dawkins ftw
- Thread starter mattseh
- Start date
As I was reading from Dr. William Lane Craig (who slaughtered Hitchens at Biola) today I remembered your post and agree, to understand and open the mind to possibility and honest reflection does require an intersection with philosophy, such as in the proof for the existence of God.
When reflecting on the ways in which intelligent people in ITT had closed their minds to possibilities beyond what they already "know" - I understood that it takes more than the screaming - "Look, what is, is, there is nothing else" limitation of the evolutionist.
I see this across WF, a lack of willingness to think on or understand anything beyond what they already know and yet always pointing at my mental limitations, which is laughable if that is the best argument that can be rendered.
I looked at the 29 evidences for macroevolution. Didn't have the time to go through everything.
But just going through the introduction, you see the author stumble with philosophy when he considers solipsism.
He eagerly paints it as unscientific, but he makes no mention of it's validity which is a completely different and more important question.
Of course, portraying something as unscientific is insult enough and in many scientific circles, all you do is dismiss something as unscientific and all its objections automatically vanish into thin air.
But from an epistemological perspective this issue is a serious quandary for science, and shows the author to be weak in understanding the meaning of what he knows.
In the end, we know the answer to the question- according to scientific naturalists, if we can't measure it scientifically, then it doesn't exist.
But how do they explain ideas?
But just going through the introduction, you see the author stumble with philosophy when he considers solipsism.
He eagerly paints it as unscientific, but he makes no mention of it's validity which is a completely different and more important question.
Of course, portraying something as unscientific is insult enough and in many scientific circles, all you do is dismiss something as unscientific and all its objections automatically vanish into thin air.
But from an epistemological perspective this issue is a serious quandary for science, and shows the author to be weak in understanding the meaning of what he knows.
In the end, we know the answer to the question- according to scientific naturalists, if we can't measure it scientifically, then it doesn't exist.
But how do they explain ideas?
Funny, how all the creationists say Hitchens was 'slaughtered' in that debate.It's particularly all over youtube within the sponsored videos section and on videos with the comments disabled (commom creationist/christian practise on youtube, they pay to get their point across and then disable comments to censor any form of discussion on it).
I saw the same debate, and along with thousands of others i disagree that hitchens was slaughtered, William Lane Craig spewed the exact same crap he and countless other christians have been spewing for years.
Yeah I agree, it was not a slaughter each side regressed to their safe haven positions, though I believe Craig left with the upper hand with Hitchens not addressing certain issues, but everyone will see the debate with their own bias and believe themselves the victor.. I added the Slaughter comment while laughing at myself for doing it, I guess that's what they call trolling. The majority was not trolling, but I suppose that was.
I appreciate you calling me on it.
i fail to see the problem. we know enough about how our brain functions to explain thought (and ideas) and what we don't know yet (which is a lot when it comes to the brain), we don't know because we have trouble investigating the function of the brain without killing its owner, which is a technological limitation. if, on the other hand, you meant ideas in the sense of notions a set of people are aware of, sociology studies their formation, development etc. a naturalist wouldn't accept that ideas exist in the absence of people who are aware of them. there are problems with naturalism, but this isn't one of them.
-p
the vast majority of people on your side of the issue are defined by this quality. in fact, that's how 'believing' vs 'understanding/knowing' works. you, on the other hand, i'm confused about because you've staked out an agnostic position while claiming a theistic one. did you start out with the latter and then in your attempts to remain thoughtful, logical, reasonable and open-minded necessarily moved to the former? if so, our job is done
-p
No, we don't know enough about how our brain functions to explain thought.
We see areas of the brain light up during certain activity. We have managed to connect physical regions of the brain to certain mental activities.
But I'm talking about thought itself. The qualia of a thought, not "how do I detect symptoms of thought activity".
Think of the difference of a mile's distance expressed mathematically versus actually experienced. The same distance, but vastly different qualitative experiences that science cannot even begin to fathom.
To the naturalist, qualia doesn't exist. Your brain might light up when sipping a cup of coffee, but the actual sensations- the flavor, the viscosity, the warmth- these things don't exist.
Which is what makes naturalism absurd.
we don't know enough of the mechanics, but we do know what a network of neurons firing does and the rest can be described as an emergent property if we view the brain as a complex open system in terms of systems analysis.
as for your second argument, it's a red herring (or rather a classic example of a straw man fallacy). you first mischaracterize the naturalist viewpoint and then proceed to refute it in this erroneous form. our ability to quantify x is not a pre-requisite for x to exist in the naturalist viewpoint, nor is our ability to explain x. the things you list can be experienced and therefore are empirically proven to exist even though we may not be able to explain the mechanics of how they come to be experienced or quantify them at the present time. they are, in the naturalist viewpoint, part of our material multiverse.
-p
Just to clarify, I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching it in schools...as religious education. As long as it's presented that way and included with all the other major ( and maybe some minor) religions along the way.
the vast majority of people on your side of the issue are defined by this quality. in fact, that's how 'believing' vs 'understanding/knowing' works. you, on the other hand, i'm confused about because you've staked out an agnostic position while claiming a theistic one. did you start out with the latter and then in your attempts to remain thoughtful, logical, reasonable and open-minded necessarily moved to the former? if so, our job is done
-p
How so?
The quoted statement - I am perfectly will open my mind to opposing views because I have a vested interest in my current view. In fact you could easily say that my current view is much more difficult to maintain than any opposing view should I be convicned. As a result I am highly motivated to be convinced of an alternative view.
For those that fee they are so smart quoting my comment about an open mind - I have one. I simply fail to see the connections each of you are making.
While it appears by the fundamental knowledge that each of you show that I am not as smart as the rest, but seeing everyones fundamentalist views toward atheism and lack of willingness to engage in a discourse based on reason and logic - well it seems many of you are guilty of a log in your own eye rather than a speck in mine.
...well I guess jesus could have planted those bones just to test our faith, that sneaky little shit.
How would small changes over time NOT have a potential to create larger changes over a large time? When will changes stop and why?
Adding drops of black paint to white paint shows a potential for it turn grey and then black. Like I said before, there might be controversy over when to draw the line to label it gray, but the same is true when it comes to labeling species.
Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Biologists rarely use the words "microevolution" or "macroevolution" and there is no fine line between them. Species get labeled for identification purposes just like artists use terms for color. There is no agreed upon standard or fine line to what is "light gray", but people still understand that it is a transitional stage between white and black.
Wolves and dogs are different subspecies, but there was no overnight transition from one to the other.
All we have for some dinosaurs is a single tooth. The argument you are making would apply to not just most science, but to lots of history. Our understanding of Napoleon or George Washington is based on scribbles made on paper by people who died a long time ago. It's technically possible that they didn't exist, but should history teachers really have to point that out everyday? Maybe on the first day of class the teacher should talk about propaganda and how history is written by the victors, but it would be a waste of time for them to bring that up every day.
Why would you do that? Even the Pope has said that they aren't mutually exclusive.
An atheist like the Pope? Religion is not relevant to a scientific discussion of evolution. People here have given you plenty of logical discourse and linked you to plenty of others. Your only points seem to be that it can't be proven and that you think that changes can only go on for so long.
I get your point hence why I posted earlier we are both going to go into the logic behind our infinite regression. Leaving us with an argument that serves preconceived notions or ones self interest. Though I would argue I have a worldly self interest in finding fault with my stance whereas the typical evolutionist has the self interest to avoid the accountability inherent with the Christian God.
I think it should be a whole class. Teaching students to critically understand the world, how conclusions are drawn and the facts behind what is real and what is not. This would in fact take the steam out of many anti-religionists who always want to see the proof of Jesus or proof of God etc - OK - let's look at the world as a whole critically and understand what we really do and do not know.
Telling lies to students and not teaching them how to think, formulate ideas, etc - this is a disservice to our children and it is no wonder that there are so many narrow minded know it all in successive generations. These kids think they know what they do not know and argue for things that are based on the most popular theory of the day.
Wow! What a revolution in education that would be - teach true critical thinking. I think it is pure BS that so much is taught as fgact when in fact it is up for debate, revision, etc. Allowing students to think for themselves would no doubt create a new generation of independent thought bringing innovation and development unlike we have seen in recent history.
You are correct. As I have said thus far and will say again, religion and science do not disagree and are completely harmonious. I will not and have not denied established science. In fact, if you wanted, though this is not my view, you could say that god formulated the first molecules then shaped it into particular dna and then simply built everything from a single source, taking as much time as he needed given that with God a second is like a thousand years because by definition he is outside the dimension of time.
So, now how is religion contrary to science??
Last edited:
Guys quit debating with REIMktg on any subject. Nigga doesn't even understand basic economics and talks like he knows shit "price go up people make the money, price go down we buy things cheap, hurrrrr i figure it all out durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"
You talk as if you know something others don't. As if other people haven't critically analyzed the ideas that they hold and you have. Truth is you just don't know shit, your talking out of your ass.
People present evidence and you dismiss it on the basis of "you can't know for sure." If your correct then I can use the same assumption on your ideas. Evolution is more accepted because it MAKES MORE SENSE. All your doing is try to find loopholes in peoples individual arguments, not presenting any actual evidence to counter the idea that you're opposing. In other words yo head is up yo ass.
I predict your going to reply to this post and respond in the same manner as I've mentioned, proving my point even further. Others such as hellblazer also love to use this bs tactic to lead discussions that go nowhere.
You talk as if you know something others don't. As if other people haven't critically analyzed the ideas that they hold and you have. Truth is you just don't know shit, your talking out of your ass.
People present evidence and you dismiss it on the basis of "you can't know for sure." If your correct then I can use the same assumption on your ideas. Evolution is more accepted because it MAKES MORE SENSE. All your doing is try to find loopholes in peoples individual arguments, not presenting any actual evidence to counter the idea that you're opposing. In other words yo head is up yo ass.
I predict your going to reply to this post and respond in the same manner as I've mentioned, proving my point even further. Others such as hellblazer also love to use this bs tactic to lead discussions that go nowhere.
How is it a mischaracterization?
The naturalist believes that everything can be explained naturalistically. But qualia cannot be explained naturalistically.
Let me be clear here- this is not simply a "we're missing this piece in the puzzle", this is a "this puzzle piece is non-fuckin'-corporeal".
We won't suddenly come upon some fantastic equation that will link the two. They exist on a different planes. They are completely different systems. I'm not trying to be all mystical here, but that's the only plausible conclusion we could possible make.
The other being that human beings of our intellectual and physical capacity can engineer mindboggling marvels but cannot even tie our shoelaces when it comes to connecting the simplest, most straightforward human experiences in their actuality to the naturalistic system within which all our scientific knowledge resides.
If we can accept the dichotomy of classical/quantum mechanics, why the hell are we so unwilling to accept the possibility of a similar paradigm elsewhere?
Oh, that's right.
Because Dawkins said so.
you misunderstood me. what i'm saying is that your position is that of an agnostic based on what i've read (as is mine as it happens), so i don't see why you're claiming it to be a theistic one.
-p
Open your eyes. I gave specific monetary examples in that thread. Not theory, specific facts. By the way, I only claim to know "shit" when I actually do, otherwise I always qualify my remarks unlike most around here.
I am not saying others have not examined the facts. You are accusing me of what I am not. Your arguments are curious most likely rooted in a defense mechanism because I have challenged your beliefs. Maybe not on evolution, but in previous threads regarding housing and making money in Bubbles. Crap even in that thread LukeP capitulated in part saying he saw my point - who are you?
I have granted your point earlier, several times, why are you still arguing the issue - both positions can retreat to solid safe haven positions. Does it make sense, yes it does. Does that make it true, no, and it is certainly not something certain enough to lead my world view - would you bet your life on it?
Go ahead and criticize - as for your other posts you fail to acknowledge the real world examples I gave that confront your view and understanding of economics.
of course it can, no matter how many times you state otherwise. the feeling of a warm cup of tea in my hand and people feeling that an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent entity is speaking to them are entirely different things. one is caused by clearly observable stimuli and the other isn't.
if you're talking about understanding the brain, it is the most complex single thing we know of; us studying it is like cavemen trying to study seo - it's gonna be slow going
that doesn't mean it's unknowable or that us not understanding it thoroughly and entirely somehow equates to proof of godfor one, because we aren't quite ready to accept that dichotomy. ever heard of unified theory?
it might be hard to imagine, but there are plenty of people who like to think for themselves. i'm barely familiar with dawkins, never mind his views on everything
-p