View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Postby HurricaneHeidi » 25 Sep 2009, 11:38

I've been taking on a pack of atheist material reductionist skeptics on a Facebook group called "Atheist Nexus". I started a thread there called:

Consciousness - its Origin and Properties

http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topic ... 1#comments

I wanted to have a rational discussion of the Morphic Resonance and Morphogenetic Field theories postulated by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. I challenged the material reductionists to prove their thesis that consciousness originates entirely from within the brain... but instead of a rational discussion, you will find just about every fallacy and ad hominem tactic described in the SCEPCOP thesis being used against me. I think I've held up rather well and made some excellent points... but I'm sick of their arrogant, bigoted double-standard of so-called scientific "proof".
"Hurricane" Heidi Guedel

"Scientists, animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless, constitute an interesting subject for study."
- Alfred North Whitehead
HurricaneHeidi
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 02:58
Location: My Secret Garden, Florida, USA






Re: My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Postby brett » 03 Oct 2009, 03:57

hi heidi - well that's skeptics for you :lol: - they are on the whole the same world over - some are more venomous than others - but basically conform to the same behavioral patterns

science ,ah the great and infallible science :roll: (- not like they have not got things wrong before ) - the problem you have to remember with adherents of "science" per Ce is that they only "KNOW " what they have been taught - most seem incapable of straying away from "perceived wisdom " - and thinking beyond that is usually not a sport they enjoy much , mainly because like many people in the world they have a "motive" and that is to ensure their funding ( vis jobs ) - and to be seen as good little boys and girls who wont rock the boat too much ( or in the case of the armchair Pskeptics , have a little TOO much "faith" in the pronouncements of science ,which to them is akin to a religion and any deviancy from it akin to heresy )

like wise our pseudo skeptics - only KNOW what they have been taught or what doctrine they have had forced upon them and again outside the box thinking is not a pastime they enjoy

the great thing is that we free thinkers - ponderers - whatever you want to call us ( oh sorry i forgot - woo's :roll: ) can and do consider all possibilities AND also are able to say "well WE disagree with science and think x is more likely the case or at least more possibly the case " - after all even the most RAMPENT Pskeptic can not disagree with this following statement :

THE TRUTH WHATEVER IT MAY BE - IS STILL THE TRUTH ,EVEN IF THAT TRUTH IS KNOWN TO ONLY ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET !!

of course they will try and say that the mere concept of ONLY one person out of the millions on the planet , actually knowing that truth is impossible , and of course if that truth does not happen to be in line with what they have been taught or believe ( and we have to remember that skeptics are as "MUCH " believers in a lot of ways as the "believers" are , if that makes sense )

so at the end of the day Heidi - you have to make your own judgements on what is that truth and be satisfied with that - if you go looking for confirmation of that judgement - then you will invariably meet up ( or fall foul ) of those with contra interpretations of that truth - its called holding an "opinion" and you have sometimes to defend that against all comers - regardless of how isolated that makes you feel , FOR if you get swayed by the views of others too much you are only pandering to THEIR version of the truth - for the sake of a quiet life or "fitting in "

as always just my opinion

oh and for the record - mind ( or essence or soul ) and brain ?? - two different entities ;)

regards
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Postby ProfessorX » 03 Oct 2009, 10:58

HurricaneHeidi wrote:I've been taking on a pack of atheist material reductionist skeptics on a Facebook group called "Atheist Nexus." I think I've held up rather well and made some excellent points... but I'm sick of their arrogant, bigoted double-standard of so-called scientific "proof".


I read some of the posts in your thread and you did an excellent job. Very brave of you to start a thread there!

I had never heard of a social network group for atheists before. What a bizarre concept - to create a social network for people whose social identity revolves around negating or denying the existence of a God??? To me, that site is further proof atheism operates as an informal semi-organized religion in the U.S. and elsewhere. They are a "faith" group just like conventional religious groups. The difference is that while conventional religious groups have faith in their particular God, atheists have a pretty strong religious faith in the absence or non-existence of God.

Maybe I should go on over there and start a thread putting forth the notion of atheism as religion. Or not. Lol.
ProfessorX
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 09:36

Re: My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Postby HurricaneHeidi » 04 Oct 2009, 10:55

ProfessorX wrote:
HurricaneHeidi wrote:I've been taking on a pack of atheist material reductionist skeptics on a Facebook group called "Atheist Nexus." I think I've held up rather well and made some excellent points... but I'm sick of their arrogant, bigoted double-standard of so-called scientific "proof".


I read some of the posts in your thread and you did an excellent job. Very brave of you to start a thread there!

I had never heard of a social network group for atheists before. What a bizarre concept - to create a social network for people whose social identity revolves around negating or denying the existence of a God??? To me, that site is further proof atheism operates as an informal semi-organized religion in the U.S. and elsewhere. They are a "faith" group just like conventional religious groups. The difference is that while conventional religious groups have faith in their particular God, atheists have a pretty strong religious faith in the absence or non-existence of God.

Maybe I should go on over there and start a thread putting forth the notion of atheism as religion. Or not. Lol.


If you do, PLEASE let me know so I can team up with you in the debate.

I did bait them into admitting that neither their theories concerning the supposed initial appearance of life (self-replicating organisms) from non-living chemical compounds (abiogenesis) nor their theories re: the state of the universe before the "big bang" can be substantiated via the scientific method... any more than anecdotal evidence for psi experiences can. And that they were, therefore, entertaining faith in things unseen, which qualifies by definition as religious belief, and most of them won't respond to me any more now. They took their toys and went home, so to speak.
"Hurricane" Heidi Guedel

"Scientists, animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless, constitute an interesting subject for study."
- Alfred North Whitehead
HurricaneHeidi
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 02:58
Location: My Secret Garden, Florida, USA

Re: My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Postby Nostradamus » 15 Oct 2009, 10:58

They are a "faith" group just like conventional religious groups. The difference is that while conventional religious groups have faith in their particular God, atheists have a pretty strong religious faith in the absence or non-existence of God.


I find this claim to be odd. To have faith does not mean it is religious. To have faith that there is no supernatural, just natural does not imply a form of religion or religious thinking.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Postby brett » 15 Oct 2009, 14:06

Nostradamus wrote:
They are a "faith" group just like conventional religious groups. The difference is that while conventional religious groups have faith in their particular God, atheists have a pretty strong religious faith in the absence or non-existence of God.


I find this claim to be odd. To have faith does not mean it is religious. To have faith that there is no supernatural, just natural does not imply a form of religion or religious thinking.



yea got to agree there with you , i don't see religion and faith are one and the same either - i don't have any faith in a word any of our politico's spout - so is THAT a religion ?? :?
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: My Debate on Atheist Nexus

Postby Nostradamus » 15 Oct 2009, 20:06

Didn't of that brett. I certainly have strong faith that the truth and politicians are separate and distinct.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08


Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron