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!
(May 19, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: The words of a true fantasist, a person who far prefers to live in the inside of his head rather than the real world.
Steve, the only reason that you want to remove science from any possibility of having an answer to the god question is because (subconsciously at least) you've realised that the more we find out scientifically the more remote the possibility of god becomes.
That is hardly the case. The more we find out about how the universe and living systems work, the more it seems purposefully designed.
Hey, it's Junk Status, back from another sabbatical. Yor fake degree have more fake exams?
Oh, and regarding your baseless assertion [citation needed]. You'll be seeing that a lot if you do ever get to uni.
May 20, 2016 at 3:38 am (This post was last modified: May 20, 2016 at 3:38 am by robvalue.)
So...
It's an appeal to an authority who thinks you are wrong, but whose words can be taken out of context to make it sound like they agree with you?
This is why "seems like" is not science. There is no lookey-likey theory.
This is also the problem with trying to do science when you already have irrational conclusions in place that you must make add up, even when doing so is impossible. You end up with dishonest equivocation like this.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Step One: Make an unfounded assertion of "facts" that are simply not in evidence, or better yet, garble your scientific definitions so you can chop down that strawman you've built by using those new "facts" you just invented.
(For instance, "Mutation and natural selection has not been shown to be sufficient to account for the complexity of living systems.")
Oh? Since mutation literally means any change in the sequence of the DNA during copying, what other mechanism of change in the DNA do you think we're overlooking, to drive the evolution which we observe happening over time? Is it magic? Oh, I hope it's magic!
Do you mean point mutations cannot account for the rapid changes we see? Well, that's quite true, and is usually the source of the quote-mining where you say "See? Professor McGenius says it's not enough!" Except you ignore that other mechanisms are proposed immediately afterward (and they turn out to not be magic, much to my chagrin, every time) to explain what is actually driving the rapid changes, such as homeotic developmental "instructions" in particular gene sets, in which small DNA changes result in huge phenotype shifts.
Step Two: Quote-mine small, out-of-context snippets from prominent scientists, then distort what they're saying so you can make it seem like your side is bravely and brilliantly pointing out the "flaws" in the scientific method (which you claim to be practicing) and models.
When the proper context of the quotes is tiresomely tracked down by the skeptics to whom you present this bullshit, and the actual information presented to you, you just deny the new information is valid, or you simply pretend you didn't say it, didn't make the mistake, and move on to the next quote mine, which leads to...
Step Three: Machine-gun lots of large, complicated-to-answer questions at your opponents. If they bother to track down and demonstrate your interpretations of that information are either in ignorance or simply full of crap, just move quickly on to the next "gotcha" question, thinking that THIS one will be the one that brings down that dastardly, godless evil-lushun. If they don't want to take the time to find the information you're asking for, don't want to give the equivalent of a semester-long course on genetics to answer it, and ask why you don't just look it up yourself, then you DECLARE VICTORY!, as if their fatigue at your slanted approach means it's really the right answer, after all.
Step Four: Pat yourself on the back for all the extra effort you went through, being ridiculed for thinking that there's a magical explanation anywhere we don't have 100% of the answers (and, based on your past appearances here, even in some places where we do have the actual, non-magical answers), and trying to bring "Tha Laht of da Lawrd" to a gawdless, heathen science-world with no magic in it.
Step Five: Be sure to reassure yourself, preferably in a mirror for extra effect, that even though you're out of touch with 99.9999% of the biologists in your field, worldwide, it's really your tiny little group of rebels and their belief in magic that are the True Scientists™... even if, as Michael Behe admitted on the stand, you're all using a definition of science that would include Astrology and Fortune Telling within its sweep.
(May 20, 2016 at 12:09 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
(May 19, 2016 at 7:09 pm)AAA Wrote: That's just an assertion. Maybe they appear designed the way a person genuinely getting chopped in half appears to be chopped in half. Why do we have to assume biological systems are counter-intuitive?
Human bodies getting cut in half don't "appear" to be getting cut in half. They fucking well are getting cut in half.
Learn to English, asshat.
On the other hand, bodies that only appear to be cut in half may not necessarily be getting cut in half, as in stage magicians. However, they're only pretending and everyone knows that.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
SteveII Wrote:Of course there are books and books written addressing these objections, but at least they are not demanding 'empirical, verifiable, or falsifiable evidence' left and right, equating God with leprechauns, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, or other dopey arguments from incredulity.
The point of the comparisons is not to make an argument from incredulity, it's to challenge theists to use arguments that could not be also used in favor of those other supposed entities; or to help them realize that the arguments they're using could be used in favor of any imaginary creature.
Chief of these is argument from 'you can't prove God isn't real.'
May 20, 2016 at 9:15 am (This post was last modified: May 20, 2016 at 9:15 am by Mister Agenda.)
AAA Wrote:
robvalue Wrote:Yes, it seems that way to people who already believe that it was. Not so much to those that don't.
Yeah, it depends on your perspective, but biologists agree that it was designed. The question is was it designed by random mutation and natural selection, an intelligent designer, or some third alternative? The first one is becoming less reasonable as we begin to learn about the complex regulatory mechanisms and interplay between the different enzymes.
If you're claiming that biologists think the first one is 'becoming less reasonable', you're either astonishingly misinformed, bonkers, or outright lying. If you're just trying to make it sound like biologists think that, you're dishonest.
And by the way, Steve, that last sentence of AAA's is an example of an argument from incredulity.
God does not exist because I badly wish he won't bother my gay buttfucking habits.
Just relax and say GOD DOES NOT EXIST out loud and just let those iron age beliefs BTFO my mind.
The indoctrination of belief in God is then gone away.....until random points of the day....when I'm in trouble....when I yell at this imaginary spaghetti monster for letting all the innocent children in africa starve....when I think about my evil deeds.....until my deathbed....until this shit can get out my intuition and suppress the fuck out thiss fuckckkkk man?
Why does the idea of God keep bothering me?! I need to start meditation or something
Quote:Well Richard Dawkins thinks it was designed, just by an undirected process of mutation and natural selection. What do you think then? Are living systems not designed? Do you just object to the word design, because that's what Dawkins uses. I think I've heard Shermer say this as well. Is natural selection not ultimately a designing force?
Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.
