THIS IS YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THIS IS YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON DRUGS: Taxpayers pay $249k to determine if monkeys on cocaine make good decisions.
But talk about wasting money — as Frank J. Fleming tweets, everybody knows the answer to this: “Monkeys on cocaine don’t make good decisions. They make GREAT decisions.”
Better than those who approved this experiment, of course.
Instapundit
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Quote of This Kinda Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Oh, lord. That just makes me want to puke.
Now, though, for some humor. Remember our boy ChatPilot? He had the blog entry that we talked about a few weeks ago called The Pros of Atheism:
God is a Myth: The Pros of Atheism
He never responded to Phoenix's challenge. However, Steve11 made this gem of a comment about Phoenix on this entry:
Quote"Phoenix will take a statement from you, misquote it, apply it against the definitions of terms he knows you don't assert, and claim your position is one of paradox, then imply you are dishonest (see above).
Phoenix - prove that all variants of atheism, gnostic and agnostic, strong and weak, necessarily "demands proof for all propositions". If you can't, retract, please."Quote
Metacrock (Joe Hinman) also said several things to him about his studies on mystical experience, and Chatpilot had no rebuttals. Only denialism.
Now, check his latest entry out:
God is a Myth: Atheism is not a World View
I found this because I wanted to see what "quality work" he was putting out. I looked at the comments, and Metacrock had much to say. I told Joe about his replies, and they had at it in the comments.
Basically, it was Joe showing evidence of the studies, and this dicktard denying them, with no evidence to the contrary. I didn't get involved until he said the usual canard about "I don't believe in fairy tales and myths"
That pissed me off. So, I said this to him:
Quote"Chatpilot, you said that you don't believe in fairytales. I don't think you are telling the truth. You are an Atheist, right? So, you probably believe that life came from non-life, don't you? If you do, that's a much bigger fairy tale than anything that Joe has been telling you.
He is offering up good evidence. All you are doing is denying and making silly statements about gods and superstitions."Quote
Basically, he says something about the God of the Gaps (I never mention God). He also basically says something about how Abiogenesis isn't a fairy tale just because science doesn't fully comprehend the exact process of life evolving from non-life.
I then show him two articles from Science Against Evolution on the topic, and he goes on to say that he doesn't want to argue, and that we should prove God exists.
Check the comments out. This guy is proof that Atheism is more emotional than logical.
JB
I only saw your comment today.
You said:"He never responded to Phoenix's challenge. However, Steve11 made this gem of a comment about Phoenix on this entry:"
Yeah, I'm still waiting for Chatpilot's response on the type of evidence it will take to convince him.
Quote"Phoenix will take a statement from you, misquote it, apply it against the definitions of terms he knows you don't assert, and claim your position is one of paradox, then imply you are dishonest (see above)."
If I remember correctly, I may have attributed the plural word "truths" to Steve's statement instead of the singular "truth". Steve was extremely cautious and vague when asserting his beliefs, allowing himself way too much wiggle room and a quick escape route when a single slip is detected.
Phoenix - prove that all variants of atheism, gnostic and agnostic, strong and weak, necessarily "demands proof for all propositions". If you can't, retract, please."Quote
Firstly, Gnosticism is not typically associated with Atheism.
Secondly, Steve was adamant over here that his worldview is not Atheism and now he claims it is a variant of Atheism, which I was saying all along.
Thirdly, instead of asking me to prove my assertion, Steve could simply have refuted me with a single counter example. What type of evidence other than empirical evidence do Atheists or even Strong Agnostics accept? It really is that simple.
=======
In the second link you gave, Chatpilot starts with:
In a recent discussion with a theist I was told that atheism is a negative worldview. My immediate thoughts went to the actual meaning of atheism or the word atheist. What does it mean when someone states that they are an atheist?
He's referring to the discussion I had with him. And astonishingly he obliviously contradicts himself...again. See here:
I myself as an atheist do not consider my atheism a worldview for the simple fact that one has nothing to do with the other
And 2 paragraphs later he says
As an atheist I hold a more naturalistic view of the world and tht is the result of my rejection of the beliefs in the supernatural and the many beings others claim exists in that invisible unknown realm of existence
So, he does not have an Atheistic worldview but a naturalistic worldview which is the result his rejection of the beliefs in the supernatural and the many beings
But isn't the part in bold I quoted also the definition of Atheism? So the result, "naturalistic worldview" stems from his Atheism. But the two are also mutually exclusive, ie. they have nothing to do with each other. This guy clearly does not care for rational and coherent worldview.
JB
I missed the following in the comment section at Chatpilot's place.
You said:God isn't a human, but God has feelings just like a human."
ChatPilot responds:"Lmfao! That's called anthropomorphism: : an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics"
I fail to see a refutation in his rather juvenile response. We also attribute feelings to animals and even consciousness to plants. Does that somehow invalidate the concept? Theists are able to logically trace the First Consciousness back to a non-human intelligent mind. In fact it is the Atheist that attributes consciousness and sentience to minerals who is guilty of Anthropomorphic Supernaturalism.
====
In the comment section at the 2nd link chatpilot makes a classic Atheist blunder.
CP:God did it is not evidence. Just because science does not fully comprehend the exact process of how life evolved from nonlife known as abiogenesis does not make it a fairy tale. It is known as a gap in scientific knowledge
If there's no scientific evidence for a hypothesis which cannot even be comprehended then it is definitely a fairytale/ superstitious. After all the man even admits it is a science of the gap belief. Does this guy even read his own comments?
Theists love to utilize the god of the gaps arguments wherever there is a gap. For instance: We don't know how life evolved from nonlife (insert God here...
This is a caricature of theists arguments and a complete straw man. The Cosmological Argument, for example, does not utilize a God of the gaps because the argument is a valid and sound modus ponens that follow the rules of inference. Atheists erroneously assume that whenever the word God is used in an argument then it qualifies as a "god of the gaps". But God is the topic and exactly what is being argued for. It's only a fallacy if there is no transitive link between the premises and conclusion, not the mere mention of the word God.
Phoenix,
Another point about God is that he is not Anthropomorphic because he has perfect love, and us humans do not.
As for ChatPilot, I get the sense that there is more going on here than meets the eye.
He said that he was a Christian from 1990-94, and that he preached on street corners, in churches, and on Spanish Radio. Then, all the sudden, he stops. Why?
He claims that he read the Bible in English and Spanish, and then he basically repeated the same tired canard about how God is a monster in the OT. However, there is something else going on here.
His Christianity probably wasn't very intellectual. Then, he may have committed a sin that, in his eyes, may have been so bad that he felt that God couldn't forgive him.
So, he believes some foolish fundy reading of the Bible, believes some stupid, naturalistic explanations for the experiences that he had, and turned to Atheism because he didn't believe that God loved him anymore.
I'm afraid we can only speculate on why Chatpilot became an Atheist. Each Atheist has his own reason(s) which they are usually very reluctant to share. Some become Atheists because they hate the concept of having to be held accountable for their actions. Others hate the constraint of sexual behavior that theism places upon the individual. The Atheist would prefer anything and everything to be acceptable. Others are attracted to the sense of moral and intellectual superiority that are usually associated with Atheists.
One more thing. CP uses the same old fallacies his fellow Atheists use but this one in particular gets little attention or refutation.
CP:"My life without god beliefs may be influenced by my atheism but atheism itself is not my worldview. I don't see the divine in nature. I find nature to be amazing in and of itself and nothing fascinates me more than looking up at the night sky on a clear night with the knowledge that I am staring out millions and maybe billions of years into the past! The idea that the elements found on earth and that compose our bodies is found in stars (that we are star stuff) is simply mind blowing. It sure beats the hell out of believing that some invisible man in the sky made a man out of mud and blew the breath of life into him. Just writing that screams myth to me!"
It's important to note that this argument is a variant of the " Atheists are human too, we bleed, we cry and we believe torturing babies is wrong." It is an appeal to emotion fallacy and it conveys a complete subjective experience, an abhorrent concept by the writer's own admission. I for one do not find the information that we are composed of stardust "mindblowing". That information is quite mundane. Atheists are dogmatically and not rationally attached to their position, they attribute religious qualities to inanimate objects and wet themselves out of sheer awe when staring in to space. Huh? Yes, Atheists worship the conglomerates of the universe. They are after all Philosophical Materialists.
That part about how an invisible man made a man out of mud and breathed life into him is ignorant. This guy says stuff with no value, and he may be running from whatever conflict he had 21 years ago that turned him into an Atheist.
I pray for this guy that he wakes up and realize that his world view
(that, ironically, he doesn't think is a world view) is a major fallacy.
Post a Comment