Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Adrift]

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.

No, I'm not going to do that. That'd take forever. These are big books with lots of words and pages. It'd take me days, maybe even months to condense all of that. But more to point, I've already offered plenty of evidence for God found in those books on this very forum throughout the years. In fact, you yourself read and replied to a lot of those posts! If you're really crazy curious about the evidence, just pick up one of those books (you don't have to pick them all up), or read back to the post I made to Tassman where the Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig offers five good arguments based on evidence for the existence of God. Now, you're more than welcome to offer me fifty books to read if you'd like, but...I'm not disputing that you have evidence for your worldview, so I'm not really sure what the point of that would be.

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

Okay, well, you're wrong.

We cannot observe that which is beyond our ability to observe.

Yeah, that's pretty axiomatic. I wasn't referring to observation of the unobservable.

The notion of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, not a theory.

So is the notion of a multiverse. Not all unfalsifiable claims are fallacious. Thank goodness our knowledge isn't limited to only those things we can observe through science. We'd have to get rid of all sorts of things we can't falsify, like the study of history, literature, art, mathematics, logic, and so on.

And his rational warrant is?

I'm actually a little surprised you're not familiar with this because we've discussed this many times on this forum. It's pretty heavy stuff, so here is a link on the subject for you to read if you're sincerely interested (I know that you're not, but let's just pretend you are).

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

Oh, I'm far from having it all figured out, but you've demonstrated over the years that you have a particularly hard time with it. Instead of explaining time to you, my recommendation would be to put your name and the search perimeter "time" or "eternity" into TWeb's advanced search function, then read through the threads you participated in where you can reread where both Christians and non-Christians tried in vain to help you understand simple concepts about time and eternity. It probably won't do you any good, but it'll save me time.

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.

The link I suggested for you actually goes into this.

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

I guarantee you that people who lived in the past had far more knowledge than you're giving them credit for.

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

See, there you go with your chronological bigotry again. Past people were not idiots. And this doesn't account for the rise of religion, different religions at that, in many places throughout the world. All it would account for, if true, is why people hold to established religions. It also doesn't account for the mass conversions of people to religions they didn't grow up with. It's almost like :gasp: people sometimes consider their beliefs before, you know, naively accepting them.

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

It seems like I have to remind one of you guys every few months that even though I was born in America, I was not raised a Christian. So, no, being born into a culture does not guarantee belief.

Yeah, its unbelievably awesome, though no less so for its being uncreated and natural.

Eh, I think quite a bit less. I mean, it'd still be amazing, but knowing that there is intent and purpose behind it adds just another layer of WOW!

Btw, those aren't reasons to believe, those are reasons for your wanting to believe.

This is a weird sentence. I could be wrong, but I don't think most people distinguish between those reasons they believe something and those reasons they want to believe something. I mean, "wanting to believe something" implies that you know that something isn't true, but you desire it to be true anyways, otherwise you'd just believe it. I didn't want to believe those things were true, I just believed they were true, and those things were (to me) good reasons to begin my search and belief in God.

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.

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

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.

I let go of the guilt and fear when I started believing. The kind of person I found out I really was, was a man made in God's very own image. A joint-heir with Christ, with power from on high. A more-than conqueror through him who loved me!

[Tassman]

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.

Then why mention vis-a-vis

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.

So insecure...typical Adrift argument via sneering.

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.

Ah, back to "size" again!

Atheism is growing among the better educated, where critical thinking is exercised, rather than the religious mores of a society being passively accepted. You will note that religion is flourishing in the Third World more so than in the educated West. In Africa they still have murderous religious wars, just like the good ole days in Europe.

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.

Read up about scientific methodology, you're showing your ignorance.

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.

There are none. A sound argument must have a demonstrably true premise before you can claim a true conclusion...no matter how valid the argument itself may be.

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.

Ah yes, Great argument Adrift.

[Adrift]

Then why mention vis-a-vis in the first place?

Cutting and pasting from post #313 to save time,

"You're the one who has the exceptional claim, not me. That doesn't mean my view is true, only that you have your work cut out for you. Anytime we've ever seen someone or someones in any field of science, or politics, or philosophy (or anything really) that held a peculiar or exceptional view, it's always been up to the ones with that exceptional, or rare view to change the minds of the majority, not the majority to change the minds of the minority."

Size is of no importance when it comes to facts...

I couldn't agree more. I don't know what more I can say to convince you that this is something that I agree with, and not something I'm arguing against. I'm not saying that those who hold the majority view have better facts. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that this is a view I hold. I'm not referring to facts, I'm referring to the responsiblity to support those facts.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I don't care about or like Trump.

No, you do make a claim. You claim that God does not exist.

I, in fact, except quite a few of their claims. I accept claims from Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Neo-Pagans, and a slew of other religious people. I may not always agree with the conclusions of those claims, but make no mistake about it, I do, very often, accept their claims. In fact, I accept more of their claims than I do most atheist's claims. I'm able to do that because, unlike materialists, theists aren't limited to accepting that the physical world is all that there is.

You do realize that this could also be reworded as, "no, we believe gods don't exist", right? You don't lack a belief. You have a claim, and your claim is that gods do not exist. Stop telling people you lack belief. and that you have no claims. No one here believes that. You come onto this forum every night telling us what you believe. You've been doing so for near 10 years.

Atheism is growing among the better educated, where critical thinking is exercised, rather than the religious mores of a society being passively accepted.

According to the latest Pew research polls, atheism is actually shrinking across the board. So, you're already in the minority, and you're only getting smaller.

Read up about scientific methodology, you're showing your ignorance.

I have. That's why I'm confident in what I'm saying.

There are none.

There are.

A sound argument must have a demonstrably true premise before you can claim a true conclusion...no matter how valid the argument itself may be.

Source: Logic and Argument Analysis: An Introduction to Formal Logic and Philosophic Method (REVISED) by, Preston K. Covey, at Carnegie Mellon University, 1985

prima facie plausible premises will often suffice.

© Copyright Original Source

You're here griping about religion every night. It's not like you're hard to miss.

Trump is just an example. ALL governments in the US are pressured by special interest religious groups of which the Evangelicals are the most demanding...with the highest sense of personal entitlement. And, even in its decline as a great power, what happens in the US impacts upon virtually every nation worldwide. Hence the world's interest!

Since you're simply repeating your untrue claim, I will now copy and paste my reply to you from post #354.

"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?"

[Tassman]

Cutting and pasting from post #313 to save time,

"You're the one who has the exceptional claim, not me. That doesn't mean my view is true, only that you have your work cut out for you. Anytime we've ever seen someone or someones in any field of science, or politics, or philosophy (or anything really) that held a peculiar or exceptional view, it's always been up to the ones with that exceptional, or rare view to change the minds of the majority, not the majority to change the minds of the minority."

I couldn't agree more. I don't know what more I can say to convince you that this is something that I agree with, and not something I'm arguing against. I'm not saying that those who hold the majority view have better facts. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that this is a view I hold. I'm not referring to facts, I'm referring to the responsiblity to support those facts.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I don't care about or like Trump.

You, like Trump, value size.

No, you do make a claim. You claim that God does not exist.

I, in fact, except quite a few of their claims. I accept claims from Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Neo-Pagans, and a slew of other religious people. I may not always agree with the conclusions of those claims, but make no mistake about it, I do, very often, accept their claims. In fact, I accept more of their claims than I do most atheist's claims. I'm able to do that because, unlike materialists, theists aren't limited to accepting that the physical world is all that there is

You are entitled to believe whatever you want about a supposed non-material world...good luck with that. But I see no good reason to accept such beliefs.

You do realize that this could also be reworded as, "no, we believe gods don't exist", right? You don't lack a belief. You have a claim, and your claim is that gods do not exist. Stop telling people you lack belief. and that you have no claims. No one here believes that. You come onto this forum every night telling us what you believe. You've been doing so for near 10 years.

According to the latest Pew research polls, atheism is actually shrinking across the board. So, you're already in the minority, and you're only getting smaller.

Atheism is shrinking across the globe due to the high birth rate in the under-educated third world countries where religion still flourishes. It is in decline among the more highly developed countries...even in the USA.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...es-in-the-u-s/

As Bertrand Russell says "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines".

There are.

Nope!

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Logic and Argument Analysis: An Introduction to Formal Logic and Philosophic Method (REVISED) by, Preston K. Covey, at Carnegie Mellon University, 1985

4. PLAUSIBLE PREMISES

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Logic and Argument Analysis: An Introduction to Formal Logic and Philosophic Method (REVISED) by, Preston K. Covey, at Carnegie Mellon University, 1985

Note the bolded.

Truth and plausibility are not necessarily the same.

Indeed they're not.

prima facie plausible premises will often suffice.

© Copyright Original Source

You're here griping about religion every night. It's not like you're hard to miss.

I repeat: Night-time is for my family. My posting is for quiet moments at the work place. I leave it to you to spend your evenings typing away. And is it any of your business.

Since you're simply repeating your untrue claim, I will now copy and paste my reply to you from post #354.

"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?"

Some are less parochial than others.

[MaxVel]

Adrift has you pegged, Tassman. You're entitled to post about whatever you want, on whatever forum that will have you as a member. But the inconsistencies between your beliefs and your actions is obvious, and undermines your 'credibility'.

[Tassman]

No, I'm not going to do that. That'd take forever. These are big books with lots of words and pages. It'd take me days, maybe even months to condense all of that. But more to point, I've already offered plenty of evidence for God found in those books on this very forum throughout the years. In fact, you yourself read and replied to a lot of those posts! If you're really crazy curious about the evidence, just pick up one of those books (you don't have to pick them all up), or read back to the post I made to Tassman where the Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig offers five good arguments based on evidence for the existence of God. Now, you're more than welcome to offer me fifty books to read if you'd like, but...I'm not disputing that you have evidence for your worldview, so I'm not really sure what the point of that would be.

Okay, well, you're wrong.

So is the notion of a multiverse. Not all unfalsifiable claims are fallacious. Thank goodness our knowledge isn't limited to only those things we can observe through science. We'd have to get rid of all sorts of things we can't falsify, like the study of history, literature, art, mathematics, logic, and so on.

The multiverse hypothesis is based upon existing knowledge and mathematical predictions. This is how science works. E.g. It took over thirty years to discover all of the quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and almost fifty to see the Higgs Boson. When these phenomena were first proposed there were no experiments available to falsify them. But they were confidently and successfully predicted...as is the likely case re the predicted multiverse.

I'm actually a little surprised you're not familiar with this because we've discussed this many times on this forum. It's pretty heavy stuff, so here is a link on the subject for you to read if you're sincerely interested (I know that you're not, but let's just pretend you are).

Oh, I'm far from having it all figured out, but you've demonstrated over the years that you have a particularly hard time with it. Instead of explaining time to you, my recommendation would be to put your name and the search perimeter "time" or "eternity" into TWeb's advanced search function, then read through the threads you participated in where you can reread where both Christians and non-Christians tried in vain to help you understand simple concepts about time and eternity. It probably won't do you any good, but it'll save me time.

I guarantee you that people who lived in the past had far more knowledge than you're giving them credit for.

True! But the pre-scientific era, in the absence of critical thinking, was far more credulous...you know miracles and things.

See, there you go with your chronological bigotry again. Past people were not idiots. And this doesn't account for the rise of religion, different religions at that, in many places throughout the world. All it would account for, if true, is why people hold to established religions. It also doesn't account for the mass conversions of people to religions they didn't grow up with. It's almost like :gasp: people sometimes consider their beliefs before, you know, naively accepting them.

Few people choose their religion, because geography, social conditioning and cultural identification mostly chooses it first.

Eh, I think quite a bit less. I mean, it'd still be amazing, but knowing that there is intent and purpose behind it adds just another layer of WOW!

This is a weird sentence. I could be wrong, but I don't think most people distinguish between those reasons they believe something and those reasons they want to believe something. I mean, "wanting to believe something" implies that you know that something isn't true, but you desire it to be true anyways, otherwise you'd just believe it. I didn't want to believe those things were true, I just believed they were true, and those things were (to me) good reasons to begin my search and belief in God.

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

Most people just went with the flow re their religious culture, even the greatest thinkers.

I let go of the guilt and fear when I started believing. The kind of person I found out I really was, was a man made in God's very own image. A joint-heir with Christ, with power from on high. A more-than conqueror through him who loved me!

Adrift has you pegged, Tassman. You're entitled to post about whatever you want, on whatever forum that will have you as a member. But the inconsistencies between your beliefs and your actions is obvious, and undermines your 'credibility'.

Adrift is a pretentious blowhard.

[Sparko]

Tassman continues to deny he substantiates and defends atheism while he does so.

[Zymologist]

Adrift is a pretentious blowhard.

You're a funny guy, Tassman.

[JimL]

Tassman continues to deny he substantiates and defends atheism while he does so.

Atheism isn't a belief in some-thing, it's a disbelief in a thing claimed. Defending atheism is nothing more than defending ones dis-belief in the existence of god.

[Teallaura]

Atheism isn't a belief in some-thing, it's a disbelief in a thing claimed. Defending atheism is nothing more than defending ones dis-belief in the existence of god.

That's probably the weakest argument I've ever seen you make. Here, let's restate: Atheism isn't a belief in some-thing, it's a belief that a thing claimed is untrue.

I haven't toyed with the meaning of your statement - I merely restated it.

From Webster: Disbelief: Definition of disbelief

:the act of disbelieving :mental rejection of something as untrue





Your 'disbelief' is merely a mental rejection of the existence of God as untrue. It is not a fact - it is a belief. The negative factor does not alter the fact that it is a belief.

Atheism is in fact a belief system - it always has been. You don't strengthen your case by denying that you have a belief system. Nor do you improve the foundation for atheism - quite the opposite. It makes for a weak argument at best and an irrational one at worst.

[Tassman]

That's probably the weakest argument I've ever seen you make. Here, let's restate: Atheism isn't a belief in some-thing, it's a belief that a thing claimed is untrue.

I haven't toyed with the meaning of your statement - I merely restated it.

From Webster: Disbelief: Definition of disbelief

:the act of disbelieving :mental rejection of something as untrue


Your 'disbelief' is merely a mental rejection of the existence of God as untrue. It is not a fact - it is a belief. The negative factor does not alter the fact that it is a belief.

Atheism is in fact a belief system - it always has been. You don't strengthen your case by denying that you have a belief system. Nor do you improve the foundation for atheism - quite the opposite. It makes for a weak argument at best and an irrational one at worst.

[JimL]

Beautifully explained Tass. That should get through to them, eh? Not!

[Adrift]

Beautifully explained Tass. That should get through to them, eh? Not!

When non-stamp collectors start labeling themselves a-stampists, attend huge conferences discussing their a-stampism, write popular books on not collecting stamps, debate stamp collectors at lecture halls, Ted Talks, and nightly on online forums, and start evangelising their a-stampism on billboards and the sides of buses, I'll be impressed with the analogy.

As Christians have been telling you on this forum for a decade, we reject your definition of faith that is belief without evidence or believing something you know ain't so, and embrace the definition of faith that is confidence in the one who has offered us good reason to believe that he is trustworthy.

[Sparko]

Atheism isn't a belief in some-thing, it's a disbelief in a thing claimed. Defending atheism is nothing more than defending ones dis-belief in the existence of god.

Right. and you don't have to defend or promote your disbelief, right?

So please, stop doing it. We are sick and tired of listening to you and tassman doing it.

ok? thanks.

[Roy]

When non-stamp collectors start labeling themselves a-stampists, attend huge conferences discussing their a-stampism, write popular books on not collecting stamps, debate stamp collectors at lecture halls, Ted Talks, and nightly on online forums, and start evangelising their a-stampism on billboards and the sides of buses, I'll be impressed with the analogy.

When stamp-collectors start insisting that philately is required to be moral or hold office, demand financial concessions and tax immunity for stamp-clubs, and insist that all kindergarteners join the APS and learn about penny reds, I'll be impressed by your counter-argument.