Posted on 12/29/2011 1:01:09 PM PST by daletoons
Atheist militant Richard Dawkins has produced a children's book entitled "The Magic of Reality" and in doing so has joined the Millstone Swim and Dive Club. Spreading his venom for God to kids under the guise of Scientism is about as putrid as it gets. Children using simple God-given logic conclude the existence of a creator. It requires an abandonment of logic to attain self omniscience and declare there is no God. The materialist's faith in the escape hatch of "there just wasn't enough evidence for me" won't wash on judgement day. Here's a book idea: The ghost of Christopher Hitchens, Jacob Marley style, appears to Richard Dawkins and sets him straight. Dickey would probably make a hash of it, too bad Hitchens isn't still around to write it.
Please note that in Genesis it says “Let there be light!” Another word for “let” is “allow” . “Allow” that there be light. Light is eternal. It has always existed. Genesis does not say God created light, but it does say that He **created** the heavens and the earth. Do you see the difference? **Allow** light, and **create** the heavens and earth.
And that difference between light being eternal and the “creation” of the heavens and the earth**is** absolutely scientifically accurate!
Before ragging on how inaccurate Genesis is, perhaps you should read it.
This doesn't even come close to the concise detail and accuracy of Genesis.
If it makes you feel better, I don’t reject it off the cuff, but I do reject it.
Order is the most interesting of the three you list, but in the words of Carl Sagan,
“There is in this universe much of what appears to be design, but instead we repeatedly discover that natural processes - the collisional selection of worlds, say, or the natural selection of gene pools, or even the convection pattern in a pot of boiling water can extract order out of chaos, and deceive us into deducing purpose where there is none.”
That there is what we can describe as order is not an obvious indication of someone creating the order, as it is apparent that such can arise naturally. You can indeed argue that there is some being who makes sure the laws of the universe runs the way they’re supposed to, but that is unfalsifiable; we really can’t address it in any way - and even if we allow for that assumption, which seems a bit of a stretch, it’s quite a long way to go from that to your specific god, and a very, very long away away from suggesting evolution isn’t correct.
Complexity and information both follow in the same line of reasoning; if you want, I can indeed explain using genetic examples how complexity and what may be considered in a broad sense information can arise via naturalistic processes.
Now, none of what I’ve mentioned disproves most formations and definitions of god - I’m merely pointing out why what you’ve mentioned doesn’t necessarily support the idea.
I imagine you’ve probably had quite enough of me already, and judging by the nature of this sight I’m not expecting you to be interested in my side of things, but if I can trouble you for nine more minutes, I would suggest this short work by Carl Sagan, an excerpt of which I quote above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8P1Y1a7-L4&feature=related
While I’ve gotten quite a bit more attention then I expected, and I’m trying to work upwards through a surprising list of comments, do allow me to address this one first:
First, I’m not really trying to play white knight for anyone; indeed, I came address a few specific misconceptions, regardless of who stands on what side. Still, I can understand why I get set in that catagory.
However, you are right - I’m not here by accident. But if you think I’ve been summoned or such, you’ve jumped to conclusions. This would be a point to make a crack about the manner of your thinking, but I shall hold back.
Instead, the reason is quite simple: This comic, and the comments attached to it, was posted to reddit, in the subreddit r/atheism, which I visit now and then:
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/nwb7w/freep_the_dawkins_delusion/
The comic, its creators, and its supporters are being laughed at by a community of up to 350,000 composed both of atheists, rationalists, and free thinkers who find humor in people actually believing that the comic makes a good point, as well as Christians rubbing their temples at the excesses and illogical of their distant compatriots.
Surely it’s not difficult for you to believe that one among that number decided it may be worth their time to comment.
Granted, as creationists don’t tend to be swayed by science and reason and as this site is (no offense) not particularly prominent, I expect I will come to a point where feel my time is better spent with friends and libations for the new year.
You will have to forgive me, I’m not quite sure I understand the point you’re driving at, but I wish to note that the person I’ve been arguing with specifically said that Genesis was *not* metaphor.
Now, given that you are a religious person, I do have a question to pose to you: What if the bible and all of Christianity is a test of your reason cooked up by Satan, and the people that get into heaven are those that discard it as illogical? How could you find an answer to this question?
Granted, I don’t believe the above any more then I believe as you do - but I must ask how you differentiate between the two.
[ What if the bible and all of Christianity is a test of your reason cooked up by Satan, and the people that get into heaven are those that discard it as illogical? How could you find an answer to this question? ]
I see... What if when you look into the mirror you are observing Satan?..
If so, then that rascal is pretty sneaky.. he knows what you’re thinking..
In that senario everyone is demon possessed..
Puts a whole new look into being “born again”...
The other thing you ignore is the vastly different functionality of the human brain compared to any other animal. Every animal has a brain that is hardwired to functionality and behavior with very limited learning capacity. Humans are exactly the opposite: Unlimited learning capacity with almost nothing hardwired.
The odd thing is that our brain has been that way from a time when such an arrangement would be comically inept.
And it is inaccurate to say humans are born too early. Given the way our brain works we would never advance in the womb. We have to be born to learn anything, even something as basic as crawling.
Personally, I don't care what you or anyone else cares to believe.
However, no one should be forced to pay a dime to support your,mine, or anyone else’s belief about the appearance of man on earth. No one’s child should be **forced** to attend a school where they are under government compulsion to attend classes that establish someone else’s educational worldview! It is **fundamentally** impossible to have a religiously neutral education.
And...It does seem that those who are the most vehement supporters of compulsory ( police enforced ) government schooling are evolutionists. IDer’s and creationist are the most likely to support measures to privatize K-12 education.
And....Not for a minute do I believe that atheistic government teachers are able to hide their contempt for Christianity from their students. It will bleed through. Personally, I think Christians who send their precious children into our nation's godless schools are very foolish.
Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
reddit?
I've seen a funny looking link next to other stories with several logos, such as twitter, Digg, and reddit -- so I'm guessing it's some kind of social networking?
And by the subdirectory, I infer it has sub-chat-rooms or somesuch?
<snip>
Surely it’s not difficult for you to believe that one among that number decided it may be worth their time to comment.
I'll take your word on it, as I've seen any number of sites which comment on atheists / fundamentalists/ Paultards whatnot.
But we do not often find n00bies showing up on FR who begin commenting in the *middle* of an ongoing squabble on a thread...most often they show up and post a *link* to a news story or spam for Romney or Ron Paul or try to flame conservatives. People that show up in mid-thread have often been summoned by someone else as though a djinn.
The comic, its creators, and its supporters are being laughed at by a community of up to 350,000 composed both of atheists, rationalists, and free thinkers who find humor in people actually believing that the comic makes a good point, as well as Christians rubbing their temples at the excesses and illogical of their distant compatriots.
As far as the comic, it appears to be a more sophisticated vesion of the old "No! Get your OWN dirt!" joke.
The problem is that a disproportionate share of the atheists somehow think that biology disproves Christianity, as though religion were merely a superficial attempt to explain the world, based first in ignorance, then in argument from authority (scholasticism), and based on the social group dynamics of people so benighted they had absolutely no conception of regularity in nature, nor natural law, and were hence ripe for the plucking...; such model now rightly supplanted by science.
That'd be great, if it were true. But most of that applies not to Judaism but to the pagan gods of the polytheists, who were *explicitly* anthropomorphic and whose interference was invoked for every vagary of life.
As far as creationists not being swayed by science and reason, that depends on the individual; and many scientists are quiet unreasonable too to the point that Dilbert had a character named "Dan, the illogical scientist":
Incidentally -- I find your earlier remarks interesting:
The comic, its creators, and its supporters are being laughed at by a community of up to 350,000 composed both of atheists, rationalists, and free thinkers who find humor in people actually believing that the comic makes a good point, as well as Christians rubbing their temples at the excesses and illogical of their distant compatriots.
Is the 350,000 supposed to be impressive or something? If it is, you have--doubtless inadvertently--set aside your implicit claim of rationalism as the sole arbiter of truth, to be supplanted by "groupthink", much as the AGW crowd has stated -- "teh science is settled."
Granted, as creationists don’t tend to be swayed by science and reason and as this site is (no offense) not particularly prominent, I expect I will come to a point where feel my time is better spent with friends and libations for the new year.
As you have in earlier paragraphs proclaimed yourself among the arbiters of reason, I am suprised to find you (again) relying on ad hominem.
Enjoy your New Year, until your eyries receive you, at your journey's end.
Cheers!
Examples above include these ideas that Emmanuel is a nickname or codeword for Jesus ("so see, he really DID fulfill the prophecy") and that a married couple hadn't had sex so he could still be of a Virgin, and of course, the promise Jesus gave to return in the disciples' lifetime MUST have REALLY meant that... um... one of them would have a dream about it. Yeah, that's it. They work backwards. Every time.
The answer is determined empirically.
1) Satan is a liar from the beginning.
2) Nobody but atheists ever admits even the possibility of Satan or of heaven, except to ask oh-so-precious Shavian questions of this type; whereas believers of all stripes maintain that trust of God and union with God is necessary for heaven.
3) As you atheists love to say, "that which is introduced without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
Give me your evidence for a conscious Satan who is concerned with the personal beliefs of men, for the accuracy of the purported salvational ansatz, and the evidence for heaven. Then show me that this evidence is superior to the evidence I already have for Christianity.
Then we'll talk.
Hint: we think this stuff is serious enough for God to have died under torture for the mere opportunity of fixing it. It's far too serious for "oh look, I'm so *clever* with verbal wordplay" parlour games.
If you weren't living under the protection of a Christian soeciety, you wouldn't be so flippant.
Counterexample: Try going to Qom (infidels are not allowed into Mecca) and spreading the good news that there is no Allah.
Don't forget to write.
Cheers!
I'm calling BS on that one. I don't believe those numbers for a minute.
Granted, as creationists don’t tend to be swayed by science and reason and as this site is (no offense)
No offense taken but if that's what you believe, you're a moron.
Creationists simply aren't swayed by the liberal, God hating mentality that you and your fellow self-proclaimed intellectual "elites" buy into.
And we aren't swayed by philosophy that is thinly veiled as science by its adherents.
You're working on the presumption that what passes for *science* and *reason* in your minds really is either scientific or reasonable.
You're also a troll.
Examples above include these ideas that Emmanuel is a nickname or codeword for Jesus ("so see, he really DID fulfill the prophecy") and that a married couple hadn't had sex so he could still be of a Virgin, and of course, the promise Jesus gave to return in the disciples' lifetime MUST have REALLY meant that... um... one of them would have a dream about it.
Emmanuel *is* a name for Jesus -- think of the hymn "O Come O Come Emmanuel". Just because people now call Jesus "Emmanuel" doesn't make it a *refutation* of the prophesy.
A married couple hadn't had sex so He could still be of a Virgin?
So that explains why Joseph was going to divorce her quietly once he found out she was pregnant? Because *he'd* been sleeping with her?
and of course, the promise Jesus gave to return in the disciples' lifetime MUST have REALLY meant that... um... one of them would have a dream about it.
Give me chapter and verse: and with it, the archeological and textual evidence upon which you consider this verse reliable, otherwise you're just lying.
Cheers!
Um, you reject God and write of Scripture as nonsense and yet refer to it to build and present a case about Satan and deception?
I sure hope you don't think that this is what passes for reason amongst you and your compatriots.
The last time I heard something like this was from a now banned Darwin Central, mouth-breathing troll, trying to convince someone that the entire internet was laughing hysterically about something a creationist had said on FR. Nobody believer it then either.
So, noob, what WAS your previous screen name? How are things over in the DC swamp?
The last time I heard something like this was from a now banned Darwin Central, mouth-breathing troll, trying to convince someone that the entire internet was laughing hysterically about something a creationist had said on FR. Nobody believed it then either.
So, noob, what WAS your previous screen name? How are things over in the DC swamp?
This is the fallacy of 'begging the question' for assuming that what exists has 'evolved' and can be organized into 'transitional stages'.
"In an evolutionary context, sexual reproduction will generally win out despite the need for a mate. This can be proven by
This is the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' for assuming that because P 'predicts' Q and Q is observed that P is therefore 'supported'.
The fact that evolutionary 'arguments' are firmly based in logical fallacy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the naturalistic philosophy that underlies belief in 'evolution'.
I think it's a lame-ass attempt to misuse the contrapositive (if P-->Q implies if ^Q-->^P) contrapositive; valid
replaced with (if P-->Q implies if ^ (^Q) --> ^ (^P), shortened to if Q-->P) BZZZT.
Humorous canonical example is :
If that chair had an invisible cat in it, the chair would look empty; but that chair does look empty; there is therefore an invisible cat in the chair.
But the more important question(s) for the biologist are these.
Given that yeast can reproduce both by budding and by exchange of genetic material...
How did sexual organs form? At what point in the development of multicellular creatures?
Did the formation of these structures require new genes not present before?
If they did, then how was it assured that the genes in the "male-like" and "female-like" gametes were compatible?
What was the survival advantage (the other animals no-doubt were only too happy to go tell protohermaphrodite to go screw itself, but I fail to see how genetic mixing is greatly improved: it's even worse than incest).
Let me know if I'm all wet on these questions, I haven't found answers in the molecular biology or biochem textbooks I've run across.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.