Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 09:19 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I should clarify a few things as well. I don't think any point I made, whether valid or not, would be persuasive enough to give anyone a reason to believe God exists. The sort of intentional agent even if the assumption is reasonable, would hardly be something satisfying to believe in. In fact if this sort of God is all that we're left with, I'd chose atheism, not because I find it more believable, but because I would find it more satisfying (though less believable).

My point is, that's I'm not so much arguing for the existence of God, but merely pointing out that in consideration of the universe, of human existence, it's seemingly natural history, even void of a tinkering God, that i see no reason not to believe in God. An argument for why i should believe God doesn't exist, or one that suggest I lack a belief, seems far from convincing to me. I'd still vote in favor of God's existence, even if it's not even remotely at the level of confidence afforded to me by adding in my Christian beliefs.

I’m more interested in what the meaningful criticisms here would be, beyond the typical cliches “there is no evidence”, and in particularly what sort assumptions underlies even the “cliches” themselves, such as "you can’t infer from analogy", "you can’t make intuitive assumptions", etc… These responses tend to vary depending on any particular atheist, though there might be some overlap. But it does some that there is enough variety in responses, to recognize that no two people mean the same thing when claiming “there is no evidence”.

I’m curious to know what those individual differences are, and in particular which one’s amount to meaningful criticisms.

You still post hypocritical bullshit. Facepalm

The cognitive dissonance is too much. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 08:23 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  One might note that we have a few theists who are active here who are honest people, and who are openly welcomed, even liked. So, I ask you guys to be more specific when insulting "theists", even if you add the adjective "dishonest" before it, to be sure it's clear that we're not attacking them for their theism or even for their disagreement with our opinions, but specifically for the way in which they express those opinions.

Point taken. If I used it too generally I was wrong to do so.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
16-08-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Already "Liked" your post, Unfogged, but wanted to add an extra high-five, here.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 08:05 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Interspersed is few and far between. Vitriolic is bitter critisims and malace intent.

Interspersed means "mixed in" or "scattered among". Your definition of vitriolic is fair enough.

Quote:I apologize for the difficulty in comprehending my posts at times. I continually work to be more clear in meaning. Many will attest that these attempts are not working I guess. Critisism and a work towards understanding can be accomplished without negativity in my opinion.

If you want to be taken seriously provide evidence for your claims or at least show that you are understanding the criticisms of them. When all you do is continue to pile on more unfounded crap over and over it becomes clear that you are not here to explain your views or to learn anything. That leaves the most likely options to be that you are a troll, an asshole, and/or a self-deluded fool. I'm betting on a combination of all of them. When you drop the preaching and actually engage in a discussion you'll get treated with some respect. Until then, go fuck yourself.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
16-08-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 10:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 08:05 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Interspersed is few and far between. Vitriolic is bitter critisims and malace intent.

Interspersed means "mixed in" or "scattered among". Your definition of vitriolic is fair enough.

Quote:I apologize for the difficulty in comprehending my posts at times. I continually work to be more clear in meaning. Many will attest that these attempts are not working I guess. Critisism and a work towards understanding can be accomplished without negativity in my opinion.

If you want to be taken seriously provide evidence for your claims or at least show that you are understanding the criticisms of them. When all you do is continue to pile on more unfounded crap over and over it becomes clear that you are not here to explain your views or to learn anything. That leaves the most likely options to be that you are a troll, an asshole, and/or a self-deluded fool. I'm betting on a combination of all of them. When you drop the preaching and actually engage in a discussion you'll get treated with some respect. Until then, go fuck yourself.
Interesting. Take two! Let us discuss maturely and without bias, and perhaps the mutual respect will grow from there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 12:42 PM by Chas.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 02:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, your understanding of probability is poor. The probability of rolling a six is 1/6 every time the die is thrown.

Tell me which of these odds is better. Landing on tails on a single coin flip. Or that any one coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on tails.

Again, you do not understand probability. Your comparison is just muddle-headed.

One is a simple probability of one event, the other is the sum of probabilities of multiple combinations, or 1 - P(10 heads in a row).

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-08-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(15-08-2015 03:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 02:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, our existence is highly contingent - nothing inevitable about it.
Inevitable in that just the known universe is so vast and diverse that the chances of our particular existence within it seems almost likely.

Ah, another poster with no grasp of probability.

Quote:However, the chances of this amazing, overwhelmingly extravagant being as a whole must have, at very least, been started by something that does not equate to solely nothing. Thanks.

There is no evidence of that. You're welcome.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-08-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 09:04 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  No, it doesn't require multiple universes, it only requires that other possible law-sets could have happened, and that is exactly the supposition that is represented by the dice in this metaphor. If there are no other possible settings, we have a one-sided die (not that this exists, but you see my point).

There’s no real meaningful difference between a one-sided die, or a weighted die, since they both only allow for one possibility only.

Quote:You cannot say "was set up to allow" unless you acknowledge that other settings were possible. So for the sake of this argument, I have gone with that supposition.

Other outcome/settings are not possible with weighted dice. I implied this earlier. Anything that could be said about a “weighted dice” outcome could be said of a “one-sided die” outcome.

If you think it’s reasonable to conclude that there were no other possibilities of other settings, It goes without saying, that the argument, if we are to assume there was no intentionality, is that these weights/settings just where, there’s no reason for them to possess these setting/weights, but they just did. These setting were not intentionally placed, nor were they the outcome of chance, they were just there. And lucky for us they were.

Quote:There is NO reason to assume things were set up to cause us to be here; we are here because of how things are set up, not the other way around.

I agree with the “we are here because of how things are setup”. I’d also say there was no possibility for any other setup, other than how things are setup.

This setup, allowed given adequate space and time, for conscious, self-aware creatures, to arise, with moral, rational, and creative capacities, and seemingly natural propensity to believe they existed for some purpose, or reason, and a sense that there was something sacred underlying the basic foundations of life, etc…..

Now, something about this screams out “intention” for me. And if one does not particularly try to silence his intuitions, that scream should be as audible to them as well. You can say, “that our intuitions do point this way, but our intuitions are a terrible guide to reality, and in this case the assumptions derived by it are false.” But this “intuitive” assumption, that which screams “intent”, is not particularly dispelled even if one were to acknowledge all the scientific facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
16-08-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 05:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 06:19 PM)photon9 Wrote:  Tomasia, which odds is better?

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands on all tails.

One coin in a series of ten coin flips lands heads, tails, tails tails, heads, tails, heads, heads, tails, heads...

... Or any other particular sequence of heads/tails.


(15-08-2015 06:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  He's spent 400 posts carefully not answering those sorts of questions, mate. I wouldn't hold your breath.

I've answered the same question before, but I'll do so again. Provided they're standard coins, the odds would be the same.

They are not even close to the same. You need to get a probability textbook.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-08-2015, 12:46 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 12:52 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 09:04 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  No, it doesn't require multiple universes, it only requires that other possible law-sets could have happened, and that is exactly the supposition that is represented by the dice in this metaphor. If there are no other possible settings, we have a one-sided die (not that this exists, but you see my point).


There’s no real meaning difference between a one-sided die, or weighted die, since they both only allow for one possibility only. A weighted die, and one-sided die only allow for one result, one possibility.

Quote:You cannot say "was set up to allow" unless you acknowledge that other settings were possible. So for the sake of this argument, I have gone with that supposition.

Other outcome/settings are not possible with weighted dice. I implied this much earlier. Anything that could be said about a “weighted dice” out come could be said of a “one-sided die” outcome.

If you think it’s reasonable to conclude that there were no other possibilities of other settings, It goes without saying, that the argument if we are to assume there was no intentionality, is that these weights/settings just where, there’s no reason for them to possess these setting/weights, but they just did. These setting were not intentionally placed, nor were they the outcome of chance, they were just there. And lucky for us they were.

Quote:There is NO reason to assume things were set up to cause us to be here; we are here because of how things are set up, not the other way around.

I agree with the “we are here because of how things are setup”. I’d also say there was no possibility for any other setup, other than how things are setup.

This setup, allowed given adequate space and time, for conscious, self-aware creatures, to arise, with moral, rational, and creative capacities, and seemingly natural propensity to believe they existed for some purpose, or reason, a sense that there was something sacred underlying the basic foundations of life, etc…..

Now, something about this screams out “intention” for me. And if one does not particularly try to silence his intuitions, that scream should be as audible to them as well. You can say “that our intuitions do point this way, but our intuitions are a terrible guide to reality, and in this case the assumptions derived by it are false.” And this “intuitive” assumption, that which screams “intent”, is not particularly dispelled even if one were to acknowledge all the scientific facts.


Quote:Actually, that's not at all what the Weasel program was set up to do. Please re-Google it and read about cumulative vs. linear mutations. Weasel followed the way nature works because, in evolution, the genes became fixed in place as soon as they did something useful. All Weasel was set up to do is show that it takes a lot less time to "evolve" the word via selection-pressure in a cumulative fashion, as nature actually functions, than by letting all of the variables cycle endlessly like monkeys on keyboards. There is no other information or analogy that can be drawn from that program. So stop using it incorrectly, please

My reference to the Weasel program, was to highlight there were weights involved to insure the outcome, as opposed to letting all the “variables cycle endlessly”. You could say in the weasel program those weights were programed, and where as for nature, those weights were fixed or weighted into our metaphorical die but absent of any intentional agent. It would following the same line of argument as highlighted earlier in regards to the universe: Ecological Niches need not develop but they did, the frequency of mutations need not be what it was to produce the diversity it did, with the outcome of sentient creatures, but it did, selection pressures need to be present to the extent they were, but they were, DNA not allow for combinations in which conscious, self-aware creatures could come about, but it did, all of which trace there cause and origin to that one-side/weighted die. It’s all the outcomes of a deterministic universe. The world of the Weasel Program is deterministic in more simplistic but similar way too.

Quote:I don't recall that passage, but I have no doubt that that's not all he said about it. And regardless of that suspicion, it'd be beyond our technical capabilities to insert a message into every creature on the planet, or into an entire population of one type of creature, as would be necessary for that "message" to be seen as the work of a Creator.

The reference is from the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop, in which Dawkins stated that he couldn’t think of any sort of evidence that would convince him that there was a God. And someone threw that scenario out to him, which he rejected as well, as more likely to be some elaborate hoax than anything else. The suggestion here would be that any natural explanation for any scenario you’d imagine would be posited as more likely than any God explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: