Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthankyou Mr. Hamilton, now perhaps we can discuss something other than a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversification of life, i know, what about something with a spiritual dimension, here is a description of the forum, a gentle reminder lest it has escaped your notice.
“...”Haven't you heard of “punctuated evolution”?
yes a modification to make the evidence fit the theory, ...”
You have said that the wrong way around; it is a modification of the theory to make the theory fit the evidence -that's just how science works; the evidence (the fossil record) remains what it was before -unmodified.
“...I deny nothi ...[text shortened]... over and incrementally evolved the amino-acid metabolism by one credible mutation at a time.
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“....now perhaps we can discuss something other than a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversification of life ...”
thankyou Mr. Hamilton, now perhaps we can discuss something other than a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversification of life, i know, what about something with a spiritual dimension, here is a description of the forum, a gentle reminder lest it has escaped your notice.
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after
...only if we discuss a superstitious and therefore baseless view of the emergence and diversification of life not based on reason or evidence but on a baseless type of pure metaphysics.
-I will stick to reason and evidence.
Originally posted by John W BoothI am fairly sure that you too are making stuff up - massively elaborate and intricate - you just don't realize it. If you had not been first introduced to the God concept, I doubt you would 'perceive' one. Do you feel that the God you believe in is substantiated?
Well I think the only real difference is that theists give themselves permission to basically make stuff up - massively elaborate and intricate but completely unsubstantiated stuff - about exactly the same God that deists perceive.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyours is a faith like any other Mr. Hamilton, that you give it a veneer and couch it in terms like logic and reason matters very little, indeed it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in a purely materialistic approach to life and its diversity than it does to profess belief in a creator. What is more, its of practically no value to do so.
“....now perhaps we can discuss something other than a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversification of life ...”
...only if we discuss a superstitious and therefore baseless view of the emergence and diversification of life not based on reason or evidence but on a baseless type of pure metaphysics.
-I will stick to reason and evidence.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's like saying it takes more faith to believe gravity happens independently of divine string pulling than believing celestial bodies being held in orbit by the FSMs noodly appendages.
yours is a faith like any other Mr. Hamilton, that you give it a veneer and couch it in terms like logic and reason matters very little, indeed it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in a purely materialistic approach to life and its diversity than it does to profess belief in a creator. What is more, its of practically no value to do so.
There is no need to invoke the notion of a creator (in particular, your notion of creator), this is not a position of faith. :]
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergNope Atheism is a religious stance, you have no way of proving that the universe was not created, indeed the very existence of precise laws of physics lends itself to the reasonable and logical conclusion that there is a statute maker. Have you ever seen a house that was constructed and stated that it happened by itself? No neither have I. Have you ever seen life originate from non living matter in a sterile environment and spontaneously organise itself into complex life, no neither have I, its an article of faith Agers, the sooner you admit it, the better for you. There is evidence of design and intelligence in the natural world, to term it mindless is illogical and unreasonable. The mere improbability that life arise through a chance occurrence renders the whole atheistic stance unreasonable and illogical, no matter what veneer you put on it, the spaghetti monster would agree with this.
That's like saying it takes more faith to believe gravity happens independently of divine string pulling than believing celestial bodies being held in orbit by the FSMs noodly appendages.
There is no need to invoke the notion of a creator (in particular, your notion of creator), this is not a position of faith. :]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou misapply probability arguments; indeed, what was the probability your post would have taken the form it did just then as opposed to something else? Had any letter have been in a different case even then it would not have took that form...now I'm not going to count how many characters you typed and guess the maximum number of characters you could potentially type, but the chances you would have typed that particular response are practically zero!!! Surely we must conclude then that the FSM is guiding your hand no?
Nope Atheism is a religious stance, you have no way of proving that the universe was not created, indeed the very existence of precise laws of physics lends itself to the reasonable and logical conclusion that there is a statute maker. Have you ever seen a house that was constructed and stated that it happened by itself? No neither have I. Have yo ...[text shortened]... and illogical, no matter what veneer you put on it, the spaghetti monster would agree with this.
Originally posted by Agergmore chance than life having originated by chance, which is the equivalent of finding a fully functional jumbo jet, assembled from the parts of a scrap yard, oh . . all by itself! The spaghetti Gods are angered Agers me ol son, you need offer up incense to appease them 🙂
You misapply probability arguments; indeed, what was the probability your post would have taken the form it did just then as opposed to something else? Had any letter have been in a different case even then it would not have took that form...now I'm not going to count how many characters you typed and guess the maximum number of characters you could potentiall ...[text shortened]... onse are practically zero!!! Surely we must conclude then that the FSM is guiding your hand no?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen you see what is wrong (purposely) with the argument I made you may see what is wrong with the argument you make. There is little else I can do to argue this without a long and boring post. In short it is neither I nor other atheists fault that theists misuse probability in a feeble attempt to prove their god! :]
more chance than life having originated by chance, which is the equivalent of finding a fully functional jumbo jet, assembled from the parts of a scrap yard, oh . . all by itself! The spaghetti Gods are angered Agers me ol son, you need offer up incense to appease them 🙂
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't "criticize Christians" per se. If I "criticize" anyone it is fellow theists who resort to making up the aforementioned massively elaborate and sometimes laughably intricate stuff based on speculation and unbridled imagination... communication with God, rules regulations ceremonies procedures, ancient texts, life after death, reincarnation, divinely inspired writings, divinely inspired preaching, scripture-based social and "moral" control, codified and institutionalized hatred of deviants or minorities and so on. Not sure why you have made this claim about me, dude, but I don't think I criticized anyone "for believing in an unsubstantiated God" (if I did, please point it out), what I complain about is all the unsubstantiated and pedantic theologies, creeds, mantras, superstitions, dogmas, folktales and general mumbo-jumbo that somehow transpire from, or get piled on top of, their belief that there is a God.
So why do you criticize Christians for believing in an unsubstantiated God, when you do the same yourself?
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergits ok dear Agers, i understand that like Mr.Booth nondescript airy fairy God the flying Spaghetti God must be displeased with you and needs some appeasement, offer up the incense and chant some mantra, who knows maybe he shall awaken from his slumber and embrace logic and reason 🙂
When you see what is wrong (purposely) with the argument I made you may see what is wrong with the argument you make. There is little else I can do to argue this without a long and boring post. In short it is neither I nor other atheists fault that theists misuse probability in a feeble attempt to prove their god! :]
Originally posted by AgergAn interesting device: mimicking robbie's argument. But he didn't bite.
When you see what is wrong (purposely) with the argument I made you may see what is wrong with the argument you make.
Try this one, Agerg. Assert to robbie that the Nazi Holocaust makes further theist speculation unnecessary and "verifies" your concept of the Spaghetti God and the everlasting afterlife in Spaghetti Kitchen. When he disagrees with you, insinuate that he is a 'secret' Nazi seeking to denegrate concentration camp victims.
If he doesn't cower and accept that, abuse him and/or mock his intelligence for a few pages and then finish by calling him a liar and flouncing off.
This is what robbie purports to be spiritual discussion. Maybe it will work on him.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor people who accept evolution Rob, such as myself, it forms the essence of our 'spirituality'. It is the explanation of how we came to be. Your rejection of it is nothing more than an argumentum ad consequentiam, you don't like the consequences so you reject the premise.
thankyou Mr. Hamilton, now perhaps we can discuss something other than a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversification of life, i know, what about something with a spiritual dimension, here is a description of the forum, a gentle reminder lest it has escaped your notice.
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after
I see you like constantly talking about odds, so let's work out the odds of you being here. When your Mum and Dad concieved you there was a 1/100,000,000 chance (on average) that that particular sperm would fertilise the egg (there are on average 100,000,000 million sperm in a single ejaculation).
Go back 200 generations (roughly 6,000yrs to the time of the alleged Adam & Eve) and that calculation is
1/(100 million)^200...or 1/10^1600
That's incredibly small odds yet you are here. Amazing.