A television, astonishingly, is not a hypothesis, nor a condition.Originally Posted by ducasi
It is an object.
Why should I have a desire to change 'on this front'?
Well, shut up about it then. If it doesn't belong here, mentioning it doesn't belong here either.I could give you a history of how my core beliefs have changed over time to illustrate my point - but that's stuff I don't share with anyone.
You make a 'assumption' which then you treat as 'fact', then go on to make a statement....interesting
Natural selection is a theory many people dont agree with. Bit like Global warming linked to CO2 which again many dont agree with.
Sure sometimes these theories become more popular but that doesnt always make them right
There was a book I read Topsy Turvy World a google cant find it but it suggested not natural selection but rapid god like changes occur
The idea was natural selection would take Trillions of years to get where we are now
Your overall argument is we dont need god now reminds of a women looking for a parking space
She says if there is a god please please Im late let me find a parking space, then she finds one and says thanks god I dont actually need you now
That reads as though you conceive that 'polemic' is a criticism. It's not. Except when the polemic is masquerading as being neutral.
It may be news to you, but many readers think he did just that. It doesn't make people any less likely to believe in god.I wish Dawkins had written a book summarising why science has made god unnecessary (ie the start of the book he did write).
So - it seems you are one of those atheists who doesn't want to attack creationists. Guess what? There are thousands of people like you. More power to your elbow. I'm puzzled as to why you are angry about the atheists who aren't as passive as you are. Did you think there is a sort of atheist credo: I believe in one science biologic and palaeontologic, discovered not made, being of one substance with Dawkinsian theory...and so on? Well, there ain't. There are as many atheisms, nearly, as there are atheists. If you don't like the way Richard Dawkins approaches the situation, ignore him.I'm now getting disillusioned with the fact that atheists have adopted the same tactics as the creationists. That won't make me a believer. If anything, it makes me believe in less. But it does sadden and disappoint me.
If you think being reasonable about not believing in gods is the way to go, you are mistaken. But hey, party on, dude.
Being sick or well is a characteristic of human society; that doesn't mean we don't try to eradicate polio and tuberculosis.For me, that wasn't enough. Mostly because, as with the nutters, there are plenty of good and decent people who do good without using religion to guide their actions. My belief is that being good or being bad is a characteristic of humanity, not of religion (a position a lot of people will argue with - but it's one of my core beliefs, so they're wasting their time). For some people, holding religious belief helps them be a good person (or a bad person). For others, they don't find it necessary.
I'm sure Dawkins would find a lot to agree with in that paragraph. He is generally fairly tentative about memes, a subject which other people espouse far more vigorously than he ever has.One of Dawkins ideas is that the belief in god is a meme - a socio-cultural concept that is learnt, preserved and evolves over generations (that meme is the god delusion). He argues that the religious meme is no longer beneficial to society, thus we should get rid of it. This is the argument that I find least convincing, mostly because he can't (or doesn't) properly separate any sort of essential humanity from the god delusion (the god meme is created by people).
Amazingly, making assumptions and then investigating the consequences is exactly how progress is made! Whether it is in science (where it would be called a hypothesis) or - in debate.
The only problem is when the assumption is not understood as such or not declared as such.
The reason I did it like that is so as to defuse all the partisan types who might otherwise say 'McCain/Obama is only in it to line his own pockets/for the soldiers/for the military industrial complex/for the blacks', whatever.
Anyone is welcome to disagree with the assumptions but the point is to get to agreement or otherwise as to whether the conclusion is correct if the assumption is.
No, it's not irrelevant!
One cannot cite someone - holding up their behaviour to their fellow man as a reason to be religious yourself - it that person was not religious.
I understood that Gandhi was a humanist, and declined to espouse any religion. If that's wrong, then your citation of him was fair.
"Having an old telly" is the hypothesis, or condition. Do you have an old telly?
I no longer believe I have an old telly.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
I'm not that concerned about whether you can convince me. I could be convinced, but whether you could do it I cannot tell. What I'm concerned about is demonstrating to the other forumites that your criticisms are inaccurate, bluster and cant.
It's clear to me that there can be no 'debate', of the sort about which you appear to be writing, between creationists and scientists on the subject of evolution. I've set out in posts why that is the case. You could show to everyone else that I am mistaken (whether you convince me or not) by setting out what would persuade creationists to adopt evolution as the explanation for organised biological complexity in the universe. If you do that, others can make up their mind whether you are right about that 'debate.
Then you are not believing in a solid object. You seem not to realise that 'I no longer believe I have an old telly' is not the same as 'I no longer believe in the possibility of an old telly'.
You think?
Even if you pick two zealots from opposites sides of a political debate?
Think about the abortion debate. Zealots on each side are in no doubt what-so-ever, that they are right. They will never concede. It is still a debate.
Don't bring this back to the creationist vs. evolutionist argument. You are a zealot of one side of this, so you are convinced there should be no debate. On the outside, there's still a debate.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Thats my point !
You might read the odd science mag and the take it as 'fact done and dusted' but as I said before keep a open mind (or read a wider range of ‘stuff’)
This point
The above is an assumption; there are powerful arguments that as I said natural selection would take trillions of years (not a few billions),
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flage...ml#Calculation
We can of course give up God although I have no evidence of his/her /its non existance
The fact we in the last 130 years can debate Gods existance in ways we couldnt before doesnt imply they do or dont exist
Last edited by stewart38; 10th-October-2008 at 05:20 PM.
Hi BarryI'm What I'm concerned about is demonstrating to the other forumites that your criticisms are inaccurate, bluster and cant.
I'm really interested to know a bit more about your motivations as you describe above.
Can you tell me a bit more as to why you are concerned to do this?
I have never noticed before that atheism contains three of the most commonly used words in the English language
a - the - is - m
and if we stretch credibility to view 'm' as the sound many people make repeatedly when speaking (unless they're contestants on Just A Minute) we've got 4
He's not claiming there should be no debate. If he were saying that, on scientific grounds, there should be no debate, I would agree with him. But he is saying that there is no debate. That is a very different claim, which I've labelled ignorant (mostly, it ignores all the actual debates and discussions, like this one, which are happening). He also claimed that anyone who claimed there is a debate is an idiot. I called that arrogant. And then I told Barry I would not answer him any more, because it's futile. I don't think he believes that either.
Personally, I'd like to drop this particular sub-theme now and get back on track; but I doubt this will happen. I sort of expected that this would happen.
So did you: that's why you bought me some popcorn.
More popcorn all round...
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Please could I suggest as a balance to this you read the book
"Dawkins God Genes And the Meaning Of Life" by Alister Mcgrath.
This is written by someone who logically challenges Dawkins arguments in a reasoned way and is himself a professor.
I have both books in my bookcase BTW. FYI I think I have mentioned I do beleve in God/Jesus and go to church (I learnt ceroc at St Pauls Church Onslow Square). but I respect both points of view by people who don't accept that God exists
.
I ought to get and read the radio presenter John Humphrys book. He personally could not find a faith, but said he found the Dawkins argument on God to be outrageous and offensive to people who are practicing Christians.
The "powerful arguments" all assume gradual change. The seashore is not just formed by normal waves but by the occasional Tsunami. Cataclysmic genetic effects can occur. There is also the probability that "intelligent design" has evolved at the genetic level, where there is a bias towards advantageous genetic change, a Lamarkian effect. e.g. running a lot favours the formation of running genes.
Well, there's truth in that. However, that particular issue isn't a political one; it's a religious or spiritual one. No-one who has no vested interest in a belief in souls, blah blah, has much difficulty coming to the conclusion that a woman, rather than state apparatus, must be in charge of her own body - subject to overall time restrictions as became commonplace in the recent debate here in parliament. Abortion (otherwise) on demand may be regrettable, imperfect, an undesirable solution - but it must be better than having a bunch of politicians, lawyers and judges telling the woman that she must suffer the invasion of her own body without recourse.
It is a debate. That debate is 'should the state permit abortions to take place, and if so, what restrictions if any should it impose'.
Look up 'zealot'. I'm not one, because I don't espouse a religious view.Don't bring this back to the creationist vs. evolutionist argument. You are a zealot of one side of this, so you are convinced there should be no debate. On the outside, there's still a debate.
The distinction is not a trivial one. The point is that, not being religious, I am susceptible to argument and persuasion. The casual use of words like 'zealous' acts, and is probably intended, to blur that fact and make it seem as if someone such as me, who has considered a situation in depth and come to a reasoned conclusion, but is willing to modify or even change that opinion in response to further and better evidence (and, of course, arguments) is in the same position as someone who believes something because they are told (either by their parents, or their pastor, or their pope, or the other members of their church, or by the ancient or modern interpreters of their religion - you get the picture) to.
I'm sure it's very comforting for religious people to believe that freethinkers are, in fact, hamstrung by the same prejudice and irrationality that fills their own lives, but it isn't so. (I don't mean the words 'prejudice' and 'irrationality' in that sentence to have a pejorative effect; it's just that after half a minute of thought I'm unable to come up with softer alternatives).
You say there is a debate between creationism and evolution. I would ask you the same thing I asked geoff; what are the terms of that debate?
There is no thing, no argument, no fact, no collection of evidence, nothing, so far as I am able to discern, which would make the creationists agree that they are wrong and evolution is the correct explanation for organised complexity rather than genesis, the Fall, and the Flood. On the other hand, good evidence that fatally contradicts evolution will result in the scientists agreeing - not, perhaps, that creationism is correct, but that evolution is wrong.
That is why it is not debate.
No; the 'above' is science's current understanding. There are NO powerful arguments that trillions of years are needed for evolution. You are going to have to do better than that website if you are going to show that there are.
Sean D Pitman is a) a creationist; b) a mere MD (not an MSc, for example, let alone a PhD or Professor); c) completely absent from PubMed's database of published articles in peer-reviewed journals.
He is also bleating about the bloody bacterial flagellum, FCOL, an issue which was dealt with by scientists years ago. Even Behe has given up with that one.
The debate with people such as Pitman is no more a debate than the one that geologists and astrophysicists are having with the Flat Earth Society.
For exactly, I presume, the same reasons geoff332 made his original post in this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks