|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 24, 2020 1:55:33 GMT
More than that, this is the great Richard Dawkins in the video. And anything the great Richard Dawkins says must be THE TRUTH! Really? I was referring to the OP and his point not the content of the vid or who was in it! All the OP did was embed the video along with this question: And that's all he did. No summary. No bullet points. No opinions. Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 2:32:18 GMT
Clearly he should go to Hell along with all the homosexuals
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 5:32:09 GMT
I don't need a reason to believe or not believe in God. I need proof there is one. God might be shy and/or going under cover!
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 24, 2020 7:14:59 GMT
More than that, this is the great Richard Dawkins in the video. And anything the great Richard Dawkins says must be THE TRUTH! Really? I was referring to the OP and his point not the content of the vid or who was in it! I had a point ?, all i did was ask if you agreed or not with what Richard Dawkins said in the video. Since i have no idea what my point was, could you please tell me ?
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 24, 2020 7:16:52 GMT
The reason I asked is because at roughly the same time you were saying, "yes" here you were giving clusium and purmutojoe a message that says this: Yet the OP in this case made a point and illustrated that point with a short video not requiring the video to make his point for him. No i just posted a video and asked a question, there was not a point made from me.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 24, 2020 7:18:08 GMT
Yet the OP in this case made a point and illustrated that point with a short video not requiring the video to make his point for him. More than that, this is the great Richard Dawkins in the video. And anything the great Richard Dawkins says must be THE TRUTH! I do not belive that anything Richard Dawkins says must be the truth.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 7:24:43 GMT
Really? I was referring to the OP and his point not the content of the vid or who was in it! I had a point ?, all i did was ask if you agreed or not with what Richard Dawkins said in the video. Since i have no idea what my point was, could you please tell me ? Subject Line.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 24, 2020 7:26:49 GMT
I had a point ?, all i did was ask if you agreed or not with what Richard Dawkins said in the video. Since i have no idea what my point was, could you please tell me ? Subject Line. That was not a point, its just the subject line, and the name of the video.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 7:28:18 GMT
That was not a point, its just the subject line. Subject lines make points for those who post them and don't specify. If not, what was the point of your posting this?
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 24, 2020 7:31:25 GMT
That was not a point, its just the subject line. Subject lines make points for those who post them and don't specify. If not, what was the point of your posting this? I am not going to argue with you, i know better than you if i made a point or nor.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 7:36:02 GMT
Subject lines make points for those who post them and don't specify. If not, what was the point of your posting this? I am not going to argue with you, i know better than you if i made a point or nor. Fair enough. Why did you post this vid? if not making a point of some kind?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 9:10:27 GMT
I mean I can't really find any fault with what he said, though I do consider pretty much all religious arguments (Watchmaker, Pascal's Wager, prim mover, fine tuning, morality argument) not very good and refuting them is just shooting fish in a barrel. I would like to see him take on more abstract, open ended topics (secular vs Christian morality, Christian socialism, secular humanism, Christian culturalism) rather than these tired theist arguments that have already been refuted a million times. Though I'm assuming he's probably done some of those other topics as well. You mean before 1930? Things have changed since. That's the thing about "science." When it finds it made a mistake it can change. You sound like the people who say,"Here's what you need to do. You need to put a poultice on that." Your "science" is out of date.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 9:39:13 GMT
You mean before 1930? Things have changed since. That's the thing about "science." When it finds it made a mistake it can change. You sound like the people who say,"Here's what you need to do. You need to put a poultice on that." Your "science" is out of date. How much more hard evidence is there that God exists now than in 1930? A notable event of the early 1930s was the discovery of the "chromosome" by Thomas Hunt Morgan. It was a huge step in the realization that there is no such thing as an animalcule. What were thought to be living "drops of jelly" (euglena) were actually very highly complex things that made the watchmaker argument for a god far more valid. Have you not noticed the trend? With every advance in science since Darwin it becomes less likely that life was assembled by sheer chance. Today it may be said to be impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 9:52:09 GMT
A notable event of the early 1930s was the discovery of the "chromosome" by Thomas Hunt Morgan. It was a huge step in the realization that there is no such thing as an animalcule. What were thought to be living "drops of jelly" (euglena) were actually very highly complex things that made the watchmaker argument for a god far more valid. Have you not noticed the trend? With every advance in science since Darwin it becomes less likely that life was assembled by sheer chance. Today it may be said to be impossible. That's not evidence of God. I mean actual evidence that beyond a shadow of a doubt confirms God's existence. How much more of that is there today than 80 years ago? I have no idea what you mean by "God." The "intelligent designer" is what it is. It is a hard wall in your path and nothing in your little toolkit is getting past it. Have you tried praying? Some people think they contacted the intelligent designer that way. I can't verify that though.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 10:37:23 GMT
I'd call them reasons to not believe God exists rather than reason there is no God A god...for its own reasons may intentionally not want to be known, may have wanted to create a world of suffering and pain where many people are confused, or it may not care. The only thing I think his reasoning does is help me conclude it makes little difference what one believes regarding gods. If you think there is a god...you can't help it. If you don't think there is a god...no amount of self talk or mental gyrating is going to show god that you actually DO believe in him, so you're better off just being honest.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 24, 2020 11:03:59 GMT
No, Darwin did not explain the origin of life. Darwin did show that fully designed things might get altered in their design, which people already knew for centuries. Darwin did not show how dumb, base ingredients without "design" can get one. Even the atheists on this board know that. At least they mindlessly repeat "abiogenesis is not evolution" whether they understand what that means or not. They appear to have some acquaintance with a "motte and bailey fallacy" whereby similar arguments are conflated to avoid direct confrontation with the more difficult one. Yet they do not seem to be aware that evolution is the "motte" and abiogenesis is the "bailey." Motte and bailey (MAB), Arlon's go-to phrase of the week, is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "science has not yet demonstrated exactly how life began") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "Life must have been started by the supernatural") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 24, 2020 11:15:16 GMT
That's not evidence of God. I mean actual evidence that beyond a shadow of a doubt confirms God's existence. How much more of that is there today than 80 years ago? I have no idea what you mean by "God." The "intelligent designer" is what it is. It is a hard wall in your path and nothing in your little toolkit is getting past it. Have you tried praying? Some people think they contacted the intelligent designer that way. I can't verify that though. Is this the same intelligent designer who has us breathe and eat through the same small tube and came up with the human knee and back with all their problems? Designed childhood cancers? Or carefully made a universe which is mostly cold, dark and 'empty'? Or perhaps you mean a designer who just lit the touch paper for life and let it go its own way (including the ongoing extinction of 95% of all species that have ever existed)? In which case, how can man be anything more than a by-product of a struggle for survival? Or, if man was specificially 'designed' as opposed to things being so in general before he came along, when did this occur? It must have been within the last few hundred thousand years, since before then there was no man evident. In short, if the purported intelligent designer (i.e. a creationist God) 'is what it is' - then what is it and when did it work?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 11:47:00 GMT
No, Darwin did not explain the origin of life. Darwin did show that fully designed things might get altered in their design, which people already knew for centuries. Darwin did not show how dumb, base ingredients without "design" can get one. Even the atheists on this board know that. At least they mindlessly repeat "abiogenesis is not evolution" whether they understand what that means or not. They appear to have some acquaintance with a "motte and bailey fallacy" whereby similar arguments are conflated to avoid direct confrontation with the more difficult one. Yet they do not seem to be aware that evolution is the "motte" and abiogenesis is the "bailey." Motte and bailey (MAB), Arlon's go-to phrase of the week, is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "science has not yet demonstrated exactly how life began") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "Life must have been started by the supernatural") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended. Thank you for proving that citing "fallacies" is often useless. I have never recommended it. I will address as I always have, the actual issues at hand. Saying science has "not yet demonstrated" how life began means exactly that science has no clue how life began. Case closed. No go away. If you get a clue how life began then you may return. Meanwhile thank you very much for conceding your utter loss. Don't let the door slap you on your way out. Like rizdek you're just playing with words. You especially have great difficulty with words and are easily distracted and confused by meanings that escape you. "Not yet demonstrated" Sure, there is a "science" that can explain how life originated. It's a god's science, not yours.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 24, 2020 11:48:57 GMT
Motte and bailey (MAB), Arlon's go-to phrase of the week, is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "science has not yet demonstrated exactly how life began") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "Life must have been started by the supernatural") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended. Thank you for proving that citing "fallacies" is often useless. I have never recommended it. In which case why have you mentioned this one several times of late? A claim which is demonstrably false, but which it suits you to make.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 11:54:24 GMT
Thank you for proving that citing "fallacies" is often useless. I have never recommended it. In which case why have you mentioned this one several times of late? A claim which is demonstrably false, but which it suits you to make. There are lessons to be learned. I can't leave them to you to teach. I said when you get a clue come back. I didn't say I will tolerate your incompetence.
|
|