Gladring

Joined

• started 35 topics
• posted 223 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Gladring

• 
  150

  Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

  that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  Yup, number 1 of course. Scientists aren't totally stupid, they've done the research and whilst there are big gaps the evidence is consistent with their theories. Otherwise, why would they be saying there's not a smidgen of evidence for little green men?

  Are you ready to answer the question now?

  Yes I'm ready. If my scenario 1 is what you have in mind, then no this is not evidence for ET.

  I must say that, if you believe that your moon scenario has any resemblence to life on earth, you are labouring under many misconceptions. May I ask your view of evolution? Do you accept the idea of common descent? Have you looked into the genetic/DNA evidence for common descent?

  In your replies to Caedes you (and he) speak of a human-engineered living thing made of organic molecules. You claim that if you looked at such a thing that one would not be able to distinguish the humanly created from the naturally evolved. I must say here that you are flat wrong about this. When looking at biological organisms which have evolved, we can see the history of changes in the anatomy and genetic make up (genetic drift, vestigial organs ...). If a human created a living biological thing, we could not help but leave our fingerprints all over it. Even if you care to imagine some distant future where we have the resources at hand to create a biological organism with its own fake backstory to make it look like it evolved, this will not help your case. Does the God you imagine create life in such a way as to remove any trace of his hand in his handiwork? Does he then abandon his handiwork to the whims of time and forget all about it? Why bother with a God like that.

  I've had some family stuff to sort out, so I've been away from home for a couple of days. It's nice to be missed tho'.
• 
  150

  Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

  that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  Barefoot said:

  So, given that there is an alternative explanation for our nanobots (Darwinian evolution), would you consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon to be admissable evidence for alien intelligence?

  and:

  Again, no, the nanobots never were created and therefore are not artificial.

  and again:

  Yes, they found a wealth of evidence that the nanobots evolved - didn't I mention that?

  I think you are answering your own question here. If they evolved, were not designed and were not created, then I'd have to say that that is not evidence for alien intelligence.

  I think that you need to redefine your scenario. Could you tell me whether it fits my scenario 1 or 2 in my previous post:

  1- We dig down through the layers of moon rock and find more and more simple "nanobots" and also differing, distinct living and fossilised machines that fit in to a tree of life. Further examination shows that the nanobots are related to all other machines on the planet. It looks like these evolved. The more we study, the more we find out.

  2- We search the moon and find that the nanobots arrived suddenly, more or less as we find them now - complex, fully functioning. Then we may conclude that they were left behind by some intelligent beings or try to find some explanation for them.
• 
  150

  Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

  that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  Nanobots - let me take a stab at this.

  If we were studying the moon and found some complex, self-replicating "nanobots" , I would think we would face one of two scenarios:

  1- We dig down through the layers of moon rock and find more and more simple "nanobots" and also differing, distinct living and fossilised machines that fit in to a tree of life. Further examination shows that the nanobots are related to all other machines on the planet. It looks like these evolved. The more we study, the more we find out.

  2- We search the moon and find that the nanobots arrived suddenly, more or less as we find them now - complex, fully functioning. Then we may conclude that they were left behind by some intelligent beings or try to find some explanation for them.

  Like one of the other posters, I'd like to see a credible anti-atheist argument - I really would. The more time that passes and the more evidence that is uncovered, the fewer gaps there are for gods to hide in.
• 
  150

  Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

  that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  Why does he [Dawkins] feel it necessary to place adverts on London buses saying God doesn't exist...?

  Dawkins did not place those adverts, but he did lend his public support to them and donated generously to the charity that did. Also those adverts do not say that God does not exist, they say "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

  I suspect Dawkins only claims he is a 6 because he knows that 7 is scientifically untenable.

  Exactly!

  In addition to PrimateDave's comments about the moon nano-bots: - the scientist would probably go, well who made the Aliens then? Not to go into great detail right now, but a designed object would look very different to an evolved object.
• 
  150

  Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

  that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  Different magesteria.

  I don't agree. Religious believers like to think their beliefs are based on evidence - until that evidence is shown to be false or unreliable. At that point they fall back to the non-overlapping magesteria argument.

  If a tomb was found in Jerusalem containing bones of a 33 year old male who had been crucified some 2000 years ago, and that DNA from the bone marrow showed that he had no biological father - you can be pretty sure that beliefs would soon become evidence based!
• 
  8

  UN: Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

  by Gladring in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  anyone heard of this:.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji-qdc5zyd4.

  this could affect our right to criticise the wtbts or any other pseudo-religious bs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  Anyone heard of this:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-qdC5zYd4

  This could affect our right to criticise the WTBTS or any other pseudo-religious BS
• 
  150

  Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

  that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  0. I am God
• 
  17

  Has anyone had sex during field service?

  by rebel8 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  Any voluntary donations would be gratefully accepted LOL
• 
  150

  Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

  that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

  "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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  I don't think Dawkins would agree, since him saying that there is no proof for God would make him an agnostic. Dawkins' view is surely not just that there is no proof for God, but that he definitely does not exist. Which, as the article points out, is a statement of belief since it is not possible to scientifically prove that God does not exist.

  In the God Delusion, Dawkins gives the scale

  1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God
  2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist.
  3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
  4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic.
  5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
  6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
  7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God.'

  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.
• 
  10

  The WT's favorite "reasoning" method - the false dilemma

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as defined here: http://skepdic.com/falsedilemma.html.

  the false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a fallacy of reasoning that omits consideration of all reasonable alternatives.

  sometimes called the either-or fallacy, one poses what looks like a true dilemma--i must pick one or the other--when, in fact, there are other viable alternatives.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gladring

  But Jesus said to him: “Do not YOU men try to prevent [him], for he that is not against YOU is for YOU .” - Luk 9: 50

  go figure