Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you really know anyone that adopts science as a "world view"? I sure don't. Science is just a method used for discovery.
I do. I know some people that make science into a personal religion. Of course that's not everyone but there are definitely people who do adopt science as a "world view".
He struggles because he isn't used to dealing with quick fire theist apologetics. Mind, O Reilly picks his points carefully:
(1) don't know for sure how the universe started. It's hard to get people raised on religion to sideline goddunnit and suspend belief.
(2) conditions for the existence of us required some luck. It also needed evolution to meet it half - way. Different conditions, different us
Leap to Biblegod and sideline all the others. Dawkins is on a loser quoting Apollo and Zeus as no -one believes in them now and Jews and Muslims believe in the same god - heck, they all do but Mr. O 'Reilly would say 'I'll stick with Jesus'.
Dawkins was fired some hot ones and then shut down with a hint that he was only in it for the dough. He must have wondered: 'what just happened?'
I just got high speed a week ago and don't watch TV so this is the first bit of the much talked about Dawkins approach Ive seen. Good points Arequipa.
I'm thinking theres too much straying away from common sense in
theist argumentation. ( just a general thought...for myself mostly)
...just thinking out loud on what may have been argued if those guys were joined by a few others...........
1) above , the just happened position couldn't be in place if "nothing happened" so something happened and the atheist no God idea which I know isn't a given, is a tough go at it. It really does take more guts because all thats left is a coincidental self, can't back up a coincidence with anything...theres no point . Man I think needs a point of reference in order to back himself up with. Creation would require same, otherwise theres no point of reference with something which is all about a point of reference. All of it...relativity, the neccesary gravity... theres no end to a point of reference in this Creation
Morals for example: how does a person back up morals in a difficult situation? Do gooders or as long as no one gets interfered with, won't work in questionable situations. Look at the guys he mentions..poor country conditions , no back up moral code and anybody can justify anything.
Man needs order other than a variety of idea's. No matter what man will create his own idea of whats ok and whats not, regardless of law. Law protects the greater majority, its not specific. A person is specific with specific situations.
Regarding leap to bible god, possible thinking may hold ...
Once a cosmic God or point in consideration is in effect and mindful for creation... I wonder how bible god can be intelligently argued as bible god ....in of itself is a kind of parable in the idea, for truth.
So....no matter when or what time in history the parable for truth is installed...its just not possible to fit it in for all cultures , time, etc etc.
It doesn't seem reasonable to seperate cosmic God...from parable for truth
That IS the point . . . though it seems to be given a pass when accepting the description of your God "Nature" and anything attributed to Him as "natural" . . . since "Nature" is imbued with those very attributes that cannot be scientifically established. Odd . . . don't you think . . . especially since the assertions are so adamant. They are masked in assertions like your "we don't know" . . . but they are accepted as default by using them euphemistically as "explanations." The hypocrisy and deceit is palpable.
nature, with a small 'n',Mystic.
You declare that you DO know, yet some time ago, I asked you about a detail in your hypothesis and your reply was that you didn't know and yet proceed to (on the other board) to
pontificate as to what will happen as if you do.
So don't throw the charge of hypocrisy and deceit around so lightly.
You cannot be on this board claiming scientific adherence and expect that what you claim elsewhere has no bearing.
Reminder to self.....read, if you want, but avoid any temptation to respond to Miciel,Mystic, etc, etc.
I do. I know some people that make science into a personal religion. Of course that's not everyone but there are definitely people who do adopt science as a "world view".
It depends what you mean by „world view“ as that tends to be an over used label that is almost meaningless.
To use an analogy… I have recognized when using my own two feet for locomotion that walking forwards is the most comfortable, most effective, most efficient and most safe method of doing so. That is therefore how I do it, as opposed to walking backwards or sideways.
If you want to consider that my “world view” then so be it, but it would be a weird use of the phrase.
Similarly when answering questions about our universe Science has proven to be the best methodology to adapt. It is therefore the one I use. Again if you want to call that a “world view” then so be it, but it is a weird use of the phrase and says precisely nothing of use. I have merely recognized that is the most superior and effective methodology available to me, so I use it. As opposed to say.... making stuff up off the top of my head to answer questions like "There is a god".
Science is just a tool, not a “world view”. It is a methodology that, when correctly applied to the questions we wish to ask about the universe, minimizes much of the risk of human error and cognitive bias that is inherent in our species
I just got high speed a week ago and don't watch TV so this is the first bit of the much talked about Dawkins approach Ive seen. Good points Arequipa.
I'm thinking theres too much straying away from common sense in
theist argumentation. ( just a general thought...for myself mostly)
...just thinking out loud on what may have been argued if those guys were joined by a few others...........
1) above , the just happened position couldn't be in place if "nothing happened" so something happened and the atheist no God idea which I know isn't a given, is a tough go at it. It really does take more guts because all thats left is a coincidental self, can't back up a coincidence with anything...theres no point . Man I think needs a point of reference in order to back himself up with. Creation would require same, otherwise theres no point of reference with something which is all about a point of reference. All of it...relativity, the neccesary gravity... theres no end to a point of reference in this Creation
Morals for example: how does a person back up morals in a difficult situation? Do gooders or as long as no one gets interfered with, won't work in questionable situations. Look at the guys he mentions..poor country conditions , no back up moral code and anybody can justify anything.
Man needs order other than a variety of idea's. No matter what man will create his own idea of whats ok and whats not, regardless of law. Law protects the greater majority, its not specific. A person is specific with specific situations.
Regarding leap to bible god, possible thinking may hold ...
Once a cosmic God or point in consideration is in effect and mindful for creation... I wonder how bible god can be intelligently argued as bible god ....in of itself is a kind of parable in the idea, for truth.
So....no matter when or what time in history the parable for truth is installed...its just not possible to fit it in for all cultures , time, etc etc.
It doesn't seem reasonable to separate cosmic God...from parable for truth
I've seen some Dawkins stuff where I wanted to cheer. I've also seen some stuff where I was frankly embarrassed. He got steamrollered by an expert here.
Perhaps the problem is that it is a lot quicker to say 'there are fairies at the bottom of my garden' than to explain why there probably aren't. The value of Dawkins' and Hitchens and the whole atheist argument is in detailed discussion, not in a quick -fire interview where the interviewee is, truth to tell, not really given a chance to explain anything.
We press on, each with our own World View. I'm glad mine has proven so right!
But... the theist crowd love quick, snappy answers that they deem to decimate the opposition. Especially when they have never taken the time to illuminate their own minds as to the details of a specific technical point in the debate.
It's quite instructional that our friend Mystic here is well educated, has read the literature, and therefore does believe in the obvious (Evolution, an ancient Earth, and elements of the cosmos that a true ill-educated Christian cannot abide or tolerate. After all, Mystic has necessarily formed the correct conclusions as to how those processes and events occurred...) However my debate with him is in his insistent (and endlessly smug; sorry Big-M, but what is, is...) interpretation that...
1) his World View requires, were it's simply not necessary, a theist causative origin. But then, to further complicate things...
2) He provides, as proof of his Godly entity, really etherial, wishy-washy and frankly, totally improbable (or explained with as many 0.95¢ words as he can cram in) explanations of stuff that lingers provocatively on the edge of an LSD dream. A sort of dream-state event horizon to be sure.
The "science world view" claimed here as some sort of failure or near-sighted perspective is actually potentially and reasonably correct, in that, yes, some of us who use science regularly have come to trust its inevitable reliability in answering the questions in this life. Or the mans by which it can remove from question the least likely scenarios. Like Noah's silly Ark et al. (I know, Mystic, the fundy literalists come on like the brain-dead zombies in a really stupid "B" class Sci-Fi movie. "The Attack of The Intransigent Theists"
After all, the answers that the SM ("Scientific Method", for the great unread masses..) has so far reliably provided are remarkable, insightful, and correctly predictive of the most likely and successfully comprehensive and fitting answers for the ever expanding set of Big Questions.
When you can build on past successful accomplishments, and then make a reasonable prediction of likely consequences, and then BINGO, darned if that's not what you then find & see, what ARE you to conclude about the process or the answers?
Answer: You learn to respect a highly respectable process. Anything thataccurate and inevitable becomes highly trustable and may thus become a strong component and element of a thinking person's valuable personal "World View", versus one of clinging to the fundamentalist, literalist bumbling, hopeful but ever-more fallacious fairy-tales whose consequences have shown themselves to be nonsense in so many situations!
QED, huh, Mystic.
(Hey pal; BTW; you can give me my 2000th rep point! Imagine that! Another predictable accomplishment!)
Yet it is 99.99999999999999999999999999% more factual than the book of ancient superstitions.
Correct. And we should believe the tiny percentage of what we do know rather than believe a particular preferred personal selection of the many uninformed mythical speculative guesses about the huge amount we don't know.
Allow me to pile on to (onto) the heap of critical thinkers I see here and add my assent to the idea that it is much better to add to the percentage which we do know using the methods of scientific inquiry, rather than believing in speculation (and ancient tomes) concerning a Prime Mover (or whatever one wishes to call it).
Big "N" little "n" is irrelevant . . . it still retains the attributes of God re: us puny creatures. Pretending it doesn't because of the bad taste in your mouth left by religions and their absurdities is dishonest, disingenuous, and unscientific. It is what it is . . . as my friend rifle is wont to say.
Quote:
You declare that you DO know, yet some time ago, I asked you about a detail in your hypothesis and your reply was that you didn't know and yet proceed to (on the other board) to
pontificate as to what will happen as if you do.
So don't throw the charge of hypocrisy and deceit around so lightly.
You cannot be on this board claiming scientific adherence and expect that what you claim elsewhere has no bearing.
As many times as I have repeated this . . . you do not seem to recognize the dichotomy that applies . . even to your supposed neutral view. The ONLY aspects of God that are universally applicable are those discovered by science. Others are subjective. My experiences enable a certainty about certain other attributes that you do not accept . . . so what? I do not accept those that you do and pretend to assign to "we don't know" but then assume them as default for your God. They are no less subjective. They are in the realm of preferred BELIEFS ABOUT God. The intransigence and BS pretense that it is not so. . . . is just tiresome and annoying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We press on, each with our own World View. I'm glad mine has proven so right!
