Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[JimL]

Logic not your strong suit, is it? You're arguing the conclusion - the problem is you can't both get there from here because of the underlying assumption.

No, you're wrong Tea, Whether god exists or not is irrelevant to the question. Morals are relative to the good or evil affect that they have on human beings, on human society. It doesn't matter if they are objectively sourced or not, in either case moral rules of behavior are relative to the good or bad affect that they have on humanity. So I do not have to assume that god doesn't exist, god, or the objective source of morality, would have nothing to do with the question, even if one did exist.
The only one making assumptions about having to consider the necessity or non-necessity of god, is you. God is irrelevant to the argument, the source of morality is irrelevant to the argument, the only thing relevant to the argument is human behaviors, and the effect that they have on human beings, on human society.

[Tassman]

Logic not your strong suit, is it? You're arguing the conclusion - the problem is you can't both get there from here because of the underlying assumption.

[Sparko]

so apparently Bill Nye has been announcing that BECAUSE of all of the negative comments he has been getting that means the world still needs saving! Thus there is going to be a season 2.

[Teallaura]

No, you're wrong Tea, Whether god exists or not is irrelevant to the question. Morals are relative to the good or evil affect that they have on human beings, on human society. It doesn't matter if they are objectively sourced or not, in either case moral rules of behavior are relative to the good or bad affect that they have on humanity. So I do not have to assume that god doesn't exist, god, or the objective source of morality, would have nothing to do with the question, even if one did exist.
The only one making assumptions about having to consider the necessity or non-necessity of god, is you. God is irrelevant to the argument, the source of morality is irrelevant to the argument, the only thing relevant to the argument is human behaviors, and the effect that they have on human beings, on human society.

Sorry, Jim, but your wrong.

[Jedidiah]

I have asked you before what sort of evidence you would expect to find within the universe if the creator is not a part of the universe at all? But you always sidestep or ignore the question because you prefer to believe what you want regardless of evidence.

[JimL]

Sorry, Jim, but your wrong.

Great refutation Tea, I can't argue with that kind of logic.

[Teallaura]

Didn't expect you to - I'm worn out and hurting and I don't want to debate the same exact point for another five pages.

[Tassman]

I have asked you before what sort of evidence you would expect to find within the universe if the creator is not a part of the universe at all? But you always sidestep or ignore the question because you prefer to believe what you want regardless of evidence.

Oh, there's substantive evidence for a "creator of the universe"? Pray tell.

[Tassman]

Didn't expect you to - I'm worn out and hurting and I don't want to debate the same exact point for another five pages.

You haven't presented an argument, merely assumed that a god exists which must be disproved, before you'll even consider alternative arguments as to how and why a moral code developed.

[Teallaura]

You haven't presented an argument, merely assumed that a god exists which must be disproved, before you'll even consider alternative arguments as to how and why a moral code developed.

This is why I answer Jim where I just mock you.

[Jedidiah]

Oh, there's substantive evidence for a "creator of the universe"? Pray tell.

Another side step. You seem to be afraid to actually answer that question.

[Tassman]

Another side step. You seem to be afraid to actually answer that question.

Sigh!

What YOU

This is why I answer Jim where I just mock you.

But you didn't answer Jim, that's the point.

[tabibito]

I don't know what standing daily caller might have, but this is interesting:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/16/me...arming-claims/

[JonathanL]

AFIK there is no logically coherent alternative to materialism

No one has ever managed to show that theism is logically incoherent, despite what you might have deluded yourself into believing.

[Sparko]

Another side step. You seem to be afraid to actually answer that question.

He has already told me that there is NOTHING that could convince him that God exists. Not even if God appeared to him and did anything he asks to prove it.

You can't argue with that kind of stone-cold stupid. It is not worth your time. You might as well argue with a stone. At least the stone won't keep repeating himself for 100 pages.