the two categroy mistake

[Abelard]

Others and I here have shown the fatuity of religion so that is can only make one feel good at most . .

And feeling good is less than a real experience? Some people pay a lot of money to feel good.

And you said religion at best is just a placebo. Well, the placebo effect is not imaginary. People really do get well simply from the power of belief!

[Sir Meep]

Oi?! I sense a bit of argument ad hominem here... if one is to charge their opponents with irrationality, it would be best of them to substantiate such charges.

Others and I here have shown the fatuity of religion so that is can only make one feel good at most .

And you're just an atheist because you're afraid of facing judgment, and you've simply written off all of the proofs for theism due to suppressin' the truth in unrighteousness...

Psychologizing one's opponent can go both ways, till the ends of days.

Why not instead, show how Christianity is 1) an inconsistent belief system, or 2) show that it does not conform to the observed facts of reality, if you really want to make an impression? From your posts, I gather you're quite well-read in skeptical literature. Why not present some of their arguments for us to evaluate instead of crying wolf whenever one challenges your assumptions?

If you don't think that dualism is tenable, why not? What reasons underlie your disbelief in the supernatural? Can you formulate an argument that is ultimately, any less circular than ours?

How absurd of a blatant irrationalist to insist that I am irrational here! Typical remarks from someone who refuses to understand our points and insists on fundamentalism. We end debate now .

Such vitriol and complete a priori disregard for the thoughts of others that contradict one's fundamental assumptions... are you entirely sure that you have completely escaped from a fundamentalist mindset yourself? It seems that only one of a fundamentalist mind-set would not even give consideration to arguments that oppose one's position.

Comon' Griggsy. I know you can do better than this... if you've got arguments to offer, bring em' to the table. I'd love to see what you could reproduce of Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Bertrand Russell and the like's works and argumentation. The only way to test our beliefs is to see if whether they can hold together or not against scrutiny, eh (whether Christianity, atheism, or otherwise)? ^_~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. By the way, what's with all the pictures of yourself that you're posting in every thread, here... this is kinda freaky...

[Griggsy]

Oi?! I sense a bit of argument ad hominem here... if one is to charge their opponents with irrationality, it would be best of them to substantiate such charges.



And you're just an atheist because you're afraid of facing judgment, and you've simply written off all of the proofs for theism due to suppressin' the truth in unrighteousness...

Psychologizing one's opponent can go both ways, till the ends of days.

Why not instead, show how Christianity is 1) an inconsistent belief system, or 2) show that it does not conform to the observed facts of reality, if you really want to make an impression? From your posts, I gather you're quite well-read in skeptical literature. Why not present some of their arguments for us to evaluate instead of crying wolf whenever one challenges your assumptions?

If you don't think that dualism is tenable, why not? What reasons underlie your disbelief in the supernatural? Can you formulate an argument that is ultimately, any less circular than ours?



Such vitriol and complete a priori disregard for the thoughts of others that contradict one's fundamental assumptions... are you entirely sure that you have completely escaped from a fundamentalist mindset yourself? It seems that only one of a fundamentalist mind-set would not even give consideration to arguments that oppose one's position.

Comon' Griggsy. I know you can do better than this... if you've got arguments to offer, bring em' to the table. I'd love to see what you could reproduce of Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Bertrand Russell and the like's works and argumentation. The only way to test our beliefs is to see if whether they can hold together or not against scrutiny, eh (whether Christianity, atheism, or otherwise)? ^_~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. By the way, what's with all the pictures of yourself that you're posting in every thread, here... this is kinda freaky...

Sir Meep, as I stated I had already given arguments .I welcome other opinions that are not question begging. My last comment is what I find about the type of person I was arguing against. It was justified anger! Thanks for mentioning those fine authors! Thanks for the comments and I will hold my anger now that I have expressed it once . I just thought I would let others see me at different life stages. Enough of that as you well say! I will do as you say about adapting comments from those authors. Please do challenge the fundamentalists. Bless you.

[Griggsy]

And feeling good is less than a real experience? Some people pay a lot of money to feel good.

And you said religion at best is just a placebo. Well, the placebo effect is not imaginary. People really do get well simply from the power of belief!

Certainly they do, but one can live quite well without this one . As Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" says:Natural selection not only explains the whole of life; it also raised our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance....Who before Darwin , could have guessed that something so apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really the end product of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?" Read Frederick Crew's "The Follies of the Wise" for more on why theistic evolution is a sham .If the god of the theistic evolutionist is not a god of the gaps, how can it play a role in the cosmos? How does it sustain the cosmos?

[Griggsy]

And feeling good is less than a real experience? Some people pay a lot of money to feel good.

And you said religion at best is just a placebo. Well, the placebo effect is not imaginary. People really do get well simply from the power of belief!

Sure , but they don't need this one! To quote Keith Parsons: " Occult powers wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way for unfathomable purposes just do not seem to be the basis for any sort of a good explanation. Theistic ' explanations' therefore only seem to serve the purpose of hiding our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf" So the god notion makes worse what it was to render intelligible! The notion is just God wills what He wills , a tautology . Why not ,without special pleading, accept on faith other religions? Thor probaly made many happy. And what about Mahayana Buddhism which has no gods ,but karma and reincarnation. Why not those placebos? Zorathruster knows religion.

[Griggsy]

And feeling good is less than a real experience? Some people pay a lot of money to feel good.

And you said religion at best is just a placebo. Well, the placebo effect is not imaginary. People really do get well simply from the power of belief!

I have given enough to demonstrate that the god notion fails. So have others here. We would like to see arguments made for a god not to include logical fallacies. Certainlly ,people get power from this placebo but they can get the power from better sources,such as other groups and reason.

[FreezBee]

I have given enough to demonstrate that the god notion fails. So have others here. We would like to see arguments made for a god not to include logical fallacies. Certainlly ,people get power from this placebo but they can get the power from better sources,such as other groups and reason.

Hi Griggsy!

Ok, so it's here it's snowing.

Yes, we can get the power from better sources, such as other groups. Reason doesn't give you any power, since reason simply tells you it'd not worth the effort, so reason makes you powerless really.

Group dynamics gets all the attention these days, and from that dynamo you can get all the power you need.

The only thing is: what if you are not a member of any group, where are you then going to get your dynamics?


- FreezBee

[Griggsy]

Hi Griggsy!

Ok, so it's here it's snowing.

Yes, we can get the power from better sources, such as other groups. Reason doesn't give you any power, since reason simply tells you it'd not worth the effort, so reason makes you powerless really.

Group dynamics gets all the attention these days, and from that dynamo you can get all the power you need.

The only thing is: what if you are not a member of any group, where are you then going to get your dynamics?


- FreezBee

If one uses her reason, she stays out of more trouble and gets satisfaction for doing things better and arriving at provisional truth,not Truth .

[Calminian]

Evolution is mindless and needs no help from a mind.

I may not be completely understanding the OP, but I think I may actually agree with him in a sense. I think all scientific theories must be mindless by their very nature, in the sense that they can only deal in regularities that are predictable and repeatable. Mindful purposeful choices just don't cooperate in this manner, be lt the mind of men or the mind of God. Even if freewill (LFW) doesn't exist, we still don't have be ability predict human decisions to the extent that we can predict mindless motions of objects in space (for lack of a better example). There are some predictable elements in human behavior, but for the most part it is vastly unpredictable, especially when you get down to the daily choices people make.

Teleoligy presumes a mind in control.

More precisely it presupposes the possibility of purposeful causality. This seems to be a rational philosophical presupposition. But a good scientific one?

As a christian I’m struggling with the current direction of the origins debate. More and more I’m seeing science as a very closed system that necessarily must operate under the assumption of naturalism (even mindlessness). As a method it can never verify or falsify this assumption, it can merely draw conclusions based on it. Yet there seems to be a push among creationists to found a science that somehow verifies non-regularities like purposeful human choices and even purposeful divine choices. I fear this to be a losing battle as it makes science into something it’s not. Instead of recognizing science to be a limited closed method that may not always be the right tool, we elevate it to the ultimate epistemology. Science is a wonderful thing when kept within its limitations. But can it really tell us about purpose, morality, even design? Theistic science? Teleological science? Just not following.

[zorathruster]

If you don't think that dualism is tenable, why not? What reasons underlie your disbelief in the supernatural?

There are numerous inconsistencies in the described supernaturalism. First off the interaction between the natural and supernatural is supposedly governed in some fashion by the most complex entity ever proposed. This in turn should result in an observed consistency in the affects of those interactions. Consistency is an attribute which reflects the basic character of the entity. If I say I am moral, I am saying that I am consistently moral and not that I am moral in a particular instance.

If the supernatural were consistent then prayers would consistently be answered. After having prayed over numerous Lottery tickets, I can assure you that there is no relationship between prayer and results. Since there is no consistency (either my lottery ticket or even praying for various health alternatives) that casts doubt on either the supernatural having any affect on the natural or possibly the entity that is proposed is not consistent.

If the supernatual doesn't impose on the natural, there is no reason to assert it because of the rule of parsimony.

If the entity is inconsistent, then there is no reason to laud or worship such a being because there can be no faith in consistent results from such an entity.

Either way supernaturalism becomes irrelevant to natural beings.

[Griggsy]

The late dean of biologists ,Ernst Mayr , noted that teleology has no place in natural selection .See his ' What Evolution is ." ' The frequency of extinction of evolutionary lineages, as well as their frequent changes in direction , is inconsistent with the mistaken claim that selection is a teological process." Sir Meep ,yes, it violates the razor[ see the ignotist and Occam thread ]. Add me to your buddy list if you are in general agreement with me.. I added several people to mine .

[Griggsy]

'[P]utting the future into the past, the effect before the cause, teleology negates time" That is it implies backwards causation.Natural selection shows that "Natural events take place sequentially.Events occur only as other events allow them to occur, not as preordained goals or purposes.And teleology violates the razor. [Please let me know if I am on anyone's buddy list.Check out mine.Thanks.Also, another good friendly place is Planet Wisdom.Naturalists please check it out!]

[Griggsy]

Now if one insists on God without violating the razor,how might one do so? I find that it also works for naturalism otherwise.

[Griggsy]

Prof. Jerry Coyne takes on theistic evolution in the New Rwpublic. He notes that they find God tweaking the evolutinary process.but as I note previously, there is no cosmic teleology. Karl Giberson and Kenneth Miller try to find God in the matter of connvergence; while eyes evolved indepently forty times, our level of consciousness only developed once. Why not single out the elephant as an animal , with which another species could converge. No they insitst on us human animals as the only species wanted. As noted in Skeptic magazine, had it not been for the meteor causing the demise of the dinosaurs, no other being would have converged to be like us. Neanderthal was not on the verge of being on our level and monkeys will never evolove to be so
They beg the question [ Ah, that bane1 ]assuming the that some divinity had us in mind rather than our being just the product of natural processes. 'This evolution is not a repeatable experiment....Infact, there are good reasons that the evolution of humanoids was not only inevitable, but improbable.
Miller thinks that God "{influence[s] events in ways that are profound,but scientifcally undetectable to us." This is akin to Michael Behe's seeing God as tweking the DNA. Both thus use the god-of-the- gaps argument!
Theistic evolutionists use the fine-tuning argument, based on the anthropic principle that the constants were so arranged that life had to evolove.; again this begs the question as all teleological arguments so do - design, probability, and from reason.They have it backwards: we resulted from natural processes -unplannned-in accordance with those constants rather than some divint mind put them there in order to produce us [ planned].
Lee Smolin argues for the bounce theory " that quntum effects vemove that singularity to cause the universe to expand again ." Ther is evidence for this. So , there would be no wonder that some universe would produce llfe. However, even without this multivrse theory, the anthropic priciples fail.
Theists should face the fact that acientists can test to see if there is God! They find no cosmic teleology from the weight of evidence: thus the atelic argument that that weight shows , in effect, no god. They find that prayer is post hoc [ ciincidental] and miracles are natural phenomena. Historians and archeologists find no basis for much of the history of the Bible. Were there nothing, then God would be required. Were there not unfiromity in the laws of nature, then He would be required. So, states Victor Stenger in 'God: the failed Hypothesis."
Coyne wants to know why should one "accept the birth and resurrection of Christ, which are eqaully at odds with science.' He notes the cognitive dissonance of theistic scientists- " [a]ccepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double:...
rational on the origin of blood -clotting , irrrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgine births."
The tension is between religion and secular reason." Theistic evolutionist theologians can see a harmony betwen religion and science in that their notion of God differs from that of most others.
As this harmonization cannot work, more books will come about alleging that it is possible. The wide creationists- theistic evolutionists- aid in combatting narrow creationists, so we do value those efforts.
And I add, we appreciate the efforts of Eugenie C. Scott and Michael Ruse , but as Dawkins notes, they are the Chamberlains in their accomodation with wide creationsits. They can maintain that from the side of religion [that tactic] that their is harmony but not from the side of science and they should not contemn our efforts to show the truth of the incompatability of science and religion.
Now some theistic evolutionists do not posit God as interrering. Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, reveals that God is neither a person,nor an entity nor a principle but the explanation os why things are as they are. As neither a person nor a principle, God cannot act as that explanation! This affirms ignosticism.
Viking has just published Coyne's "Why Evolution is True."
That we are the product of no purposeful Nature does not lead to the non sequitur that thus we have no purpose,because we make our own. Our Sally Field life, human love and purposes suffice; one would be braying at the Mooon, Albert Ellis would have said in lamenting no future state and no divine love and purpose for us [ See his 'The Myth of Self-Esteem.].
See the new thread arguments about God [ title of book by Graham Robert Oppy].

[Howze]

Prof. Jerry Coyne takes on theistic evolution in the New Rwpublic. He notes that they find God tweaking the evolutinary process.but as I note previously, there is no cosmic teleology. ........ See the new thread arguments about God [ title of book by Graham Robert Oppy].

Doesn't all this beg the question of materialism being true? If it is all these atheists are correct. I mean if space-time is all that there is to existance, of course there is no God! God clearly cannot be defined in the observable universe.

The argument goes like this
1. Space-time is all we observe
2. We haven't observed God
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The fallacy of this seems obvious to me, the creator/planner of the universe is going to trancend the universe, much in the same way that we trancend a computer.

In my Determinism thread I tried making the point about if everything ultimately has a cause then nothing is ever due to 'chance'. Everything we see here is the result of the initial conditions of the universe. Doesn't it strike you as curious that this universe was 'set-up' to result in us?