Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Atheism 3.0
1563 posts
7949_Jappor Snippet
ratna 
Date Posted: 11/1 6:56am Subject: Atheism 3.0
Jesus said,
"He that is not with me
is against me ..."

Obi-Wan said,
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"

 

-----signature-----
“What we measure affects what we do. If we have the wrong metrics, we will strive for the wrong things.”
Joseph E. Stiglitz
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
10393 posts
6234_GNK droid
Gonk 
Date Posted: 11/2 9:29am Subject: Atheism 3.0
People do actually pay money for them, sadly, and then distribute them as they see fit. As for whether or not Chick is on the level, I've always found this one quote from his only interview rather interesting:

What is the consensus here on people like that, anyway? That profit in some way -- not always financially -- on the basis of religion? Some say that they're just sort of catering to a market and if people are gullible enough to "buy" what they "sell", well then in the spirit of capitalism, campeat emptor.

Personally though, call me a socialist but I find such people to be the scum of the earth. Whether it's possibly this cartoonist, Karl Rove or the founders of certain other more recent religions or certain televangilests... it's disgusting. They essentially prey on the weak and infirm who seem to need religion, however mistaken the view might be, to get by. Life can be tough, I understand that: people who bend that sort of thing to thier purposes or profit from it are absolutely abhorrent.

If there's any duty I feel as an Athiest, it's to NOT take advantage of the fact that I might happen to be correct about all this. If I'd had different parentage, it could just as easily have gone the other way.

 

-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/2 9:59pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
I'd like to throw out there that Dawkins, despite his somewhat flawed logic at times, has a most soothing British voice.

I very much like that there are people out there like him who challenge religion despite the fact that I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord--because they help remind religious folks to ask tough questions.

I've been watching tons of his stuff on Youtube and have been considering purchasing one of his books. He is at least, far better at arguing against religion (not just Christianity) than someone like say...Michael Martin.

Is there anyone else any of you would recommend besides Dawkins?

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/2 11:45pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
I'd start with the God Delusion by Dawkins and then move on from there. The good thing about the God Delusion is that Dawkins cites so many other works and authors that you will have a very long list of other books to read at the end.

Please elaborate on what exactly you consider to be flawed logic coming from Dawkins?

 

-----signature-----
'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W Bush
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 12:46am Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 12:54am (4 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
Here's an example:

1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;

2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;

Therefore p is true.


I'm not saying he can't or doesn't argue well. However, he occasionally does take some...leaps from premise to conclusion without much to substantiate his conclusion. Perhaps a better way to have phrased this would have been "All of life has probably come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes (of course based merely on what we know currently).

Now of course, the fact that we don't or possibly can't know all the answers for sure, doesn't in any way necessitate the existence of some being or God as being a "first cause" or guiding force. I will say that is a matter of faith. I don't expect anyone to definitively prove that Jesus Christ, for example, rose from the dead, walked on water, etc. Although, I'm not a fan of the idea of blind faith. I would argue that believing in Christ, for example, is actually more reasonable than believing in fairies. I won't argue that it's more reasonable than many other religions though--although I do have my own reasons and experiences for sticking with it aside from joining other faiths.


Perhaps, I will check out the God Delusion. The quotations I've used are from The Blind Watchmaker I believe.

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 12:53am Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 12:54am (1 edits total) Edited By: darthramza
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Here's an example:

1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;

2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;

Therefore p is true.


I'm not saying he can't or doesn't argue well. However, he occasionally does take some...leaps from premise to conclusion without much to substantiate his conclusion. Perhaps a better way to have phrased this would have been "All of life has probably come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes (of course based merely on what we know currently).


The way the proof is phrased, certainty is a valid conclusion. If an irrefutable objection occurred, proposition 1 would be invalidated, invalidating 2 by default. Based on the set-up in 1, 2 is properly stated. It's akin to:

1. We know of no irrefutable objections to the existence of an electromagnetic force.

2. The electromagnetic force exists.

I don't need to say "The electromagnetic force probably exists," as it's a conclusion drawn from 1. 2 cannot be disproved without disproving 1.

 

-----signature-----
"Six bullets. More than enough to kill anything that moves." - Revolver Ocelot
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime"
GDG, GMG, CDG, D.E.N.T.A.L. VP
Ever Lovin' DM of the Saga of the Nameless Lands
Unofficial Caretaker of Jocasta Nu's
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 12:59am Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 1:09am (4 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
darthramza posted:
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Here's an example:

1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;

2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;

Therefore p is true.


I'm not saying he can't or doesn't argue well. However, he occasionally does take some...leaps from premise to conclusion without much to substantiate his conclusion. Perhaps a better way to have phrased this would have been "All of life has probably come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes (of course based merely on what we know currently).


The way the proof is phrased, certainty is a valid conclusion. If an irrefutable objection occurred, proposition 1 would be invalidated, invalidating 2 by default. Based on the set-up in 1, 2 is properly stated. It's akin to:

1. We know of no irrefutable objections to the existence of an electromagnetic force.

2. The electromagnetic force exists.

I don't need to say "The electromagnetic force probably exists," as it's a conclusion drawn from 1. 2 cannot be disproved without disproving 1.


Electromagnetism can be tested/observed just as Darwinian processes can be observed. Yet he claims that it is true that such processes are "unguided."

How can he make such a claim? It would even make more sense to say that he is perhaps 99% sure, but it is nonetheless not 100% true because it cannot be tested or observed (as far as we know). Therefore, of course he could then ask--if you can't test for it or observe it--why do you believe in it?

EDIT: thank you for the book recommendation LostOnHoth

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 1:13am Subject: Atheism 3.0
Thing is, you don't "believe" in things when it comes to science. You accept things as unguided until it is shown to be guided. The burden of proof is on the person who claims it is guided.

 

-----signature-----
"Those of us who don't believe in science are being attacked by forces we don't understand...like momentum, acceleration, and gravity."
Gavin Newsom for CA Gov '10!
Property of JEDI_TEEGIRLOO
Currently the most attractive guy in the EUC
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Senate Moderator
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 1:17am Subject: Atheism 3.0
What Vivec said. Unguided fits the constraints of making valid predictions just fine, so to want to add something to it, one would have to show that it being guided allows for more accurate predictions.

This is also why I get annoyed with questions like "do you believe in evolution". Well, no, but I accept that it is the most accurate method for understanding that segment of nature at this point in time. It's the best theory we've got, so I'll stick with it unless we get a better one.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 1:20am Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 2:24am (7 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
What Vivec said. Unguided fits the constraints of making valid predictions just fine, so to want to add something to it, one would have to show that it being guided allows for more accurate predictions.

This is also why I get annoyed with questions like "do you believe in evolution". Well, no, but I accept that it is the most accurate method for understanding that segment of nature at this point in time. It's the best theory we've got, so I'll stick with it unless we get a better one.


I noticed that questions were being phrased like that--"do you believe in evolution." No no, I agree with Vivec at least in part.

I was actually whining about that the other day. If the question is "Do you believe in evolution" then of course a lot of people might say "no" because I don't think people are always so stupid. They may actually be reacting to the word "believe," which lends a different meaning to the question.

I suppose you can argue that it goes without saying that Dawkins is talking about probability, yet he purports it to be truth. He is in fact a scientist and less of a philosopher yes?

In order to do so, he would actually have to disprove a divine being of any kind from possibly existing--and furthermore, guiding such a process.

This sounds just as absurd as a human being proving definitely that a divine being does exist aside from sharing in an event that perhaps takes witness to such a thing (which thousands of people have claimed throughout history if not millions).

I'm sure you're familiar with Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot?"

In contrast, it seems to make such statements from Dawkins not only sound...invalid, but arrogant. While it's true that we learn more about our universe everyday--it seems that the more we learn the more questions we are faced with. It seems that there is almost always more to know so it would seem arrogant for a person like Dawkins--within this magnificent gigantic universe, which may be one of many, claim that there is no guidance for such processes.

It's kind of like saying--

We can't find objections to the Earth being flat. Therefore it's flat.

As a scientist, at least in this instance, he seems to lack a certain...humility...

If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.

EDIT: This is a sidenote I suppose, but I did not mean to invade the thread. I was just responding to LostOnHoth. I plan to read the God Delusion if I get the chance. I have much respect for Dawkins.

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 3:13pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
I can't recall the name for it, it's sort of like quote mining, but you go through your opponent's words and pick one of those words and use a different definition or take that word to extreme literalness. For example when a scientist says they have faith such and such will work the anti-science person will stop everything in their tracks and proclaim, "HA! SEE? You have FAITH! Meaning GOD! MY GOD! I WIN! HAHAHAHAHAHA!"

That is what is happening here with "believe".

 

-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic-Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God-Michael Shermer
I'm a sexy shoeless GOD OF WAR!
#347 on SLG's List Of Sexy Men
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 3:48pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I was actually whining about that the other day. If the question is "Do you believe in evolution" then of course a lot of people might say "no" because I don't think people are always so stupid. They may actually be reacting to the word "believe," which lends a different meaning to the question.

I doubt very much that most people make that distinction. I think you would get the same responses if the word was "accept."

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I suppose you can argue that it goes without saying that Dawkins is talking about probability, yet he purports it to be truth.

He is actually very careful to say "probably" quite consistently. But at a certain point, a high enough probability is safe to call the truth.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
In order to do so, he would actually have to disprove a divine being of any kind from possibly existing--and furthermore, guiding such a process.

Wrong. Without some indication or evidence that such a guiding force exists, he does not even need allow the notion into consideration. The evolutionary processes behave exactly as you would expect if there were no guiding force, therefore it is reasonable and safe to conclude that no guiding force exists until some evidence of such a force presents itself.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
This sounds just as absurd as a human being proving definitely that a divine being does exist

Um...how is that absurd, exactly? I could prove reasonably well that you exist. Why should it be so "absurd" to think it ought to be a similarly simple matter for a divine being?

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
In contrast, it seems to make such statements from Dawkins not only sound...invalid, but arrogant.

It really does neither, it just sounds like you're digging for an excuse to mischaracterize him.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
While it's true that we learn more about our universe everyday--it seems that the more we learn the more questions we are faced with. It seems that there is almost always more to know so it would seem arrogant for a person like Dawkins--within this magnificent gigantic universe, which may be one of many, claim that there is no guidance for such processes.

There is no evidence for anything like that, so no. It's not arrogant to say there is no evidence and no reason to think that there is guidance.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
It's kind of like saying--

We can't find objections to the Earth being flat. Therefore it's flat.

Somewhat, but you'll notice that once objections were found, the conclusion was thrown aside quid pro quo. Dawkins himself has recounted in several books and lectures the story of a professor of his who had held some particular belief for fifteen years -- something like not believing that the Golgi apparatus existed or something. Then one day another scientist from outside the school presented a paper that demonstrated irrefutably that the Golgi apparatus existed. His professor stood and said "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you -- I have been wrong these fifteen years."

Dawkins tells this story because the professor who was willing to admit he was wrong in the face of the evidence is his hero, and the kind of scientist he thinks all scientists ought to be.

If you can demonstrate evidence that there is guidance behind the natural processes of the universe, I'm sure Dawkins would be first to admit he was wrong. But just saying "there MIGHT be guidance" is no more valid than saying "there MIGHT be invisible unicorns."

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
As a scientist, at least in this instance, he seems to lack a certain...humility...

What you refer to as "humility" is, I think, the willingness to demure to unjustified religious beliefs, to pretend that fantastical claims asserted without evidence have as much validity or merit as claims with evidence and rigorous confirmation and corroboration behind them.

You are right, he lacks that "humility," and that's as it should be, as it's not humility at all. It's just intellectual spinelessness.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 4:11pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
In order to do so, he would actually have to disprove a divine being of any kind from possibly existing--and furthermore, guiding such a process.
This is where we disagree. He wouldn't have to because the concept of "the divine" should have never even brought in. There is no reason to even think about the divine. It is a made up concept that has no physical grounding. Therefore, as a scientist, he can safely ignore.

 

-----signature-----
"Those of us who don't believe in science are being attacked by forces we don't understand...like momentum, acceleration, and gravity."
Gavin Newsom for CA Gov '10!
Property of JEDI_TEEGIRLOO
Currently the most attractive guy in the EUC
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 4:18pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
But don't forget that there are currently objects beyond the understanding of science such as Black Holes. In fact, both the Relativty Theory for the very large and Quantum Theory for the very small can't explain effectively how a Black Hole does what it does.

So, if that can defy science, I suppose there is nothing to suggest God can't defy science.

 

-----signature-----
Amor Numquam Moritur... rose
Winner of Best Male Poster & Best Double Act - FFUK Awards 2005
Mandalorian Defender in the Acolytes of Revan......for Honour & Glory!!
"All of nature is a battlefield"
raised_brow
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 4:20pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Lord_Vivec posted:
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
In order to do so, he would actually have to disprove a divine being of any kind from possibly existing--and furthermore, guiding such a process.
This is where we disagree. He wouldn't have to because the concept of "the divine" should have never even brought in. There is no reason to even think about the divine. It is a made up concept that has no physical grounding. Therefore, as a scientist, he can safely ignore.


Yes as a scientist he can ignore it, I suppose. However, he is not ignoring it. He is saying it doesn't exist.

A unicorn, for example, could be tested for (as far as I know). We have yet to discover a unicorn. But, suppose a divine being was not something that could be measured--from our perspective. Suppose it is not matter or energy. Suppose it is something beyond our scientific comprehension. What then? I think, based on descriptions of unicorns, even those could be judged scientifically, but a divine being...perhaps not--perhaps by its very definition.

Furthermore, science has its limits. In fact it is often limited to reproducibility.

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 » - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, ASPNET0) 2.297