richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
Ruby456 - I believe that Richard Dawkins meme theory fuels the militancy of militant atheists. It probably also fuels his own militancy.
Not sure what you mean by that but if it means that 'meme theory (and other theories) provides another leverage to remove the undue privilege of religion over our society', well then, I am in favor of any good theories that do so.
i thought at one time or maybe they still do believe that the dinosaurs were vegetarians?
Crazyguy, Thanks for the walk down memory lane. I used to believe all that stuff pointed out by other posters...I am totally ashamed of that.
"Jurassic Park" would have totally sucked (and would have been 10 seconds in length) if that was true. "Welcome to Jurassic Park!...Oh, look at all the dinosaurs, they are all vegetarians and get along....everybody lives...End Credits..."
1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..
2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..
3. universe arose out of a big bang.
iconoclastic - Despite all of the advances in engineering and computer technology, the development of a robotic hand that is as dexterous as a human hand still exceeds the grasp of modern science.
Yes. The "human hand still exceeds the grasp (pun intended?) of modern science"...at this time. In the future this may not be the case about the human hand, artificial intelligence, interstellar travel, etc. We keep making progress and we have just barely started in these areas compared to the timescale of evolution, as other posters pointed out well.
Regardless, the idea that - 'a human can or cannot make a "human hand"' still says nothing about about evolution or the argument for God. All the argument can say is that there are times humans can replicate nature, or can't (at this time). However, what we are finding out is that with some ingenuity and hard work we can often exceed nature in remarkable ways (e.g. airplanes, etc.).
The thing that bugs me the most is how this "we can't make something...therefore God" argument has been "moving the goalpost" for thousands of years. If humans do end up making a human hand, people who use this argument will simply point to something else that currently has not been achieved.
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
freemindfade - I agree with Dawkins, and i don't think this is some bombshell of him admitting evidence of god. It's all 'could'.
Well said. Totally agree. No bombshell there. What he said is no different than what you and me and others say when we use our human imagination to answer "What if?". I am still puzzled as to why so many people can take a scientist's (or other authority figure) "could" statement and interpret it as if had been presented as a theory or fact or evidence of something.
Dawkins - "...--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Anyone can feel free to imagine and speculate, but it cannot be accepted as reality or fact until a good case is made. Until we have a case, the most intellectually honest answer is "We don't know".
ok so, im wondering if this site and many others can be translated into othe languages, cuz alotta spanish do not know ttatt.
and im concerned.
the problem of perfection(ism).
the best piece of advice i got was from my art teacher, aubrey mayhew.he told me, "art isn't about 'getting it right.
' it's about your mistaken views which you give yourself permission to explore.".
TerryWalstrom, I'm really enjoying your post and insights.
On a side note, I used to commissioned art. When people asked for a definition of art I would tell them "Art is about presenting an objective idea in a subjective way".
one or two of you have noticed that i use derogatory terms when talking about matters religion.
i offer no apology.
you do, however, deserve an explanation.. my father, bless him and now dead, was a survivor of belsen, the german concentration camp.
Nuance.
Point taken. And, I personally do not engage in name calling. However, JWs call me "mentally diseased". Where is the nuance in that?
one or two of you have noticed that i use derogatory terms when talking about matters religion.
i offer no apology.
you do, however, deserve an explanation.. my father, bless him and now dead, was a survivor of belsen, the german concentration camp.
Good post.
On a side note, here are some epithets used by Jesus:
The guy had a mouth on him...
the problem of perfection(ism).
the best piece of advice i got was from my art teacher, aubrey mayhew.he told me, "art isn't about 'getting it right.
' it's about your mistaken views which you give yourself permission to explore.".
Good post. I am constantly reminded of the quote "A painting is never finished - it simply stops in interesting places." Paul Gardner.
On a side note, it was the JW's obsession with perfection that kept me from going back after I was DF'ed. When I was kicked out I felt so guilty and ashamed of not being "perfect" that I felt I was not worthy of being allowed back into the Organization and deserved having Jehovah kill me at Armageddon. In those early years of being out I had enough distance and time to develop a new perspective, learn to embrace being an imperfect human, and leave the JWs behind for good. Ironically, in my case, the JWs may have done too much of a good job in demanding perfection.
the reason i entitled this "problems with common atheist arguments" instead of "the case against atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself.
i will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.disclaimer # 1: this is not an argument against atheism or all atheists.
no, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists i speak to on twitter.
FusionTheism - Many atheist arguments boil down to this (once you remove all the fancy words and hyperbole):
1:) I don't like the idea of God.
2:) I don't like the Bible.
3:) I hate the morals found in the Bible.
4:) I believe you should only accept science, even though I accept other things in my life.
Fixed...
Many atheist arguments boil down to this (once you remove all the fancy words and hyperbole):
1:) I have not been provided good evidence that there is a God (or any other deity).
The rest are not particular with atheism, but may be responses to theist arguments to their propositions...
2:) I have not been provided good evidence that the Bible (or any other holy book) is the unerring word of God (or any other deity).
3:) I find many of the morals of the Bible to be questionable if not immoral ((e.g. slavery, subjugation of women, treatment of gays, etc.) by modern standards
4:) The scientific method is the best process we currently have for understanding our universe. But I need not apply the scientific method in every facet in my life (e.g. My girlfriend loves me and I need not squeeze her into an FMRI machine to validate that)
