Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[JimL]

Yeah that is pretty much what I said. If he wants to convince others that he is right, he has a burden to convince them. He can't just claim to be right and then sit back and refuse to defend his view. Well he CAN, but if he does, then nobody will pay attention to him or believe him.

Tass articulates his viewpoint very clearly whether you choose to be convinced by it or not. The plain fact is that there is no evidence of a supernatural creator of the natural world, there is only a world line beyond the which we are unable to observe. You've decided to pretend a god is out there, an infinite and eternal god, and that after existing forever he decided out of eternal boredom, just 14 billion years ago, to create the material world, to puff it into existence from out of nothing. You believe this childish nonsense because thousands of years ago, when man didn't know any better, the leaders of the tribes made up stories about their invisible tribal protectors, and lawgivers, aka gods, who of course only communicated with those leaders who then passed on the devine communique to the rest of the tribe, the naive hoi polloi. Thats who you are today, the naive hoi polloi, unable to overcome the meme that has infected your minds. Science, reason and logic aren't going to convince you that you live in a fantasy world, because you have built psychological walls to defend against them, there is probably very little hope that anything will ever convince you hardened apologists that the idea of the supernatural is a long running hoax, and you, probably for the better, are locked in its grasp. Only god knows what evils you'd do without god to keep you in line! LOL!

[Zymologist]

Tass articulates his viewpoint very clearly whether you choose to be convinced by it or not. The plain fact is that there is no evidence of a supernatural creator of the natural world, there is only a world line beyond the which we are unable to observe. You've decided to pretend a god is out there, an infinite and eternal god, and that after existing forever he decided out of eternal boredom, just 14 billion years ago, to create the material world, to puff it into existence from out of nothing. You believe this childish nonsense because thousands of years ago, when man didn't know any better, the leaders of the tribes made up stories about their invisible tribal protectors, and lawgivers, aka gods, who of course only communicated with those leaders who then passed on the devine communique to the rest of the tribe, the naive hoi polloi. Thats who you are today, the naive hoi polloi, unable to overcome the meme that has infected your minds. Science, reason and logic aren't going to convince you that you live in a fantasy world, because you have built psychological walls to defend against them, there is probably very little hope that anything will ever convince you hardened apologists that the idea of the supernatural is a long running hoax, and you, probably for the better, are locked in its grasp. Only god knows what evils you'd do without god to keep you in line! LOL!

checkm8!

[Sparko]

Tass articulates his viewpoint very clearly whether you choose to be convinced by it or not. The plain fact is that there is no evidence of a supernatural creator of the natural world, there is only a world line beyond the which we are unable to observe. You've decided to pretend a god is out there, an infinite and eternal god, and that after existing forever he decided out of eternal boredom, just 14 billion years ago, to create the material world, to puff it into existence from out of nothing. You believe this childish nonsense because thousands of years ago, when man didn't know any better, the leaders of the tribes made up stories about their invisible tribal protectors, and lawgivers, aka gods, who of course only communicated with those leaders who then passed on the devine communique to the rest of the tribe, the naive hoi polloi. Thats who you are today, the naive hoi polloi, unable to overcome the meme that has infected your minds. Science, reason and logic aren't going to convince you that you live in a fantasy world, because you have built psychological walls to defend against them, there is probably very little hope that anything will ever convince you hardened apologists that the idea of the supernatural is a long running hoax, and you, probably for the better, are locked in its grasp. Only god knows what evils you'd do without god to keep you in line! LOL!

so you basically try to convince me of atheism and defend your view while claiming Tassy doesn't have to convince anyone of atheism or defend his view.

Typical JimL!

[One Bad Pig]

so you basically try to convince me of atheism and defend your view while claiming Tassy doesn't have to convince anyone of atheism or defend his view.

Typical JimL!

We should just start calling him "Own Goal Jim".

[Sparko]

We should just start calling him "Own Goal Jim".

"Wrong-way Jimmy."

[Adrift]

Just for fun, let's point out the issues here:

The plain fact is that there is no evidence

There is. Please see books like Scaling the Secular City, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, Warranted Christian Belief, Faith and Rationality, The Existence of God and others for lots and lots of arguments based on the evidence for the existence of God, the soul, spirit, the miraculous, and the like.

of a supernatural creator of the natural world

When referring to the creator, it isn't really necessary to describe him as supernatural. In fact, many theologians reject the supernatural/natural distinction, as everything that a creator would create would be natural to him.

there is only a world line beyond the which we are unable to observe.

There have been suggestions that we are able to observe it on occasion. But this is also true for certain naturalist theories that hypothesize the reality of a number of things without direct observation (I mention some of those things in a previous post here).

You've decided to pretend a god is out there, an infinite and eternal god,

The eminent philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that rather than pretending, theists have a rational warrant for their belief.

and that after existing forever he decided out of eternal boredom, just 14 billion years ago, to create the material world, to puff it into existence from out of nothing.

Time and eternity is an issue I've noticed you struggling with for years on this forum, and not just in a theistic sense, but you also seem to struggle with it from a naturalist perspective as well. You seem to have this view that an anthropomorphic being was sort of sitting in blackness for billions and billions of years, and then, after billions of more years of twiddling his thumbs, he started creating, you then subject this view on theists. While there are likely theists who believe in temporal infinity, I don't know a single theist on this forum who accepts this strawman. On the classical view, when we refer to the existence of God before the beginning of the universe, we mean that he was logically or ontologically prior, not temporally or chronologically prior. There was no time before the beginning of universe because there was no time. Time did not come into being until the creation of the universe. You can read more about that here if you'd like.

You believe this childish nonsense because thousands of years ago, when man didn't know any better, the leaders of the tribes made up stories about their invisible tribal protectors, and lawgivers, aka gods, who of course only communicated with those leaders who then passed on the devine communique to the rest of the tribe, the naive hoi polloi. Thats who you are today, the naive hoi polloi, unable to overcome the meme that has infected your minds.

A number of issues with this. First of all, there's more than a little chronological snobbery going on. People in the ancient world were smarter and wiser than you give them credit. 2nd of all, people from every culture in every age have believed "this childish nonsense" as you call it. Thirdly, that people thousands of years ago believed, is not the reason most of us believe. There are a wide range of reasons for why we accept theism. For my own part, I initially accepted it because I believe that people have true intrinsic worth, and purpose; that there is such a thing and good and evil, and that the grandiosity of the natural world, the beauty of the cosmos has to be greater than some clumsy cosmic accident. I look around at the world and the people around me. The majesty of the universe, and the intellect of humanity I'm humbled by it all, and I think to myself "there is no way that this is an accident of time and place".

Science, reason and logic aren't going to convince you that you live in a fantasy world, because you have built psychological walls to defend against them, there is probably very little hope that anything will ever convince you hardened apologists that the idea of the supernatural is a long running hoax, and you, probably for the better, are locked in its grasp.

A great many of the earth's greatest scientists, philosophers, and thinkers were/are theists. In fact, an argument could be made that if it were not for theists, there would have been no science. It was theists who, awed by the grandeur of creation, set about examining God's majesty through examining his creation.

Only god knows what evils you'd do without god to keep you in line! LOL!

The LOL with an exclamation point makes you sound like you're cracking up a bit towards the end here. Only God knows what evils any of us would do without him keeping us all in line, whether we acknowledge him or not.

[Tassman]

My grip is got, and yes, my argument is straightforward. You're the the one who's sounding loopier and loopier every reply.

So? Again, this has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

It provides an explanation in the pre-scientific era for the rise of all powerful gods which explain what the world is all about.

I absolutely 100% agree. This has never been in question on my side from the beginning of this discussion. You never need to bring it up again, because it's not something I myself believe. You can't tell what is true by how many people hold a view.

See above.

I absolutely 100% disagree. You're the one with the exceptional claim. You're the one swimming upstream. It is far more beholden upon you to convince the majority why they are wrong, than the other way around. This has no bearing on who is right, and which claim is true.

It is not beholden on anyone to refute unsubstantiated claims.

I have absolutely no problem justifying my beliefs. I do it all the time. Have been doing it for nearly a decade on this forum. See, I'm not the one going around telling people that I burden no responsibility.

Feel free to justify your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Yes you do.

But it isn't your only concern. Your arguments on this forum over the past decade clearly show that you have a much deeper gripe with the concept of god/s and the supernatural, and the non-civil religious views of believers themselves. Furthermore, you've extolled time and time again the secular paradise that Australia is, and Thailand is predominantly Buddhist. If you're really worried about your civil rights, why aren't you haranguing Buddhists on a Buddhist forum, instead of Christians on a Christian forum? Well, we all know the answer to that question. The answer is that you own a very passionate belief about the subject "do gods/s/the divine/the supernatural exist", and you want to tell the world. Stop pretending that you lack a belief. You don't lack a belief, you have a very strong belief. You only tell people that you lack belief so that you can dishonestly shirk your epistemic responsibility.

Irrelevant rant!

[Sparko]

This is so ironic given your argument that we should believe in AGW because everyone else does, and then challenging us to prove that AGW isn't real.

Tassy, nobody cares if you don't believe in the supernatural. You can remain in the minority if you wish. But if you want to convince others that what you believe (or don't believe) is true, then you will have to put some effort into actually supporting your view. If not, atheism will remain some minor view and nobody will care. You are not "required" to prove anything.

[Adrift]

You do not know what an ad populum fallacy is. An ad populum fallacy is "a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it." I have stated repeatedly now that that is NOT what I am doing. I did not bring up the popularity of theism to say anything about the truth of theism. How many more times must this be repeated before you get it? I brought up the popularity of theism to suggest that you have the greater burden of responsibility to support your claim.

It provides an explanation in the pre-scientific era for the rise of all powerful gods which explain what the world is all about.

So? I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. It has absolutely zero bearing on my point, or your issue with my point.

See above.

See what above? Nothing in the above relates to my agreement that you can't tell what is true by how many people hold a view.

It is not beholden on anyone to refute unsubstantiated claims.

Anyone who is making a claim is beholden to support their claim. Both the theist makes a claim as well as the atheist. They are both beholden. But if anyone has the greater burden it is you, since you are the one who is bucking the mainstream.

Feel free to justify your unsubstantiated beliefs.

I think they're heavily substantiated. And I don't really need your permission to justify my beliefs, I've been doing it here for a decade now. Again, this is such a weird comment. If you'd like to see some of my justifications you can read through my post history, or even some of our previous discussions. I mean, we've actually interacted on the existence of God numerous times over the years. You know that I've justified my beliefs. Strange that you're now pretending that I've never done this before.

This is such a ridiculous and obvious lie. I don't understand why you're even bothering making it. Again, if you only cared about those things that impact you and the lives of your friends and family you'd stick to religious issues that pertain to civics, but you've never done that. You've wasted years arguing against Christians on a Christian webforum for holding a wide variety of views that have absolutely nothing to do with civics. Furthermore, in the places you're likely to have family and friends, you've extolled a number of times that Australia is a secular paradise, and Thailand is predominantly Buddhist. You live IN Thailand. If you are really that concerned about the impact of religion in your life, then why aren't you busting the chops of Buddhists on Buddhist forums? Why are you wasting all your time here?

Irrelevant rant!

What do you mean irrelevant rant? It's perfectly relevant. I'm demonstrating why this "I only think/care about the god question when it affects my civil rights" argument of yours is a total copout. You've made it plain that that is not at all your only motivation for calling yourself an atheist, or for posting here, if it's a motivation at all.

[JimL]

so you basically try to convince me of atheism and defend your view while claiming Tassy doesn't have to convince anyone of atheism or defend his view.

Typical JimL!

So basically what mound of sand have you been burying your head in. Neither of us have to try and convince you that there is no good reason to believe in the reality of supernatural entities, aka gods, but we have both been doing that for some time now.

[Tassman]

This is so ironic given your argument that we should believe in AGW because everyone else does, and then challenging us to prove that AGW isn't real.

No dummy. We should accept the reality of AGW because the vast preponderance of scientists has compelling evidence that it is real. This does not apply to any of the thousands of deities which have beset the planet throughout human history.

Tassy, nobody cares if you don't believe in the supernatural. You can remain in the minority if you wish. But if you want to convince others that what you believe (or don't believe) is true, then you will have to put some effort into actually supporting your view. If not, atheism will remain some minor view and nobody will care. You are not "required" to prove anything.

Atheism is on the rise among the educated classes. Check the surveys...e.g. Pew Research.

[Tassman]

You do not know what an ad populum fallacy is. An ad populum fallacy is "a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it." I have stated repeatedly now that that is NOT what I am doing. I did not bring up the popularity of theism to say anything about the truth of theism. How many more times must this be repeated before you get it? I brought up the popularity of theism to suggest that you have the greater burden of responsibility to support your claim.

So? I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. It has absolutely zero bearing on my point, or your issue with my point.

It addresses why religion arose in the first place, i.e. as a form of primitive science to explain the otherwise inexplicable universe, e.g. why the universe? Answer: god-did-it.

See what above? Nothing in the above relates to my agreement that you can't tell what is true by how many people hold a view.

See above.

Anyone who is making a claim is beholden to support their claim. Both the theist makes a claim as well as the atheist. They are both beholden. But if anyone has the greater burden it is you, since you are the one who is bucking the mainstream.

I think they're heavily substantiated. And I don't really need your permission to justify my beliefs, I've been doing it here for a decade now. Again, this is such a weird comment. If you'd like to see some of my justifications you can read through my post history, or even some of our previous discussions. I mean, we've actually interacted on the existence of God numerous times over the years. You know that I've justified my beliefs. Strange that you're now pretending that I've never done this before.

Unlike scientific arguments, which are backed by empirical evidence, the only arguments supporting the existence of gods are metaphysical arguments. These, without exception, are based upon assumed premises which cannot be shown to be true. Hence, the conclusions cannot be shown to be true no matter how valid the argument, because the argument is not sound.

This is such a ridiculous and obvious lie. I don't understand why you're even bothering making it. Again, if you only cared about those things that impact you and the lives of your friends and family you'd stick to religious issues that pertain to civics, but you've never done that. You've wasted years arguing against Christians on a Christian webforum for holding a wide variety of views that have absolutely nothing to do with civics. Furthermore, in the places you're likely to have family and friends, you've extolled a number of times that Australia is a secular paradise, and Thailand is predominantly Buddhist. You live IN Thailand. If you are really that concerned about the impact of religion in your life, then why aren't you busting the chops of Buddhists on Buddhist forums? Why are you wasting all your time here?

What do you mean irrelevant rant? It's perfectly relevant. I'm demonstrating why this "I only think/care about the god question when it affects my civil rights" argument of yours is a total copout. You've made it plain that that is not at all your only motivation for calling yourself an atheist, or for posting here, if it's a motivation at all.

See above.

[Sparko]

Please atheists, I urge you to do as Tassman says and not support or argue for your view. You are the default and you merely don't believe something. so shut up already and stop arguing there is no God or supernatural. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Adrift]

It is precisely NOT what I'm doing. I should know my own intent, after all, it is my intent. Nothing in that sentence asserts that because theism is the majority view, thus it is true. I am talking about responsibility of claim making, not truth statements. You either know this and want to score points, or you can't read.

It addresses why religion arose in the first place, i.e. as a form of primitive science to explain the otherwise inexplicable universe, e.g. why the universe? Answer: god-did-it.

So? I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. It has absolutely zero bearing on my point, or your issue with my point.

See above.

See what above? Nothing in the above relates to my agreement that you can't tell what is true by how many people hold a view. (Boy, this is easy, all I have to do is copy/paste my replies at this point)



Atheists make claims. The only reason we ever label someone an atheist or theist is when we want an answer to the question "do you believe god/s exist?" Atheism is not a psychological state, it's part of one's overall beliefs about their world, especially in a world where they themselves are in the extreme minority.

Unlike scientific arguments, which are backed by empirical evidence, the only arguments supporting the existence of gods are metaphysical arguments.

What about those scientific arguments which are not backed by empirical evidence? Next time someone starts making a cosmological argument, you better not say a word about multiverses. There is absolutely nothing wrong with metaphysics, and they're actually quite helpful in the sciences. Logical positivism has been dead for decades.

These, without exception, are based upon assumed premises which cannot be shown to be true. Hence, the conclusions cannot be shown to be true no matter how valid the argument, because the argument is not sound.

There are plenty of arguments that are not based on assumed premises, can shown to be true (or at least, more plausible than their negation), and are sound. If you'd like some examples, the Christian philosopher and apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig, offers five arguments for God here with carefully laid out premises. He also goes into what makes a good argument a sound argument before diving into his arguments for the existence of God.



But none of this should bother or even interest you. None of this has anything to do with religious beliefs as they pertain to civics, which is why you claim to be calling yourself an atheist.

Oh please. You've been active on this forum since Bush II's administration and all throughout Obama's. The idea that you're only here because Trump, who was only voted in last year, will impose his religious will upon you and your family and friends back in Australia and Thailand is ludicrous to the max. No one buys that for a second.

[JimL]

Just for fun, let's point out the issues here:

Okay.

There is. Please see books like Scaling the Secular City, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, Warranted Christian Belief, Faith and Rationality, The Existence of God and others for lots and lots of arguments based on the evidence for the existence of God, the soul, spirit, the miraculous, and the like.

A list of your favorite books is not evidence. Shall I give you fifty books to read? If you've read the books and can actually defend the so called evidence, then lets have it.

When referring to the creator, it isn't really necessary to describe him as supernatural. In fact, many theologians reject the supernatural/natural distinction, as everything that a creator would create would be natural to him.

Okay, lets put it this way then; there is no evidence of an immaterial creator of the material world.

There have been suggestions that we are able to observe it on occasion. But this is also true for certain naturalist theories that hypothesize the reality of a number of things without direct observation (I mention some of those things in a previous post here).

We cannot observe that which is beyond our ability to observe. The notion of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, not a theory.

The eminent philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that rather than pretending, theists have a rational warrant for their belief.

And his rational warrant is?

Time and eternity is an issue I've noticed you struggling with for years on this forum, and not just in a theistic sense, but you also seem to struggle with it from a naturalist perspective as well.

Time is an issue we all struggle with, nice to know you've figured it out though. Perhaps you could explain time for us.

You seem to have this view that an anthropomorphic being was sort of sitting in blackness for billions and billions of years, and then, after billions of more years of twiddling his thumbs, he started creating, you then subject this view on theists. While there are likely theists who believe in temporal infinity, I don't know a single theist on this forum who accepts this strawman. On the classical view, when we refer to the existence of God before the beginning of the universe, we mean that he was logically or ontologically prior, not temporally or chronologically prior. There was no time before the beginning of universe because there was no time. Time did not come into being until the creation of the universe. You can read more about that here if you'd like.

Well yes, I know the argument, but you can't explain it logically. If god is static then he does nothing, no creation, if he does anything, if he creates, then he does it in time.

A number of issues with this. First of all, there's more than a little chronological snobbery going on. People in the ancient world were smarter and wiser than you give them credit.

That depends upon how you define smart. Not knowing certain things doesn't make a people stupid, it just means they lacked certain knowledge.

2nd of all, people from every culture in every age have believed "this childish nonsense" as you call it.

Yes, just as is true today the beliefs were impressed upon them as children. Thats the Moses tradition. Children and idiots are easily led.

Thirdly, that people thousands of years ago believed, is not the reason most of us believe.

Oh yes it is. Had you been born into a muslim culture you'd be worshipping Allah today.

There are a wide range of reasons for why we accept theism. For my own part, I initially accepted it because I believe that people have true intrinsic worth, and purpose; that there is such a thing and good and evil, and that the grandiosity of the natural world, the beauty of the cosmos has to be greater than some clumsy cosmic accident. I look around at the world and the people around me. The majesty of the universe, and the intellect of humanity I'm humbled by it all, and I think to myself "there is no way that this is an accident of time and place".

Yeah, its unbelievably awesome, though no less so for its being uncreated and natural. Btw, those aren't reasons to believe, those are reasons for your wanting to believe.

A great many of the earth's greatest scientists, philosophers, and thinkers were/are theists. In fact, an argument could be made that if it were not for theists, there would have been no science. It was theists who, awed by the grandeur of creation, set about examining God's majesty through examining his creation.

Yes I know, being a thinker doesn't automatically cure one of the virus, it takes time and further knowledge. Plus, many of the scientists etc. of old, had no choice but to say they believed, who knows what they secretly believed.

The LOL with an exclamation point makes you sound like you're cracking up a bit towards the end here. Only God knows what evils any of us would do without him keeping us all in line, whether we acknowledge him or not.

Nope, when you stop believing, when you let go of the guilt, fear and eternal hope, then you'll find out what kind of a person you really are. We created gods to keep the sociopaths in line.