to cover his denials.

Further he seems to merely believe that there is traction to be had in the most obvious of rhetorical failures, such as straw men and red herrings.

But in terms of a positive case for Atheism, he has presented merely nothing, certainly no disciplined deduction, nor any empirical, hypothetical, experimental nonfalsified data; there is no hint of either logic or of material evidence provided, either valid or nonvalid. There is no positive case for proving the non-existence of a deity.

There is only denialism.

There is no conversation to be had with a mere denialist who has nothing to present other than a constant stream of denialism. One may point out the logic and evidence failures ad nauseum, but that will have no effect on the True Believer in the blind belief of Atheism.

JBsptfn said...

I like how he uses science against religion, and how he feels that he has no need for a God. This guy is a Fundy Atheist, and he is showing a characteristic of the Atheist VOID with the "I see no need for a God in my life" comment.

JBsptfn said...

I read a few other pages in his blog from a few years ago. One entry was about how Jesus already came in the 1st century. I had to tell him that the end was about the end of the Jewish system (which is what happened in 70 AD), not the end of the world and the return of Christ.

He also forgot to mention Acts 1. In that chapter, the disciples ask Christ when he will restore the kingdom to Israel (the second coming, I presume), and Christ told them that it isn't for them to know the days or the seasons, and then I contrasted that with Matthew, when he basically told them that the temple destruction will be within their generation.

He was also talking about flawed scholars, like Bart Ehrman and Earl Doherty. Another person also gave him links to evilbible.com and the godisimaginary site. That blog appears to be a big joke.

Phoenix said...

Burden of Proof: A debater who offers an argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, the affirmative team has the burden to prove the resolution true while the negative has the burden to prove the resolution false.

JBsptfn said...

He also believes that Jesus isn't the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. I gave him a link to J.P. Holding's material, and he just rambles on about how it's not a prediction (he called it a postdiction), and about how Jesus doesn't exist. I just told him to back up his words with fact. I think I am done with him now.

yonose said...

And now the intellectual limitations of many atheists are becoming obvious:

1) Lack of lateral thinking while using the concepts of logic
2) Lack of adequate categorization regarding formal logic, dialectics, and fuzzy logic
3) Or everything is deterministic, or everything is hit-and-miss, just for the sake of moving the goal posts. Ideological much??

That's what happens when people love to have their 15-minute fame when making such obnoxious claims. Not the best way to find exploits, but to perpetuate a personal or group bias by confirmation.

It's like telling physicists that the BCS Group of theories are inadequate for the explanation of superconductivity, and quantum computers work more like analog computers at this date. The logic remains the same: Bullshit superconductivity theories, bullshit quantum computing theories.

Kind Regards.