BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:34 PM

No you didn't. And you'll be taken more seriously if you refrain from insulting people who take you on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:19 PM

///No we didn't "evolve more". We evolved from an ancestor common to other great apes. We evolved differently, but not "more". That simply doesn't mean anything.///

I know it doesn't mean anything. That's what I said. Take a hike.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

Steve:

Why are you mincing your words? Say what you really think...



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:37 PM

There are no creationist scientists. Oxymoron par excellence, with the emphasis solidly on moron. I have absolutely no hesitation in insulting people who pose as creationist scientists. They are nasty, wicked charlatans, and they wouldn't recognise proper science even if it reared up and bit them on their faux-celibate cocks. Evolution "permeates the media" because it happens to be a fact, something you would glean if only you would open your mind and read your Darwin. And try reading some Dawkins. Never mind watching a few bloody YouTube videos or whatever it is you claim to have watched.   He writes well, he doesn't deal in polemic (honest) and he will certainly make you feel uncomfortable in his challenges to your received wisdoms (he does that to me even). If you really are a man of conviction you should easily be able to take it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:59 PM

where do i start?talk about cat among the pigeons!despite regarding my position as nonsence you keep coming back.welcome one and all.josep-you use a decietful analogy especially as evolutionist adherents have developed those white supremist ideas.hi steve-certainly darwin was a learned man but not infallible and the same applies to creatoinist scientists.you have no hesitation in insulting them -i say again,i have used no such demeaning words about you or darwin.you are quite correct in assuming i,ve not read darwin et al though i have watched dawkins programmes and evolution permeates the media.the "rants"you refer to are articles by qualified scientists and i cant recall any of the ill will on them as is often exhibited here.i dont suppose if i read dawkins you would read sarfatis "greatest hoax on earth"?mrrzy-thats your position.as already intimated others may interpret the data differently.donuel-that was a cariculture that is sometimes true but not in respect to those on creation.com.im sure it works both ways too.hi ebbie-i agree that neither camp has all the answers but i suggest its wise to look for them-not just what appeals-BTW thanks for being a pleasant poster!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM

Oh, yes, and everybody's been evolving for the same amount of time.

I read the latest Dawkins book - man is he hard to read, he is SO full of himself - about the evidence for evolution. Some good points:

-No species is stable, all forms are "intermediate"" between what they came from and where they will end up, if they continue to survive

-The congruence of evidence for evolution comes from many, many disciplines beyond/other than biology

-Denying evolution (Note: Not "not believing in it") is to deny history, geography, cosmology, astronomy, and so on.

(Poor points include Dawkins' repeated phrasing indicating his beleif that only he can explain this stuff, and that the poor dumb reader shouldn't strain their little brain trying to understand it elsewhere.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:41 PM

I would like to think along the lines that Amos proposes because I suspect that neither creationists nor materialists know it all.

By the way, 1400.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

I kind of like the idea that DNA is merely an antenna for life force's transmissions. The more you have, and the more complex it grows, the more of themessage you can receive

OK, without special pleading, tell me if you think gorillas are more or less "tuned in" than humans. And guinea pigs. Funnel- web spiders? Lungfish? Salamanders?

All these organisms (and hundreds of others that have been measured) have at least as much DNA in their genome as humans. Some have more than a hundred times as much.

And if it's total quantity, some weigh more than we do too. Especially that funnel-web spider JUST BEHIND YOU....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

Have you ever noticed that Creationists have a mean streak?

an exclusive sneak peek
http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/evolushun.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:59 PM

One logical snare that comes up over and over again in these threads is the dichotomy that God created the universe OR nothing created the universe, it just growed from material interactions.

This is a very shallow set of choices. The creationists in general prefer their view because it accounts for the impression of teleos, that evolution seems to be heading for something rather than just happening. Of course, pure Darwinists will reply that that is just an optical illusion because survival is the reward for adapting, or evolving well rather than badly.

But there is a possibility that a more Bergsonian model might be a workable middle ground; it requires no deity but speaks to the possibility that there is such a thing as elan vital, the non-material energy from which intention, aesthetics and ethics are born, and which is distributed in various degrees through all forms of life. No Godhead--just the "kingdom" within each of us to possibly unlimited degree.

I kind of like the idea that DNA is merely an antenna for life force's transmissions. The more you have, and the more complex it grows, the more of themessage you can receive, assuming you bother staying tuned!

:>D


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:39 PM

How in the world could evolution be a *hoax?* All the data from cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology all agree, as well as astronomy and probably other sciences as well, not to mention the common sense of anybody who looks at comparrative anatomy. You'd have to have way more than a conspiracy... maybe divine intervention (is that what you are positing, josep?) to get something like that to work!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM

"To say we're better because we evolved more is like saying a horse is superior to an alligator. Humans evolved more but it means nothing except that--we evolved more."

No we didn't "evolve more". We evolved from an ancestor common to other great apes. We evolved differently, but not "more". That simply doesn't mean anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM

"i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here"

No but you're being abusive to the memory of Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, and a thousand evolutionary biologists after him, by accepting total nonsense as received wisdom. I think, you should make up for it by actually reading some books about evolution instead of listening to ignorant rants against it. You will learn some very surprising things.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM

I can't tell what point you're making. If what you are trying to say is that complexity really does account for the qualitative leap betweentransmissionand understanding, because emergent behaviours typically arise when a critical number of transactions occur within a limited set of rules and an unlimited number of nodes, why then I have to simply differ with you.

Most routine human behavior might be explicable that way, but there is definitely a range of human quality where something else is happening. Jaded materialism doesn't cut it when you get into such a range. There, you find things being created, and the dominant tones are aesthetics, justice, recognition, understanding, integrity, and a number of other things that are not just emergent complex behaviors. There you find states of high affinity between beings and very high-grade communication that opens up vistas of understanding and connection. Attributing these qualities to mere complexity (to my way of thinking) is degrading and inaccurate.

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:20 PM

///i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here despite some -lets just say insentitive-postings.if you dont believe man is superior [even as an evolutionist]i fail to see your resoning.the examples of monkey "tools"seems to me nothing compared to what humans acheive even if you deny a creator///

White supremacists use the same argument:

i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here despite some -lets just say insentitive-postings.if you dont believe the white man is superior [even as an evolutionist]i fail to see your resoning.the examples of non-white "culture"seems to me nothing compared to what whites acheive even if you deny a creator.

What is achieved is deceptive measure. One guy told that the white man was right to take the land from the Indians because "They weren't doing anything with it." What would that be? Raping it for oil, covering it with strip malls, burying countless tons of chemical waste in it, paving it over to make room for more and more humans the earth frankly doesn't need?

Hunter-gatherers led the least intrusive lifestyles. Among many tribes words as lie, cheat, steal, guilt, etc. did not exist. The land and its varied flora and fauna was kept pristine. So did the white man REALLY prove himself superior at anything? He placed a premium on technological advancement at the expense of pretty much everything else. He's now destroying himself with a technology he cannot live without.

So is man superior to chimps or gorillas? In terms of living a fulfilling life, continuance of the race or species, etc. I would say no. To say we're better because we evolved more is like saying a horse is superior to an alligator. Humans evolved more but it means nothing except that--we evolved more.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM

i must have missed somrthing on this massive thread.i,ve not seen anyone using such language except unbelievers in God,and mostly abusing each other!-though steve did have a go at me,bless him.admittedly i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here despite some -lets just say insentitive-postings.if you dont believe man is superior [even as an evolutionist]i fail to see your resoning.the examples of monkey "tools"seems to me nothing compared to what humans acheive even if you deny a creator

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:25 PM

Btw, Amos,

once all those pesky questions about man not being the only tool making animal, and thus 'superior' (as God had made him!) started to surface, the sky fairy proponents started frothing at the mouth, as usual, denigrating the mental state of those commenting on, or even making the observations in the field (they must be lying, making it up, insane, spawn of the devil, they could not possibly understand etc) but you've seen all that predictable behavior here in these threads...

:-0

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:06 PM

"Circuitry can imitate understanding, once that understanding occurs"

Ah - once again we stumble on the semantics....

Once upon a time, Man was defined as 'the only tool making animal' ... till those pesky field workers came up with documentation of monkeys washing potatoes in the sea, using sticks to poke ants out of nest, killing young babies, and all that stuff.

So it became necessary (if one wanted to progress and not just deny it all) to rethink the semantics of many concepts, such as what is a 'tool', what is 'making of a tool' - is biting off a length of twig 'tool-making', just what is 'learning' anyway - do we analyze it on the basis of observed external outputs, and which ones, and how do we measure them, it goes on - once all that 'convoluted nonsense' was just for Philosophy students, now the damn cat is out of the bag and many scientific fields have to grapple with these confusing and often apparently contradictory concepts.

Emergent behavior is just as counter-intuitive as quantum theory, and yet many people are able to happily accept the unquestioned existence of invisible omnipotent entities 'beyond all human understanding' (I was brought up Fundamentalist Lutheran, you see!).

The emotional problem arises when we come up slap bang against something that we know (based on life experiences - it's all right - we already know about the sky fairies!) cannot be happening cause it does not make sense in light of our previous experience - we've also just gotten used to those pesky sleight of hand magicians over the centuries, you see...

I remember the look of amazement/horror on the face of my very young goddaughter who had refused to believe that 'the big sandpit' - her term - called 'the beach' existed till she first physically experienced it. "yeah mum, you're pulling my leg again" was always her attitude prior to that moment ... :-) She loves it now ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:44 PM

Robin:

I've read GEB twice and Wolfram's massive tome on the same field, and others. I understand emergent behavior and complexity theory, as a lay person anyway.

It does not address the point I raise. Circuitry can imitate understanding, once that understanding occurs, of course.

But the key ability itself, I think not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:12 PM

smokey and snail.


I am oh-so-very, very, very sorry for my attack which must have stung you so deep that neither of can shut up about it.

I AM SORRY I AM SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY


SORRY


SORRY

SO: VERY SORRY

I,M SORRY I'M SORRY SORRY SSORRY SOORRYU'

ok?

jeesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

Bon - so, we seem to be aqgreed: there is no manifestation of deity within the realm of sensation, so, anyone who feels/perceives deity is deluded.

Nice to have a conclusion...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:27 PM

"complexity alone cannot explain a phenomena that is profoundly, qualitatively different in nature."

Ah - emergent behavior - which is qualitatively different in nature, and often profoundly counter-intuitive, comes out of complexity in a functioning system. :-)

Read Hofsteader's Pulitzer Prize winning Book "Escher, Godel & Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid ". He goes into some detail, especially in Computing, a field where it was recognized as being as fundamental to how the whole Universe, not only computers, works.

On the main example he quoted, the number of users able to run in the Operating system is not a property of any part of the system - you can't go in and just change a magic number somewhere. The emergent behavior is only displayed when the system is actually running. The aspect called 'intelligence', is only displayed when the system. eg Brain, 'Black Box', traffic flow on a motorway, etc is functioning.

QUOTE (Wikipedia)
On its surface, GEB examines logician Kurt Gödel, artist M. C. Escher and composer Johann Sebastian Bach, discussing common themes in their work and lives. At a deeper level, the book is a detailed and subtle exposition of concepts fundamental to mathematics, symmetry, and intelligence.

Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself.

In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony of ants.
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:50 PM

I thought one person had quoted the ad and then said I never mentioned Goswami since then. That's an ad hominem attack.

No it isn't, or wouldn't be. It's a repudiation of your appeal to authority. An 'argumentum ad hominem' would have been if someone had posted a link to a similar advert of yours. No-one is arguing with Dr. Goswami, they were merely providing a reference from which people can judge for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:16 AM

glad you are not offended steve-just your style i suppose.all the best-if thats not patronising ,that is!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:02 AM

It was me that said you'd never mentioned Goswami since then. It looked as if you found his association with the Quantum University a bit of an embarrassment. Do you or do you think it enhances his reputation as an authority on quantum mechanics?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM

It's a pity you don't have the common decency to apologise for your own personal attacks, even though you now claim not to know who you were intending to insult.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM

There is no ad hominem attack. I thought one person had quoted the ad and then said I never mentioned Goswami since then. That's an ad hominem attack. It's saying that I am conceding that Goswami is wrong not for what he says about physics but because of some silly ad. But one person quoted the ad for whatever reasons of his own which he didn't elucidate and which I diden't comment on because I didn't know his motivation. But someone else implied I was conceding that Goswami is not a worthwhile source because of the ad which I was not doing because regardless of the ad, he's still a qualified physicist.

So there was no fucking ad homimen--just get off it. thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:39 PM

I quoted it, Josep, so tell me where the ad hominem attack is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM

///Josep, I'll ask again -

"Could you please explain why pointing out that Dr Goswami is on the faculty of The Quantum University through which he sells The Quantum Activist Course constitutes an attack on him? Could you also, as I have already asked, quote anything I have said that you consider to be an attack on Dr Goswami?"///

I said forget it. You didn't quote the ad, right? So forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM

"If I am offending you Steve by butchering the Queens english I humbly apologize.You see I have made a special effort this time.I should hate to think you might dismiss my Saviour on account of his follower,s grammer.Truth to tell,I am no whizz on technology so I am unlikely to maintain this standard and anyway have you never seen the example of mixed up spelling ,but which most people can read none-the-less.I suspect my post simply annoyed you, so you resorted to ridicule.Following the teaching of my Lord Jesus Christ I shall do the opposite-bless you Steve[ oh and by the way,I said one for you-as they say in these parts!]."

I am neither offended by your butchering of the queer old dean's English nor am I annoyed by anything you say in your posts (perplexed by your utterly cloudy thinking, perhaps). Carry on. But, whilst I am not personally offended by it (I'm far too busy being amused), I think it is generally offensive to patronise people who disagree with you by telling them that you're blessing/praying for them. Bless me and pray for me as much as you like (you could far more profitably be drinking single malt in front of a good western, but hey), but keep it severely to yourself is my advice. But it's a free country and you're free to make an arse of yourself in that way if you really want to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:43 PM

Josep, I'll ask again -

"Could you please explain why pointing out that Dr Goswami is on the faculty of The Quantum University through which he sells The Quantum Activist Course constitutes an attack on him? Could you also, as I have already asked, quote anything I have said that you consider to be an attack on Dr Goswami?"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:52 AM

If I am offending you Steve by butchering the Queens english I humbly apologize.You see I have made a special effort this time.I should hate to think you might dismiss my Saviour on account of his follower,s grammer.Truth to tell,I am no whizz on technology so I am unlikely to maintain this standard and anyway have you never seen the example of mixed up spelling ,but which most people can read none-the-less.I suspect my post simply annoyed you, so you resorted to ridicule.Following the teaching of my Lord Jesus Christ I shall do the opposite-bless you Steve[ oh and by the way,I said one for you-as they say in these parts!].

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:24 PM

lol Good manners, huh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:55 PM

"God didn't do much for your grammar and punctuation, did he?" Steve Shaw

And atheism hasn't done much for your 'heart' either, has it? What does grammar and punctuation have to do with ethics, beliefs or stance?"

Ha ha. Come off it. This bloke just can't be arsed to put in his capital letters, spaces and correct punctuation marks, yet he can evidently write fluent English. The guy's taking the piss. God gets a capital G but poor ol' Jaysus has to put up with a little j. You're defending the indefensible. It's all about just spending a bit of time going back over your post to ensure that the poor buggers who have to read it don't have to waste their time mentally processing it. We call it good manners in these parts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:14 PM

thanks ebbie.glad you dont iose any sleep steve.as to your question-the teaching of jesus does indicate degrees of punishment and thankyou for[unintentionally!?]giving me opportunity to give you the gospel message in way of answer.all are sinners and unable to stand before a holy God.the giving of jesus life on our behalf also pays the heavy price we are due.this applies to those who believe in him-others are judged according to their works-of which mocking is one among many on the negative side.probably you have heard this before,but since you asked....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

Interesting article on qubits, Amos, but surely you know that superposition states are just quantum goobledegook that haven't been proven and haven't contributed anything to our knowledge or technology. Don't you know Schrodinger's cat proves there is no such thing as a superposition that this hasn't been proven in a laboratory? That's probably just something you made up--just admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM

I thought some of you would want to know that Richard Dawkins will be a guest on Bill Mahrs talk show next Friday night. Here in the states it comes on at 10:00 PM EST on HBO. I'm pretty sure you can access the show on the HBO website and even send in questions the same way.

For those of you who don't remember it was a mention of an appearance by Richard Dawkins that got this thread started many moons ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

It was interesting, mp, and on the whole I took it to be reasonably impartial, for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM

Stringsinger: I posted the link as an opportunity for folks to listen to something from outside of Mudcat. I was not intending it to prove something one way or another. I was meant as something interesting to listen to that covered some of the philosophical arguments we often have here. It is open to several interpreations by indivisuals.

The individual who produced was having his say by essay on it is all :-)

Opinions vastly differ with us all and I find that quite 'miraculous' for many reasons

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

Josep, it's such a relief to know I'm not a total 'asshole', but I'd strongly advise that you brush up on your logical fallacies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:06 AM

"God didn't do much for your grammar and punctuation, did he?" Steve Shaw

And atheism hasn't done much for your 'heart' either, has it? What does grammar and punctuation have to do with ethics, beliefs or stance?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:48 AM

Before you guys start crying, that was just a joke. I was wrong. I admit it. I haven't checked it but I'lll take you wrd for it. smokey may have been pointing it out for fun and I have no probem with that. But nevertheless anyone who uses the ad to discredit any statement made by Dr. Goswami is engaging in an adhominem attack.

But neither of you guys are assholes. Of course that sentence wont' do any good since you're only going to read the previous post because that's how mucat rolls.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:42 AM

////GUEST,josep

I was quoting snail

Indeed you were but you went on to say -

Yes, that's right. I had you pegged the day you quoted that ad--

I didn't quote the ad, Smokey did. You continued -

waiting for you to keep dragging it up until I had to set you straight but I had hoped you'd grow a brain in between. You didn't. So keep attacking Dr. Goswami, who is infinitely more qualified and more intelligent than you--but then who isn't? If that's how you think you can one-better people but you're only proving they are better than you.

How about that for ad hominem?////

In that case, I stand corrected. Smokey is a total asshole after all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM

God didn't do much for your grammar and punctuation, did he? You'd have thought he'd supply his followers with a somewhat more cogent manner of communication.

Hey, Pete...what if the mockers lead really good, moral lives yet continue to mock? Will they pay a less heavy price? I think we should be told!

Also, I think you'll find that most of us atheistic types sleep well without the need for lulling. We do have the advantage of not needing to waste precious kip-time at bedtime saying our prayers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM

It's impossible to be an antitheist if you don't believe in God, Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:35 PM

if there is God creation is his work.if there is not, everything came from nothing.dont sound very sc ientific to me-albeit a highly developed theory that evolves itself.stringsinger is entitled to dismiss God or rant on about "fundies"but it gives this fundamental christian no pleasure in believing that the mockers will pay a heavy price for it-but if they are so sure in their antitheism what do they care-or why so zealous in their opposition?just maybe they are not so sure, but it lulls them to sleep with the notion that there is no judgement to come.rant at my post at will but i am only responding to past post as graciously as i can.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:47 PM

MP, he lost me on the "soul" part. The dualism is antiquated today. Abstract thoughts are often misleading assumptions. I think that "heart" is often subject to interpretation. I don't think that this "heart" exists beyond the brain. "Heart" is an abstract that is questionable because it means different things to people. Some take "heart" in warfare. Some take "heart" in competition. "Heart" for many is based on a religious conviction which I don't share.


The human body is not necessarily a masterpiece of creation. Evolution has changed the functions of the human body over time but improvements have not been made altogether.
Medical science is truly wonderful in that it sometimes can address these deficiencies.

I think the most important part of philosophy is "ethics" because it questions how as a species we will live together.

His views elude me on the assumption that the mind and the brain are separate.
Of course, his supposition that there is an out-of-body mind is conjecture and not supportable by what we know of science today.

We can equally presuppose that aliens are out to help us or that a sky-god will or won't throw a thunderbolt in our direction.

Hanging on to antiquated messages from the past to soothe humans from the inevitable death they will have doesn't seem particularly either useful or helpful. Death is part of life and the realization of it helps us appreciate life so much more than being lulled to sleep by the notion of an afterlife or heaven. The more sinister elements of this is when you consider the fundamentalist view of religion in which you will be rewarded by insane behavior in the "hereafter".

Oh that's just the "Fundies" you say. Well they are being enabled by the concepts of
religion that have no basis in science or reality.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

oh yes! But what an interesting lot of questions and philosophical reasoning

No conclusions... just pure opinions that I found most refreshing and thoughtful

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM

interesting listen mauvepink.at least i could understand what ted h was saying-though more questions than answers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:29 PM

Going way back into the thread about conciousness and spirit. You do do worse than listen to this . I just heard it on the radio driving home and is available for the next 7 days only. It touches on many points about our human existence and state of being.

Hope it helps

mp