Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
December 18, 2012 at 5:11 am (This post was last modified: December 18, 2012 at 5:11 am by Cato.)
(December 18, 2012 at 5:02 am)Aractus Wrote:
(December 18, 2012 at 4:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: This from the man who thinks god personally pilots all the winning sperm.
STRAW MAN!
(No I don't think that). Please don't presume to tell me what I think.
Fucking idiot. If anything this could be called a red herring; however, it was obvious that DownBeat was having a bit of fun and not giving his reply as a legitimate argument.
On that note, you always scream 'straw man' when you disagree with someone...'always'. I would have you consult your christian philosphy buddy for a tutorial on logical fallacies, but he seems to be having a tough time with ad hominems today.
(December 18, 2012 at 2:25 am)clemdog14 Wrote: Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God. The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?
Here is my source:
In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.
Clearly a host of considerations clamor for attention here. Concede, for the moment, that unguided Darwinism is more probable than an explanation involving design; does it follow that the former is to be preferred to the latter? There is more to goodness in explanation than the probability of the explanans. And how secure is this alleged inference to the best explanation, as an argument form, or, more likely, maxim? If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?
Plantinga, Alvin (2011-10-26). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (pp. 28-29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Back at this, I think you missed the point where Dawkins then constructs a scale of theism:
1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
He claims to be a 6, as do most atheists. As you can see, he incorporates the unlikelyhood of gods' existing into the claim.
To me, Dawkins does present some sound points, but also comes as too arrogant and aggressive on a few occasions. Maybe it's his gripe with creationists, considering that he has devoted his life to studying evolution and has found it to be absolutely correct, while these uneducated people trump over his (and other people's) work, just because the believe in a creator entity.
I'd probably also be pissed out of my mind, if some creotard came trumping nuclear fusion and claiming that stars are just lightbulbs in the firmament.
December 18, 2012 at 7:35 am (This post was last modified: December 18, 2012 at 7:36 am by Aractus.)
(December 18, 2012 at 5:08 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: How else does god GUIDE evolution then?
With several million genetically different DNA packages swimming towards the egg how else doe it make sure the right one hits first?
Why don't you try actually understanding my POV as I articulate it very clearly. I don't presume ID theory over Evolution at all.
(December 18, 2012 at 5:11 am)cato123 Wrote: Fucking idiot. If anything this could be called a red herring; however, it was obvious that DownBeat was having a bit of fun and not giving his reply as a legitimate argument.
So what? I don't tell other people what their POV is, and I expect you not to tell me what mine is.
(December 18, 2012 at 1:23 am)clemdog14 Wrote: Is he a poster child for "atheism" or perhaps something else?
There is no such thing as a "poster child for atheism" every athist is a individual. Just look at this forum and see for yourself.
Quote:Are his works worthy? In other words, do his arguments on several subjects hold up logically? The question is not what he is investigating, the real question is if his arguments hold up based on what he is investigating.
I dont know what you a exactly writing about. But yes alot of his arguments are good.
Quote:In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid. I respect him as a human and a brilliant scientist, however, when he dwells into philosophy, frankly, he is not a good philosopher.
Give some examples of what you find to be inlogical.
Germans, I know English isn't your native language, but could you at least run a spell check every now and then? At least it can help you identify when you've constructed incorrect words.
Quote:Give some examples of what you find to be inlogical.
December 18, 2012 at 9:07 am (This post was last modified: December 18, 2012 at 9:07 am by KichigaiNeko.)
(December 18, 2012 at 9:04 am)Aractus Wrote: Germans, I know English isn't your native language, but could you at least run a spell check every now and then? At least it can help you identify when you've constructed incorrect words.
Quote:Give some examples of what you find to be inlogical.
I frankly dont like antitheists possitions.
What on this rock makes YOU think YOU are the grammar/ spelling nazi Daniel??
hmm?
Your english isn't that great either mate.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Poor Daniel is running out of resources to make itself important. There are so many polite ways to correct people's grammar, instead of disguising it as an argument. Sad really. And I am Portuguese, one of the bail out loosers of europe, wanna take a hit on me?
(December 18, 2012 at 9:13 am)LastPoet Wrote: Poor Daniel is running out of resources to make itself important. There are so many polite ways to correct people's grammar, instead of disguising it as an argument. Sad really. And I am Portuguese, one of the bail out loosers of europe, wanna take a hit on me?
Sad to say it though LP, your english is far better than Daniel's
;-/
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
hmm?
