Originally posted by Quiero Mota
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?
I see you sparked a Dawkins discussion. Congrats on bringing him into the conversation where he didn't belong. I didn't even mention him, or anything pertaining to him or his work, so why bring him up?
As for myself, I've always hated defending him, because he is excessively militant. If he were less so, a lot of his reason would likely reach more people.
Btw, he called creationism a falsehood because it is. Zero evidence. Ever. All of it is for evolution. You don't need to be a militant British atheist to make that observation.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
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).
Yup, you got me pegged. I'm just staring evidence in the face and ignoring it because I feel like it. I actually know God exists, but am denying it because I want to spite him.
🙄
Also, Solo believed because there was no evidence. When there was, he relented and changed his position. We should all be so tuned. Being open-minded doesn't mean believing things without justifiable cause. It means being receptive to ideas, provided they are corroborated with some form of reason and/or evidence.
....
As for Sym, I give up. As best I can tell, he thinks I'm trying to create choices in a deterministic setting, then telling me point blank what determinism means. I'm fully aware of that, and don't disagree with the idea that choices are only perceptions, not actual possibilities. So it's not a disagreement. It's him putting words in my mouth, or rearranging the words I do write, and then attacking positions I'm not defending.
He also calls determinism "silly" when I explain how it promotes universal love and tolerance. I'm either misinterpreting his words (which seem fairly clear) or he's just being callous.
He also insists on retaining his definition of freedom, even when I prefaced my comments with what I meant. If a person is unwillingly forced or coerced to do something, it isn't freedom. If it's their own decision, they're free (albeit determined). That is freedom in a deterministic setting, and doesn't clash with determinism. If you can't understand that, I really don't know what else to say.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
He also insists on retaining his definition of freedom, even when I prefaced my comments with what I meant. If a person is unwillingly forced or coerced to do something, it isn't freedom. If it's their own decision, they're free (albeit determined). That is freedom in a deterministic setting, and doesn't clash with determinism. If you can't understand that, I really don't know what else to say.
I understand what you're trying to say, I just can't imagine why you don't see a flaw in the need to make a new definition for freedom in order to have it work in your philosophy. Why not just accept that there is no freedom in a deterministic world because there are no real choices rather than jump through semantic hoops?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Btw, he called creationism a falsehood because it is. Zero evidence. Ever. All of it is for evolution. You don't need to be a militant British atheist to make that observation.
But see, why do evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe the first simple organisms (which science can't account for how they came about) were created and then all organisms today subsequently evolved from those first ones.
Why does it have to be creation vs evolution? Why not creation and then evolution?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sound? In text? ha-son
My mom reads every post to me.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's possible I got some of the Hitchens and Dawkins stuff mixed up, I've still seen several things from Dawkins that make it seem that he's trying to be inflammatory.
Maybe, I guess we just have to agree to ... I AM RIGHT!!!
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's 12 . . . max 😬
Libeler!!!
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But see, why do evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe the first simple organisms (which science can't account for how they came about) were created and then all organisms today subsequently evolved from those first ones.Why does it have to be creation vs evolution? Why not creation and then evolution?
He was referring to Creationism. A theory which is fundamentally contrary to Evolution. Creation as such is a different thing and Dawkin's approach to that, in his own words, is actually sceptic, just as with such a strong leaning towards atheism that it is hardly worth mentioning (in fact, that is what the famous tea pot example is about, to him. He can't deny that the teapot might be there, but does he believe it? No. In fact he even believes the contrary, even though there is a very, very, very small chance that the teapot is there).
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But see, why do evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe the first simple organisms (which science can't account for how they came about) were created and then all organisms today subsequently evolved from those first ones.Why does it have to be creation vs evolution? Why not creation and then evolution?
There are very few people on either side of the debate who feel creation and evolution are not reconcilable.
I don't want to point fingers, so this isn't accusatory at all, but right wing fundamentalist groups seem to portray it this way the most vocally (with many vocal atheists demanding the opposite, only less in the mainstream because the Christians already have the pulpit and TV networks). I guess regardless of where it comes from, people like controversy and it really polarizes the debate.
There are numerous biologists who have no problem fitting evolution into their view of religion, and it really is only those who believe literal scripture or just parrot preachers who believe such that cannot. Many atheists likely find it incongruent because of a materialistic world view, which makes God incongruent with all things, not just evolution, but few would deny it is possible to believe both. And ya, if atheists say that a belief in evolution and belief in God creating life are mutually exclusive, they are making a statement of personal value, and one I don't (and I think most reasonable people) agree with.
I think this question is different from "why can't creation be acceptable in science", but science should neither inform nor threaten your opinion about the supernatural and spirituality if you don't want it to.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I understand what you're trying to say, I just can't imagine why you don't see a flaw in the need to make a new definition for freedom in order to have it work in your philosophy. Why not just accept that there is no freedom in a deterministic world because there are no real choices rather than jump through semantic hoops?
Because saying "freedom doesn't exist" only works with your definition of it. I'm not trying to say that sort of freedom exists. To describe what I'm talking about in the earlier post, freedom is the best word for the situation, and can indeed have more than one meaning (as with most words in our lexicon). It's not a semantic hoop. It's explaining myself in the best way possible.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But see, why do evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe the first simple organisms (which science can't account for how they came about) were created and then all organisms today subsequently evolved from those first ones.Why does it have to be creation vs evolution? Why not creation and then evolution?
It's possible. But has no evidence to support it. Science, and me personally, will embrace this as a legit possibility as soon as I'm given a reason beyond "well, maybe it happened like this." And make no mistake, you're clinging to this interpretation because you can co-opt it into your religious beliefs. You aren't basing it on evidence, but on faith.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's possible. But has no evidence to support it. Science, and me personally, will embrace this as a legit possibility as soon as I'm given a reason beyond "well, maybe it happened like this." And make no mistake, you're clinging to this interpretation because you can co-opt it into your religious beliefs. You aren't basing it on evidence, but on faith.
Its not based on faith, I'm basing it on not being so close-minded and confident that I rule out any possibility unless there's a smoking gun.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm open to being convinced. So how did a teapot somehow get caught up in Mars' orbit?I'm pretty sure Hubble would've photographed it by now.
How did you get convinced of your Christian God?
I'm pretty sure one of his miracles that so many people talk about would have been scientifically discovered by now.