no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
There's no reason for inaction Cofty. Acting to prevent the child's death would incur no penalty or injury to you.
Then there is no possible excuse and the person is morally responsible for a child's death.
I assume you are drawing a parallel with god's abject failure to prevent suffering?
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
I know it's a thought experiment but I would need to know if the person had any reason for failing to act to save the child's life.
If there is no sensible reason (I was distracted and it was too late when I realised what was happening for example) I would say the person bears a weighty moral responsibility - probably no legal liability though.
a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
Lee Marsh - The person who started the thread took it in this direction here...
That was on page two. His choice, not mine. His point is that blissful ignorance is better than knowing the truth about precious beliefs. He chose evolution as an example. I argued that it is better to face up to the reality of all that is knowable and live your life based on reality, even it is not what you wish was true.
If you go back to the early pages of this thread you will see how closely we tried to stay on topic and how the thread author guided it in the direction he chose.
atheist scientists now agree that "elasmotherium sibiricu" lived with humans.
all they had to do was read their bible to know that.
job 39:9 “will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”.
Might put my post above in a new thread just for future reference. The soft tissue in dino fossils comes up quite a lot. I think it would be worth having the scientific explanation available. Might add it to to Evolution is a fact series.
a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
Yes TonusOH I think SCM is a good example from this side of the pond who refuses to compromise on the science but maintains a belief.
The problem for JWs and fundie xtians is that it makes a particular type of god impossible. There can be no Adam, no fall from perfection, no ransom in the sense that JWs understand it.
I think it also radically affects your understanding of humanity when you know we shared a common ancestor with every living thing and got here after billions of years of carnage - including the almost total annihilation of all life on 5 or 6 occasions. It is far more interesting than the wilful ignorance (or 'informed ignorance' whatever that means) that Ex-B is arguing for.
My disbelief is not a result of evolution. that makes god unnecessary but not impossible.
a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
Conway Morris believes (and has made his case in lectures -and a book?) that a study of evolution can lead one to the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind it
No he absolutely does not.
He is 100% committed to the scientific position that every single example of complexity in evolution can be completely explained without reference to an intelligent designer.
I have told you a dozen times that most Christians accept evolution without abandoning belief in God.
The earth is not flat: all living things evolved by evolution from a common ancestor over millions of years.
These two statements are equally certain. There is zero scientific debate about either of them.
That does not affect whether or not god exists.
I'm only trying to encourage you to not adopt wilful ignorance that you argued for in your OP. Thoroughly study everything that can be known and base your beliefs on reality.
a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
ExB - SCM disagrees passionately with your assertion that complexity points to a designer.
SBF is up to his usual bs tricks where words have no meaning.
a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
Here is an extract from a recent interview with SCM that address his views on evidence for intelligence having a hand in biological evolution.
I am typing on my phone so will leave a reference later.
Interviewer- I take it that in the case of evolution, there's sort of two ways to go for a theist. There's the idea that God just set everything up and made the rules, but then nature obeys those rules. But there's also a way that you could imagine God guiding the course of evolution. Do you have strong feelings about that dichotomy?
1:05:18.1 SCM: Oh, I have a strong feeling against the second option, very much so, 'cause that's something which as you say goes dangerously close to intelligent design or creationism
So SCM is 100% a traditional evolutionary scientist who happens to be a Christian - exactly as I have been saying repeatedly.
He does believe in an ultimate teleology but that is a philosophical question not a scientific one.
a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
Are you saying that SCM believes that common descent can't be explained without resorting to non-natural explanations?
a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.
were you more happy pimi?
are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.
Yes still waiting for you name these biologists who think intelligence might have been involved in evolution. What are their names and qualifications and where are their peer reviewed papers?
I gave you a link to 3.8 million papers that say otherwise.
Just like I'm waiting for you to name the books about common ancestry that you claim to have read.
