And I love your reaction to it.Originally Posted by tailor STATELY
Replying to your post any further would be an attempt at offending the premises of this thread, since we are discussing the reasons of belief--or disbelief--not religions, occults or their less than convincing self-serving arguments.
I'm not impressed.
This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.
I understand why - perhaps it has something to do with your alias
But remember - there´s a lot on things, that cannot be found in atheists wordbook. Many people think, that believing in God is weakness. But it is not. If anyone really wants to check out, what bible will teach about moral etc. it is very obvious, that it creates lot of strenght.
There´s many paradoxes in life. One of them is that we must be weak - we must admit that we need each other - to be strong. Being just "strong" without mercy and hope and caring, we are doomed into loneliness, after all. But then we hit our nose into tall, hard wall: No-one can live just alone and survive mentally. For example - as well known fact is - our mental state of mind and ability grow as humans stops otherwise. This is just a basic information about psychology.
"Remembering betrays nature,
Because yesterday's nature is not nature,
What's past is nothing and remembering is not seeing."
- Sorry, but that´s a big, big lie. You see, if we live like that, we deny power of history. If we deny it, it has funny - and VERY painful - way to remember us about how small we are; It starts to repeat itself, if we are not going to listen and learn about it. If anyone argues, it simply means, that he says that there´s no results of our actions. And everyone knows, what truth about this is. There´s no any possible way to fight against this fact without 101% losing. Remembering means LEARNING & UNDERSTANDING what been happening before. Also that "remembering is not seeing" is saying - after all - that we should see in future. And do we? We are NOT. Same patterns in life will repeat day after day - it is a law of nature. It can´t be broked. If we deny that we don´t need learning and understanding, we are basically saying that we are complete persons - which we are not. Ever. Also it would mean that there´s no purpose about in our life, because life IS learning. If we don´t listen to the history, we are stupidly proud and we are going to pay for it, after all.
"Nature will not broke own laws."
- Albert Einstein.
Thanks.
Last edited by JommiL; 02-23-2010 at 03:34 PM.
I appreciate your respect...
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
My only point about Anthony Flew was that he was a long time passionate atheist, a philosopher who argued in much the same way as the atheists here, but who was later convinced on the argument of intelligent design as I argue it (that universe has too much structure for it to have been a random creation), and is no longer an atheist. I've never heard of Thomas Warren, and was Flew an athiest or did he see the light when he was arguing with Warren?
By the way, this is Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
As long as they keep ID out of the biology classroom, because they don't know biology from their left hand.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
OP, intelligent design is a generic philosophic argument, and has nothing to do with the specifics of any science. It is a way of looking at the science and coming to a conclusion. I agree, it does not belong in a scientific classroom, but I argue it's a legitamate philosophic argument.
My form of ID does not argue for creationism. That is where ID has gotten a bad rap, because some have expanded it to beyond what is justifiable. I only argue for the existence of God. I cannot find any support for a specific type of God. That goes from philosophy to theology.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Warren may have likely convinced him of the fallacy of his position.
I can agree with that, but they also need to keep evolution out of biology and stick with mere classifications of the creatures that we know we have.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Sadly, I think the bad rap is well deserved. The problem is that organizations like the Discovery Institute have clear political motivations and insist on the scientific nature of their work. I would have much less problems with ID if most of its major proponents would admit they are not doing science.
At the least it's better than the creation "museums" that put up displays of humans and dinosaurs living side by side.
That's just silly, we're not here for "stamp collecting" as Haldane put it. Evolution is vital to the understanding of modern biology.
Last edited by OrphanPip; 02-23-2010 at 07:57 PM.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
This is where I will just agree to disagree. I don't think that Evolution has anything to do with Modern Biology. It is a theory without much real supporting evidence. I will not argue this topic any further.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
To do so would be to take away virtually over one-hundred years of biology. Pretty much all biology today is based on evolution (OP correct me if I'm wrong). Genes, DNA and the cell are all impossible to understand without evolution. Take evolution out of the picture, you're left with mere zoology.
Since you insist on not arguing any further, I will not engage you. But as a statement of the facts, evolution has everything to do with Modern Biology. And as far as the mere theory argument which arises out of ignorance of the philosophy of science. A theory is not a hypothesis nor is it a propostitional idea, it may begin that way, but in order to be regarded as a theory it needs a great gathering of facts and evidence to encompass a full scientific narrative in whatever field of study it is in. A theory is better than a fact, just as the whole is better than the parts.
Last edited by DanielBenoit; 02-23-2010 at 08:10 PM.
The Moments of Dominion
That happen on the Soul
And leave it with a Discontent
Too exquisite — to tell —
-Emily Dickinson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGIvr6WVw4
It has mounds of evidence.
Apparently evolution has nothing to do with the emergence of new resistance to antibiotics, to the emergence of resistance within insects to pesticides, to the development of new enzymes for nylon digestion in bacteria, to explaining the emergence of new species as we see it in the fossil record, to understanding why current behaviors are emerge over others.
The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence, has stood the test against attempts to falsify it, and is the most important theory in biology.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Interesting link. I was amused by a few lines that stood out for me which I highlight below and cite below from the same wikipedia link to keep the context intact.By the way, this is Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
It must be weird to have to defend one's existence, and/or state of mind, when philosophically joisting in the public arena.Book with Varghese
In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[4] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview. The article provoked a public outcry, in which atheist PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator."[23]
A further article by Anthony Gottlieb noted a strong difference in style between the passages giving Flew's biography, and those laying out the case for a god, with the latter including Americanisms such as "beverages", "vacation" and "candy". He came to the same conclusion as Oppenheimer, and stated that "Far from strengthening the case for the existence of God, [the book] rather weakens the case for the existence of Antony Flew". Varghese replied with a letter disputing this view.[25] Flew released a statement through his publisher stating that although Varghese did the actual writing, the book belonged to him and represented his thinking.[26] An audio commentary by William Lane Craig[27] concurs with this position, but Richard Carrier disputes this view.[29] In June 2008, Flew stated his position once again, in a letter to a fellow of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship.[6]
re: Evolution, ID, Creationism; I find it fascinating to have these topics to discuss and ponder. For me it speaks as a testimony for each one of us to come to grips with our mortality and reaffirm that spark of uniqueness that each of us possesses. If nothing else, one lesson we can well learn is tolerance for those of opposing views; with the hope that someday we may all know everything. This reaffirms my faith all the more.
Adieux.
tailor
who am I but a stitch in time
what if I were to bare my soul
would you see me origami
7-8-2015
by tailor STATELY: I love this quote in support of your argument:
Quote:Schizophrenics were taken very seriously in ancient times.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh ?Thank you. My response was to highlight a logical slip on your part - I find the logical progression for your views usually less salient.
re:The New Testament Apostle Paul was correct in saying (in his Second Epistle to Timothy in chapter 2) :
Quote:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Adieux.Forgive me for being obtuse in quoting the Biblical text - it was for mine own admonishment.Your reply: Replying to your post any further would be an attempt at offending the premises of this thread, since we are discussing the reasons of belief--or disbelief--not religions, occults or their less than convincing self-serving arguments.
tailor
who am I but a stitch in time
what if I were to bare my soul
would you see me origami
7-8-2015
I believe firmly in God. I will not argue with anyone about my belief, because I know it is futile to argue with someone who firmly believes the opposite! I believe in Him for several reasons, but one is that I refuse to believe the world is completely random and happened by chance. That makes my life meaningless - I would have no purpose if there was no purpose for me being here in the first place. By that standard, I should live my life with no regard for anyone. Only my own desires and wants. So if you don't believe in God, I understand why you don't. If you do, to God be the glory!
From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical. You may be unaware of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and that's why people like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe can sell so many books. However, that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times.
For the millionth time, you can't use your conclusion as the validation for your major premise. That is, using "only intelligent design could account for the such-and-such natural phenomenon" as your major premise assumes what you're trying to prove. Since Darwin, humans have discovered many natural mechanisms that could account for such-and-such natural phenomenon that don't involve the intentional activity of an intelligent designer. Even if logic hadn't already gutted the Argument from Design, what we've discovered about the biosphere would have made it obsolete.
Like I said before, scientific endeavor isn't like religious belief: you don't just make something true by claiming to believe it. Dan Benoit made the point in his post: evolution by natural selection is the foundation of modern biology, and it's just plain wrong to deny that fact.
Regards,
Istvan
"It is time we realized that to presume knowledge where one has only pious hope is a species of evil."
— Sam Harris
Posting Permissions
