|
tnai -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/26/2010 1:25:45 PM)
|
And there I was surrounded by fog lights.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Plasticine
The reading comment was low, I apologize... moment of weakness.
Accepted but unneeded, I wasn't upset. Just pointing out that it doesn't relate to the conversation.
Since people seem interested in what I have and have not read, I'll give you my best estimate. I do read quite a bit. I own about 2300 books, about 1900 of which I put in storage after reading. Maybe another 200 past that I read (fully or in part) for school or entertainment that I didn't keep. Mostly fiction, a fair amount of science "fact", history, what are called the classics, and very little religion, maybe a dozen books if that on the subject, and not just limited to Christianity. I've read more philosophy mainly Socrates, Frederick Nichieze, and Machiavelli (although I'd not really call him a philosopher, but that's a whole different subject. Yes I have read the Bible, a few different versions.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Plasticine
That said, I still don't see you saying anything other than that you think that the current scientific view is silly. That it just seems silly to you. You are conceding the strawman because you can't see how anyone could understand atheism. Is that not what you are saying?
I'm conceding the Straw Man because I don't see how anyone could take atheism as a serious position, I think I understand the concept. I don't think that the science is in and of itself silly. I think the idea that that many things happen in just the right order on there own is silly. Since those who have take it have already taken it the weakest position I can think of I personally don’t worry about if I am attacking a weaker position.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
"A bioprocess is any process that uses complete living cells or their components (e.g., bacteria, enzymes, chloroplasts) to obtain desired products" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprocess
The term bioprocess has nothing to do with the origin of life. I know you've stated that you've read the atheist position (setting aside the issue that this isn't actually an atheist position), my question is have you actually done that or have you read Christian literature which supposedly contained our position? Doesn't it seem a little premature to summarize and judge the credibility of scientific theories when your knowledge does not even extend far enough to name them? Perhaps your understanding of these theories is less than accurate?
Sigh. I used the spell check, sorry my bad. Biopoesis (not Bioprosess), which as I understand it the idea that simple single celled organism formed through natural process on the earth around three and half billion years ago. No I haven’t read the Christian literature summery of your view, would be a waste of time on so many levels. Yes I have read books by atheists, on Atheism/ why religion is bad. No I didn't believe them or even think they had good points. Yes I added Biopoesis to my Microsoft Word dictionary. And no I don't feel one needs to know the finer points of the details of various theories about the origin of the universe, life, and humans to have thought through the underlying issues - do they believe natural process alone created humans or that there was a God(s) who brought humans into existence.
And yes they are two names for the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I'm not saying that these are atheist positions. I'm stating that the atheist position is that there is no God, and that most hold modern science is probably correct that these process are the ones most likely to have created human life.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marie2
My money is on that tnai dude being the first to hit page 50.
I let you down, sorry. For the record I never wanted to hit page 50.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Had we needed help keeping the thread going, I was prepared to ask whether atheists or theists are fatter. My guess would be theists, 'cause of all those potlucks and bake sales.
I'd say it would depend on more on group goers VS. non group goers. You gain more weight at the atheist dinner they you do not eating while believing in God(s). And people seem to eat more together in groups.
vincentML I don't mean this to be mean, but is English your first language? Other wise I don’t see how you misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I stated so badly.
1) quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Actually, the multiverse hypothesis was antecedent to the Big Bang hypothesis and was derived from a mixture of religious and philosophical thinking whereas the Big Bang hypothesis is supported by measurements of deviations in infra-red spectra and the application of the doppler effect to distant galaxies. So, your statement of a linear relationship between multiverse scientific hypothesis and big bang hypothesis is (perhaps unknownigly, giving you the benefit of the doubt) quite mistaken.
This was at attempt at brief summery not a long involved explanation, but the formal Inflationary Multiverse folds the Big Bang into it in order to explain some issues with the math from the old Big Bang theory. This presented in the work of Doctor Andrei Linde a Professor of Physics at Stanford University. As to what you are talking about it being from philology and religion I have no idea were you got that information or how you support it.
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/
2) quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Secondly, your presumption that there is only one planet in the Universe where life (as we know it) developed is statistically rejected by many comologists.
Well since I didn’t state that I don’t feel I have to defend it. I never stated that there was only one, just that there is at least one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tnai
(at least) one world with the circumstances for live too appear then evolve into us
Since I stated that there is at least one planet with life on it, and we only know one that does exist with life on it (Earth) I stand by it. If anyone has found another planet with life (or life that turned up not on a planet) then I missed it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Secondly, your presumption that there is only one planet in the Universe where life (as we know it) developed is statistically rejected by many comologists.
3) quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Thirdly, your remark that there was only one world with the conditions in which life like us appeared is an error in cause and effect. In whatever world life appears conditions will be appropriate simply by the fact that life appeared. The appearance of life is a testimony to the proper conditions not the other way round. This is a common mistake the religious make in their arguments. Oh look, life appeared here therefore these are the only conditions hospitable to life. Your reasoning is flawed.
Once again I never said this. The universe is infinite so we can never be sure that some place there isn’t life, intelligent or otherwise. The lack or presence of life on other worlds/locations is irrelevant to the idea that there is a God for the most part. I suppose if one wanted to you could argue that since we have yet to find other life its evidence that we are a unique miracle but that smacks of geocentric thinking. If later if faster then light travel gets going then I suppose if we could find that life is on almost every world you could argue that it’s evidence the life is just a natural process. As it stands we don’t know if the worlds in our own system have/had life for cretin so the whole discussion is mote point.
4) quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Fourthly, there is a disingenuousness (again perhaps unknowingly on your part) attached to your statement "then evolve into us; all without any events that would have prevented or destroyed human existence." Obviously there were events that would have prevented or destroyed human existence but they occurred before the advent of human existence so the point you make in your rhetoric is moot.
A event that if it happened at another time that would have prevented human life is a event that didn’t prevent human life. Since human life exists I stand by my conclusion that no events occurred that prevented us or destroyed us.
5) quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Fifthly, while it may seem far-fetched to you there are many thinkers with research credentials more appropriate than you or I may have who are seriously at work in solving the problem of the beginning of space/time and of Abiogenesis, the latter being a different field.
I understand that physics, biochemistry, biology, est. are different fields of study in the realm of natural science. I also understand that they aren’t even trying to answer the question “Why?” they are trying to answer the question “How?” Nothing wrong with that, very important work but since it’s not what we are doing it’s a bit of disconnect. I don’t argue that they didn’t happen. Something close to most of it proably did, although I’m sure in 20 years we will have slightly different and hopefully better ideas on it. Point is did it happen for a reason or was it happen stance.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
In summary, you do not seem to have a grasp on the issues except as they suit your own philosophy or received theological wisdom. Perhaps it would enrich your life to open your mind to other possibilities.
Since I literally didn’t say what you attribute to me I would suggest that you slow down in your condemnations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
For starters, according to wiki, the term "multiverse" was coined by the phiosopher William James in 1895 well before the birth of the Big Bang Model.
The origin of the term is date is not relevant the modern theory.
|
|
|
|
