Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps there is no "beginning" to life. When the circumstances are correct, then life will exist.Just because some humans cannot do in a couple decades what nature did in millions of years does not mean anything other then you have a long time to wait.
Can you bake a cake in .0000002 seconds?
...perhaps selfish, but I was a bit upset to see my work pushed back to the last page, amongst a bunch of 1-line posts (albeit many intelligent 1-line posts). So I deleted that post, and am bumping it here.
....
Sym, I'm at a bit of a loss. You keep telling me I'm trying to reconcile free will with determinism, or sneak it in some back door. Christian free will makes no sense at all, imo. I'm not trying to reconcile it with anything. When I used the term free, I did so within a deterministic setting. It was an entirely different usage of the word, and I went to great lengths to make that clear. If I say free will, look at what I'm saying about it. Because I'm not trying to re-imagine current concepts of it, I'm simply using it in an entirely different way, as I showed how there are ways to be free and not free within a deterministic setting, but in neither case did "free" mean anything close to the Christian concept of it.
As for my position on no-fault determinism, if the end results of such logic end up being similar to normally accepted thought, then so what? I'm not trying to rewrite rules of morality, I'm just showing what is implied by determinism. If I want to treat criminals similarly to a system that espouses free will, it's simply overlapping goals by different means. You didn't say anything that attempts to disprove determinism, you just (correctly) observed that it seemed a lot like the current paradigm, at least in the example I gave. It is, though it is imo much more loving and tolerant of not just criminals but everyone and everything.
As for the puppet analogy, if we must, it indeed works if you substitute "causality" in as the puppet master, so that it is an impartial, non-sentient master rather than a divine one. It still doesn't change anything though. I see determinism as the only logical explanation for existence. Period. That isn't a negative thing, it just is. Whether or not I enjoy myself, hate life, see such facts it as positive, negative, etc. etc. is entirely up to me beyond that. Your problem doesn't seem to be so much that you can't see determinism as being plausible, but simply that you don't like the idea of it.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Exactly, so why is puppet and master a bad analogy? My car is a puppet and, I'm the master. So what makes me so special and unlike my car, there's no man behind the curtain for me?Unless you're like Han Solo and think "There's no mystical energy field controlling my destiny".
You're equating car/human with human/God. It's actually a classic creationist fallacy, but doesn't follow from the other.
And Han Solo's what every skeptic should be like: he doubted the existence of the Force until he was shown ample evidence to the contrary. In current continuity, he has accepted it for years, if he didn't already in the movies. If mystical forces (if they exist at all) were so obvious, I'd be a believer too. In the meantime, you haven't levitated or destroyed the Death Star, so I'll retain my position.
Originally posted by inimalist
Also, the inability of man to do something is not even close to evidence of the divine.
✅
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're equating car/human with human/God. It's actually a classic creationist fallacy, but doesn't follow from the other.
Its not a fallacy, its being open-minded. I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins, but my one complaint about his work is his obvious systematic bias. He has an assumption that he sets sail to go out and try to prove. He's not open-minded in the least. In The God Delusion he calls creationism (and I quote) " a preposterous mind-shrinking falsehood". Why?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And Han Solo's what every skeptic should be like: he doubted the existence of the Force until he was shown ample evidence to the contrary. In current continuity, he has accepted it for years, if he didn't already in the movies. If mystical forces (if they exist at all) were so obvious, I'd be a believer too. In the meantime, you haven't levitated or destroyed the Death Star, so I'll retain my position.
I disarmed explosives when I was in the Army, so did the opposite. I disarmed that thing and went home.
Anyways, I think you completely scoff at it, and ignore any evidence you have encountered. Like Solo, I think you doubt for the sake of it, just to be a rebel (no pun intended).
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Sym, I'm at a bit of a loss. You keep telling me I'm trying to reconcile free will with determinism, or sneak it in some back door. Christian free will makes no sense at all, imo.
You can't defend one belief by criticizing another.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm not trying to reconcile it with anything. When I used the term free, I did so within a deterministic setting. It was an entirely different usage of the word, and I went to great lengths to make that clear. If I say free will, look at what I'm saying about it. Because I'm not trying to re-imagine current concepts of it, I'm simply using it in an entirely different way, as I showed how there are ways to be free and not free within a deterministic setting, but in neither case did "free" mean anything close to the Christian concept of it.
Any freedom within a deterministic setting is delusion. You have no choices to make, they're pre-set because you're following a script. Of course if you decide to redefine things you can make any argument you want.
How is "the ability to choose" a uniquely Christian concept of free will and if it were how would that matter?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for my position on no-fault determinism, if the end results of such logic end up being similar to normally accepted thought, then so what? I'm not trying to rewrite rules of morality, I'm just showing what is implied by determinism. If I want to treat criminals similarly to a system that espouses free will, it's simply overlapping goals by different means. You didn't say anything that attempts to disprove determinism, you just (correctly) observed that it seemed a lot like the current paradigm, at least in the example I gave. It is, though it is imo much more loving and tolerant of not just criminals but everyone and everything.
Where was I trying to disprove determinism? Fate vs Free Will is irrelevant simply because we are within the system and both are functionally identical.
Yes it's more loving and tolerant but it's also incredibly silly.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for the puppet analogy, if we must, it indeed works if you substitute "causality" in as the puppet master, so that it is an impartial, non-sentient master rather than a divine one. It still doesn't change anything though.
Precisely, you're not actually getting to make the choices. You can act as though you are and you can see that as good or bad but you don't actually have any choices to make unless you redefine what a choice is.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I see determinism as the only logical explanation for existence. Period. That isn't a negative thing, it just is. Whether or not I enjoy myself, hate life, see such facts it as positive, negative, etc. etc. is entirely up to me beyond that. Your problem doesn't seem to be so much that you can't see determinism as being plausible, but simply that you don't like the idea of it.
I've tried to make it very clear that I see nothing negative about determinism (in fact I made that exact statement before). Trying to invent a back door where you're "free" and can make "choices" seems much more like the result of disliking determinism.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In The God Delusion he calls creationism (and I quote) " a preposterous mind-shrinking falsehood". Why?
Because for all the intellect he has Dawkins is a complete moron and at least as bad as his religious counterparts.
Originally posted by inimalist
so wait...are you both (sym and QM) stating that creationism is not "a preposterous mind-shrinking falsehood"?
Preposterous? Sure why not.
Mind-Shrinking? No not really, perfectly intelligent people can be creationists (or believe in reincarnation or karma or Zeus or Wiccanism or ESP or ghosts)
Falsehood? It's probably not true but that seems to imply a deliberate attempt to deceive.
The point (to me at least) is that using a phrase like that makes it clear that a) he's a hateful bigot that's trying to hide behind his own claims b) writing for shock value because he lack any other way to get attention c) a moron with no concept of how to actually express himself usefully.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosSomeone's jumping quite quickly to silly conclusions.
Preposterous? Sure why not.
Mind-Shrinking? No not really, perfectly intelligent people can be creationists.
Falsehood? It's probably not true but that seems to imply a deliberate attempt to deceive.The point (to me at least) is that using a phrase like that makes it clear that a) he's a hateful bigot that's trying to hide behind his own claims b) writing for shock value because he lack any other way to get attention c) a moron with no concept of how to actually express himself usefully.
It's you, by the way.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not that there's any good counter argument.
Actually, there is. This one phrase certainly doesn't make clear that he is a) hateful, b) that he lacks any other way than shock value to get attention (or that he wants attention in particular) and c) a moron or unable to express himself...and that it does mean that to you certainly proves that you jump to silly conclusions....quickly.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This one phrase certainly doesn't make clear that he is a) hateful
I can only assume you're joking. The man is the atheist Pat Robertson and every bit of that phrase shows it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
b) that he lacks any other way than shock value to get attention (or that he wants attention in particular)
He takes a belief that is a fundamental aspect of the opposing side and viciously mocks it while implying that anyone who believes it is inherently stupid. I really can't imagine how that wouldn't be meant to get him attention.
Originally posted by Bardock42
c) a moron or unable to express himself
I didn't say he couldn't express himself, just that he can't do it in a useful way. I've read several pieces by him, the only fall back the guy has is insults and various other sorts of drivel. Sure the science and reasoning are well done but the moment it comes down to anything else he's has no apparent redeeming qualities.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can only assume you're joking. The man is the atheist Pat Robertson.
He isn't really, he does get painted that way though, true.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He takes a belief that is a fundamental aspect of the opposing side and viciously mocks it while implying that anyone who believes it is inherently stupid. I really can't imagine how that wouldn't be meant to get him attention.
Delusional, not stupid. There is a difference.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't say he couldn't express himself, just that he can't do it in a useful way. I've read several pieces by him, the only fall back the guy has is insults and various other sorts of drivel. Sure the science and reasoning are well done but the moment it comes down to anything else he's has no apparent redeeming qualities.
He can though, he wrote highly successful books, one sparking a lot of progress in Biology in the last decades, so, he is able to, there's no question about it.
It is saddening that you don't give him a chance, it means that the fundamentalist propaganda machine did a great job. If you take some time to actually listen to his interviews and shows, you will realize that he is not a mindless, attention starved, hateful retard, quite to the contrary, he is a very intelligent, well versed man who happens to be atheist (which, just like you said about theists, doesn't mean that one is retarded).
Originally posted by Bardock42
He isn't really, he does get painted that way though, true.
His books and statements help with that image. Step one of not seeming like a shock jockey with a college education: Get a competent PR machine (or someone that doesn't think you're the second coming) that can tell you not to title your new book "The God Delusion"
Originally posted by Bardock42
Delusional, not stupid. There is a difference.
"Mind-shrinking" That's about stupidity not not delusion.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It is saddening that you don't give him a chance, it means that the fundamentalist propaganda machine did a great job.
I seriously doubt he has anything to say that would interest me, change my opinion (which is essentially the same as his) or make me think he's less sickening.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If you take some time to actually listen to his interviews and shows, you will realize that he is not a mindless, attention starved, hateful retard, quite to the contrary, he is a very intelligent, well versed man who happens to be atheist (which, just like you said about theists, doesn't mean that one is retarded).
Being intelligent and well versed doesn't make him any less hateful or more capable of expressing argument in opposition to his own ideals. I've looked at his books and put them down in disgust. I really don't care about his information, it isn't targeted at me, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's as disgusting as people who think homosexuality is a disease we need to cure.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Preposterous? Sure why not.
ok
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Mind-Shrinking? No not really, perfectly intelligent people can be creationists (or believe in reincarnation or karma or Zeus or Wiccanism or ESP or ghosts)
depends on the meaning of mind shrinking
any philosophy that claims any access to truth is much more close minded than one that requires empirical verification.
and ya, belief in everything you named is much more close minded than belief in methodological empiricism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Falsehood? It's probably not true but that seems to imply a deliberate attempt to deceive.
still holding out for a 6000 year old earth?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The point (to me at least) is that using a phrase like that makes it clear that a) he's a hateful bigot that's trying to hide behind his own claims b) writing for shock value because he lack any other way to get attention c) a moron with no concept of how to actually express himself usefully.
A) Saying creationism is "a preposterous mind-shrinking falsehood" is hardly grounds to be called a bigot. I quite literally hate most things religion stands for, to extrapolate that I am bigoted against religious people for this reason is missing at least one step in logic. Also, in many interviews Dawkins claims that the titles of his books and documentaries about religion (which are by far the most irreverent parts of them) come from produces/publishers.
B) The father of memetics, the man who revolutionized the study of genetics and biology, who sits on some of the most respected scientific boards on the planet, doesn't know how to get attention? I think the better way of describing it might be that you don't know where to look.
C) Thats preposterous. One who is familiar with his work which isn't specifically about something one has a huge emotional investment in would be fairly aware that Dawkins stands as possibly the most poetic writer of science at this time. I defy you to read The Anscestor's Tale and say it isn't communicated effectively.