How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 08:36 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:12 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 11:58 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Both Donkey Dung and Pecan Pie ARE intelligently designed , unless you think that either came about from non personal, non intelligence , unwilled , accidental Causes .... which they didn't. Pecan Pie is intentionally CREATED as is Donkey Dung as it moves thru the Animals anatomy . Next time you step in some, just tell yourself that 'it just popped into existence' then pretend it isn't reality either . And if Someone tells you that you smell like Donkey Dung....just tell em that their accidental compilations of atoms that make up their nose cant be trusted.

You cant escape the intelligent design of things all around you. But you can pretend they don't exist and/or you can willfully disregard them because of the natural implication of it (a Creator) which is a fly to ones lifestyle ointment.

sigh

ahh the ol' look at how complex the world is = god!

That is called the watchmakers argument, let me help you with that...

William Paley's watchmaker argument (design implies a designer). Also bleeds into the complexity theory. Think of a tornado, does a mystical super being push a theoretical button and create a tornado? I would like to think not, the complexity can emerge as a natural result of a system and not as designed or orchestrated by an entity.

- David Hume argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

- Richard Dawkins argues that the watch analogy conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.

Dawkins described Paley's argument as being "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

- this argument suffers from a number of critical flaws, the biggest flaw being a failure to understand why no amount of empirical evidence will support Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy. This stems from a failure to understand how analogies work: analogies are not arguments. Analogies illustrate arguments, and insofar as one only makes an analogy (but fails to sketch out the meat of the argument), then one is failing to make an argument.

But I’m willing to be a little flexible on this point: insofar as a good argument is one that is clear and unambiguous, and insofar as an analogy is less clear than a list of premises followed by a conclusion, then an analogy is a bad argument. Sure, good rhetoric has implicit/hidden premises, but good arguments don’t.

The Watchmaker Analogy will never demonstrate that design is true, or that belief in design is justified, no matter the evidence. Allow me to provide an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine, if you will, that we have a painting by a particular artist. The artist has admitted to creating the painting, and people witnessed the creation. The artist has a distinctive style and technique, prefers to use certain unique materials (which are generally not used by other artists). In short, there are a set of characteristics that are associated with this particular artist.

Now suppose that we find a second piece of art. The artist is silent as to whether or not they created this new piece. We start to investigate all the materials and techniques that went into creating this picture, and every characteristic we identify in the second picture, matches a characteristic in the ‘set of characteristics’ mentioned above. Are we justified in concluding that the same artist also created this picture? If not, if we keep accumulating more and more ‘characteristics’, will our conclusion eventually be justified?

Absolutely not.

Because I’m not a theologian, I’ll attempt to make the argument clear:
1) There exists a painting (P1) known to have been painted by an Artist (A1)
2) The construction of P1 consisted of certain steps (S1) known to be associated with A1.
3) If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was created by A1.
4) P2 was constructed according to S1.
5) P2 was created by A1.

The flaw in this argument lies in Premise 3. Premise 3 fails to account for any alternative hypotheses, such as the existence of another artist (A2, A3, … An) who also utilises S1. Changing Premise 3 to the more weak “If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was probably created by A1” doesn’t resolve this issue. Once we arrive at the conclusion that it’s possible the painting was created by either A1 or A2, we now need to compare A1 and A2 (themselves) to see how likely it is that they created the painting.

Paley’s argument is that a designer (A1) is known to have created a watch (P1), and the marks of design (S1) can be found in the watch. By analogy, Paley claims that life (P2) also exhibits these marks (S1), ergo a designer (A1) is responsible for the creation of life.

This argument fails because it fails to take into account an alternative explanation, namely that the processes of Evolution (A2) also exhibit S1.
You can make S1 consist of 10 points of similarity, 1000 points, or 1,000,000 points of similarity: so long as those other points are likewise explained by evolution, one is not justified in simply declaring “alright so, they were designed”. Merely shoveling in more data into S1 is irrelevant.

At this point, anyone acting in accordance with intellectual integrity will move their investigation up a notch, to discuss whether or not A1 (god) or A2 (evolution) exists. As there are only self-contradictory definitions of god, and as there is no evidence for god, and as there are no non-question-begging arguments for god, one cannot assert that god (A1) is a viable explanatory mechanism.

As the arguments for god collapses, the argument for theistic design collapses. The argument is fatally flawed not because of a lack of empirical data, but due to the insufficiency of the arguments for god.

you're welcome, anything else I can clarify for you? Now my turn..how do you know of god? biblical based? observational philosophical musings of the world around you? Are you of the Young Earth Creationist view or Old Creationist view, or a hybrid? I can't help you with your delusion without some intelligent input...

IMHO Paley’s analogy fails from the word go.

The argument compares an inanimate object to a biological one. One can procreate and pass on its genetic makeup and the other one cannot. Period. End of story.

Had Paley used a living organism then his premise becomes redundant and would also fall apart. It’s a horribly flawed argument as you pointed out.

*Edit - just found this on post #154 on Favorite pictures for a laugh at religion
[img][Image: 20110821.gif][/img]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
26-11-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
RobbyPants Wrote:
'I'm going to ask you one last time for that non-presuppositional, non-circular evidence you've been promising us before putting you on ignore for trolling.'

REPLY: Thanks for your interest in the scientific evidence. I do have a brief PRE-Qualification Test I ask professed Atheists to take before I start investing a lot of time on their request, so, please PM me for the Pre-Qualifier then we can take it from there. (Im not allowed to post the Qualification Test publicly according to the Forum King) . Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:45 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  (Im not allowed to post the Qualification Test publicly according to the Forum King) . Thanks.

Actually, you're not allowed to spam...according to the forum "king".

Big Grin

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Stark Raving's post
26-11-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:45 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  I do have a brief PRE-Qualification Test I ask professed Atheists to take before I start investing a lot of time on their request, so, please PM me for the Pre-Qualifier then we can take it from there. (Im not allowed to post the Qualification Test publicly according to the Forum King) . Thanks.

Why do you need a prequalification test? Prequalification for what? So you can reply to only that which is convenient? Sounds like typical cherry picking. Dodgy

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 12:24 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 12:13 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Or maybe you're just arrogant? Drinking Beverage


Oh look, you are trying to dictate to people what they think and mean. Arrogant it is.

The consequential effects in society as a result of atheistic Humanist ideology being played out , makes it quite easy to see what such People are thinking, meaning, and patterning their life about. Bad fruit comes from diseased trees.

Nope but nice try, that in no way addresses or excuses your arrogance and hypocrisy. Also I just ate so you can keep your word salad to yourself.

You have no idea what anyone is actually thinking so trying to dictate to other people what they are thinking is just arrogant, hypocritical, and the actions of a bully.

Stop being a cunt you cunt.

"The consequential effects in society as a result of atheistic Thiestic ideology being played out , makes it quite easy to see what such People are thinking, meaning, and patterning their life about. Bad fruit comes from diseased trees."

This is how I KNOW that you are thinking about raping someone right now. I mean...it's quite easy to see what you are thinking.

Stop being a cunt you stupid cunt.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
26-11-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:45 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  RobbyPants Wrote:
'I'm going to ask you one last time for that non-presuppositional, non-circular evidence you've been promising us before putting you on ignore for trolling.'

REPLY: Thanks for your interest in the scientific evidence. I do have a brief PRE-Qualification Test I ask professed Atheists to take before I start investing a lot of time on their request, so, please PM me for the Pre-Qualifier then we can take it from there. (Im not allowed to post the Qualification Test publicly according to the Forum King) . Thanks.

We all know it's the BS he keeps posting of the "knife edge" nonsense of ID.
"Prequalification test, is a disingenuous way of saying, "Agree with my presuppositions, or I can't deal with you".

This refutes his claims :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlAx0t9u...re=related
to which I added :
So what I wished they had actually calculated, I did for us. Not using aseptic's insightful contribution, which would raise the number to an astronomically higher number, or using many, many more dice, which is also very easy, I decided to work out some numbers, so they would be here for the Resource thread, and debunking ID nonsense.

One of the claims of Intelligent Design, is that the complex reactions which produced functioning cells with DNA, and RNA are just so highly improbable, that they would require the intervention of a divine designer.

So let's take a look at improbable events, and exactly what that really means.

With 17 pairs of dice, (34 die), which could very easily be raised to thousands of dice, using actual physical dice, or billions, of dice in a super-computer simulation, (which would be a legitimate analogy, as there were at least that number of reactions happening in the "primordial soup".)

Briefly, each of the die has 6 sides, thus the probability that any one side, in any 1 die comes up is 1/6. For two die, any combo of the two coming up is 1/12. Thus the 34 is
6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6.

The probability of 1 observed outcome, from 1 throw of the 34 dice, seen on a table top is :

1 / 286^24, or 1/286 septillion
actually : 1/286,511,799,958,070,380,000,000,000

Thus without any intervention, we would witness an event which had a probability of 1/286 septillion.

1 septillion is about 10 times the number of stars in the universe, (which is around 600 sextillion ), and can witness an event of that improbability as often as we wish to, and are able to toss the dice.

The number of times an event with this high an improbability will happen, if the 17 pairs of dice are thrown, by one person, 25 times per minute, (which is a VERY VERY low estimate of reactions in the "soup"), for 4 billion years, (the cooled Earth, with an ocean,) is : 52 quadrillion, or actually 52,560,000,000,000,000, or 13,140,000 times per year, or 36,000 times per day, or 250 times per minute.

An astronomically higher number would result, if a large number of "tossing machines" (or people) were constructed/used. The result of the toss, is not dependent on the machine, or the design of the machine, or tosser. Thus there could be many orders of more dice.

To the probability equation, we could add a higher order of precision, resulting in a much lower probability, which would take into account the precise position of each of the die, as they fall, and come to rest on the table.

Thus, in addition to the numbers above, we could have an astronomically higher frequency of tosses x astronomically higher improbability due to many more dice, x astronomically higher order due to increasingly better determination of position on the desk. So a rather "wimpy" re-estimate, using the additional factors, => 1000 more dice, (not raised to factorial product, which if computed, would result in a number higher than the highest numbers imaginable, ... a google, 10^100, and googleplex [(10^10)^100], x 1000 more position factor precision points, (which was ignored in the example, and just set to "1"), x 100 more throws = 1,000,000 x 100 = 100,000,000 x (all the above number categories).

So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but could and likely did happen so often, that "commonplace", does not describe them, and that they require no intervention, whatsoever, human, or divine.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-11-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:45 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  RobbyPants Wrote:
'I'm going to ask you one last time for that non-presuppositional, non-circular evidence you've been promising us before putting you on ignore for trolling.'

REPLY: Thanks for your interest in the scientific evidence. I do have a brief PRE-Qualification Test I ask professed Atheists to take before I start investing a lot of time on their request, so, please PM me for the Pre-Qualifier then we can take it from there. (Im not allowed to post the Qualification Test publicly according to the Forum King) . Thanks.

You either have non-presuppositional evidence or you don't (I'm guessing no, since no one has ever demonstrated any). Given that this thread has gone on for over ten pages with you claiming non-circular evidence while you only respond with baseless assertions and god of the gaps arguments, I'm calling troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
26-11-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
ARGH! Sorry! Am posting here becuase the other thread was sequestered away and I spent sooo much time working on answering the questions.


1A). How did you come to want to believe in an atheistic world-view / origins which traditionally has Materialism and Naturalism being responsible for such NON-material entities such as freewill, personality, reason, logic, discernment , abstract thinking, et al...

Except.... this is not a true view of reality, hence really a meaningless question. So not really answerable. Perhaps a better question?

1B)when it is absurd to have such non material realities coming from atoms ?

Is a statement tacked onto the end of a question hence not answerable.

2. When you closely and diligently examine the Human Anatomy , what is it about that which looks like the product of mindless, random, chaotic , accidents upon compilations of accidents void of any intelligent design and input ?

As I , myself, suffer from SEVER myopia and have a parent with other congenital birth defects PLEASE show me this wonderful design which can some how get so f@cked up (And this completely doesn't even begin to point out the far worse congenital problems which arise!) ? Another false question not based on reality. Hence unanswerable.

3. If you believe the Universe or the Human Anatomy could be created better (since you believe its just the random product of atoms and forces without any intelligent design)....how would YOU make it better than what it is ? And do you believe you could make it better without applying any personal interjection of any kind since the present Universe 'wasn't personally brought about' according to you ?

Well... how about tri or even quadruple helix’s of DNA? This would increase the available amino base currently able to code for 15 amino acids to Tri- allowing for coding of 63 and Quad being able to code to 255. The amount of increased redundancy thereby allowing for far more leniency in script coding, hence 'More tolerance=Less birth defects'. That’s just for a start... Would you like to know more?

4. Do you believe it is possible to determine when something requires a personal Designer/Creator for something down here on earth even if you never see or meet such a Designer / Creator ? What criteria would you require for admitting something took a Mind behind the construction of something --- how does something that is intelligently designed look to you when you see it ? What are some of its attributes ?

This has been ably addressed/refuted previously in regards to Huxley's watch maker.

5. Why don't you think Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools across the nation (world) since there are tons of examples of intelligent designed things here on earth which aren't religious oriented or motivated ? Science is based on natural AND intelligent causes and the discovery thereof, so, why not bring both to the classroom and let the Student decide which cause is more likely for the Universe and other related things ?

Because it is not even bad science. IT is just plain BAD. So, if you are confident THAT intelligent design IS something valid, please show/put forward a useful or functional PREDICTION that can be used to further our knowledge base.

6A). Do you believe you have a dark side to your personality/character which is universally called Sin ?

No

6B)Do you feel disgusted with the self serving agendas that may have become part of your ongoing life which might include the using of others for your temporary gain or enjoyment or doing things which you know are wrong yet you do them any-ways ?

No

6B)Do you see something within yourself that is highly narcissistic and could you point to something in your life which would be rightly called lowlife living (immoral, unethical behaviour , etc...)

Um.... no. Also is a poorly worded question (Or part of a question... Really, I'm beginning to be unsure if the poser even thinks about what the term 'Question' means... :/ )

6C) With an accompanying attitude of not caring in the least ?

No.

6D)If so, what do you attribute this chosen lifestyle - attitude toward , and, how do you justify doing it ?

Well, since all of the above answers are 'No'... no further answer is required.

7A). Are you 'an Atheist' because you don't see any evidence in the least for a personal theistic Creator.

Yes

7B)Or, are you an 'Atheist' because you desire to be your own 'god' calling your own shots in life.....

No

7C) As my 71 year old 'Atheist' friend, Helen, admitted to me (verbatim) lately after 20 minutes of dialogue about God at a local Starbucks ?

As this is not a question... it does not require an answer.

8A)If you were convinced beyond any doubt that a personal theistic Creator is absolutely necessary for the personal, intelligent-based, information-laden entities left over from the Universe coming into existence .... WHAT would that mean to you.

That there would be someTHING to which people would ther after be paying attention to.

8B) HOW if any would it change your life knowing God would own you and you would be morally responsible to him at a future date --- would it cause you to move closer to him in personal relationship / and if it would make no difference..........WHY would this be your final action ?

Since the first half of the question is answered in the positive. Re-confirming the positive seems rather redundant.

9. What bad experience have you had in a Christian Church or in Christian circles ? How has this experienced influenced your desire to be 'an Atheist' ?

None.

10 . Which Sources have you diligently investigated on the subject of modern scientific evidences for a personal theistic Creator (God) , that has led you to believe 'there just isn't any evidence' ? Please list 3 or 4 Sources which was part of your sincere investigation .

A)Reality.
B)Reading the works of the Christian faith.
C)Looking into the tnents of multiple faiths.
D) And the very most important answer to this particular question is the FACT that there are MULTIPLE Faiths... not just that there are multiple creeds within one faith.



Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
26-11-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 01:45 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  RobbyPants Wrote:
'I'm going to ask you one last time for that non-presuppositional, non-circular evidence you've been promising us before putting you on ignore for trolling.'

REPLY: Thanks for your interest in the scientific evidence. I do have a brief PRE-Qualification Test I ask professed Atheists to take before I start investing a lot of time on their request, so, please PM me for the Pre-Qualifier then we can take it from there. (Im not allowed to post the Qualification Test publicly according to the Forum King) . Thanks.

We all know it's the BS he keeps posting of the "knife edge" nonsense of ID.
"Prequalification test, is a disingenuous way of saying, "Agree with my presuppositions, or I can't deal with you".

This refutes his claims :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlAx0t9u...re=related
to which I added :
So what I wished they had actually calculated, I did for us. Not using aseptic's insightful contribution, which would raise the number to an astronomically higher number, or using many, many more dice, which is also very easy, I decided to work out some numbers, so they would be here for the Resource thread, and debunking ID nonsense.

One of the claims of Intelligent Design, is that the complex reactions which produced functioning cells with DNA, and RNA are just so highly improbable, that they would require the intervention of a divine designer.

So let's take a look at improbable events, and exactly what that really means.

With 17 pairs of dice, (34 die), which could very easily be raised to thousands of dice, using actual physical dice, or billions, of dice in a super-computer simulation, (which would be a legitimate analogy, as there were at least that number of reactions happening in the "primordial soup".)

Briefly, each of the die has 6 sides, thus the probability that any one side, in any 1 die comes up is 1/6. For two die, any combo of the two coming up is 1/12. Thus the 34 is
6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6.

The probability of 1 observed outcome, from 1 throw of the 34 dice, seen on a table top is :

1 / 286^24, or 1/286 septillion
actually : 1/286,511,799,958,070,380,000,000,000

Thus without any intervention, we would witness an event which had a probability of 1/286 septillion.

1 septillion is about 10 times the number of stars in the universe, (which is around 600 sextillion ), and can witness an event of that improbability as often as we wish to, and are able to toss the dice.

The number of times an event with this high an improbability will happen, if the 17 pairs of dice are thrown, by one person, 25 times per minute, (which is a VERY VERY low estimate of reactions in the "soup"), for 4 billion years, (the cooled Earth, with an ocean,) is : 52 quadrillion, or actually 52,560,000,000,000,000, or 13,140,000 times per year, or 36,000 times per day, or 250 times per minute.

An astronomically higher number would result, if a large number of "tossing machines" (or people) were constructed/used. The result of the toss, is not dependent on the machine, or the design of the machine, or tosser. Thus there could be many orders of more dice.

To the probability equation, we could add a higher order of precision, resulting in a much lower probability, which would take into account the precise position of each of the die, as they fall, and come to rest on the table.

Thus, in addition to the numbers above, we could have an astronomically higher frequency of tosses x astronomically higher improbability due to many more dice, x astronomically higher order due to increasingly better determination of position on the desk. So a rather "wimpy" re-estimate, using the additional factors, => 1000 more dice, (not raised to factorial product, which if computed, would result in a number higher than the highest numbers imaginable, ... a google, 10^100, and googleplex [(10^10)^100], x 1000 more position factor precision points, (which was ignored in the example, and just set to "1"), x 100 more throws = 1,000,000 x 100 = 100,000,000 x (all the above number categories).

So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but could and likely did happen so often, that "commonplace", does not describe them, and that they require no intervention, whatsoever, human, or divine.

Damn Bucky, you had to and bring in all those zeroes didn’t ya?

I’ve seen improbable things explained thus in regards to the formation of life:

What are the chances of any leaf falling on any forest floor during October? 100%

What are the chances of a specific leaf falling on a specific position in a specific forest? infintesimally small

Abiogensis is akin to the first while creationists argue the second proposition. Life was guaranteed to happen there just wasn’t a way of predicting where and how.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
26-11-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Okay.

So I think we're prepared to answer how well atheist humanists (to paraphrase the thread topic into something grammatically coherent) defend their world view.

The answer for this thread is, we defend it by watching on and yawning while the idiot attacks something else and leaves our world view completely unchallenged, postures and name-calls and asserts but doesn't provide anything substantive, dares us to attack his world view as if not attacking his world view is akin to ours being destroyed, and generally carries on nutters. I anticipate that he will be declaring ultimate and unchallengeable victory pretty soon, while still never having addressed our actual world view. So, again, nutters.

So far, this defense strategy of ours is working pretty damn well. My world view isn't being threatened at all by this train wreck. Is anyone else's?

I'm bored with this thread. Someone please PM me if Humble here actually replies to my original response, or even says anything we haven't heard dozens of times before.

*wanders off*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: