Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

Guess who predicted it?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#41  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 17, 2014 8:04 pm

Rumraket wrote:
catbasket wrote:How do you get from this:
Zadocfish2 wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
SpearThrower, you seem to be operating under the assumption that death = bad = evil. That's not really how it is. We die, so we see death as a terrible thing; objectively, death and the fear thereof is more normal than anything else in the world. I think it's a difference in viewpoints: with an atheist worldview, death is the end of life, and a terrible thing. To a deist, death is just another transition; there's a world beyond.

You think that theists have the same priorities that atheists do when it comes to the value of life. That is just not true. To a theist, life and death are just a part of a larger scheme that we don't quite understand yet.

More importantly, humans see things life by life; God sees things all at once, the lives and deaths of everything ever. Not just life, but space, the universe, the stars, everything... What I mean is, a Being beyond human comprehension, and who sees and knows everything that ever will happen or ever has, would not see life as a whole the same way a human being would.

In summary, an atheist sees life as being very important, since that's all anything truly has. To a Christian, God subverts that; there's something more. What that more is, we don't understand all the way yet. But we believe in it, and we know that God is faithful to those who have faith in Him, in the next life even if not always apparent in this one.

To Rumraket: The beauty of Theistic evolutionism is that we can have the science by knowing how evolution works while also having belief in God.
The hows are for evolution, the Theism is for the Why, not the How.


To this:
Zadocfish2 wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Frankly, Zadoc - your response seems to have explicitly ignored the entire thrust of my post. I doubt you did it purposefully - actually, I don't think you want to contemplate the enormity of the suffering over hundreds and millions of years that evolution represents. The problem is that it doesn't tally with your concept of a loving God.


I think you missed my point. I understand that suffering as well as the next person. But the thing is, that's just how things are.

To be honest, I have barely scraped the surface here, because I can also show how the universe, if it is designed for biological life, can only represent an evil humanity can barely comprehend - it would be staggeringly depraved had the entire thing been conceived, designed, and built in order to house a multi-billion year experiment necessitating the suffering of hundreds of billions of organisms just to achieve a goal which could have been arrived at by numerous other ways to a god which is omniscient and omnipotent. If your contention is true and this system is designed by your God, then this being is beyond description - evil personified. Fortunately, it's all make-believe, and all this bad shit just happened because we live in a thermodynamic universe.


Again, missing the point of what I said the same way you think I did to yours. I'm saying that human concepts of good and evil, and human concepts like sadism, can't properly apply to a Being capable of seeing everything at once. It's funny; a stereotype of religion is that "man creates god in his own image", but you're personifying a theoretical deity more than I am. I'm saying that, and I want you to listen because you haven't yet responded to this sentiment:

God is not human. He does not think as a human does. That's part of what Jesus was; a personified view of an undefinable Deity.

Actually, you can have cognitive dissonance, because you certainly cannot hold that evolution is a system created by a loving god. You don't have the 'whys', you just have the suppositions and a hesitance to reflect on how these 2 contrary positions can be concurrently maintained.


I think that the love we feel from God is for soul and spirit, not life; life is ephemeral, soul is eternal. There really isn't a problem from that viewpoint, at least not to the extent you seem to think there is.

However, Zadoc - I don't want to set about demolishing your faith.


Again, seriously overestimating the strength of your arguments here. You're arguing against religion from a viewpoint of physical suffering; to the theistic mindset, physical suffering does not preclude a love for humanity. It precludes a love for animals, sure, but loving animals and loving people are two very different things. And I think I can save us both some time by posting the answer I will inevitably end up giving to anything you point at:

I don't know why God does or did things. And to try would be impossible.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
God, for me, cannot be understood as one would understand a human being. Apparently you disagree with that theoretical view on God, and believe that if the God of the Bible was real, He would have to be human in mind like those Greek gods.

At any rate, no I don't really take this personally. I have nothing against you at all; I'm just trying to explain how the form of cognitive dissonance you point to just isn't as great as you think it is.


Or vice versa?

Heh, yeah that's a good question. God is for answering the why questions, but god is inscrutable so he doesn't answer the why-questions.

Brilliant! :picard:



Yep!

Actually, Zadoc presented 3 internal contradictions in 2 posts.

This is the innate problem of god claims - it's possibly why many of us are atheists. I actually don't want to jostle Zadoc down this path - he seems like a nice chap, and I've got no reason to convince him that his treasured pal is imaginary. However, I also put some faith in Zadoc's intelligence, and think that if he reads again what he's written, and actually takes time to consider the points raised regarding the nature of evolution, then he'll quickly find himself in a position he might not want to be in.

Either way Zadoc - you've got all the time in the world - no need to rush into an argument you're ill equipped to deal with; especially if it means a lot to you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#42  Postby Zadocfish2 » Nov 17, 2014 11:00 pm

I should mention, again, that you collectively ignored the part where I said that physical suffering doesn't actually matter that much compared to spiritual existence in this belief system. Remember, we think that humans are different in that we have souls, and that those (rather than bodies) are what God cares about and what are made in God's image.

Well, ignoring that: What version of life would be better than what we have currently? Any systems I can think of that would involve neither pain nor suffering would be quite dull, to say the least.

... That came out wrong, I know it. What I mean is that life is beautiful even with all the crap and extinction things go through. I can't imagine a theoretical "merciful" system being better at all, really. And, in answer to Cali's point about what my peers believe: I am not my peers in the Faith, many of us actually have different ideas about it now.

As for the problems of logic and explanation: Eh. I can't explain it logically, it's an emotional (in my eyes spiritual) thing.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#43  Postby trubble76 » Nov 17, 2014 11:13 pm

Zadocfish2 wrote:I should mention, again, that you collectively ignored the part where I said that physical suffering doesn't actually matter that much compared to spiritual existence in this belief system. Remember, we think that humans are different in that we have souls, and that those (rather than bodies) are what God cares about and what are made in God's image.

Well, ignoring that: What version of life would be better than what we have currently? Any systems I can think of that would involve neither pain nor suffering would be quite dull, to say the least.

... That came out wrong, I know it. What I mean is that life is beautiful even with all the crap and extinction things go through. I can't imagine a theoretical "merciful" system being better at all, really. And, in answer to Cali's point about what my peers believe: I am not my peers in the Faith, many of us actually have different ideas about it now.

As for the problems of logic and explanation: Eh. I can't explain it logically, it's an emotional (in my eyes spiritual) thing.


That's fine, as long as you understand that emotional arguments are almost always wrong, due to them usually being the opposite of a rational and well-considered argument. That's pretty much how charlatans work, they get you to ignore rationality and go with emotion.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#44  Postby Shrunk » Nov 17, 2014 11:23 pm

Zadocfish2 wrote:What I mean is that life is beautiful even with all the crap and extinction things go through. I can't imagine a theoretical "merciful" system being better at all, really.


Do you think you could look into the eyes of any of the hundreds of people who are right now losing their family members to Ebola and sincerely say that? I'm sure they'd appreciate that their suffering helps you appreciate your own beautiful life.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#45  Postby Bubalus » Nov 17, 2014 11:28 pm

Zadocfish2 wrote: Any systems I can think of that would involve neither pain nor suffering would be quite dull, to say the least.


A bit like heaven then? :naughty2:
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” -Stephen Hawking‏
User avatar
Bubalus
 
Posts: 730
Age: 67
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#46  Postby Zadocfish2 » Nov 17, 2014 11:38 pm

Do you think you could look into the eyes of any of the hundreds of people who are right now losing their family members to Ebola and sincerely say that? I'm sure they'd appreciate that their suffering helps you appreciate your own beautiful life.


... Now that's a pretty emotional argument. That's how life is. Are you saying that the world is ugly because things that are sad happen a lot?
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#47  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2014 7:24 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:I should mention, again, that you collectively ignored the part where I said that physical suffering doesn't actually matter that much compared to spiritual existence in this belief system.


I didn't ignore it so much as think it was a clumsy and stupid attempt to avoid thinking about it.

Listen to what you're saying: physical suffering doesn't actually matter?

To you, perhaps - until you are physically suffering, or one of your loved ones is physically suffering, then it matters. I just employ my empathy without need of having my personal tribe afflicted.

Worse though, your mouthed platitudes are self-defeating. Even if *you* don't give a fuck about physical suffering, a loving god would be expected to. A loving god would not have made a system which necessitates physical suffering.

Also, the way you frame 'physical suffering' is in the form of a Cartesian dualism - as if the physical suffering is somehow disconnected from the emotional, experiential suffering. Of course, the term 'spiritual' means absolutely bugger all to me, but I am trying to give a 'best reading' and assume you mean something like the latter.

All of these represent tossed out walls which presumably are sufficient for you to not process what your god-designed system entails because it is not something you can cognitively process while maintaining the notion of a loving god.

This is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance - it is how a human brain protects itself from unwanted information.


Zadocfish2 wrote: Remember, we think that humans are different in that we have souls, and that those (rather than bodies) are what God cares about and what are made in God's image.


Firstly, that's stupid. Even if there are souls, god designed them to inhabit physical bodies which he then designed to experience obscene amounts of suffering. Even with your attempts at handwaving this difficulty away, you still aren't mentally processing the fact that this is a system you claim is crafted by god - so the question is still why physical suffering is necessary? Particularly for those hundreds of trillions of non-human animals which you don't think possess a soul and therefore are experiencing fear, anxiety, pain, predation, disease, disability, and death for no reason whatsoever other than because that's the way God did it.

You're just ignoring the entire point - but don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that you are intentionally setting out to ignore it, but rather that your cognitive bias is expressly filtering out information it doesn't want to deal with. The result is the same.

Secondly, your theology is wonky. The point about us being made in God's image is that our moral compasses are the same. This defeats your earlier attempts to obfuscate judgments of the morality of God's actions. If our moral compasses are outraged by wasteful, unnecessary, wanton harm in humans (we would consider such people sociopathic sadists), then in a maximal being this becomes maximally so: your god creating a system which necessitates such suffering means he's a sadistic fuckbag because we do not have words in our vocabulary to truly express such a morally depraved state.


Zadocfish2 wrote: Well, ignoring that: What version of life would be better than what we have currently? Any systems I can think of that would involve neither pain nor suffering would be quite dull, to say the least.


Then you've never experienced pain and suffering and your empathy circuits are not operating adequately. For the majority of life on this planet 'quite dull' would be infinitely preferable than being under constant threat of disease, starvation, and injury.

Of course, your rather dull experience might receive some titillation from a moment's danger, but you live in a society where you're not under constant mortal fear - where the difficulties in procuring food for your children involves a long walk to the supermarket, where your susceptibility to the ravages of disease is reduced by medicines, where you can expect the majority of your friends and family to live out a long and relatively healthy existence.

Unfortunately, this isn't even the case for the majority of human life on this planet, and it is assuredly not the case for non-human life on this planet, nor has been the case stretching back over the billions of years of life here. The system is built on predation, fear and where failure is painful or mortal.

A very simple example of how suffering could be reduced just by using already 'designed' properties would be to point to phototrophs, chemolithotrophs, and autotrophs - none of them need to cause suffering to other conscious beings just to maintain their own existence. An all powerful, all loving God could have created a system where all consumption of resources was equally benign. Of course, one could also wonder why conscious beings even need an external energy source in the first place if they have souls which don't. Why is consumption even necessary? Yeah, yeah, I know - this is where you throw your hands up in the air, abandon any pretext of reason, and dramatically intone the essential mystery of god.

It's hypocritical! ;)


Zadocfish2 wrote: ... That came out wrong, I know it. What I mean is that life is beautiful even with all the crap and extinction things go through. I can't imagine a theoretical "merciful" system being better at all, really.


You can't?

I can! With ease! And I bet you can too! :)

Given that God is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then not only should God be expected to have imagined a more merciful system, but would also have had the capacity to do so, but should have been obliged to create a maximally merciful system given his benevolent nature.

Which brings us back to the problem of evil again. Don't worry, Zadoc - I don't expect you to solve this problem. It existed long before Christianity and no one has ever been able to provide a satisfying response. In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury - the head of the Anglican Church recently said precisely the same thing: that this insoluble problem makes him doubt the existence of God.

To post it in its logical form:

1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2) There is evil in the world.
3) Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Note that I am substituting 'evil' (which is a human value statement) for intentional suffering, pain, harm etc.

To provide the expanded version:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


At present, you've actually agreed with my original formulation. You do not deny that he knows of suffering, nor that is unable to stop it - you maintain that he actually created this system - instead, your argument is that this does not represent malevolence, yet this suffering etc was actually created even as a concept by your god - had he not specifically crafted this into the fabric of the universe, it would not exist. You do not deny that suffering exists, ergo you must agree that your God created it if you wish to be consistent. Therefore, you are left trying to defend the indefensible - your god created evil.

Or the more obvious solution is that there is no god and this shit just happened without intent, without malice, without planning - it is just the result of the thermodynamic properties of the universe.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#48  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2014 7:26 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:
Do you think you could look into the eyes of any of the hundreds of people who are right now losing their family members to Ebola and sincerely say that? I'm sure they'd appreciate that their suffering helps you appreciate your own beautiful life.


... Now that's a pretty emotional argument. That's how life is. Are you saying that the world is ugly because things that are sad happen a lot?



You can't just say 'that's how life is' when you are arguing that this is how life is because your god created it thus.

Well, let's be frank: you CAN say it, but it means you're not thinking about what you're saying.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#49  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2014 7:46 am

Let's ignore the insoluble problem for a while then, and turn to the other absurdities of claiming that god uses evolution to effect his will.

God wants antelopes. He also wants lions.

He designs the lions to eat antelopes and he designs the antelopes to fear lions.

Let's be clear here: when I say 'designs' here, I don't mean that your position is like the magical version of Genesis - I am not suggesting that your position is that god magicked them into existence. Instead, you are saying that in his omniscience, he tweaked all the variables at the outset to necessarily result in certain outcomes like lions, antelopes, and humans.

Now, presumably god doesn't want the lions to kill all the antelopes, because then there'd be no antelopes and had he not wanted antelopes, he could've just made no antelopes in the first place.

So he sets in motion a variable back in the fabric of the universe which will result in a mutation in antelopes that lets them run a bit faster. This will ensure that antelopes can outrun lions.

But hold on, what if lions can no longer catch antelopes? Then there'd be no lions, and had he not wanted lions, he could've just made no lions in the first place.

So he sets in motion a variable back in the fabric of the universe which will result in a mutation in lions that lets them run a bit faster. This will ensure that lions can catch antelopes.

But hmmm, what if they catch too many? Perhaps another variable tweak?

Of course - this is patently fucking absurd. All of this happens without any need of a god's intervention, and were it the product of a divine being's will, it would make that god fickle, inconsistent, and lacking any comprehension of his own system.

So instead you accept that animals evolve within the scope of contingent environmental factors; that they happen without divine will.

But suddenly when it comes to humans, you start applying the special sauce. What about ancient humans? Did they possess souls? Were they the chosen species too? What about neanderthals? H erectus? H habilis? Australopithecines? At what point did god suddenly decide to cause souls to inhabit the flimsy sacks of mostly water? He couldn't have known that humans would evolve, or we'd be back to him tweaking variables for ever to ensure all the contingencies stacked, together with the quandary of internal contradiction.

Essentially, all you've got is a magical answer. It just is because reasons.

Those reasons only works because of the fact that you were brought up in a society where these reasons were simply asserted as being so, and you followed along with them without ever poking at them with a stick to see if they defied popping. You will talk about god's love and goodness in one breath, then dismiss any judgment of the observable harm in the universe fairly ascribing it via logical consistency to your god. Your argument is internally contradictory - special pleading all the way. If God is ultimately responsible for the beautiful rose, the breath-taking sunset, and the exhilaration of life, then he is also responsible in exactly the same way for the horror of the Baylisascaris procyonis, the devastating tsunamis, and the short and painful experience of Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

You can only have your cake if you're going to eat the lot, not just the nice bits with the cream and cherry toppings.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#50  Postby Zadocfish2 » Nov 18, 2014 7:55 am

Well, it is what it is. I've already given you the response I would give upon continued argument, so rather than re-state it in different words, I will instead use my original ones:

I don't know why God does or did things. And to try would be impossible. God, for me, cannot be understood as one would understand a human being. Apparently you disagree with that theoretical view on God, and believe that if the God of the Bible was real, He would have to be human in mind like those Greek gods.


So, yeah, I don't know what to say. As I said, it has nothing to do with logic. I end up saying that a lot. I enjoy hearing about science, but everything to do with religion just hits a wall with me. Spearthrower, you've already figured that out, I know...

I love science, and because I love science, I can easily change my views on it depending on what the evidence and informed scientific consensus says. But as you know, for me, my Faith is another matter entirely. No matter what is presented to me, it will not change.

Have you ever played the Ace Attorney series of games? It's like the Psych Lock system. With science, I'm either unlocked or red locks at worst; with Faith, it's black locks straight-up. Even if you present evidence, I will just avert my eyes and deny it.

---

That said, I will say that I apparently seem really ignorant of suffering because of what I have said. No. I understand suffering, I'm not a moron or focused solely on my own life. Is it really uncouth to think that the world is beautiful, despite terrible things happening? For all that suffering, the world has a lot of joy and vividness to it as well. And I'm saying this disconnected from the subject matter here, I mean.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#51  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2014 8:11 am

Well, even if you refuse to engage in logic when it comes to your treasured belief - at least you're honest about it to yourself - that's a damn sight more acceptable than most positions.

Like I said - you seem like a decent guy to me and I wouldn't want to take your cherished beliefs away - they're yours and presumably they offer you some existential comfort, provide a comprehensible narrative to existence, or just stave off the terror of the eternal dark of the after-death. My mum's a Christian because of reasons too, and she would probably accept any scientific finding as is, regardless of what its ramifications were on the nature of her beliefs because she'd simply not allow those ramifications to have any impact. Of course, I have no compunction to stop my mum believing, nor do I have any compunction to stopping you.

However, this is a discussion/debate format, so of course I am going to continue responding to the points made. All that this represents is a cognitive bias no different than the cognitive bias seen in Creationists. Unlike you, they're prepared to ignore the empirical evidence which contradicts their literalist belief in the Genesis narrative, but you are prepared to ignore the ramifications of observable and logical contentions to your belief.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data.


I know you're not lying: you just cannot let that inconvenient data be processed as it necessarily conflicts with your more cherished belief.

Thus, what I said earlier proves to be correct.

Actually, and I mean this as a compliment - perhaps I was overestimating your willingness to engage in reason. From what I've seen of your posts before, you could follow a logical argument and change your mind if you found your position lacking. However, you're throwing up silly defenses here, so perhaps it's a sensitive area and I was assuming too much of you.


There's a line in the sand for you. Reason and openness to changing your mind is limited to anything which doesn't call into question the existence of your god.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#52  Postby Zadocfish2 » Nov 18, 2014 8:17 am

There's a line in the sand for you. Reason and openness to changing your mind is limited to anything which doesn't call into question the existence of your god.


Yeah, pretty much. I have my Faith, and it is unshakable.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#53  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2014 8:22 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:
There's a line in the sand for you. Reason and openness to changing your mind is limited to anything which doesn't call into question the existence of your god.


Yeah, pretty much. I have my Faith, and it is unshakable.


And I guess that you understand that for me this represents a disability in understanding your existence and the existence of the universe around you?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#54  Postby trubble76 » Nov 18, 2014 8:30 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:
There's a line in the sand for you. Reason and openness to changing your mind is limited to anything which doesn't call into question the existence of your god.


Yeah, pretty much. I have my Faith, and it is unshakable.


And this is what puts you in a similar position to other victims of charlatans, they too have their unshakable faith in homeopathy or shakra realigning, or reiki, or prayer, or whatever. They, like you, are not willing to put fact above faith, and so will spend their lives as victims, conned into believing stuff for rubbish reasons because of their "Faith".
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#55  Postby Zadocfish2 » Nov 18, 2014 9:22 am

And I guess that you understand that for me this represents a disability in understanding your existence and the existence of the universe around you?


Yes, I do indeed get that impression.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#56  Postby Calilasseia » Nov 18, 2014 10:31 am

NOTE: I accidentally hit "submit" before pasting my post into the box, hence the edit.

Zadocfish2 wrote:I should mention, again, that you collectively ignored the part where I said that physical suffering doesn't actually matter that much compared to spiritual existence in this belief system.


Actually, I did address that very matter in this post. Where I posted the following:

Zadocfish2 wrote:I think that the love we feel from God is for soul and spirit, not life;


The existence of these entities being yet more assertions we're waiting to see supported by evidence. In the absence thereof, your apologetics is therefore null and void.

Zadocfish2 wrote:life is ephemeral, soul is eternal.


Again, in the absence of evidence supporting the assertion that this "soul"entity actually exists, the above is mere speculation and fantasy.

Zadocfish2 wrote:There really isn't a problem from that viewpoint, at least not to the extent you seem to think there is.


There's a very serious problem. Namely, we have evidence for life. We don't have an atom of evidence for "souls", or a raft of other asserted entities. Without proper evidence for any of these, the whole apolgetic edifice is a house of cards.


I also addressed the matter indirectly via this:

Except that once again, a fantastically gifted magic entity, asserted not only to have been capable of fabricating the observable universe and its contents, determining the laws of physics thereof, and all that follows therefrom, on the basis of a vast repository of knowledge, but also asserted via those fantastic gifts to have been capable of achieving the same result in a different manner, is manifestly culpable for choosing a suffering-filled choice over and above any of a number of possible other, suffering-free choices.

If, on the other hand, there was no other possible choice to make, this calls into question at least some of the assertions about the fantastic gifts purportedly possessed by this entity.


Zadocfish2 wrote:Remember, we think that humans are different in that we have souls


"We" don't think anything of the sort. Supernaturalists might think this, but not everyone is a supernaturalist. Though once again, it doesn't surprise me to see a suprnaturalist regard his presuppositions as some sort of "default" that we all accept.

Indeed, with respect to those purported "differences" between us and the rest of the biosphere, I don't even have to reach for molecular phylogeny or whole genome analysis to call this assertion into question. I'm minded to recall this:



Zadocfish2 wrote:and that those (rather than bodies) are what God cares about and what are made in God's image.


Makes you wonder why your magic man bothered with bodies at all, then, doesn't it?

Though of course, I'm also aware of the manner in which this notion has been used, quite dangerously, to justify all manner of horrible bodily suffering being inflicted upon human beings, despite the fact that unlike bodies, for which we have a large quantity of evidence, we have zero evidence for the souls purportedly being "saved" by the requisite brutal means.

Zadocfish2 wrote:Well, ignoring that: What version of life would be better than what we have currently? Any systems I can think of that would involve neither pain nor suffering would be quite dull, to say the least.

... That came out wrong, I know it. What I mean is that life is beautiful even with all the crap and extinction things go through. I can't imagine a theoretical "merciful" system being better at all, really.


Your lack of imagination in this regard doesn't impact upon the issue. If there is a choice for a universe that doesn't involve suffering, it's entirely possible that said universe still offers enough diversity of sensation to be interesting.

Zadocfish2 wrote:And, in answer to Cali's point about what my peers believe: I am not my peers in the Faith, many of us actually have different ideas about it now.


The problem being the huge degree of anti-consilience that is observed amongst the holders of these ideas.

Zadocfish2 wrote:As for the problems of logic and explanation: Eh. I can't explain it logically, it's an emotional (in my eyes spiritual) thing.


Well at least you're honest about this. But you may wonder why I and others here don't share the same emotions here. Though I've already provided a hint on this, with respect to myself, in numerous past discourses on my childhood encounter with The Children's Encyclopaedia. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#57  Postby Zadocfish2 » Nov 18, 2014 10:53 am

Ah, alright. Well, once again I raise my Faith-shield in defiance to your logic.

That aside, I will say that when I referred to "we", I was talking about Christians whose beliefs I come close to, and arguing from that perspective. Of course, I didn't mean that the whole of humanity thinks like that; I'm on a predominately-atheist forum, for goodness sake, I have the awareness to realize that...
Last edited by Zadocfish2 on Nov 18, 2014 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#58  Postby Calilasseia » Nov 18, 2014 10:58 am

See the above edit. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#59  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2014 11:00 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:
And I guess that you understand that for me this represents a disability in understanding your existence and the existence of the universe around you?


Yes, I do indeed get that impression.


For me, the very notion of an unassailable belief - one never open to revision - is deeply worrying and I would fear ever being subject to such a belief. Irrevocable certitude is undoubtedly a key characteristic of humanity, but history suggests that it goes hand in hand with the very worst aspects of our natures; the things I think we should aspire to be free from.

By intentionally limiting the scope of inquiry, a reasonable approximation of the truth is forever ruled out, you only get the human platonified version.

I do not understand why anyone could conceive of this as a virtue - to me it would suggest implicit recognition of a weakness that can only be fled from and never squared up to. The fear of being fallible - something many religions impress upon us is the lot of humanity - of being wrong and of losing a treasured falsehood. It relegates truth to a salad bar we can pick and choose from in accordance with our preferences.

Personally, I just want to follow the facts wherever they lead, even if they turn out to be uncomfortable, inconvenient, or undesirable.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27963
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Tenth anniversary of "Taliban-style" collapse of "Darwinism"

#60  Postby Bubalus » Nov 18, 2014 1:30 pm

Zadocfish2 wrote:
There's a line in the sand for you. Reason and openness to changing your mind is limited to anything which doesn't call into question the existence of your god.


Yeah, pretty much. I have my Faith, and it is unshakable.


How does that fit in with leaders of your faith changing their minds on the meaning found in the babble:

eg RC & evolution, CofE & women priests; Mormons and Coloured people.......

Would you also change your stance and on what basis?
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” -Stephen Hawking‏
User avatar
Bubalus
 
Posts: 730
Age: 67
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest