Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
May 26, 2019, 05:03:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dawkins vs creationist  (Read 20643 times)
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2012, 08:22:25 AM »

thats basically the gist of it broseph  Smiley


some quote from Socrates:


And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge.

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.

you realize that there is nothing great about this? this is primitive thought but what made it famous was that for its time he was wise, he is no longer, i can demolish this in a second if you want.
Report to moderator   Logged
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11983


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #151 on: March 05, 2012, 08:23:55 AM »

Here goes 'Necrosis' on his triple-post meltdown  Roll Eyes


Fag.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #152 on: March 05, 2012, 08:26:59 AM »

your walking through a forest and you come across a tennis ball. you ask yourself.. where did that tennis ball come from? how did it get here?   after much time researching the issue you somehow come to prove that a man named ted had brought that tennis ball into the forest 2 weeks earlier while on a camping trip.

but you still dont know how ted got the tennis ball to begin with, why ted brought it into the forest, where the ball was made at, of what materials the ball was made from, who started the company that made the tennis ball, who invented the tennis ball, what kinds of balls existed before that that inspired the inventor of the tennis ball... ect


you can say X caused Y, but you still need to explain X before Y is actually explained.  

 Wink

ohh i got one you are walking along the beach, find a watch, you see how intricate it is how designed it is, how the mechanics work how it has purpose etc.. you conclude that this watch was created and demand a creator all the while not knowing you are a stupid (not you) creationist who hasn't taken his reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If the watch appears made or created and i found it on the beach in the sand thus by logical extension i can conclude the beach is not created. Oh my god the time old watchmaker argument destroyed.

oh god nooooooooooooo it was so good, lets try the next one, you find a tennis ball... nevermind.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #153 on: March 05, 2012, 08:27:35 AM »

Here goes 'Necrosis' on his triple-post meltdown  Roll Eyes


Fag.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i did meltdown
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #154 on: March 05, 2012, 01:30:23 PM »


I understand what you are saying, and the philosophy behind it, but what does it actually accomplish?   Why not work towards what truths we can attain?  Once we know the answer to one question, it will more than likely help towards answering a deeper mystery.
the thing is, we cant attain any truths.



ohh i got one you are walking along the beach, find a watch, you see how intricate it is how designed it is, how the mechanics work how it has purpose etc.. you conclude that this watch was created and demand a creator all the while not knowing you are a stupid (not you) creationist who hasn't taken his reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If the watch appears made or created and i found it on the beach in the sand thus by logical extension i can conclude the beach is not created. Oh my god the time old watchmaker argument destroyed.

oh god nooooooooooooo it was so good, lets try the next one, you find a tennis ball... nevermind.
i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #155 on: March 05, 2012, 08:47:58 PM »

the thing is, we cant attain any truths.

It must suck to be you: to live in a world that you don't understand and accept as unknowable. How are you different from an animal? You refuse to use your logical faculty - the differentiator between you and a baboon. So you end up living almost like that baboon: you fling shit around and run terrified as lightning breaks across the sky.


i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.

Enough with this bullcrap already. Get your head out of your ass and sit down and educate yourself a bit. There's so many excellent refutations of the watch/watchmaker argument (if it can be called that) that your use of it only proves just how completely uninformed you are on the subject.

I'd suggest "Atheism: The Case Against God" by Smith. But I doubt you care to be or that you are even capable of being educated.
Report to moderator   Logged
deceiver
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2671


onetimehard appreciation team


« Reply #156 on: March 06, 2012, 04:29:12 AM »

My question regarding tbombz education remains unanswered.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #157 on: March 06, 2012, 07:04:25 AM »

the thing is, we cant attain any truths.


 i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.

no, just no, the fact that you can differentiate the watch from the beach presupposes that they are different thus the logical extension is that the beach is not created, what you are suggesting is an emergent condition that we are in the watch or the universe in your example. This argument is a plea to ignorance, as what your stating directly contradicts the logical analysis just conducted on the beach, we have reason to believe the watch was created and we can visit the maker, we cannot in you example, hence your appeal to ignorance. You are surmising complete rhetoric.
Report to moderator   Logged
wavelength
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10184


~~~


« Reply #158 on: March 10, 2012, 08:40:04 AM »

You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.


I have elaborated in the religion section a few years ago. Now I'm too old and too lazy.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #159 on: March 10, 2012, 11:35:18 AM »

It must suck to be you: to live in a world that you don't understand and accept as unknowable. How are you different from an animal? You refuse to use your logical faculty - the differentiator between you and a baboon. So you end up living almost like that baboon: you fling shit around and run terrified as lightning breaks across the sky.


Enough with this bullcrap already. Get your head out of your ass and sit down and educate yourself a bit. There's so many excellent refutations of the watch/watchmaker argument (if it can be called that) that your use of it only proves just how completely uninformed you are on the subject.

I'd suggest "Atheism: The Case Against God" by Smith. But I doubt you care to be or that you are even capable of being educated.

 Roll Eyes the fact that we cant understand the origin and cause of existence is not up for debate. accepting this simple truth hardly means that one doesnt use their "logical faculties". on the contrary, when it comes to the realm of philosophy this truth is the most conducive of all truths to logical thought.


no, just no, the fact that you can differentiate the watch from the beach presupposes that they are different thus the logical extension is that the beach is not created, what you are suggesting is an emergent condition that we are in the watch or the universe in your example. This argument is a plea to ignorance, as what your stating directly contradicts the logical analysis just conducted on the beach, we have reason to believe the watch was created and we can visit the maker, we cannot in you example, hence your appeal to ignorance. You are surmising complete rhetoric.
first of all, i never said i proved anything. i am fully aware that i havent. this "watchmaker argument" (had never heard of it before you brought it up, i was just relating an idea that happened to resemble it) is not proof of anything.  on the issue of the origin and cause of existence, the issue of metaphysics, one can never prove anything. any assertion about the origin and cause or lack there of is completely out of ignorance.  to discuss such matters one can only make guesses, albeit educated guesses.  this "watchmaker" argument, more like an idea, is about what seems to be more probable.  if you saw an ipad laying on the street.. would you assume it was created in an apple factory and designed by some apple scientists... or would you assume it evolved out of nothing with no intelligent guidance or actual reason for existing ?
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #160 on: March 10, 2012, 11:50:47 AM »

we can not say if there was an origin to the cosmos, but we can make certain assertions.

such as = the cosmos exist.
and = if there is no origin then there is no explanation.
plus = if there is an origin that origin is supernatural in nature.


use these truths to decide what you think is likely. do you have a gut feeling that its all explainable? or does "shit just happen" - to be crude ?
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #161 on: March 10, 2012, 11:55:23 AM »

we can not say if there was an origin to the cosmos, but we can make certain assertions.

such as = the cosmos exist.
and = if there is no origin then there is no explanation.
plus = if there is an origin that origin is supernatural in nature.


use these truths to decide what you think is likely. do you have a gut feeling that its all explainable? or does "shit just happen" - to be crude ?


how do you know the cosmos exist?

if matter cannot be created nor destroyed and its here, we see it we can conclude it always has, hence no origin is needed, there is none.

how can you say an explanation is supernatural? you have no idea what it even means, no one does, show me an example of something supernatural? oh ya you cant.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #162 on: March 10, 2012, 12:02:21 PM »

how do you know the cosmos exist?

well technically speaking your right, i dont actually KNOW anything. no one does. but if we were to let that dictate our life we couldnt function on any level.  the cosmos exist because its extremely obvious. I am alive. where do i live ? the cosmos.

if matter cannot be created nor destroyed and its here, we see it we can conclude it always has, hence no origin is needed, there is none. matter can be destroyed in the sense that it can be converted to energy. energy can be created = quantum fluctuations. the leading scientific theory proposes a point at which all things popped into existence. whether an origin is needed or not we dont know, what we know is that existence exists whether or not there is an origin. 

how can you say an explanation is supernatural? you have no idea what it even means, no one does, show me an example of something supernatural? oh ya you cant.

exactly my point.  Wink

Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15960


Robot


WWW
« Reply #163 on: March 10, 2012, 01:44:38 PM »

You guys must both be rocket scientists making well over 6 figures.

Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #164 on: March 10, 2012, 03:22:29 PM »

the thing is, we cant attain any truths.


 i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.

ignorance isn't an argument, the fact that it seems this way or that means nothing, look at bacteria.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #165 on: March 10, 2012, 03:24:30 PM »




ok tbomz are you aware that your conclusion isn't provable right? you are relying on massive assumptions unfounded in reality, you are suggesting answers outside the very thing you are trying to describe, its silly.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #166 on: March 10, 2012, 05:28:34 PM »

what conclusion have i arrived at ? i havent claimed to prove anything ! never have !

any assertion on the subject is necessarily out of ignorance !

if anyone is trying to assert something.. it has been you. no offense. but you said no cause was needed. you dont know that. as i pointed out, we just know that existence exists regardless of whether or not there was a cause. a cause could exist and it could be totally necessary for that cause to exist in order for existence to exist.

if you wish to have this discussion, we cant talk about proof. we can just talk about what seems likely. and only that.

im glad you brought up bacteria. the things bacteria are capable of, without any internal organs or nervous system or sensory systems observable... wow. this to me indicates that an organism is operated by a soul.  but of course, this is conjecture  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11983


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #167 on: March 10, 2012, 08:59:20 PM »

dawkins is better served serving his real role as a scientist and educator... his attempt at demolishing religion and proving 'creationists' wrong is extremely fruitless, to the point of insanity. If the aim of his work is to convince religious people of his ideas, then I believe he has made no progress whatsoever on that front. You don't convince someone of your ideas by starting your conversation saying they are delusional.

I almost wish I could convey this to him, because I do think he could be very valuable as an educator... but I'm afraid he is probably as thickheaded as the creationists he's trying to convince.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
lovemonkey
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7750


Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate


« Reply #168 on: March 11, 2012, 01:21:47 AM »

dawkins is better served serving his real role as a scientist and educator... his attempt at demolishing religion and proving 'creationists' wrong is extremely fruitless, to the point of insanity. If the aim of his work is to convince religious people of his ideas, then I believe he has made no progress whatsoever on that front. You don't convince someone of your ideas by starting your conversation saying they are delusional.

I almost wish I could convey this to him, because I do think he could be very valuable as an educator... but I'm afraid he is probably as thickheaded as the creationists he's trying to convince.

Say what you want about the 'new atheist' movement but you have to agree that they've definitely changed the zeitgeist over the last couple of years. Their books and debates have sparked tons of discussions both in real life and on the internet. A lot of people have learned more about science, history and philosophy in attempts to 'arm' themselves for arguments just like this.

Even religious persons should be grateful that they(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet) were so willing to speak up and stir the pot.
Report to moderator   Logged

from incomplete data
deceiver
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2671


onetimehard appreciation team


« Reply #169 on: March 11, 2012, 07:29:43 AM »

dawkins is better served serving his real role as a scientist and educator... his attempt at demolishing religion and proving 'creationists' wrong is extremely fruitless, to the point of insanity. If the aim of his work is to convince religious people of his ideas, then I believe he has made no progress whatsoever on that front. You don't convince someone of your ideas by starting your conversation saying they are delusional.

I almost wish I could convey this to him, because I do think he could be very valuable as an educator... but I'm afraid he is probably as thickheaded as the creationists he's trying to convince.

ROFL

He does that to attract attention in order to sell his books. As brilliant scientist as he is, advanced science doesn't sell because maybe 0.001% of society can understant it. He wanted money and fame, plain and obvious. Please mind the fact that I don't think it's a bad thing to do so, I'm just stating an obvious fact. He's not trying to convince anyone, he's just trolling for money.
Report to moderator   Logged
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11983


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #170 on: March 11, 2012, 12:44:11 PM »

Say what you want about the 'new atheist' movement but you have to agree that they've definitely changed the zeitgeist over the last couple of years. Their books and debates have sparked tons of discussions both in real life and on the internet. A lot of people have learned more about science, history and philosophy in attempts to 'arm' themselves for arguments just like this.

Even religious persons should be grateful that they(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet) were so willing to speak up and stir the pot.
The people crusading for this movement have to decide what their motive is... I know it's complicated because there are many facets to this struggle from addressing public opinion (science denial, educational policy, general education) to more philosophical matters pertaining to the intersection of faith and science (the larger worldview, the existence of God, the supernatural, etc.). Each has to be addressed in its own way (or not addressed at all).

As far as convincing the general public, in all honesty I find the confrontational in-your-face-here-are-the-facts method to be very ineffective. Sensible people already know that creationism is nonsense, and they get to this conclusion through educational and other impacts, almost NEVER ever through argument. What you point out here, that such discussion has led to greater efforts at  'arming' themselves of more 'knowledge', is exactly what argumentation leads to... each side just trying to prove each other wrong or getting more ingrained in their own ideas (I have more to say about this but I will hold back for now)

It is pretty entertaining to see how much we have advanced in our knowledge of science in the west, yet we fail to understand the simple psychology of the very fruitlessness of argumentation in this manner. I have never come across a believer or atheist conceding to the arguments of the opposite side- the mental block is just too dense and too large: when your pride and your faith are on the line you will do anything to win.

In other words, this argument back and forth is not simply about pointing out facts... you have to penetrate through a lot of mental blocks, which you can only do through empathy and civil conversation, not by 'crushing' arguments. Or perhaps the best bet is just through indirect methods like education..

Tyson has pointed out what I'm saying to Dawkins once, and he brushed it off without giving it much consideration:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik</a>

ROFL

He does that to attract attention in order to sell his books. As brilliant scientist as he is, advanced science doesn't sell because maybe 0.001% of society can understant it. He wanted money and fame, plain and obvious. Please mind the fact that I don't think it's a bad thing to do so, I'm just stating an obvious fact. He's not trying to convince anyone, he's just trolling for money.
Yeah... well, I'm not that cynical. I get the sense that he's a genuine guy who is frustrated with the non-acceptance of science. Quite ironically, his methods are ineffective, and in that sense not really the most rational way to go about what he's trying to achieve.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #171 on: March 11, 2012, 02:07:32 PM »

And Haider, what piece(s) of information can you teach someone to get them to understand the human experience of a thinking and feeling existence, free will and the ability to dream of eternity ?

how can you make someone understand that a physical material infinitely divisible in nature could possibly sustain itself as something solid and real.

 Lips sealed
Report to moderator   Logged
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11983


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #172 on: March 11, 2012, 06:07:33 PM »

And Haider, what piece(s) of information can you teach someone to get them to understand the human experience of a thinking and feeling existence, free will and the ability to dream of eternity ?

how can you make someone understand that a physical material infinitely divisible in nature could possibly sustain itself as something solid and real.

 Lips sealed
Watchu smokin' boy  Huh  Tongue

I was just making a general comment on how atheists and people of faith can communicate better. Not trying to get into a materialism vs mysticism debate (as fun as that may be).

As far as atheists say that the natural sciences should be accepted im with them... When they overstep their boundaries and deny the supernatural/mystical then they are not exercising due humility (ironically i think such statements are statements of faith.. im sure lovemonkey will hate me for saying that lol).

I could say more on that but i'll leave it there... this whole thing is a big ol' convoluted mess for many reasons i dont care to elucidate right now  Tongue
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #173 on: March 11, 2012, 07:47:20 PM »

The people crusading for this movement have to decide what their motive is... I know it's complicated because there are many facets to this struggle from addressing public opinion (science denial, educational policy, general education) to more philosophical matters pertaining to the intersection of faith and science (the larger worldview, the existence of God, the supernatural, etc.). Each has to be addressed in its own way (or not addressed at all).

As far as convincing the general public, in all honesty I find the confrontational in-your-face-here-are-the-facts method to be very ineffective. Sensible people already know that creationism is nonsense, and they get to this conclusion through educational and other impacts, almost NEVER ever through argument. What you point out here, that such discussion has led to greater efforts at  'arming' themselves of more 'knowledge', is exactly what argumentation leads to... each side just trying to prove each other wrong or getting more ingrained in their own ideas (I have more to say about this but I will hold back for now)

It is pretty entertaining to see how much we have advanced in our knowledge of science in the west, yet we fail to understand the simple psychology of the very fruitlessness of argumentation in this manner. I have never come across a believer or atheist conceding to the arguments of the opposite side- the mental block is just too dense and too large: when your pride and your faith are on the line you will do anything to win.

In other words, this argument back and forth is not simply about pointing out facts... you have to penetrate through a lot of mental blocks, which you can only do through empathy and civil conversation, not by 'crushing' arguments. Or perhaps the best bet is just through indirect methods like education..

Tyson has pointed out what I'm saying to Dawkins once, and he brushed it off without giving it much consideration:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik</a>
Yeah... well, I'm not that cynical. I get the sense that he's a genuine guy who is frustrated with the non-acceptance of science. Quite ironically, his methods are ineffective, and in that sense not really the most rational way to go about what he's trying to achieve.

islamic wall of text.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #174 on: March 11, 2012, 09:39:30 PM »

Watchu smokin' boy  Huh  Tongue

I was just making a general comment on how atheists and people of faith can communicate better. Not trying to get into a materialism vs mysticism debate (as fun as that may be).

As far as atheists say that the natural sciences should be accepted im with them... When they overstep their boundaries and deny the supernatural/mystical then they are not exercising due humility (ironically i think such statements are statements of faith.. im sure lovemonkey will hate me for saying that lol).

I could say more on that but i'll leave it there... this whole thing is a big ol' convoluted mess for many reasons i dont care to elucidate right now  Tongue

you mother fucker been playing the devils advocate this whole time  Grin   Grin  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!