tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2998933213817863723..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Ricky Gervais explains atheismLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30168725887739595852017-02-08T17:58:13.741-05:002017-02-08T17:58:13.741-05:00Thank you Larry.
Just because YOU can't seem...Thank you Larry. <br /><br />Just because YOU can't seem to see any evidence for gods one would hope that a scientist of your caliber would turn to evolution just because there were no other options available... Really?<br /><br /><br />Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78538597260583225782017-02-06T20:00:10.746-05:002017-02-06T20:00:10.746-05:00To me scientific truth is great, I love it, but it...<i>To me scientific truth is great, I love it, but it's just part of the whole story.</i><br /><br />What's the rest of the story?<br /><br /><i>I meant to say that I do not like scientists trying to make a war to anything that is not within the scope of science.</i><br /><br />Who does that? Give some examples so I know what you're talking about. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19779482213945398442017-02-06T18:15:49.210-05:002017-02-06T18:15:49.210-05:00Lutesuite: it seems like you are trying to put me ...Lutesuite: it seems like you are trying to put me against science, which I am absolutely not. To me scientific truth is great, I love it, but it's just part of the whole story. I meant to say that I do not like scientists trying to make a war to anything that is not within the scope of science. I respect that people has that opinion, but wanted to highlight that is just that, an opinion, or a belief if you want. That's my opinion. I am not going to try to demonstrate that there is something more than what can be demonstrated, that would not be very wise.Federico Abascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10122081847965890500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3148707074162297932017-02-06T12:49:54.375-05:002017-02-06T12:49:54.375-05:00Your faith is much greater than people who notice ...<i>Your faith is much greater than people who notice that Bible prophecies are reliable.</i><br /><br />Everyone knows that people were much better off when they relied more on the Bible than they have ever been when relying on stupid old science. Who needs flush toilets, the computer and Internet tx uses to post here - say, tx, why are you using the tools of Demon Science that are prophesied nowhere in the Bible?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89919507894707936572017-02-06T11:51:00.353-05:002017-02-06T11:51:00.353-05:00As I thought, Federico. You won't even try to...As I thought, Federico. You won't even try to answer my question. <br /><br />I repeat that reason is part of the scientific method, so it makes no sense to try and oppose them.<br /><br />If people want to spend their time questioning "why" they exist, that's their business. I have no skin in that game. It would seem to me, however, that the first order of business should be to establish that there must be a reason for our existence in the first place. I'm not sure how one does that. <br /><br /><i>I think science is best at sticking to what it can test and answer.</i><br /><br />Which it does, by and large. Can you provide any examples where it has not?<br /><br />I'd say that faith is also "best at sticking to what it can test and answer." But it seems there is <i>nothing</i> it can test and answer.<br /> Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62481638372444239832017-02-06T11:25:49.510-05:002017-02-06T11:25:49.510-05:00For example, some scientists disregard questions a...<i>For example, some scientists disregard questions asked by philosophers (or just people) just because those questions cannot be tested with the scientific method.</i><br /><br />The question to ask is whether any of those questions can be tested by some other method. Can they? What method? How?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11028952702059084302017-02-06T10:27:48.871-05:002017-02-06T10:27:48.871-05:00How hard has Newbie tried to disprove it?
Indeed,...<i>How hard has Newbie tried to disprove it?</i><br /><br />Indeed, how hard has Newbie thought about the moral implications of the fact that the game is rigged against this "adversary," and only what the infinitely loving, all-merciful and all-powerful God permits can come to pass? (Since if anything he did not permit came to pass, he would not be all-powerful.) Such foundations of morality are supposedly all we have to fall back on, since, y'know, science can tell us nothing about morality. (A commonly repeated and believed but untrue statement. Lots of *very* interesting research about babies' moral "compasses" has been reported that is quite enlightening.)judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88137793380827763282017-02-06T10:19:24.316-05:002017-02-06T10:19:24.316-05:00Isn't it licit to try to answer why we exist? ...<i>Isn't it licit to try to answer why we exist? Is there a reason?</i><br /><br />Sure, if you are interested. I understand some people are dumbfounded that anyone could not be interested in this question, but if I see no evidence of a specific purpose or reason (your second sentence that I quoted), then the answer becomes no more or less interesting than the ending of a television series: You may have an emotional investment in the answer, but to me it is fiction and has nothing to do with reality.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20300953804775159202017-02-06T09:51:02.927-05:002017-02-06T09:51:02.927-05:00Lutesuite, we can pick examples from the personal ...Lutesuite, we can pick examples from the personal sphere, but I guess it won't help much in the debate. May be we feel more comfortable if we compare the scientific and reason "spheres". For example, some scientists disregard questions asked by philosophers (or just people) just because those questions cannot be tested with the scientific method. Isn't it licit to try to answer why we exist? Is there a reason? I know the scientificism answer, no need to reply. I think science is best at sticking to what it can test and answer.<br />Federico Abascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10122081847965890500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9754434121868750422017-02-06T09:47:41.744-05:002017-02-06T09:47:41.744-05:00An important part of what makes the scientific met...An important part of what makes the scientific method the only way of knowing that we have is that it requires that one created hypotheses that can be disproven, and then actively attempt to disprove them.<br /><br />"Newbie's" post is a perfect example of how faith fails to do so, and why it is therefore not a way of knowing. How could one disprove his hypothesis that "The prevalence of worship of many gods today could be partially explained by the fact that Satan is a god of this system of things or this world (2 Co 4:4) the adversary of the true God." How hard has Newbie tried to disprove it? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43410013461503200072017-02-06T08:50:12.350-05:002017-02-06T08:50:12.350-05:00Your faith is much greater than people who notice ...<i>Your faith is much greater than people who notice that Bible prophecies are reliable.</i><br /><br />Oh, yes. Very, very reliable:<br /><br /><a href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html" rel="nofollow">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html</a>Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64746498787473950102017-02-06T07:33:38.814-05:002017-02-06T07:33:38.814-05:00Ah yes, Satan.
Of course since God is all-powerfu...Ah yes, Satan.<br /><br />Of course since God is all-powerful and all-knowing, everything he does is allowed and thus implicitly condoned by God.<br /><br />Perhaps God let Satan wipe out the dinosaurs? Or since they didn't have immortal souls (just like puppies don't), wiping out millions or billions of them was just another barbecue as far as Christian morality is concerned, right?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82502110539593680882017-02-06T07:28:22.019-05:002017-02-06T07:28:22.019-05:00Federico, reason certainly should not be contradic...Federico, reason certainly should not be contradicted by science, if indeed it is reason and not someone's intuitive idea of what reason should be. Because reality is not limited by our "common sense" or even our imaginations, science can be surprising (think of relativity or quantum physics).<br /><br />Regarding faith, I don't think it is a realistic expectation that it cannot be contradicted by science. Do you notice that we don't see seas parting, people feeding multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, people walking on water, today, even though we have more cameras in more places than ever, and thus more opportunity to observe? Thus does reality intrude on faith in the miraculous. One can certainly continue to have faith, but to expect reality and therefore science never to intrude on it is not reasonable, it seems to me.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50817693197967185162017-02-06T07:07:39.609-05:002017-02-06T07:07:39.609-05:00Every so often, tx, your Christian morality really...Every so often, tx, your Christian morality really comes to the fore.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70580194525107587052017-02-06T07:06:25.189-05:002017-02-06T07:06:25.189-05:00Oh, and one other request, txpiper. You're qu...Oh, and one other request, txpiper. You're quite free to answer the question I put to Federico, so why not share your response. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34219235325166160822017-02-06T07:05:22.192-05:002017-02-06T07:05:22.192-05:00lutesuite, don't act as if you aren't a fa...<i>lutesuite, don't act as if you aren't a faithful person. You didn't exactly come to the rescue when Termimus Est was asking where enzymes come from.</i><br /><br />I don't know where enzymes come from. I also don't know where my socks disappear after I put them into the dryer. I suppose the answer to that is also "Goddidit". Only, I don't recall you providing the positive evidence for that claim. Obviously, a bright fellow like yourself won't use the God of the Gaps fallacy. So could you repost that evidence for my benefit, since I seem to have overlooked it? TIA.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68151432393691046322017-02-05T23:00:50.219-05:002017-02-05T23:00:50.219-05:00lutesuite, don't act as if you aren't a fa...lutesuite, don't act as if you aren't a faithful person. You didn't exactly come to the rescue when Termimus Est was asking where enzymes come from. And you might tag along with whatever Larry thinks about natural origins of live ideas, but they are all stupid. At best, you can only choose the least stupid. Your faith is much greater than people who notice that Bible prophecies are reliable. If you could actually think for yourself instead of drinking out of the puddles your heroes have pissed in, you might actually make some progress. txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45319045438354085652017-02-05T22:01:24.947-05:002017-02-05T22:01:24.947-05:00Federico, can you give an example of knowledge tha...Federico, can you give an example of knowledge that has been obtained by faith? I don't mean things that faith claims to be able answer, but something that it has actually answered in such a way that no reasonable person would be able to deny.<br /><br />For instance, it was once not known where the sun went at night. Now, the answer to that question is something even pre-school children know, and the reason we know this is because science revealed the answer.<br /><br />What comparable piece of knowledge has faith given us?<br /><br /><i>Science is not above reason or faith, as reason or faith should not be contradicted by science.</i><br /><br />Actually what that statement means is that science <i>is</i> above reason and faith (Though I would consider reason to be part of the scientific method.)Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61074031163808757152017-02-05T19:28:40.025-05:002017-02-05T19:28:40.025-05:00I don't really like the science-religion "...I don't really like the science-religion "war". I think they have their own space on different spheres of knowledge: science, reason, faith. When a person decides that anything that is not testable with the scientific method simply does not exists, he or she is just believing it. If he or she presents this belief to others as what Science says, then others will distrust science. Science is not above reason or faith, as reason or faith should not be contradicted by science.<br /><br />Federico Abascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10122081847965890500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22792817328766012542017-02-05T17:23:24.940-05:002017-02-05T17:23:24.940-05:00I have friends who are agnostic but they believe i...I have friends who are agnostic but they believe in a god. One of them is a Jesuit priest. So, you can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. <br /><br />For the record. Larry (me) ALWAYS agrees that he is an agnostic atheist. <br /><br />Because I don't see any evidence of gods, I look for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. (There's no other option.) <br /><br />I don't know how life began but I don't see any evidence that it could not have happened by purely natural means. I have no need of gods to explain the origin of life. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79259503237981469512017-02-05T16:58:35.969-05:002017-02-05T16:58:35.969-05:00Marcoli,
I agree with you. Even Larry sometimes ...Marcoli, <br /><br />I agree with you. Even Larry sometimes agrees that his is an agnostic. This however doesn't change his mind about the origins of life and evolution but it makes a difference when you contemplate atheism and the brilliant minds like Larry's being corrupted by nonsense.<br />Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78223691911281731462017-02-05T10:36:06.216-05:002017-02-05T10:36:06.216-05:00Harris has good reason to be frightened.Harris has good reason to be frightened.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78750479698587213022017-02-05T08:46:41.051-05:002017-02-05T08:46:41.051-05:00Nice try, txpiper:
http://skepticsannotatedbible....Nice try, txpiper:<br /><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html</a>Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47774486092650361192017-02-05T00:35:22.160-05:002017-02-05T00:35:22.160-05:00"circulus in probando?"
It looks linear..."circulus in probando?"<br /><br />It looks linear to me. But you have a unique fact management technique. Call yourself a winner on this one, and move on.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87858380119157482722017-02-04T22:20:00.347-05:002017-02-04T22:20:00.347-05:00Atheist vs Agnostic
I haven't found any evide...Atheist vs Agnostic<br /><br />I haven't found any evidence to convince me that there is 1 god , 3 thousand, or 3 million. Therefore, I am an atheist - no evidence = no belief.<br /><br />It is also true that I don't know - with absolute certainty - if there is no god, 1 god, 3 thousand, or 3 million. Therefore, I am also an agnostic (science is never certain! and that is okay with me!).<br /><br />To put it in perspective...do you believe in Santa Claus? If you don't, then you are "asantaclaustic." <br /><br />If you also reserve the possibility that there is at least some (albeit extremely small) possibility that Santa could exist (provided, there was credible evidence), then you are also "agnostic" regarding his existence.<br /><br />To identify as both is not mutually exclusive. They simply imply the nuances of a skeptical - but scientifically open - mind.<br /><br />I appreciate the cognitive dissonance this creates for the religiously indoctrinated. It is the root of your ignorance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10799782328170042096noreply@blogger.com