Questions for Atheists

Evolution may well have caused many people to "forget" supernatural explanations regardless of abiogenesis, as it cuts across the creation mythologies of many religions on its own. Claiming that is not the same as claiming that science supports atheism, although it would be true to comment that there's a correlation between increases in scientific knowledge and increases in atheism.If you want to claim that someone is making fallacious arguments, you really ought to present precise quotes in their context, as I said in the other post.The third world, where there's not much science going on, is the fortress of both strong theism and high infant mortality rates, after all, isn't it.Did you get my point about brainwashing?

Look up the history, the organized religion of Hinduism is much younger than Judaism. The religion you are referring to was not at all organized. Rather, it was a bunch of random sets of beliefs, much like members of this discussion.Also, I think it will be more beneficial for you if you would read whole paragraphs and not just zoom in on every letter. In a way, your responces to my post has actually proven my point. You are not able to comprehend what I said because you looked at every point individually, without even considering the actual arguement. Allow me to demonstrate this with your post: You are argueing from ignorance. First of all how do you know that it was decided. You are asking as if it is a fact already. Again you are making an assumption. How do you know what the Hindu's have to say. This is an argument from ignorance.You see if I break your words into peices it is not possible for me to see what you are really saying. I can go even further if you want. This is absurd. How can anything decide that any god is the true one. Whatever you said before this statement cannot prove this statement to be true.Do you notice what I did? I analyzed your words very carefully, and so I would actually be completely clueless as to what you are trying to say. Lets try some more. Your logic in this word makes no sense. How can you say "and" without saying something before it. This also is meaningless. Are you trying to ask a question or tell a story? This makes absolutely no sense. In fact it is not comprehendable. You could be refering to many things with this letter.Do you understand what I am trying to tell you. You are gaining nothing by dispoving every single sentence of an arguement. You are only showing that you dont understand the point that I am trying to make. If you want to have a debate, why not give your opinion in a nice thought out rebutal?

Do not play stupid games and waste posts!

Hi Open Mind, I think you will find that Rrhain was posing a rhetorical question, one which you are taking out of context. You are doing exactly what you complain of Rrhain doing.Oh, and by the way, there is no argument from ignorance in the quoted snippet. I think you need to look up the definition of that particular logical fallacy before accusing others of employing it.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

No.

1. The explanation is not a logical proof over a supernatural alternative.
2. As long as you don't jump to the WHOLE, which has done on TV, in debate, many times, then it's fine.Why would he say that thunder can happen alone therefore there's no God? Clearly I wouldn't propose he said that. I only know that he promotes the idea that God is not required because of naturalism. This is common knowledge, not a strawman, so you can call bullshit untill you're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that Dawkins jumps to conclusions about a creator, because of evolution.Nice try though.

Your bias is completely transparent. You obviously did not understand what I was saying in this post. It was a perfect response to Rrhain's load of useless comments. I clearly explained how he was taking out individual sentence from my posts just for the sake of arguement. Then I gave some examples which demonstrated the problem with what he was doing. I dont have time for your biased warnings.

You obviously did not read my entire post either.

Which is fine, as long as we all know that atheism doesn't have any scientific or logically sound backing.Hell, if Dawkins doesn't argue it, big deal - it's still a common argument therefore I can refute it. But we all know he does make these claims and mikey isn't stupid enough to be distracted from the rather large fact that parsimony, as I stated, isn't obstructed. If you agree, then that is very fine indeed. If your hero didn't say it - it's even better, you can correct atheists by telling them what I have said.

Scientific explanations for phenomena are not founded upon logic, but upon observation. However, where a naturalistic explanation sufficiently explains observations, it is only logical to (tentatively) accept that explanation above supernatural explanations, of which we could invent an infinite number for any phenomenon. If you want to talk about logic, logic demands that we base our explanations upon verifiable observation and that we make our explanations as parsimonious as possible. That means your fanciful talk of supernatural explanations (for which no evidence exists of course) is simply superfluous.Your supernatural explanation is indistinguishable from any number of supernatural explanations that I might invent. It tells us nothing. That makes it entirely worthless. Well if Dawkins has said this many times, it will be super-easy for you to find a quote substantiating this, won't it. I have no idea. Since I doubt he has said anything as stupid as that, I don't really care. A naturalistic explanation for thunder certainly helps eliminate an emotional need to explain thunder by reference to thunder gods though, wouldn't you agree? Why mention it then? As I understand it, his argument is more along the lines that God-based explanations are not required because of naturalism. Given a plethora of naturalistic explanations in the modern age, it makes the God of the Gaps argument for God's existence less compelling, since there are fewer unknowns demanding explanation, fewer gaps.Naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena are not an argument against God in their own right. They are, however, an answer to spurious arguments for God such as Paley's watch example or reference to alleged miracles. Such arguments may be superficially compelling, but arguing for God's existence from incredulity in this way will inevitably lead to fewer and smaller gaps for him to hide in. If you must insist upon worshipping the little God of the Gaps, then face it; naturalism is anathema to him. Saying that Dawkins doesn't believe in God because of evolution, as though this were the totality of his argument is the very essence of a strawman I'm afraid.Apparently I can shout bullshit for as long as I like, yet nothing I do will induce you to back up any of claims about what Dawkins has said with a quote. Oh well.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Mike,You're not alone in finding Dawkins disagreeable. He even recognizes this himself, stating on more than one occasion that he understands his antagonistic style works against him. But he also says that he can do no more than be himself, and so those of us on the side of science (I can't say atheism since I'm not an atheist) wince as his turn comes to speak.While you might not like what Dawkins has to say (and when he ventures outside the strict confines of science I don't, either), consider that he's a very effective force in mobilizing Christians in the battle against what they see as Godless science. He might actually be doing more to help your cause than hurt it.I wouldn't try to discourage you from criticizing Dawkins, but you might want to put a little more effort into being accurate and specific.--Percy

Hi Mike,I am an atheist, I am also a fan of Dawkins, however, both he and I share one view about God that I have not seen mentioned yet and that is that he is not absolute about the denial of God. In his book "The God Delusion" he specifically states that on a scale of atheism between 1 and 7 he considers himself a 6 because no true scientist could ever rule out something with absolute assurance without having evidence for it.Note: I could cite the page and paragraph but I really don't want to search for it cause im lazy. Here's a youtube video of him being interviewed by Bill Maher in which he explains his position,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRpbkpNpgw

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hey mike, His argument is

quote:

---

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

---

Which is true. There is an ever increasing amount of things that we garner explanations about, time and again naturalistic explanations are ultimately the successful ones and the supernatural ones are time and again the ones that don't help at all. As Dawkins also puts forward, this kind of track record that science keeps racking up 'boosts our confidence' in its ability to tackle future questions.

quote:

---

Even before Darwin's time, the illogicality was glaring: how could it ever have been a good idea to postulate, in explanation for the existence of improbable things, a designer who would have to be even more improbable? The entire argument is a logical non-starter, as David Hume realized before Darwin was born. What Hume didn't know was the supremely elegant alternative to both chance and design that Darwin was to give us. Natural selection is so stunningly powerful and elegant, it not only explains the whole of life, it raises our consciousness and boosts our confidence in science's future ability to explain everything else.

---

So in essence, there is no need to postulate that God might explain such and such a thing. One can entirely rationally believe that the application of science can provide an explanation: one does not need the God hypothesis which had previously been the only contender.Hopefully that clears that up.

I'm lazy too onifre, but I have a searchable PDF version of The God Delusion! Here's the bit you mention; Pages 50-51 in my copy.I would also place myself in category 6 and I think that this way of looking at categories of belief is quite useful. I think that the kind of fallaciousness Mike is talking about is inherent in position 7, but, of course, equally inherit in position 1...Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Grammar.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thanks Granny Magda for the page references, damn technology is the shit!!! Agreed, but notice that most people with strong beliefs in God, which, as you stated, would be a 1 on that scale, will not consider themselves as being absolutists, they prefer the euphemistic approach of labeling themselves, as Carlin would say:"people of faith"....fuck I miss George Carlin

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky