by BurnTheShips 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
'That's when God would become god. He would get transferred from the religious to the secular (scientific) realm and lose his sacral character.'
Not so. If he is really god, then he becomes scientifically provable, as well as being sacred. If he was reall, it makes him more, not less. Supposedly, his deapths are unsearchable. It is his chance to show it.
S
After further consideration of this article I have come to the conclusion that the Atheist's real dilemma here is that Paul Campos is preaching to the choir. The assumptions that he and Stanley Fish hold firmly are based on and the basis of circular arguments which have no need of evidence.
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
Now lets turn that around, shall we?
Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?
Are unbiased readers to assume along with Campos that "angels of the Lord" are a given? This is such a ludicrous scenario to begin with, and not only are the assumptions "not shared" among atheists and considered "flatly wrong," where is the objective evidence to go along with such assumptions?
I have no problem with looking for meaning and purpose in life, and I marvel at the wonder and complexity of the observable Universe, but I see Fundamentalist Theology as a minor cultural subset of humanity and definable within a certain sociological, anthropological, and historical context. Time to look outside the box, Stanley and Paul. You're not that important. Your reality, beliefs, and experience are all pretty subjective. Even your thoughts exist within the bio-chemical processes of your brains.
Woman relates her experience with a massive stroke
If you should "see" an "angel of the Lord" or "hear" the voice of "God," you might do well to go to the doctor for an MRI.
Dave
" ... an Atheist can hold to faith as strongly as a Theist, the main difference being what premises are chosen. At least, that is how I understood it when I read it."
How many times do I have to write this? Atheism is not a "faith." It's a LACK of faith in the existance of God. I've not read Dawkins, so I can't speak from his perspective. But I can say that atheists are atheists because whatever "evidence" is provided is not convincing.
I find it somewhat amusing that many Christians claim to have seen an angel, heard a voice, or experienced an epiphany; therefore, according to them, everyone else should believe it too. Yet before their "angels," "voices," and "epiphanies" occurred, they didn't believe either or they believed superfically (the way many dubs believe).
Anecdoctal "evidence" is notoriously unreliable and unconvincing. Show us evidence that is convincing, that we can test for ourselves, and then we'll talk. Whatever one's "predisposition" in interpreting unexplainable phenomena, the one who is already biased toward "belief" is the least qualified to examine and interpret it, if such a thing is even possible.
"That is, Augustine's first principle of sound interpretation is that an interpretation is sound if it confirms the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, for the perfected soul - which Augustine points out again and again he himself is not - 'diligent scrutiny' is unnecessary. For 'the pure and healthy internal eye," he says, "God is everywhere.'"
One of the best examples of circular reasoning I've ever seen.
Dr. Watson: First, is that name from the NT utility in computer servers? And I love Stewie. Funny as hell.
I used those terms because most people don't use others. I know of no common term for a person who feels he can prove God does not exist, so our professor 40 years ago set out the terms I used. I don't mind as long as we all understand what means what.
I like the way BMW's handle, but would never own another. They cost too much and use systems that fail all too often. I have a 1988 735i. Goes 150 mph but I've only had it up to 110 to test a rebuilt front end costing over two grand. Lots of open space on I-95 and in Florida. It needs extra wide $200 Michelins to do that. But taking jughandles at 70 mph with no lean isn't my thing anymore. I'll get a Lexus next time. LOL. My best to you.
A slice of toast that contains a visionary image , seen by an atheist.
The article and the proposition it presents is the intellectual equivalent of an angry midget taunting a prize fighter to engage in a "fair fight."
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
Sooooo what this idiot is saying, is in essence; Believers can't be swayed by facts because we don't believe in facts...
Way to be proud of your ignorance, good call! Vote Palin!!!
Sorry BTS, but this Campos artilce is pretty weak.
Very lame, in fact.
"Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will."
This is silly talk. Campos is misusing the term "faith" and misapplying it. Clever writing though. But it doesn't wash. At least not with me.
The Oracle
Gladring said:
Dawkins places himself in the category 6 "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist." He has many times said that one cannot say with absolute certainty that God does not exist.
I suspect Dawkins only claims he is a 6 because he knows that 7 is scientifically untenable. But the rest of his words and actions, in particular his genuine contempt for anyone professing belief in God, demonstrate his true position, IMO. But anyway, you said that Dawkins does not consider there to be proof for atheism, simply that there is no proof for God. In which case, why would he have strong views either way? Why does he feel it necessary to place adverts on London buses saying God doesn't exist, or write books saying God is a delusion, if he has no evidence either way? Maybe he just likes the publicity.
Inkling said:
Bacteria, in some case, GAIN abilities, such as the biological
tools required to process nylon. Digesting nylon required a specific enzyme that these bacteria
did not have before the invention of nylon in 1935. Now they do. What would you call that, if not an "increase in complexity"?
It is likely that the ability to synthesize different types of enzymes was already present within the 1935 bacteria. Our immune system is likewise capable of responding to completely new types of invasion (unfortunately not always fast enough to save life). I mentioned The Edge of Evolution because some specific bacteria are discussed in detail and it is very interesting to see their actual capabilites and the definite limitations to their adaptions, even over long time scales.
On assumptions and beliefs, here's a variation of the ol' watch-on-the-beach argument:
Suppose the Russians land on the Moon and discover a vast area of advanced nanotechnolgy in existence. That is, incredibly tiny machines that have the capability to create new nanotech machines like themselves. It turns out the Moon is ideally suited, in fact as far as we know uniquely suited to nanotech robots, providing the perfect low gravity environment and all the resources and energy they need, and they have created, just below the surface of the Moon, a wonderful network of what looks like intelligently designed systems for different purposes. Since the nanotechnology is so far in advance of our own that it is almost incomprehensible, we know it didn't originate with man. At first it appears that the nanotechs must have been created by an alien intelligence.
There is huge controversy over this discovery, and we end up with a great divide of opinion, the extremes of which are those who believe in an alien intelligence and those that refuse to believe. That is, those who believe that an alien intelligence created the nanotechnology to exist on the Moon, and those that believe natural processes are the reason for the nanotechs, because once one, simple, reproducing nanotech machine was up and running (we will trust science to eventually come up with a decent theory for that), natural selection combined with fortuitous mistakes in machine building would surely, over billions of years, result in the extremely complex technology we currently observe, and therefore there is no requirement for a designer, especially as we can see that many different machines have similar parts.
So, there are believers who see evidence of design in the existence of the nanotechs, and there are those contemptuous of the believers, who say "there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men."
Some scratch their heads at this last statement, and some nod wisely. You?
