Posts by hooberus

15

The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens

by portcontrol7 in

i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.

most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.

this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.

hooberus

Hehe Funny to see the contortions and contradictions needed by those of faith to make their worldview seem less infantile. Christians are idiots, and arrogant little liars.

And what of those who embrace "reasoning" against God that if applied consistently also disproves the existence of their own "new atheist" leaders? Note the following argument used by the "new atheist" book "The God Delusion" to disprove the existence of God:

"Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.
However complex life is though, any creator of such life would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable .
Therefore God being very improbable "almost certainly do not exist"".

Now lets apply the same argument to the existence of the New atheists (Dawkins etc.)

"Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
The new atheist books ("The God Delusion", "Portable Atheist", etc,) are complex, hense improbable by chance.
However complex the books are though, any creator of such a book would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable .
Therefore the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) being very improbable "almost certainly do not exist"".

6

How Life Began - Expelled Move Clip

by hooberus in

.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php.

to see: click on "how life began".

hooberus

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php

to see: click on "How Life Began"

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

Seriously though, If indeed a true understand and acceptance of Darwin's
theory does NOT challenge the idea of a interested creator, then why was
Charles Darwin's faith slowly eroded away to nearly nothing?

And many others since as well. See even Dawkin,s comments on this (and his expose on the tactics of the "evolution defense loby" on this very issue!) in this brief (few minutes) online clip from Ben Stein's Expelled the Movie

Go to:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php

and then click on "The Darwinian Gospel"

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

To a large extent, we are all naturalists, no matter our ideological background. Therefore, it's very important to distinguish between scientific and ontological naturalism, as most contemportary philosophers of science do.

Actually, on the issue of evolutionary naturalism the two "brands" of naturalism operate exactly the same way and produce the exact same result -that is only naturalistic ("nature by itself, only") "explanations" are considered. With for example "design by an outside entity" excluded apriori by definition, and not by evidence.

Many modern philosophers of science [ 3 ] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that explanations of observable effects are practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). In other words, methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality.

One need not embrace methodological naturalisms restriction of naturalistic only ("nature by itself, only") explanations in order to use the scientific method. http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

2. Naturalism vs. Science

Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.
The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
- Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
- Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
- Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
- Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
- Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection.

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

Why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming Darwin anniversaries.
The problem is that a person can have a religious view that is compatible with dawinian evolution only if the religious view (as to biological history) is indistinguishable from atheism's naturalist viewpoint. Any, and all others, (such as straight forward history as recorded Bible, any ID theory, etc, etc.) are directly challenged by neo-darwinism.
Likewise, neo-darwinism is directly challenged by all the other viewpoints , hense atheists have been afraid of any upcoming alternatives, or even evidence against evolution.
http://www.creationresearch.org

15

The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens

by portcontrol7 in

i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.

most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.

this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.

hooberus

I'd have to agree to an extent with Burn the Ships regarding God is Not Great, although I found it extremely entertaining. Hitchens is a contrarian. If you want a more precise and cutting polemical essays on religion you'd do better to read the Portable Atheist by far. Particularly fun for me was to notice how so many of the arguments made by some of the leading figures in the "new atheism" are really old arguments that have yet to be refuted by the religious, and they are often more eloquently stated in that compendium.

I'm sorry, but according to the reasoning in the "new atheist" book The God Delusion Christopher Hitchens "almost certainly does not exist".

11

The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

by Homerovah the Almighty in

i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

hooberus

Here is the precise science that the Creationists support themselves with in their side of the argument and reason.

Before you post again why don't you read an actual book such as the one referenced earlier.

http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

11

The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

by Homerovah the Almighty in

i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

hooberus

It really comes down to subjective reasoning on practical evidence without a prejudicial mindset and an open evaluation, something that lacks greatly in this debate.

Mostly so on the part of the anti-creationists, who openly attempt to censor (by any means necessary)not only any alternative to evolutionary naturalism, but even mere evidence against evolution.

11

The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

by Homerovah the Almighty in

i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

hooberus

One thing that can be confirmed and acknowledged is that most religionists/creationists haven't really consumed or studied the science of evolution to any length

Nor have most professed evolutionists either.

Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.
Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues. http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

11

The Blatant Immorality of the Creationists against Modern Science

by Homerovah the Almighty in

i just viewed this interesting video on you-tube and i thought i'd post it up so you folks could have a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozw7-3ysns&feature=related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjxbdyu10a&feature=related.

don't know the reason for the pictures of girls are there, perhaps the author did that .

hooberus

Speaking of "deception", the video says early on that:

"99.98% of Scientists Accept Evolution." and that "By conservative estimates, there are four times more historians who believe the hollocaust never existed, than there are scientists who reject evolution."

Yet no references are given. Indeed the closest thing that one finds on the internet for such claims is a brief reference from a 1987 Newsweek article which refers to "one count" of scientists who support creationism. "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz & Mc Daniel 1987, p. 23

Evolutionists seem to take this "one count" [possibly taken from just the membership of the C.R.S.which alone has around 700 members with advanced degress http://www.creationresearch.org ] of openly acknowledged creationist scientists from this old survey and then by default assign all the other scientists as "believers in evolution". Such a method obviously could grossly over-estimates the percentile of scientists who "accept evolution".

One noted creationist researcher states that he was "able to, with little difficulty, assemble a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject evolutionary naturalism, most of whom hold a Ph.D. degree in some field of science." he then went on to say: " This is but a small percentage of the estimated 113,000 Darwin skeptics academics and scientists in the United States alone accordingly to a Harvard researcher (Gross and Simmons, 2006)." see (http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html)

However, even if the number was only 700 scientists are we to then believe that there are conservatively "four times" [2,800 !] more historians who believe the holocaust never existed ?