/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1868049
Throughout the presentation of this argument I sat in disgust as loud, obnoxious Christians uttered agreement at the most bullshit ideas this guy was presenting. He presented long-defeated and stupid "evidence" such as the classic watchmaker argument. He also argued that DNA is a "message" and "messages only come from minds, therefore it was created by a God".

To top it off, there was a fat, angst-ridden atheist who challenged the man directly during the Q&A section at the end. His tone was immediately rude, and he was a typical socially-awkward, angry atheist. I am an atheist myself and could only watch in horror as this obese nerd ruined my reputation.

You see, the thing about a lot of Christian apologists is that what they lack in logic, they make up for in charisma and emotional appeal.

Of course Turek disemboweled this stupid kid, being far more qualified and educated and having far more experience in debating his beliefs.

I was sad because every Christian that came to that meeting got exactly what he came for; satisfaction that his twisted, sick ideas were in fact correct.

CONTINUED...

>>1868051
After the fat guy sat down I stood and interrogated Turek, but in a polite and friendly way. I brought up several valid points.

I asked him about earlier when he talked about the period before time, space, and mass. I asked, "how can you draw conclusions with certainty from a setting in which there is no space, time, or mass? That is a world we obviously have no experience of and our laws of logic probably do not hold true in such a setting."

This guy is very good. He knows how to deflect every tricky question you ask him. First he'll make a joke to buy time. When the crowd is laughing, he'll think of a way to divert your question. He'll begin to argue semantics with you. He'll act as if he didn't understand the question. Definitely a smooth-talker.

There were several other questions I brought up but you'd have to be at the presentation to understand them.

CONTINUED...

>>1868054
However, I did ask him about his views on homosexuality and let me tell you that he displayed blatant and open bigotry toward gays. He tried to come up with "scientific evidence" that homosexuality is a wrong practice. He said that STD's are contracted more readily through anal intercourse etc. He also said that there is no "gay gene" because homosexuals cannot produce progeny. Therefore no one is born gay. After that statement there was widespread agreement in the room. He told an emotional story about his gay friend. People clapped. I cringed at what must have been the most disgusting display of hate speech I'd encountered in a while.

I don't really know why I posted this. I guess I'm still riled up from the whole thing. It put a bad taste in my mouth to see this guy presenting such fallacious and hateful ideas, but having an entire room full of easily-swayed idiots agreeing with him.

This guy regularly tours the country (U.S.), so if he's stopping by your college I strongly suggest that you go see him. He summarizes everything that is putrid and foul about Christianity (and much of organized religion).

>>1868049

>something spaceless, timeless, and immaterial must have brought those three things into existence. This proves God.
>Choices come from minds, therefore God has a mind and he is personal.

>timeless
>makes choices

pic related, mfw a timeless and changeless being with a mind changes from one mental state to another by making a choice

This guy is going to be within eighty miles of me three days from now.

>>something spaceless, timeless, and immaterial must have brought those three things into existence. This proves God.
>And it's totally our god, as we interpret and preach it from the bible guys. Seriously!
ya...

>>1868073
kill him

>>1868054
>After the fat guy sat down I stood and interrogated Turek

no you didn't.

i can believe that on the car ride home you thought of all this and wished you would have said it. but you didn't actually say it to him in front of a crowd. sorry bro.

>>1868049

Look whats happened to religion in the last 100 years. As people get more and more educated, religion gets less and less power.

This guy is only in it for sucking out the last dime of this sinking ship, which I actually can respect him for.

OP I understand exactly how you're feeling. Most people are retarded and apathetic and only enjoy indulging in their beliefs. They fail to see the world with an objective lense.

Then most of the people who have the ability to detect the fallacy are rude failures like the fat ass you described.

You can never expect to win a debate against someone like that; they'll bury you in semantics and pathos.

What college was this btw?

>>1868075
Well to be fair I have poorly represented his side of the argument and he did not have enough time to fully explain why christianity is the correct religion. He did, however, narrow the choices down to islam, judaism, and christianity within the segment I saw. Something about his argument, he says, necessitates a SINGLE creator. I still don't see, even if with the bullshit evidence he presented, why a pantheistic deity could not have brought the universe into existence.


Also sorry for the TL;DR. Basically I talked about a religious douche who made me flustered.

>>1868054

You now know exactly why most scientists would rather not argue with people like this. They will use anything and everything to make themselves appear correct to Average Joe, even though his logic is loaded with holes. To the average man, he who sounds right is right

>>1868091
Just a fucking ho-hum community college in michigan. I think he made some comment about how it's the only community college he spent time at in the state of michigan. While in-state he stopped at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University as well.

How is he so sure that there was a point where there was no space, time, or matter?

God simply is. God was, and God will be. The Idea of a universe without beginning or end is certainly within the realm of possibility. Using a state of non-existence as the basis for God's existence is no proof beyond the standard assertion that God exists.

>>1868098
>How is he so sure that there was a point where there was no space, time, or matter?
Isn't that pretty much the consensus right now though? That time had a real beginning.
(I'm not trying to defend the dude)

>Something about his argument, he says, necessitates a SINGLE creator
Of course, he warps the perception of available data to fit his world view. From the outset there was no other conclusion he could have come to.

>>1868098
He has a whole prolonged argument as to why the universe must have had a beginning. He uses an acronym for it called SURGE so I bet you can read up on it if you want to. It's basically bullshit though.

You write very well OP. Thumbs up.

Sucks to be you (an american)!.

Lol u got owned by Frank.

Just kidding. If you were in a mental ward where everyone there is convinced they're Abraham Lincoln, pointing out the irrationality to everyone is just going to anger the patients. There's no use reasoning with a crowd of idiots. Frank is probably too smart to believe in his own bullshit but spews it to make money, and I congratulate you on being one of a few who won't be conned. Maybe you can arrange a pro-atheism speech by a local member of the Freethought Society.

Tell this faggot to read Hawking's new book.

Also, if God is unchanging why would he change his mind and decide to create humanity at a distinct point in time.

There IS a gay gene; it's been scientifically proven.

etc, etc...boy I wish I was there.

>>1868098
>>1868106
A lot of the evidence points to a universal & finite beginning.
But even if that's true, the guy's gap in logic happens when he jumps from "universe has beginning" to "GOD created the universe".

>>1868112
If you were a con man, would you respond to people who can see through your lies?

>>1868106
I thought that the possibility of multiple "big bangs" due to an expansion and contraction cycle was king atm. Once the universe goes through heat death everything slowly creeps back into one big mess only to get a little too close for comfort, and BANG! off we go again.

>>1868112
>Tell this faggot to read Hawking's new book.
Don't be <span class="math">that[/spoiler] guy...

>There IS a gay gene; it's been scientifically proven.
Oh nice, I didn't even know that (or care, honestly)
Next they'll find a gene that has a correlation for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream.

>>1868112
>There IS a gay gene; it's been scientifically proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly (>but inaccurately) dubbed as the 'gay gene' in the media, causing significant controversy

>>1868112
OH thanks for reminding me one of the most rage-inducing parts of his whole presentation!

He had Hawking's book on his little podium. From it, he recited Hawking valid evidence but quote-mined and misinterpreted it in such a way that it sounded fallacious. Then he presented this bastardized version of Hawking's theories to the audience and promptly defeated them.

Of course, with the Q&A session being saved until the END, I could not stand and point out his obvious bastardizations of Hawkings' ideas, nor could I point out his obvious quote mining. Him, being a completely unchallenged smooth-talker, convinced everyone in that room that Hawking was an idiot.

It's really underhanded to challenge someone's argument when they're not even in the room. It's even more underhanded to misinterpret that argument when you know you can't win.

>>1868125
Naw, because that would go against the increasingly rapid acceleration of the universe.

>>1868134
*rapid acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

>>1868087
Is this truly what you believe? On the contrary we are losing this ideological war. For starters, there is no true organized opposition to faith and it's a very touchy issue. Here in America the most power government in the world is predominantly christian.

>>1868152

what? percentage of population not identifying with any religion is increasing every year they do the survey. around 15% now i believe. that is a HUGE increase from the days your parents were your age.

I'm fairly sure the Amazing Atheist made a bigger dent in Mr. Turek than Op

Where is your God when you need him, huh? Where is your beautiful, merciful faggot now?

let me just quote house:
"if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people"

and OP you are right, you cannot win a debate against a professional unless you are a trained debater as well

>>1868091
>You can never expect to win a debate against someone like that; they'll bury you in semantics and pathos.

WAT

>>1868159
I never claimed to have made a dent in him.

I really don't see why you guys even give a shit. Look through this thread. You guys consider yourself so uber smart yet there are plenty of misconceptions. If it makes them happy so be it.
Haters gonna hate.

>>1868049
he spoke at my college a couple years back too, god damn that was a horrible presentation, I tried to get him to realize that a reductio ad absurdam is a valid logical argument, but he ignored me, mainly cause I was yelling in the middle of audience while he was trying to speak, but still, fucking retard

>>1868175
oh yeah then he said that atheists were doomed to either go insane, recant or commit suicide, having cited precisely three famous examples. One chick got really pissed and called him out on it, he tried to deny that that's what he said, but it was written on the fucking slide.

The worst part was the crowd full of local churchgoers who brought their children. I don't have a problem with religious people so long as you recognize faith is irrational and must be so for it to have value as faith, but these kids are gonna grow up thinking science proved god. They'll neither be truly faithful or truly socially useful. I pity the generations to come.

>>1868054

>our laws of logic probably do not hold true in such a setting

I think I can see what you're getting at but this is a bad way of saying it. The laws of logic can never fail to be correct, even in principle. That's just not the sort of thing they are.

>>1868152
New poster here. I keep hearing this around, but I still don't understand why atheists insist on believing it. Why do you think atheism is a persecuted point-of-view? Why do you think everyone in power is predominantly Christian?

If anything, the halls of power are becoming Jewish, or make-believe Jewish in order to appease our Israeli overlords. Christianity is on the decline, and is in fact struggling to survive. It's been eliminated in most of America's institutions (and throughout Western Civ). You have to belong to a "persecuted minority" in order to practice your religion in any public setting.

>>1868194
Of course they can't fail to be correct since the only way of assessing correctness of logical propositions is governed by the laws of logic. The obvious implication being made though is that the laws would cease to be meaningful.

>>1868197
How many presidents have been atheists, how many congressmen or senators have been atheists?
It is not the majority i assure you.

Just because the first amendment has been upheld doesn't mean anyone is persecuting christians.

>>1868199

They can't do that, either.

>>1868069
Kind of unrelated, but that is such an awesome reaction image.

>>1868204

"The majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively. Non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism), collectively make up about 4% to 5% of the adult population. Another 15% of the adult population identifies as having no religious belief or no religious affiliation.[3] According to the American Religious Identification Survey, religious belief varies considerably across the country: 59% of Americans living in Western states (the "Unchurched Belt") report a belief in God, yet in the South (the "Bible Belt") the figure is as high as 86%."

>>1868206
Yes they can.

>He also said that there is no "gay gene" because homosexuals cannot produce progeny.

You better have slapped his shit pointing out that the siblings, especially those who are female, of the homosexual can and do have children and also are likely carriers of this genetic tendency, if one does exist.

>>1868226

Take, for example, a hypothetical world in which nothing exists, no space, no time, no objects, nothing.

In that world, even though there are no things, it is still true A = A, that is, that anything is itself. Just because there are no things for it to be true about, doesn't make it stop holding true.

>He also said that there is no "gay gene" because homosexuals cannot produce progeny.

Oh god, missed that part. How fucking retarded.

>>1868238
If there are no things, then nothing is, much less is there anything for nothing to be. Since there are no minds there are no ideas, and there can't even be the idea of a thing. Thus the law of identity has no meaning. Moreover, things don't exist in nature, the real world doesn't exist of discrete objects, what distinction is there between a chair and a floor except when carved up and labeled as objects by consciousness. Space and time are both simply categories of ordering. Causality follows from temporal ordering. Without either the existence of objects or the existence of causality, logical laws are meaningless.

>>1868251

Just because their is no one to comprehend their meaning doesn't make them meaningless.

>>1868261
yes it does.

>>1868268

You are wrong and you are going to have to accept it.

>>1868197
Churches like the catholic church are some of the most powerful and influential sovereign nation/cults on the planet. Just because you don't rule Europe anymore, doesn't mean you're disappearing.

Faggot

>>1868274
No I'm not, without a god's eye view, only humans (or possibly some other conscious species) can imbue meaning. No humans, no meaning.

>>1868285

You're saying that if there were no conscious minds to consider an object, then that object would cease to be equivalent to itself?

>>1868298
Yes.

>>1868305

Okay, well I think you're nuts.

>>1868298
No, what I'm saying is that the objects existence, and its logical identity to itself would become meaningless propositions.

>>1868298
Not the guy you're arguing with but sound doesn't exist unless its perceived but the mechanical wave still exist. Just food for thought. (I realize it is not the same)

>>1868317
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

>>1868251
Shit exists whether you're there to observe it or not.

faggot

>>1868321
Yes it does.

>>1868331
How do you know though?

>>1868337
Seismic waves

>>1868335
Actually no it doesn't. See>>1868317

>>1868172
>>1868172
I care because religion is poisonous and holds back humanity. I would rather have my fellow man hold true beliefs than false beliefs. Further yet these false beliefs lead them to hate homosexuals and lead them to laziness. They fail to challenge themselves as they are used to easy explanations like "well God did it!" They don't hold themselves morally accountable for their own actions, because they believe Jesus died for their sins. Furthermore they hold their life as less precious because they believe in eternal afterlife. There are many more poisonous ideals I won't get into, but many organized religions only hurt the believer.

>>1868337

faith

>>1868331
Not denying that shit exists, just saying that the divisions of reality between one substance to the next are semi-arbitrary acts of humans. Fundamentally all there is are vibrating fucking strings whose fundamental substance is interchangeable. I don't deny the fundamental matter exists but there are no "objects"

>>1868335
How do you know ?

>>1868313
>>1868317
>>1868321
>>1868331
>>1868335
>>1868337
>>1868339
>>1868340
Really guys, this debate is unnecessary. My question to Turek challenged his utmost certainty in drawing conclusions from a world we have no understanding of (one that precluded the universe, time, and space). That was the real premise of my question.

>>1868331
Again, how do you know it ?

>>1868313

No they wouldn't because we're discussing them right now and obviously they are still meaningful even in the context of that hypothetical situation.

Captcha: perfect rubbege
That's what I think your argument is, ha HA!

>>1868352

And as much as I think Turek is a chump, I don't think your specific objection was a good one.

>>1868337
Because you failed philosophy. Guy.

>>1868363
That's not an answer.

>>1868343
>Furthermore they hold their life as less precious because they believe in eternal afterlife
What religion are you talking about? Pretty sure that isn't the case. What evidence do you have that "They fail to challenge themselves as they are used to easy explanations like "well God did it!""
Up until recently, 99.9999999% of discoveries were made by religious people, so that pretty much goes against that.
They don't hold themselves morally accountable for their own actions, because they believe Jesus died for their sins.
I don't really think that's the case but I'm not going to argue that since its just a blanket statement that can't be proven or disproven.
The hating homosexual part I can agree with, but people are always going to hate people different from them. You could agree that 4chan is mainly atheist or agnostic and yet it's one of the more racist sites on the internet.

>>1868363

how does it feel to be completely closed-minded to anything other than the currently in-vogue scientific conception of things?

>>1868351
yes but we are conscious entities who vest them with meaning. Which is my damn point in the first place. Who's "Rubbege" now?

>>1868379

I think you're just a solipsist in disguise.

>>1868398
Of course not I'm a pragmatic nihilist. I don't accept the cogito as being logically rigorous.

>>1868374
>>1868367
feels good man, I never cared for the deconstructionist school of thought.

>>1868373
making me rage
so hard

>>1868321
>>1868335
>>1868337
>>1868340
Falling trees in the forest make sounds whether you are there to perceive them or not. Physics doesn't suddenly appear just because you are around to observe the event.

>>1868462
do something about it then faggot

>>1868466
Tell that to wave functions motherfucker

>>1868472
I'm past the stage of writing long ass posts to convince random people I don't know about something that is molded into their mind.

>>1868373
Oh just Christians, Muslims, Jews...

>>1868490
then you loose Mr. inefficient pussyfaggot

>>1868466
Don't see prooves.

>>1868478
wave functions =/= falling trees

>>1868504
the tree has a wavefunction when observed it collapses

>>1868497
Well I can handle losing, I also am now 100% sure that you are an angsy teenager.

Nevertheless, proceed.

>>1868423
Yeah, you're so more smart than that, aren't you ?

>>1868518
Smart enough to see that you have difficulty writing.

>>1868513
Trees don't have a wave–particle duality.

>>1868595
Of course they do, the de broglie wavelength is given by the same equation as everything else frequency = energy / planck's constant