The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 06:17 PM)The Drake Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 06:03 PM)Free Wrote:  But my point is- and I am sure you will agree- it includes us intelligent humans.

Hence, we- the intelligent humans - are not the only form of evolved life.

It implies that intelligent life is included.

No it doesn't. We are definitely not the only form of evolved life. There are an estimated 8.7 million distinct species alive on this planet of which WE are only one. Intelligence and sentience as we understand it is only a possibility, not a given.

So when Richard Dawkins- whom Chas expresses as using "precise language"- says "we," we should not assume he referring to the intelligent human race?

Like ...what the fuck man? You mention about 8.7 million different species, but exclude just one, the intelligent humans?

That argument makes no fucking sense.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 06:57 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
Here's Richard Dawkins' statement again:

"The idea that we are alone in the universe seems to me completely implausible and arrogant," El Mundo quoted Dawkins as saying. "Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life."

When he says that "the idea that we are alone," and then says it's arrogant to have that idea, who the fuck is the "we" here? Can any other life form on this planet have such an idea, and be arrogant ffs?

And when he says Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, is he talking about worms and bats and cats as being the "we?"

And finally, since he is obviously using we consistently in the statement as referring to the human race, why then should we think he would change direction as to what "we" refers to when he speaks of the "we" in "it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life?"

Right from the start the "we" refers to mankind, and he holds this "preciseness" all the way through.

I don't get upset often, but one of two things is clear here. Some of you people really are too fucking stupid to be in this discussion, or you are trolling me for kicks.

Pick one ffs.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 07:00 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 06:40 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 06:17 PM)The Drake Wrote:  No it doesn't. We are definitely not the only form of evolved life. There are an estimated 8.7 million distinct species alive on this planet of which WE are only one. Intelligence and sentience as we understand it is only a possibility, not a given.

So when Richard Dawkins- whom Chas expresses as using "precise language"- says "we," we should not assume he referring to the intelligent human race?

Like ...what the fuck man? You mention about 8.7 million different species, but exclude just one, the intelligent humans?

That argument makes no fucking sense.

No I didn't...Copied directly from my post: "There are an estimated 8.7 million distinct species alive on this planet of which WE are only one." "WE" being included according to the context of the sentence.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 07:18 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 06:57 PM)Free Wrote:  Here's Richard Dawkins' statement again:

"The idea that we are alone in the universe seems to me completely implausible and arrogant," El Mundo quoted Dawkins as saying. "Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life."

When he says that "the idea that we are alone," and then says it's arrogant to have that idea, who the fuck is the "we" here? Can any other life form on this planet have such an idea, and be arrogant ffs?

And when he says Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, is he talking about worms and bats and cats as being the "we?"

And finally, since he is obviously using we consistently in the statement as referring to the human race, why then should we think he would change direction as to what "we" refers to when he speaks of the "we" in "it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life?"

Right from the start the "we" refers to mankind, and he holds this "preciseness" all the way through.

I don't get upset often, but one of two things is clear here. Some of you people really are too fucking stupid to be in this discussion, or you are trolling me for kicks.

Pick one ffs.

Drinking Beverage

This amounts to an argument from authority. i.e. Because X, Y, and Z said this, it must be true. It is one of the biggest tools of religion and should never be used to advance science. Dawkins et al would never ascribe to this.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Drake's post
18-12-2014, 08:50 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2014 09:44 PM by Free.)
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 07:00 PM)The Drake Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 06:40 PM)Free Wrote:  So when Richard Dawkins- whom Chas expresses as using "precise language"- says "we," we should not assume he referring to the intelligent human race?

Like ...what the fuck man? You mention about 8.7 million different species, but exclude just one, the intelligent humans?

That argument makes no fucking sense.

No I didn't...Copied directly from my post: "There are an estimated 8.7 million distinct species alive on this planet of which WE are only one." "WE" being included according to the context of the sentence.

Then if "we" are included, how the fuck can he not be talking about intelligent life?

Meh ... just go read The God Delusion.

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:Whether we ever get to know about them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century.

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion - Page 72.

And that's a wrap.

Time for some Nachos.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 08:51 PM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 07:18 PM)The Drake Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 06:57 PM)Free Wrote:  Here's Richard Dawkins' statement again:

"The idea that we are alone in the universe seems to me completely implausible and arrogant," El Mundo quoted Dawkins as saying. "Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life."

When he says that "the idea that we are alone," and then says it's arrogant to have that idea, who the fuck is the "we" here? Can any other life form on this planet have such an idea, and be arrogant ffs?

And when he says Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, is he talking about worms and bats and cats as being the "we?"

And finally, since he is obviously using we consistently in the statement as referring to the human race, why then should we think he would change direction as to what "we" refers to when he speaks of the "we" in "it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life?"

Right from the start the "we" refers to mankind, and he holds this "preciseness" all the way through.

I don't get upset often, but one of two things is clear here. Some of you people really are too fucking stupid to be in this discussion, or you are trolling me for kicks.

Pick one ffs.

Drinking Beverage

This amounts to an argument from authority. i.e. Because X, Y, and Z said this, it must be true. It is one of the biggest tools of religion and should never be used to advance science. Dawkins et al would never ascribe to this.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2014, 02:40 AM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 08:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 07:18 PM)The Drake Wrote:  This amounts to an argument from authority. i.e. Because X, Y, and Z said this, it must be true. It is one of the biggest tools of religion and should never be used to advance science. Dawkins et al would never ascribe to this.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Perhaps I'm misreading your intentions. But Dawkins saying that he believes there are probably intelligent aliens, doesn't mean that there are intelligent aliens. It doesn't rule out the possibility or probability, but it is an opinion. Though an informed opinion, the fact that it came from Dawkins doesn't make it valid. Only evidence can do that.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2014, 03:06 AM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(19-12-2014 02:40 AM)The Drake Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 08:51 PM)Free Wrote:  What the fuck are you even talking about?

Perhaps I'm misreading your intentions. But Dawkins saying that he believes there are probably intelligent aliens, doesn't mean that there are intelligent aliens. It doesn't rule out the possibility or probability, but it is an opinion. Though an informed opinion, the fact that it came from Dawkins doesn't make it valid. Only evidence can do that.

I don't deny the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, or on our own planet for that matter. But a homocentric attitude in our search for life, intelligent or otherwise, would be ill advised and seriously limiting.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2014, 03:59 AM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(18-12-2014 08:50 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-12-2014 07:00 PM)The Drake Wrote:  No I didn't...Copied directly from my post: "There are an estimated 8.7 million distinct species alive on this planet of which WE are only one." "WE" being included according to the context of the sentence.

Then if "we" are included, how the fuck can he not be talking about intelligent life?

Meh ... just go read The God Delusion.

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:Whether we ever get to know about them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century.

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion - Page 72.

And that's a wrap.

Time for some Nachos.

Errrm.... not a wrap.

That excerpt actually implies that WE are relatively unintelligent.

Here's a wrap:
[Image: wraps.png]

And toss me a Nacho.

No, not that one, you've nibbled that one. Yes. That one. Thanks.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2014, 06:17 AM
RE: The Athiest "SPECIAL" creation story.
(15-12-2014 11:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-12-2014 03:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  Weeping

You still... *God* is a massive assumption. There's no reason to make that assumption...

It's like... I relate everything, literally everything, back to my mother. Earthquake in Johannesburg? She musta done it. Oh, you've got seismic records and all that? Epicentre in Carltonville? Sweet. She done it. Somehow. I mean, yeah, now I know more of *how* she done it, she musta sneaked off down to Carltonville... but it's a perfectly viable proposition that she done it, you gotta admit.

I would respectfully disagree. God is an assumption for which millions of people currently claim there is evidence. No God is an assumption encompassing all known and unknown knowledge.

Further, the same apophenia you think theists have would apply to atheists if God exists.

You have a thinking problem. Skeptics don't assume there is no god, they simply don't assume there is one.
There is an enormous cognitive difference between those views, but you fail to understand it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: