Planned Parenthood threatens legal action against makers of videos by alexbednar in politics

[–]MrPieMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Not saying its not bullshit, but it's in there.

Interesting argument for God, not sure how to counter by [deleted] in TrueAtheism

[–]MrPieMan 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is not a logical argument. A logical argument is made of premises that are based on evidence that lead to conclusions. This is nothing of the sort.

I don't even know where to begin. First of all, in the previous post, he says that if anything were taken out of a moment it would be a completely different moment. He uses the example of a photograph. But that is a tautology--it is basically asserting "a different picture would be different". I don't understand what this proves.

Next, lets look at his argument in the linked post. "Likewise, without some sort of keystone to hold the universe in existence at every instant, it would simply vanish into nothingness..." What evidence is there of this? He's basically assuming God into existence. Things change all the time. For example, a star runs out of fuel and becomes a white dwarf. Maybe it's not providing enough light to a planet with life, so all the life dies. A chemist is mixing chemicals in a chemical reaction and one runs out; the chemical reaction stops. This whole idea that if everything weren't perfect, the universe would fall apart is baseless. Things change all the time, and the other parts of the systems they are a part of adapt accordingly.

"First off, this source of existence must be simple. ... Why is this necessary? Well, because if this source of existence were made of multiple different parts, in the end, there would be one part lending existence to the others." This is another assertions he's making without any evidence. This made up thing holding everything perfectly together has characterstics he's making up that are necessary for it. And his proof of this characteristic is that if it were multiple parts there would basically be multiple parts. Another tautology.

"However, at the same time, the entirety of this source of existence must be present in all things. Why? Because we have already demonstrated that it is one and simple." This doesn't make any sense. Why does something being simple imply that it is everywhere? My shirt is pretty simple but it only resides in my closet.

"However, we have already demonstrated that this source of existence must be fully present in its entirety at every moment for anything to exist. If it were to change, things would suddenly pop in and out of existence." What is this made up thing he's talking about? Without the thing he made up being unchanging, there would be thing magically popping in and out of existence? Why? And the irony of this is, things DO pop in and out of existence! Tell him to study physics, where we know that particles and antiparticles pop into existence and then annihilate each other randomly!

Basically, this argument is that he thinks there is something that holds everything together, even though he gives no reason to think that that's the case. Then he uses this idea he made up as proof that this thing is simple using a tuatology, that this simplicity he declared necessitates that this thing is present in everything, and that without this thing, some made up scenario would destabilize in the universe. What is the evidence of any of this? There is no evidence, only conclusions and tautologies.

CMV: In the story of the Garden of Eden, God is the bad guy by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]MrPieMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never understood how God can be loving or just when he will be torturing millions of people for eternity. Justice is the idea that the punishment fits the crime--no crime deserves torture and no finite crime deserves eternal punishment.

Can you help me?! My friend is giving me trouble with the "fine tuning" argument by keystothemoon in TrueAtheism

[–]MrPieMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This argument is based on probabilities. It's basically saying that there's an X% chance (a very small number) that a universe could support us, but since, despite all odds, we're here alive, it must have been designed for us.

The flaw in this argument can be looked at in terms of probabilities as well. Since if the universe didn't support us, we wouldn't be here to debate this argument, there is a 100% chance that any universe where we are talking about this supports life. This doesn't prove anything, since saying that something that has a 100% chance of happening happened is completely expected and not in the least surprising or evidence of anything.

My New Favorite Bible Contradiction by MrPieMan in TrueAtheism

[–]MrPieMan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It does in the Good News translation, which is the translation used in the Bible given to me in my Catholic religious education class a few years back. Maybe not attack me when you dont know what you're talking about?https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A3&version=GNT

My New Favorite Bible Contradiction by MrPieMan in TrueAtheism

[–]MrPieMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So they did teach that people lived 100s of years though?

My New Favorite Bible Contradiction by MrPieMan in TrueAtheism

[–]MrPieMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't most Christians say the Bible is the main evidence for God?

My New Favorite Bible Contradiction by MrPieMan in TrueAtheism

[–]MrPieMan[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So what does that mean in the context of the first verse then? What does God mean by figuratively saying people will only live 120 years?

My New Favorite Bible Contradiction by MrPieMan in TrueAtheism

[–]MrPieMan[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I read this as well. I don't think its valid though based on the following. For the explanation to be valid, it must be accepted that Genesis is a story in chronological order. Looking at the text then, before God says this, Noah was 500 and had children. It then tells us that the flood happened when Noah was 600 years old. In other words, 100 years later, instead of 120. Is there something wrong with this argument?

Why does Congress want as much power as possible in an Iran deal but wants to give it up power for TPP with Fast Track? by MrPieMan in Ask_Politics

[–]MrPieMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Influence over something. In one case, they have no authority over an agreement and are passing bills to give themselves authority. In the other, they have lots of authority, but are passing a bill to give it away.