03 Jan 11
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywillMy thinking on this matter is sound - there is no valid argument you can bring to bear that would render one supernatural thing any more plausible than another. Note: I don't accept logical fallacies as valid arguments!
================================
We have walked down this road before Jaywill; I answered that question in the affirmative where you then went off seeking to prove Divine Jesus was more plausible than Thor by appealing to the majority belief in the former - an appeal to the masses.
Without getting drawn into the same discussion again, if I were " I simply cannot accept science. After all, no one has yet turned common metal into gold " ?
As for you not accepting science (staying silent for now on your usage of computers which depends on a number of different disciplines) I pretty much take it as a given your science education is negligible, and would outright reject any claim that contradicted scripture. Indeed, In spite of how reasonable the basic assumptions, I'm sure if the mathematics which followed necessarily induced a contradiction with your religious beliefs then without a moments pause you'd throw out science - even though we can test science and the technology you rely on relies also on the truth of what you'd reject!!!
But yeah...we should spare each other the pointless dialogue on this matter.
03 Jan 11
5 edits
Originally posted by Agerg==================================
My thinking on this matter is sound - there is no valid argument you can bring to bear that would render one supernatural thing any more plausible than another. Note: I don't accept logical fallacies as valid arguments!
As for you not accepting science (staying silent for now on your usage of computers which depends on a number of different disciplines) I p 'd reject!!!
But yeah...we should spare each other the pointless dialogue on this matter.
My thinking on this matter is sound - there is no valid argument you can bring to bear that would render one supernatural thing any more plausible than another. Note: I don't accept logical fallacies as valid arguments!
======================================
Disagree.
Santa with flying raindeers going down billions of chimneys on one night does not deserve the same serious consideration as the reported resurrection of an extraordinary man like history's Jesus Christ.
Sorry. Think what you want. Think argument ad populum.
The nature of the man whose words and deeds divided history into B.C. and A.D does not merit the same level of consideration as a fairy who puts a dime under the pillow of children when their tooth is placed there.
======================
As for you not accepting science (staying silent for now on your usage of computers which depends on a number of different disciplines) I pretty much take it as a given your science education is negligible,
================================
My bachelars was in Computer Science. I have written thousand or more computer programs.
And what I said was a comment on not rejecting all of science because attempts at turning metal to gold have not suceeded.
==============================
and would outright reject any claim that contradicted scripture.
==============================
Before you lecture me on the deficency of science education I would ask you, how many higher level computer language programs have you written ?
And I did not seriously say I rejected science. I made up a parody of a foolish generalization to illustrate how your logic sounds to me.
==================================
Indeed, In spite of how reasonable the basic assumptions, I'm sure if the mathematics which followed necessarily induced a contradiction with your religious beliefs then without a moments pause you'd throw out science - even though we can test science and the technology you rely on relies also on the truth of what you'd reject!!!
=================================
I think the laws of logic and mathematics come out of the mind of the Creator.
I think technology is really reading OUT of the creation the laws that Someone put there, learning them, channeling them for human usage.
I think the existence of technology indicates Divine Intelligence has designed the laws by which the universe runs.
I don't buy the "Blind Watchmaker" argument for a moment. And I think it is stupid to do so.
03 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywillOn your first section of reply I'm not going to get drawn into debate with you. Your religious bias and penchant for logical fallacies prevents us from making any progress.
[b]==================================
My thinking on this matter is sound - there is no valid argument you can bring to bear that would render one supernatural thing any more plausible than another. Note: I don't accept logical fallacies as valid arguments!
======================================
Disagree.
Santa with flying raindeers g n't buy the "Blind Watchmaker" argument for a moment. And I think it is stupid to do so.[/b]
As for the science comment you are a Y.E.C. and I don't care how how agile is your coding proficiency; anyone who espouses those kind of views is either ignorant of science in general or bats**t crazy.
I have no need to make this a degree-off but as for higher level programs I have written, Computer Science isn't my degree - it is an under-grad masters in mathematics (final year). The most complicated program I've built to date was to solve and graph elliptic PDEs in two variables defined on an arbitrary domain using the successive overrelaxation (SOR) and line successive overrelaxation (LSOR) algorithms in C++.
Still learning and playing around with the language when I get spare time so you win that round - go you!
Your comments about mathematics and logic are unsubstantiated assertions. Your belief in intelligent design (which strongly suggests an ignorance of evolution) is not a topic I wish to discuss with you.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergSo are you saying that you dont think evolution could've come about through intelligent design?
On your first section of reply I'm not going to get drawn into debate with you. Your religious bias and penchant for logical fallacies prevents us from making any progress.
As for the science comment you are a Y.E.C. and I don't care how how agile is your coding proficiency; anyone who espouses those kind of views is either ignorant of science in general or ...[text shortened]... hich strongly suggests an ignorance of evolution) is not a topic I wish to discuss with you.
Remember I dont subscribe to any chistian versions of god (that have been expressed in this forum anyway)
03 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat's what I'm saying. Evolution is an autonomous natural process; no twinkle dust or divine intervention involved.
So are you saying that you dont think evolution could've come about through intelligent design?
Remember I dont subscribe to any chistian versions of god (that have been expressed in this forum anyway)
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergWhat about this scenario: An intelligent force (an agent of god, an eternal being in tune with the greater cosmos (God)) comes to this planet and sees that we have the right conditions to be "seeded" for life, life that will evolve in accordance with unversal laws.
That's what I'm saying. Evolution is an autonomous natural process; no twinkle dust or divine intervention involved.
You see , in my uderstaning of the universe, there is no substitue for experience.
In short, the human species must live through many "lessons" which in turn gets carried over to the next generations. As this knowledge builds, we come to a point where we have enough expeince collectively to transcend our former material limitations and reunite us with our origonal creators.
You see I dont deny evolution (that would be foolish), or abogenisis (?) , and more or less accept the scientific findings on these matters.
What I cant understand is why you cant have an "intelligent designer" and evolution. Can you stretch your mind to entertain such a notion?
03 Jan 11
5 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelSome non-specific, undefined entity seeding an unplanned process and letting it run *some* course deterministically without intervention is one thing... some god stepping in every 5 minutes saying "ooh...let's give zebras long necks - *ding*...ooh lets give humans bigger brains so they'll better resemble me - *ding*" is another.
What about this scenario: An intelligent force (an agent of god, an eternal being in tune with the greater cosmos (God)) comes to this planet and sees that we have the right conditions to be "seeded" for life, life that will evolve in accordance with unversal laws.
You see , in my uderstaning of the universe, there is no substitue for experience.
I intelligent designer" and evolution. Can you stretch your mind to entertain such a notion?
The former is not intelligent design
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergOk. Thnx for indulging me.
Some non-specific, undefined entity seeding the process and letting it run it's course without intervention is one thing... some god stepping in every 5 minutes saying "ooh...let's give zebras long necks - *ding*...ooh lets give humans bigger brains so they'll better resemble me - *ding*" is another.
The former is not intelligent design
According to my understanding, the conditions were set up in accordance with unversal laws, the proper way to bring a planet to spiritual maturity (spiritual evoltuion, not just physical evoltution). However something went wrong and the Earth was invaded by some "bad aliens" . These baddies were like a 60 year old raping a 14 year old.
So the former "keepers of the garden" (keepers of Earth), were forced to employ some unusual tactics to put the Earth back on course for its birth into the greater universal community.
Of course the baddies had broken one of the main universal laws by interfering with us in the first place.
The Keepers had to also intervene to set things right, but they did it in a way where no one on Earth was going to notice their presence. Not up until not long ago anyway. And even then they have only revealed themselves to a few.
In our "victim conciousenss" we would've just latched onto them and missed the bigger picture/lesson ,ie. that we need to do this for ourselves, thay cant do it for us.
Mind you they has to get permission from the intergalactic council to perform these interventions. They were granted permission on the basis that it was forseen that if we had've kept going the way we were, NO ONE WAS GOING TO MAKE IT THROUGH.If only one person was to make it throug this transition/transmutation then permission would not have been granted.
03 Jan 11
3 edits
Furthermore, If you want to argue Karoly, that the initial seeding was planned such that the evolution and relevant demise of all species was known in advance; then we are forced to conclude our (and all other species'😉 every action was also known to this entity such that it could be known in advance how the 'evolution' (when we consider all the possible interactions of matter) would play out. we thus conclude we are purely mechanical entities devoid of true free-will.
This isn't actually a problem for me since I'm a determinist anyway (albeit I don't see the need to invoke gods); to me however ,with my pseudo free will, the meaning of my own life (regardless of whether I'm technically *free* to change things) is to live my life seeking happiness and stimuli wherever I can find it, and doing my best to ensure others (who I like and reciprocate said liking) succeed in the same venture. I hope that when I pass on people will remember me, and some of my better traits, and accomplishments/actions/trinkets will serve those who will survive after I'm gone.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agerg"On the contrary; definitions are very important."
On the contrary; definitions are very important.
Not so sure it's an assertion you have made but a number of your theist colleagues have defined us atheists to be immoral. Why?
because all morality comes from God - Why?
because you define your god to be so - Why?
Because you say so; by scriptural decree!
and if we allow ourselves t ...[text shortened]... her atheists reject your definition of "meaningless". It has absolutely no basis whatsoever.
I didn't say definitions weren't important. I only meant that definitions and meanings aren't the primary focus. The focus and primary intent of this debate generally, as I see it, is about the persuasion, through reasoned argument, of one ideological/philosophical/theological system of belief against another.
"Not so sure it's an assertion you have made but a number of your theist colleagues have defined us atheists to be immoral. Why?
because all morality comes from God - Why?
because you define your god to be so - Why?
Because you say so; by scriptural decree!
and if we allow ourselves to be guided down that road then we'll be walking ourselves to the quiet fields of ostracism (or worse) as the idea takes root in the majority."
I would never presume to assert that anyone is immoral. And as far as I can see, none of us "theists" has collaborated together to label or identify anyone in this forum as immoral. On the contrary, in my opinion, I don't believe anyone posting in this forum is worse morally than me. No one is perfect. It would be immoral to point fingers sense we are all imperfect morally or otherwise.
But concerning your last statement. It is my opinion that what is moral or immoral is understood by the vast majority of people everywhere, without the reference to any God as it's source.
And, by the way, I never said that atheism was immoral. Not believing there is a God doesn't make one immoral, and believing there is a God doesn't make one a saint.
"For now you personally define the lives we atheists lead to be meaningless; why?
Because you have arbitrarily decided that meaning comes only through the assumption that God exists - Why?
Because you believe you can insist that be the case - by fiat - Why?
Because you find the notion of your own death distasteful and would like more life afterwards - you believe only the God you believe in can provide this"
I never said that the atheist life was meaningless. All my assertions are directly in reference to "atheism" itself as a belief system. I tried as best I could to be objective, and deliberately avoided any personal references to any individuals. That would be very rude and tasteless.
"I and other atheists reject your definition of "meaningless". It has absolutely no basis whatsoever."
Meaningless- Without meaning. Isn't it as simple as that?
I think what gets your goat is that I said that atheism is meaningless.
I'll say this as simply as I can. Belief in the existence of a Creator/God isn't going to make one better than any other. Believing there is a God isn't going to make ones life any more meaningful than the one who doesn't believe in the existence of God.
But BELIEVING God is another thing altogether.
Being an atheist doesn't make one any better or worse than another.
But BELIEVING that there is no Creator/God is mind numbingly meaningless, because it's a big fat negative hole of irrationality.
Here's why. Believing is an act of the will. One who believes in nothing has exercised the will in a vacuum. It's like thinking in reverse. Like going backward from reality into a void of emptiness.
How can a man want to resign himself to nothingness, no more life, no more love, no more thought, no friends, family, his wife and children, everything gone forever.
That's atheism. Meaninglessness!
And please don't think I believe in the existence of God because I'm afraid of dying. That's just too infantile to entertain.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergYes, free will is like a carrot dangled in front of a donkey. We have free will, but largely choose not to exercise it (habituation).
Furthermore, If you want to argue Karoly, that the initial seeding was planned such that the evolution and relevant demise of all species was known in advance; then we are forced to conclude our (and all other species'😉 every action was also known to this entity such that it could be known in advance how the 'evolution' (when we consider all the possible inter ...[text shortened]... problem for me since I'm a determinist anyway (albeit I don't see the need to invoke gods)
Fear also plays a great part.
So we are like robots in so many ways (controlled by the "devil" , for want of a better word), however we have the potential to break free, realize our own independence and then reallign our will with " Gods " will.
It is like a sperm wiggling its way into an ovum. It gets extremly tight on the way in, and you have to pull in everything just to make i through, but ,as we realize the true will of the univers for us, we are finally released into satori and (re)gain total freedom from material limitations forever.
03 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelHmm...I think our views diverged at some early point in your post prior to this. Moreover, I don't see what, in my last post, is in anyway harmonious with yours here ;]
Yes, free will is like a carrot dangled in front of a donkey. We have free will, but largely choose not to exercise it (habituation).
Fear also plays a great part.
So we are like robots in so many ways (controlled by the "devil" , for want of a better word), however we have the potential to break free, realize our own independence and then reallign o e finally released into satori and (re)gain total freedom from material limitations forever.
03 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergMy thinking on this matter is sound - there is no valid argument you can bring to bear that would render one supernatural thing any more plausible than another, - Sager Puss, the old cloth cat, but Emily loved him.
My thinking on this matter is sound - there is no valid argument you can bring to bear that would render one supernatural thing any more plausible than another. Note: I don't accept logical fallacies as valid arguments!
As for you not accepting science (staying silent for now on your usage of computers which depends on a number of different disciplines) I p 'd reject!!!
But yeah...we should spare each other the pointless dialogue on this matter.
there is a simple Biblical formula, which is as follows,
wisdom (the application of knowledge) is proven righteous (proven to be sound) through its works (by the evident demonstration of its effects upon the adherent)
and you may test this upon any supernatural entities or claims that you choose. I suggest a comparative study of the deeds and teachings of the Norse Gods and that of Jesus Christ.
03 Jan 11
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs for my lack of inclination to get into any serious debate with Jaywill; he has already acknowledged in one of our dialogues that the reason he ignores the points I make (which came after carefully digesting his long and torturous posts encrusted with pointless scripture and fruitless anecdotes about his fraternisations with magic friends) is because the answers he gives to me are not for my benefit (in short he would have me serve as a plank on his pulpit). Secondly, his conduct in a further discussion offended me gravely. I have little desire to waste my time with him now or in the future. I'll grant him the courtesy of skimming through the posts directed at me, speaking when I'm spoken to - as efficiently as to fend off his questions (or if I forget myself, pointing out some patently foolish or absurd point of his when the mood takes me) but that's where I draw the line,
My thinking on this matter is sound - there is no valid argument you can bring to bear that would render one supernatural thing any more plausible than another, - Sager Puss, the old cloth cat, but Emily loved him.
there is a simple Biblical formula, which is as follows,
wisdom (the application of knowledge) is proven righteous (proven to be ...[text shortened]... ggest a comparative study of the deeds and teachings of the Norse Gods and that of Jesus Christ.
As for the argument you give here, we have already walked that road:
http://www.redhotchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=135780&page=4
One last thing; you might thank me for leaving it a day before I get back to you (if you reply)...It has been a while since I slept - and I'm in a bit of a snappy mood! (have to stay awake another 4 hours or so) - apologies.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agerghehe, you need some comfort in your life Agers my son, a fine lady, a fine malt, to eat and drink and rejoice and see good for all your hard work.
As for my lack of inclination to get into any serious debate with Jaywill; he has already acknowledged in one of our dialogues that the reason he ignores the points I make (which came after carefully digesting his long and torturous posts encrusted with pointless scripture and fruitless anecdotes about his fraternisations with magic friends) is because the ans ...[text shortened]... - and I'm in a bit of a snappy mood! (have to stay awake another 4 hours or so) - apologies.