Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Sorry for double post. Dumb math error. Species A makes a net +2, not net zero.

At 11/5/11 01:18 PM, SweetenBoy wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlb Z8

I already watched it and it basically is. I even typed up the problems with his arguments and, even though Hitchens quite horribly dripped the ball on this particular debate, I regret to admit, criticisms of Craigs argument are quite easy to find. I'll post my notes along with some people much more qualified to speak on the subject than I, then you can respond if you like and we can continue the debate for ourselves.

First, professionals criticising the argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHp S4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmKA5zUY BI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthQ6a7FZ eA&feature=related

I could go on, but that's already a lot to watch and I'm not going to have a lot of space to paste this anyway. This is a rundown of pretty much everything Craig says.

1. In his opening argument, Craig immediately resorts to shifting the burden of proof, saying that atheists have been unable to prove that God doesn't exist for thousands of years. The problem is that atheists, on this subject, are actually responding to claims being made by theists. For example, if I make a claim that I am 12 feet tall and capable of running 40 mph and I don't demonstrate this to you somehow, you are justified in not believing me. It's not up to you to prove that those things aren't true, it's up to me to prove that they ARE true. The same applies here. Theists make a claim that there is a god and, as Craig so observantly points out, no proof has presented itself in thousands of years. Doesn't simply turning the argument around demonstrate the stupidity of the point he attempts to make?
2. After that he basically says "the universe began, therefore God." He talks about how infinity is an abstract concept (which is true) and that the universe probably had a beginning (also true I suppose) and he simply fills those gaps with a creator that somehow exists outside of time and space, providing no observations that support this(anything that implies that anything can exist outside of nothingness) and without explaining how he came to this conclusion while examining evidence that does not even imply this.
3. Next he begins the old argument that the universe is finely tuned for existence and life. This is not proof of anything, because life adapts to its environment, not the other way around, and the fact that the universe is tuned perfectly to exist in the form that it exists today doesn't mean that it couldn't exist in some other form. A popular example of this is with a bicycle deck. The odds of drawing a hearts royal flush in poker are about 2,598,960 to 1. But what are the odds of drawing a particular hand at random, like 2 of hearts, 7 of clubs, king of clubs, 4 of diamonds and 9 of hearts? It's a hand that means nothing at all, but the odds of drawing it are exactly the same. People often interpret things that happen to work in their favor as being planned for them when in reality it could have worked out any other way and they would still interpret it in the same way because it's the only way they could acknowledge that it worked out. We give these things meaning, not the other way around.
4. Moral argument then begins. He states that God must be the source of morality. This is obviously flawed, even putting aside all of the immoral things that God obviously supports in the bible. If our morals come from God, where did God's morals come from? If Gods morals are universally correct ways to live life then God is not needed for morality(because morals must exist outside of God and be moral regardless of what God says) and if morals come from God then you would have to concede that things are moral simply because God says so and that if God told you to kill and rape people(which he often does in the bible) then you are morally obligated to do so, which is in fact immoral and slavery. Meanwhile, despite what Craig says about rape not being wrong from an atheist standpoint, atheists don't need to believe in God at all to know that those things are wrong. The fact that people who don't believe in God AT ALL accept the same things as being moral and immoral makes the idea that you can only be moral with God demonstrably wrong. Not only that, but most of the commandments that people actually honor today were laws in almost every developed civilization at the time, including Egypt, and none of them believed in this God.
5. Now he just cites the bible concerning Jesus and occasionally cites others doing the same. The bible cannot be used to justify claims in the bible because there is a conflict of interest.
6. Finally, more unsubstantiated claims. He says that God will reveal himself to people who believe. What about people who believe bust still never have one of these experiences? And what about the fact that God interacting with one person personally is not proof for anyone else because nobody else can share that experience? It's exactly the same thing I had a problem with in bullet 1 - that claims which cannot be demonstrated are not validated claims and one cannot be expected to be persuaded by such a statement.

After Hitchens delivers his points, Craig returns to the podium. I just want to note here that I was surprised that Craig, rightly, acknowledges early during this portion that evolution does not contradict creation.

7. More anthropic principle stuff from bullet 3. The argument is that the universe is finely tuned for us to exist, therefore divine intervention must have occurred. Like I already said, it hasn't been demonstrated that the universe and most things in it couldn't have come to be in a way that is different but still similar to the way it is now, and at best the anthropic principle is a tautology - that we are here to observe the universe therefore it was created for us to observe.
8. Craig said earlier in his last stand at the podium that infinity is an abstract, nonsense concept, but now we are supposed to accept that God has both infinite time and infinite resources. And there is still no evidence provided to believe this is the case, or that he even exists.
9. He says that Christ came at the perfect time to spread the word of God to the whole world. Obviously it hasn't worked, because the vast majority of the world is still not Christian and the majority of those people, through the overwhelming power that some of those other religions have regionally, never even had a chance to be immersed in Christianity the way they were immersed in the religion of their heritage.
10. More anthropic stuff
11. More unsubstantiated claims from the bible about living on after death, therefore the point is that the failures of the design such as impending heat death of the universe or potential extinction of humans are not a problem.
12. Next he asserts that naming a possible source of morality is somehow relevant to morality. As I already mentioned, humans don't need gods for morality to be practiced, nor do humans need gods for morality to have a purpose. In fact, having to act morally for the sake of pleasing gods and earning rewards cheapens the whole idea of morality in the first place. Are you moral because of what is promised to you, or are you moral because you know what you do is the right thing to do? One could argue that, on this point, atheists are more moral than Christians because they make a stand against disgusting and unpleasant behavior with no cosmic promise of reward or punishment involved.
13. Ends by declaring victory simply because theism hasn't been disproved. Keep in mind that he's speaking only for Christianity, with no mind kept for other forms of theism at all. Thus far this debate is strictly Christian v. atheism, and I think it would be interesting to hear how Craig came to the conclusion that no theism other than Christian theism is worth the time of day. It could be telling to see what exceptions he makes for Christianity and not for Hinduism, for example.

The rest is basically just more of the same. Hitchen's only fault was not actually directly responding to the points made by Craig, but he did more or less answer a lot of the points pretty well. He just didn't tackle certain points in the game Craig plays, which was unfortunate. But he was about to begin facing a battle with horrible throat cancer, so you can't help but excuse him. But Craigs arguments aren't without flaw. You can even read about it here.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t itle=Kalam

At 11/5/11 05:53 AM, Sleepyx13 wrote:

If you advocate creationism, you can't really be considered "brilliant."

Ignorance at it's finest.

It's "its," by the way.

And what exactly was ignorant about what I was saying?

Yorik wrote:

What is your point?

According to your "definition" of consciousness, dreams can be considered real.

Jedi-Master wrote:

And what exactly was ignorant about what I was saying?

You are right, excuse my mistake.
How can you say someone is not brillant because of their beliefs?

At 11/4/11 02:06 AM, PepperJoe wrote: I have been trying to debate more, but it seems I keep failing to capitalize on weak statements. It usually goes.

First off, whether or not Macroevolution is true, it wouldn't disprove God. So, I don't see why you are wasting your time in an argument of this nature.

Secondly, microevolution is an undeniable fact, but "theories" of macroevolution has yet to produce non-interpretational evidence. The fossil record is not evidence for macroevolution - considering the lack of (yes, I'm going to say it) missing links. Plus, finding a fossil is only proof that the animal existed and died - you cannot prove that it had any children with beneficial mutations (as implausible as this is) and, you cannot prove that those children survived and passed those genes on.

While I don't agree that macroevolution's flaws are proof that God is real, the inability to observe, test, and reproduce results mean it is not a science but an interpretational belief based on our current world - which would make it on par with creationism. Time is macro's fallback, and God is creationism's fallback. Neither have evidence - I simply believe intelligent design is much more likely (and I don't have enough faith to believe in luck).

At 11/7/11 10:56 AM, EmmaVolt wrote: First off, whether or not Macroevolution is true, it wouldn't disprove God. So, I don't see why you are wasting your time in an argument of this nature.

True.

Secondly, microevolution is an undeniable fact, but "theories" of macroevolution has yet to produce non-interpretational evidence. The fossil record is not evidence for macroevolution - considering the lack of (yes, I'm going to say it) missing links. Plus, finding a fossil is only proof that the animal existed and died - you cannot prove that it had any children with beneficial mutations (as implausible as this is) and, you cannot prove that those children survived and passed those genes on.

I will have to disagree with this point here. The nature of macro evolution doesn't necessarily mean that species A will be going along for millenia and then Species B just plops out one day and takes over. The differences usually happen at an infantesmal rate. By the time the difference becomes noticeable, another species has already been created. When you combine this with the tremendously low percentage of animals' fossils we find (think decimal, then lots of zeroes, then a 1) these subtle change are likely to be missed.

While I don't agree that macroevolution's flaws are proof that God is real, the inability to observe, test, and reproduce results mean it is not a science but an interpretational belief based on our current world - which would make it on par with creationism. Time is macro's fallback, and God is creationism's fallback. Neither have evidence - I simply believe intelligent design is much more likely (and I don't have enough faith to believe in luck).

In other words, both are theories, and theories by their very nature are not proven, and thus open themselves to gap fillers. The more complex the theory, the larger the gaps, and the stronger the filler.

I can;t be assed to read all this post, so sorry if this has already ben said. But evolution does not mean survival fo the fittest. It means the one that survives affects the future genes of the race. Not nessecarily the best one survives. Mathmaticaly, the best suited to survive, is almost defintly more likely yort die than survive, compared to all its rivals.

In other words

10 dogs, all with a equal 10% chance of survival.

Dog X has a 19% more chance of suriviing, due to its baddass lergs or somthing

Dog X has a 20% chance of surviving
Therefore it has a 80% chance of not surviving. One of its competitors will mroe likely survive.

At 11/7/11 11:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/7/11 10:56 AM, EmmaVolt wrote: Secondly, microevolution is an undeniable fact, but "theories" of macroevolution has yet to produce non-interpretational evidence. The fossil record is not evidence for macroevolution - considering the lack of (yes, I'm going to say it) missing links. Plus, finding a fossil is only proof that the animal existed and died - you cannot prove that it had any children with beneficial mutations (as implausible as this is) and, you cannot prove that those children survived and passed those genes on.

I will have to disagree with this point here. The nature of macro evolution doesn't necessarily mean that species A will be going along for millenia and then Species B just plops out one day and takes over.

Well I know, but I'm saying it's not a smart idea to be arguing for macroevolution using the fossil record given it's limited discoveries and the fact that there is no way to prove or disprove species A giving birth to species "A-A-A-B", "A-mutated", etc. The fossil is only proof that animal A died - not that the entire species died and not that the species was mutating beneficially into species B.

When you combine this with the tremendously low percentage of animals' fossils we find (think decimal, then lots of zeroes, then a 1) these subtle change are likely to be missed.

Right. So, I can't see how this would be a scientific theory if we develop a conclusion without a bit of observation or evidence (Species B came from Species A with no visible evidence). Macroevolution "studies" are basically done in reverse scientific method - which is part of the reason there is so much controversy and creationism has not yet gone extinct. We attempt to find evidence for an idea, rather than develop an idea based upon evidence (this would be a legitimate theory).

While I don't agree that macroevolution's flaws are proof that God is real, the inability to observe, test, and reproduce results mean it is not a science but an interpretational belief based on our current world - which would make it on par with creationism. Time is macro's fallback, and God is creationism's fallback. Neither have evidence - I simply believe intelligent design is much more likely (and I don't have enough faith to believe in luck).

In other words, both are theories, and theories by their very nature are not proven, and thus open themselves to gap fillers. The more complex the theory, the larger the gaps, and the stronger the filler.

Not necessarily. Along with what I said above, neither are theories because both derive a conclusion from evidence that is assumed and not observed (interpretations). Even if we had some sort of reliable historic record of humans observing Species A becoming Species B, or a record of humans observing the creation of Species A and Species B (both scenarios are impossible based on each idea's premise), neither would be a credible theory because of the infinite number of variables and inability to reproduce them.

At 11/7/11 12:09 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Macroevolution "studies" are basically done in reverse scientific method - which is part of the reason there is so much controversy and creationism has not yet gone extinct. We attempt to find evidence for an idea, rather than develop an idea based upon evidence (this would be a legitimate theory).

not really, considering that while what becomes fossilized is only a small percentage of life that was present at any given time, there is still more than enough to allow for an understanding of flora and fauna of the past. between individual remains and the masses found in death traps or other accumulation of organisms, there is one hell of a lot to establish the prevalence of certain species within a certain area and time and the differences between other specimen from other areas and times.

modern biodiversity surveys operate on the same sampling principle, which is why we don't seek to study every single example of every species, but rather observe what would be equivalent to the 0.000...001 percent alluded to earlier.

At 11/7/11 04:20 PM, SolInvictus wrote: considering that while what becomes fossilized is only a small percentage of life that was present at any given time, there is still more than enough to allow for an understanding of flora and fauna of the past. between individual remains and the masses found in death traps or other accumulation of organisms, there is one hell of a lot to establish the prevalence of certain species within a certain area and time and the differences between other specimen from other areas and times.

Regardless, this does nothing to promote macroevolution (or even micro for that matter), and still remains a conclusion-to-observational study (interpretation / not science).

At 11/7/11 04:47 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Regardless, this does nothing to promote macroevolution (or even micro for that matter), and still remains a conclusion-to-observational study (interpretation / not science).

...i just presented a scenario in which conclusions are deduced from findings and comparison, but apparently that's irrelevant. fancy.

At 11/7/11 04:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/7/11 04:47 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Regardless, this does nothing to promote macroevolution (or even micro for that matter), and still remains a conclusion-to-observational study (interpretation / not science).

...i just presented a scenario in which conclusions are deduced from findings and comparison, but apparently that's irrelevant. fancy.

Oh okay, let me rephrase:

What you said does nothing to promote macroevolution - simply supports the idea that similar animals and plants lived and died in similar places.

At 11/7/11 02:36 AM, Sleepyx13 wrote: Jedi-Master wrote:

And what exactly was ignorant about what I was saying?

You are right, excuse my mistake.
How can you say someone is not brillant because of their beliefs?

Because someone who hold delusions that the Earth was magically created and so were humans doesn't seem to be too bright.

There is something fundamentally wrong with describing someone such as William Lane Craig "as a brilliant man who advocates creationism."

At 11/8/11 12:58 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Because someone who hold delusions that the Earth was magically created and so were humans doesn't seem to be too bright.

Someone who doesn't understand the value and significance of religion doesn't seem too bright.

At 11/7/11 10:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: What you said does nothing to promote macroevolution - simply supports the idea that similar animals and plants lived and died in similar places.

but isn't that the issue? the fossil records provide an accurate timeline of species existence and change over time (isn't that whats meant by transitional fossils?). non of it supports original coexistence of all creatures following spontaneous, full-form creation, but rather continuous change through space and time; processes still observable today (i doubt you're arguing that the world works differently today).

There's also the problem that fossilization only occurs under certain conditions, and that very few organisms leave behind fossil evidence after their demise, meaning that if you're going to assert that all creatures existed simultaneously at the beginning, You'll have the impossible task of explaining to us how there was anywhere near enough space on the planet for them to occupy. It would make the population density crisis in Tokyo look like child's play.

At 11/8/11 02:17 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/7/11 10:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: What you said does nothing to promote macroevolution - simply supports the idea that similar animals and plants lived and died in similar places.

but isn't that the issue?

No. Similar life cycles do not suggest the species in question became something else entirely - simply that it died. Anything beyond this is an interpretation not based on observation or evidence.

non of it supports original coexistence of all creatures following spontaneous, full-form creation, but rather continuous change through space and time;

I don't believe the creation story (contextually) suggests that everything we see today was on Earth immediately. It only asserts that types of species (ie: dogs, cats, elephants, bugs, fish) were on Earth at the same time. Then, those types evolved (micro) via natural selection and deletion mutations into the animals we have today. Given this, and the suggestion of a worldwide flood, the fossil record is still not an effective argument in favor or against macroevolution. Sabertooth Tigers and Woolly Mammoths were still tigers and elephants - simply with additional information in their genes that we do not (and probably will never) see naturally in today's world.

**Another example: Chihuahuas were not created, but the elements that allow them to exist were in the gene pool at the time of creation.

(i doubt you're arguing that the world works differently today)

Actually, some elements of today's Earth are different than those of early Earth. For instance, there was a much higher concentration of oxygen, coupled with a much higher air pressure. This would have allowed for stronger organisms - especially dinosaurs. This is supported by the brontosaurus (?), who had abnormally small nostrils that would not have allowed efficient breathing in today's world to sustain life.

But, in terms of laws of nature, you are correct. I believe all laws have been consistent since creation.

At 11/8/11 04:38 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

No. Similar life cycles do not suggest the species in question became something else entirely - simply that it died. Anything beyond this is an interpretation not based on observation or evidence.

It does when you show the rise of a population that shares common genetic ancestry with the creature in question, the remains of which are localized to the era and region which predates the previously mentioned population.

Others you would be insisting that after a certain species went instinct, it's genetic history can reappear again in another species after the extinction event, which by the very definition of genetic lineage, is impossible.

I don't believe the creation story (contextually) suggests that everything we see today was on Earth immediately. It only asserts that types of species (ie: dogs, cats, elephants, bugs, fish) were on Earth at the same time.

"Kinds of species" is not a valid taxonomy. Creationists tend to lump all birds into the same "kind of species" because they share wings, feathers and most of them fly. This doesn't actually provide any sort solid classification structure, as a descendant of the bird may well turn out to be a featherless dove that flies by expelling hot gas from a bladder, and by order of ancestry and indeed according to the creationist's insistence that dogs only ever give birth to dogs, this bizarre organism would have to be classified as a bird even though it directly violates the taxonomy system proposed by creationists that is determined by "kinds of animal".

Evolutionary biology doesn't do this, and instead deals with nested hierarchies, where there's fundamental reasons why we call certain creatures birds, not because they simply "look like birds".

Then, those types evolved (micro) via natural selection and deletion mutations into the animals we have today.

You're talking about mutation rates that would have to be so fast that tiny ancient primates would have to be squeezing gorillas through their birth canal just to keep up. Bollocks.

Given this, and the suggestion of a worldwide flood

First of, where is there evidence of a worldwide flood (not just a particularly devastating disaster along the Nile or something), and if it did exist, why would have any bearing on macro-evolution (or as I like to call it, Evolution) vs micro-evolution (or as I like to call it, Evolution)? Where is the arbitrary genetic limit that stops speciation? Where in the genetic code is there something that limits from macro-evolving if they're capable of micro-evolving?

It's a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist, because speciation happens and that is all that is required for macro-evolution to be valid.

the fossil record is still not an effective argument in favor or against macroevolution.

Except when it is. Which is to say, always.

At 11/8/11 04:38 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Sabertooth Tigers and Woolly Mammoths were still tigers and elephants - simply with additional information in their genes that we do not (and probably will never) see naturally in today's world.

as Famas pointed out, you're making a hell of a lot of mistakes about what species are, or just muddling whole taxonomic families together. to start clearing things up 'sabertooth tigers' can refer to any number of ancient long-toothed cats or marsupials, whereas the following picture should illustrate the enormous differences in lineages between 'elephants'.

oh wow, that pic doesn't work with a grey background. found it here.

Jedi-Master wrote
Because someone who hold delusions that the Earth was magically created and so were humans doesn't seem to be too bright.
There is something fundamentally wrong with describing someone such as William Lane Craig "as a brilliant man who advocates creationism."

You aren't taking into account other factors why people believe in a deity. What if fear is the reason some people take up religion? Is it wrong to be a comepletely rational person and fear death so much you hope for an afterlife? I fear death, don't you? I think it's safe to say we all fear the unknown, because we truly do not know what happens after death whether your christian or atheist. Most religions believe in an after life but if your were to threaten their life I bet you they will breakdown.

At 11/8/11 07:36 PM, Sleepyx13 wrote:

You aren't taking into account other factors why people believe in a deity. What if fear is the reason some people take up religion? Is it wrong to be a comepletely rational person and fear death so much you hope for an afterlife?

No, it isn't rational, because not only would eternal existence not be a pleasant one (your perception of time, relation and experience being completely warped as more and more time progresses at a seemingly exponential rate. No experience would be a unique one, because when faced with the fact that you have an eternity more to experience, the semantic meaning you assign to each experience would be broken and worthless) , it doesn't change the fact that you will die.

I fear death, don't you?

When it's possible I could be killed or injured, yes. When I'm eating, sleeping, having sex or going for a jog, no. I think that's perfectly reasonable. I do my best to avoid the looming danger of death and keep it at bay, however consciously I have accepted that my own demise is inevitable. As a rather pragmatic person, I don't come to the realization that I will eventually die and then invent some sort of reasoning to make me comfortable with that fact, I instead invest my time in actually addressing the problem as much as possible with things like science and engineering.

Beyond that, it's out of my control, so why waste the neurons obsessing about it?

I think it's safe to say we all fear the unknown, because we truly do not know what happens after death whether your christian or atheist. Most religions believe in an after life but if your were to threaten their life I bet you they will breakdown.

I think you'll find there's plenty of us who give absolutely no regard to what happens to us when we die. Indeed, a good deal of the secularists I know would protest that the answer is right there in the question: we die.

The question really only becomes an actual question when it's extended to operate under the assumption that there is such thing as a soul, which again, I could give two shits about souls and as far as I'm concerned it's a term that is synonymous with 'magic pixie dust'.

At 11/7/11 11:38 AM, pupot wrote: I can;t be assed to read all this post, so sorry if this has already ben said. But evolution does not mean survival fo the fittest. It means the one that survives affects the future genes of the race. Not nessecarily the best one survives. Mathmaticaly, the best suited to survive, is almost defintly more likely yort die than survive, compared to all its rivals.

In other words

10 dogs, all with a equal 10% chance of survival.

Dog X has a 19% more chance of suriviing, due to its baddass lergs or somthing

Dog X has a 20% chance of surviving
Therefore it has a 80% chance of not surviving. One of its competitors will mroe likely survive.

This is what I was trying to say. This is the basis for how evolution works. In my opinion, this is evolution. Pure, raw statistics. Chance over time. rand/t

Now what I think the argument here is about is the question of "who or what rolled the dice?" Science can explain the processes of evolution well enough, but there are holes in our knowledge and understanding of how the processes began. Keeping with the dice analogy, imagine being at craps table. Something distracts you from the game right as the dice are thrown from one end of the table to the other. By the time you are able to look at the dice, they are just coming to rest and rolling over one last time before the result is visible.
The dice represents a species with the table being the universe.
The motion of the dice while flying through the air and rolling on the table represents the processes of evolution. Us trying to measure the air turbulence and sounds the dice make while moving is our attempt to find out where dice were thrown from. Trouble is, we didn't actually see the dice move, so we can't make a direct measurement, which would easily tell us which person at the craps table threw it. Let's say there are 3 people: 1 for god, 1 for intelligent design (aliens?), and 1 for the random chance that the randomness of the universe randomly created something that could self-organize and no longer be random (life made itself). For us to determine who threw it, we have to measure the echos and wake the dice left behind. This adds compounding levels of uncertainty as time passes after the dice were thrown. It becomes harder and harder to pick out the echos from the background noise as our tools are only so sensitive at the moment. So really, in my opinion, we cannot say with any certainty that any particular one threw it. But because of the laws of physics and obeying logic, someone had to have thrown it. With my beliefs on logic, all three threw it. You can never show something to be 100% false. That would require an infinite amount of time to observe that it never happens. On the counter-point of that logic, you can never show something to be true all the time, either, for that would also require infinite time to observe a truth to be contradicted. To my reasoning, contradiction and false are two different things. A contradiction means there was an error in a given truth; declaring it false means every part of the truth is false, not just a part. So with that, because there is no way to show something 100% false and it takes an infinite amount of time to declare something true, the statement "Life is a product of god, intelligent design, and randomness" is true until some evidence can logically show "a proof by contradiction" that "Life is not a product of X"

Q.E.D.

I think you'll find there's plenty of us who give absolutely no regard to what happens to us when we die.

Maybe jigsaw should pay you a visit since you don't appreciate life enough to be afraid to lose it.

At 11/9/11 07:05 PM, Sleepyx13 wrote:

Maybe jigsaw should pay you a visit since you don't appreciate life enough to be afraid to lose it.

Or maybe he shouldn't because I have a healthy respect for the forces of nature, which includes death.

At 11/9/11 07:31 PM, Famas wrote:

At 11/9/11 07:05 PM, Sleepyx13 wrote:

Maybe jigsaw should pay you a visit since you don't appreciate life enough to be afraid to lose it.

Or maybe he shouldn't because I have a healthy respect for the forces of nature, which includes death.

We should not derail the evolution thread into an afterlife thread. Some people may be more comfortable with death than others. For your reading pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential ism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(ex istential)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment _(existentialism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticit y_(philosophy)

Back to evolution...

Is there any logic flaw with my dice analogy? "Everything is true until contradicted." That is a summary of my logical viewpoint.

At 11/9/11 08:54 PM, Tydusis wrote:

:For your reading pleasure:

Thanks for linking to wikipedia articles that are essentially the perverted sparknotes versions of concepts covered in rudimentary philosophy courses that most people take within their first year of college, I guess.

Is there any logic flaw with my dice analogy? "Everything is true until contradicted." That is a summary of my logical viewpoint.

Yes. There's the fact that it's extremely unwieldy and doesn't illustrate what you're trying to say clearly. As far as the underlying logical problem of your analogy, something isn't true simply as a result of its declaration. The status of 'truth' is obtained after sufficient induction is performed in order to present a satisfactory conclusion. 'Truth' is not a default status; that is to say, that simply because a claim hasn't been sufficiently shown to be false does not mean the claim is true, nor is a claim that goes unchallenged for any reason.

And then you drop this bomb:

You can never show something to be 100% false.

Which is drivel. Falsifiability is not only a perfectly doable concept, the entire realm of scientific conjecture utilizes it. Virtually any claim in science that is not able to be falsified is considered worthless. Would you not agree that we have proven that there is no casual link between vaccinations and autism? Or that we have sufficiently shown the Earth is not flat? Or the moon made of cheese?

There's very little of what could be considered actual logic in what you posted.

At 11/8/11 12:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/8/11 12:58 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Because someone who hold delusions that the Earth was magically created and so were humans doesn't seem to be too bright.

Someone who doesn't understand the value and significance of religion doesn't seem too bright.

Religion is so prevalent that almost no one fails to see the "value and significance" of it. And besides, the subject of the value of religion is contentious anyway; that subject can be argued to death. What is indisputable, however, is the significance of religion in history. Whether religion has had a generally positive or negative impact on human history today is also a contentious subject.

At 11/8/11 07:36 PM, Sleepyx13 wrote:

You aren't taking into account other factors why people believe in a deity. What if fear is the reason some people take up religion? Is it wrong to be a comepletely rational person and fear death so much you hope for an afterlife?

It's not wrong. Still, belief in the afterlife doesn't entail a belief in creationism.

I fear death, don't you?

No. There's nothing wrong with fearing death itself, though.

I'm not trying to sound like some bad ass, but death is nothing to be afraid of. I am, however, afraid of dying in certain ways, such as by a gunshot wound or by a stabbing.

I think it's safe to say we all fear the unknown, because we truly do not know what happens after death whether your christian or atheist. Most religions believe in an after life but if your were to threaten their life I bet you they will breakdown.

True.

Oddly enough, I feared death when I was a Christian, and yet I don't fear it now. It's actually relieving not to have to worry about the afterlife if one doesn't believe in it. Still, if there is one, then I'm probably doomed to suffer. Then again, it all depends on which afterlife, if any, is the one that truly exists.