how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.
step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.
all effects require a cause.
DD: Just for fun. Could you name one effect that doesn't need a cause?
oh no, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. If you are trying to support the cosmological argument, you must first DEFINE what you mean by cause and effect. THEN we can discuss if all effects need a cause.
i'm wondering how people feel about us exjws either becoming atheists or continuing on with a faith in god?.
do you get angry or frustrated at the opposing view?.
i'm new but i've seen different reactions to both on here...as for me i am happy to live and let live nowadays...its ok with me whatever people want to choose for themselves..... personally i still have enormous faith and love for god....if the jws couldnt destroy it i dont think much else could...?.
Not at all!
Ofcourse if a believer preaches hate of homosexuals or women, or if an atheist preach hate about believers, i would take issue with that, but that is a whole other matter.
how to construct a creationist/theistic argument - by ben spencer.
step 1. come up with a supposed self-apparent, universal, unbreakable, and yet ultimately unprovable "law".. for example:.
all effects require a cause.
Greywolf: i would be interested in why you believe Dawkins know next to nothing about the philosophy of science, and how that affect his arguments?
i tend to believe that the book of genesis is allegorical and not historic.
the first part including the flood is a creation story similar to many others, although the jewish one has distinct insights into man's relationship with god.
another literary device employed is anthropomorphism or personification as in the talking snake,aka satan.
Maputo: On blood, i have had success in asking question along: "The bible says we must 'abstain from blood' and i know how the scholars in the WTS has interpreted those words to create a functional law and i am trying to understand the logic they used. As i see it, to turn that into a functional law like the WTS has done, we must have some very clear definitions af those two key words, abstain and blood. So try to define when a substance is 'blood' and what it means to 'abstain from' something in the biblical sence".
The key is that it is impossible to get definitions of those terms that does not involve the actual rules and regulations - for example, what part of his definition of 'blood' and 'abstain' make it clear it is okay to mix 10'000 packets of blood to extract albumin and inject that?
When you have done that, take a historical study. The exact same verses they use for blood today has been used on vaccines and organ transplants. Why did the definitions change? What were the definitions back then?
I think your goal should be to admit that the FDS definitions are somewhat arbitrary and people abstain from blood NOT because it is perfectly clear from the bible what treatments are allowed and not, but as a matter of respect for 'Gods organization'.
That being said, i would try to nail him on interlectual honesty, for example the creative quoting and misrepresentations in the 'Creation' book. Google it to see what i mean, a good place to begin is to notice what 'Evolutionist' they keep on quoting, cough cough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Francis_Hitching
after reading 'the greatest show on earth' by dawkins, i have been intrigued by how biblical literalists explain the many findings that seem to support evolution and contradict various parts of the bible.
in doing to i have browsed around on aig but i have generally felt let down by the quality of evidence and interpretations they present.
so i would like to ask all non-evolutionists: if i wanted to learn more about the physical case against evolution, what books should i read?
Darklighter: Dempski is a very, very poor example of an 'interlectual heavy-hitter'. I work with information theory every day and while i havent read his book the articles of him i have read are a mess! The only interesting question Dempski raise if he is a moron, or delibrately lying. Enough about him. I want to find the best creation book. I sure hope it aint the Creation book :-).
of old threads, that is.. "scott77" just raised ten of his from the dead at the same time!
that has to be a record.. farkel, 2nd resurrection class.
brrrrrRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAIIIIIINNNSSSSssssss
i tend to believe that the book of genesis is allegorical and not historic.
the first part including the flood is a creation story similar to many others, although the jewish one has distinct insights into man's relationship with god.
another literary device employed is anthropomorphism or personification as in the talking snake,aka satan.
Well, since you know what he is going to respond, you can antisipate it and phrase your mails accordingly? Perhaps have him agree to another type of discussion, some common rules you would like both of you to agree to? (one topic per discussion, etc).
Another tactic could be to let HIM explain what HE believe is the main lines of evolution, sort of swap seats. It will be hard for him because he is not used to having to think :-)
after reading 'the greatest show on earth' by dawkins, i have been intrigued by how biblical literalists explain the many findings that seem to support evolution and contradict various parts of the bible.
in doing to i have browsed around on aig but i have generally felt let down by the quality of evidence and interpretations they present.
so i would like to ask all non-evolutionists: if i wanted to learn more about the physical case against evolution, what books should i read?
The topic is the BEST book, not if we think it is GOOD!
update: Okay the topic is actually 'Good books'. Time to go to bed... :-D.
after reading 'the greatest show on earth' by dawkins, i have been intrigued by how biblical literalists explain the many findings that seem to support evolution and contradict various parts of the bible.
in doing to i have browsed around on aig but i have generally felt let down by the quality of evidence and interpretations they present.
so i would like to ask all non-evolutionists: if i wanted to learn more about the physical case against evolution, what books should i read?
Jonathan: Personally, the most interesting parts of Dawkins book was not his conclusion (which was predictable), but all the stuff he told about, animals, rocks, fossils - things i didnt even know about! he even made me exited about cabbage and a poor child/ape that was snatched by an eagle millions of years ago! :-).
That said - i dont want to form any pre-consieved ideas about the type of book i want,i know you are a smart person, and i just want the most compelling and truthfull presentation of 'the other side' of the argument.
after reading 'the greatest show on earth' by dawkins, i have been intrigued by how biblical literalists explain the many findings that seem to support evolution and contradict various parts of the bible.
in doing to i have browsed around on aig but i have generally felt let down by the quality of evidence and interpretations they present.
so i would like to ask all non-evolutionists: if i wanted to learn more about the physical case against evolution, what books should i read?
mindmelda: Sounds promising, but from the reviews i could find it seem to be more about interpreting the bible to coincide with certain physical theories and i have a nagging sensation that if physicists dropped inflation tomorrow the author would find a reinterpretation of genesis to accommodate that -- as such it seem more of a theological excersize than a scientific (?). I would much rather see a treatment of Fossils, genetics, the geological collumn, the distribution of animals on earth, etc - a lot of the reason i want to read up on it is that i simply dont know what the non-evolution worldview IS. i dont know what a kind is, i dont know if non-evolutionists believe dog and wolfs are the same kind, how they define 'variation' as opposed to evolution, if they can quote any testable hypothesis and experiments that support them, anything of that kind.
As an atheist who think the theory of evolution is supported by evidence i would perhaps default to the view that such work does not exist, that there are no explanations, but i hope i am wrong :-).
ps. I know abiogenesis and evolution (and gravity and rabbits) are different things. I would like to think i would first figure out what a particular scientific theory attempt to explain before i reject or accept it ;-).
