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.

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

It has been falsified. There are many non-supranatural explanations for the origin of life, such as the metabolism-first and the genetics-first theories. I like, for instance, Wächtershauser's iron-sulfur world theory with its brief recipe for life:

From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3028/

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

The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science
The testable supranatural. Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

The book (1993) "Shows that some statements about the supernatural [creation by a creator outside of nature] can be testable science." Such as "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life [from non-life]."-This would be falsified by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life. B.T.W. this demonstrates that the claim of prominent anti-creationist Kenneth Miller that intelligent design has produced "no testable hypothesis" is false. Here he is making such a false claim in an interview. The Colbert Report: (4:40 to 4:55) in the clip http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/173859/june-16-2008/kenneth-miller

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

The God Delusion book is crafty in that when it uses the phrase "statistically improbable" in relation to God*, it doesn't define it explicilty, as it does much earlier in the same chapter as referring to statistical improbabilityas to coming about by chance** . Thus, alllowing "statistically improbable" in reference to God to be easily equivocated in the minds of readers as statistically improbable as to existence, -the thrust of the chapter.

*For example the book says: "a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."

** "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."

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

F.Y.I., The fallacy is the same in both the above arguments. That is equating improbability of coming about by chance, with improbability of existence, for something that need not have come about by chance. Such an argument in reality can only be used to show that God, or Dawkins is improbable as to coming about by chance, and not necessarily also improbable as to existence.Note what happens to the same arguments when the consistent phrase "by chance" is added (and not omitted) to premise #3.

Example A

"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 by chance.

Example B

"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 by chance.

Observe how how the arguements now at best only prove improbability of coming about by chance and not also improbability of existence, since the creators in question (i.e.Dawkins, Hitchens, God,) need not also have come about by chance). Threfore the concluding point that they "almost certainly do not exist" is now easily seen as an invalid deduction.

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