In Dawkins case, subjectively certain, but as long as he presents bayesian update style likelihoods, does it matter?
They are used, at least pre-testing, in phylogenies. I think I like anyone who likes and can remember Python. A clear indication of where ones priorities lie. Which is perfectly acceptable. Yeah, right. I confess I had to look up peripatetic. It would be nice to see evidence on this strategy. Most businesses do it as well. By definition ideology is basically lying for a living since there is no evidence for most statements and easily available contrary evidence.
But I suspect tactical lying is a corrosive tactic for evidence-based folks. Our foundational premise is evidence. Ideologues, magical thinkers, liars and crooks always justify the lies as serving the greater good. Seems an important distinction. There is no logical connection between atheism and doing bad things, nor good things for that matter.
Anybody who thinks you need religion in order to be good is being good for the wrong reason. Morals were here before religion, and morals change rather rapidly in spite of religion.
Even people who rely on the Bible use nonbiblical criteria. If your criteria are scriptural, you have no basis for choosing the verse that says turn the other cheek rather than the verse that says stone people to death. So you pick and choose without guidance from the Bible.
Dawkins is too condescendent with stupid believers. Hitchens was better at dealing with them. The answer is simple. It is the simple acknowledgment that it is possible to be mistaken.
An agnostic atheist recognizes that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of deities agnostic , while also finding arguments for their existence utterly unconvincing atheist. Likewise, if you are a Christian who finds arguments for God convincing but recognizes that his existence is impossible to prove and that it is at least possible you could be mistaken, then you are an agnostic theist.
I strongly suspect that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself would be the first to acknowledge there can be no absolute certainty either way and, if I am right, this would make him an agnostic to precisely the same degree as Richard — yet I doubt anyone would claim this means he is no longer a Christian!
I can acknowledge that it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that a supernatural deity is impossible, yet say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in the existence of a supernatural deity.
If a god becomes established, indisputable fact one second from now, then I have at least one new fact that informs my understanding of what is. It is not required, and simply silly waste, to place any emotional value assessment on this information. I predict a tougher transition for some of the disappointed.
Some of them will probably want to fight to the death over it, just like now. Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury will transition as easily to acceptance of an actual deity as atheists and non-theist self-described agnostics will, but I would not bet my personal safety that anywhere close to all present theists will be so sanguine.
I would just say that is a belief of theirs. It is surely possible to believe in something that is a true, established fact. It seems to be, as I understand it, an inevitable process.
Therefore, we are surrounded by, and very likely are ourselves, transitional species. Some are, no doubt, deadenders, but without perfect foresight, who can know? As Dawkins says, we are looking at the tips of the branches, but those tips may, in some distant future, branch again.
All individuals of all species are transitional … between the genomes of their parents and the genomes of their offspring. In Science vs. I see no reason at all to lie, nor has anyone demonstrated that Lying for Science is effective. Lying for Science is self-defeating — how does the use of tactics inimical to science help science? Promote bullshit to fight bullshit? When I pointed out that his creed was self-contradictory and made him sound like a religious or maoist maniac, Carrier suggested that I was being irrational.
I think Richard could be a bit better with his tone but I agree with him in principle. I think there is great value in having a subset of the Atheist movement comprised of people who unapologetically renounce bigotry, misogyny etc. Check out some of their less-inflamatory posts on the subject. Get real. His manifesto sounds like a Stalinist purge. Carrier has now partly rewritten his manifesto and toned down some of the most rabid statements. While he does not make a secret of this, it is not readily apparent that the original post was altered and in which way.
This is probably a sign of poor version management rather than an attempt to rewrite history, but it gives an appropriate Orwellian touch to the whole affair. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument and, when shown that they have, does not admit it , is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and kicked out, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.
Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument on any matter of real importance and, when shown that they have, does not admit it when given the chance , might not be one of us, and if they persist in doing that, is definitely not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with. Want more from the Friendly Atheist? August 21, Tagged with: General. Previous Post. August 21, Mike Huckabee to Rep.
Next Post. Browse Our Archives. Booooooo indeed! C Peterson. Gregory Marshall. I totally read his part in his voice in my head. Joe GK. The Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own language.
Whatmore do we need of witnesses? Josephus mentions Jesus twice. I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are trying to turn fact into fiction. Why waste time talking or even thinking about Dawkins?!
I was interested in Lennox and happened on the above video. Next time Playgirl interviews Dawkins, will News spread it? In modern parlance, we might define a contrivance as a complex, co-ordinated arrangement of parts, all subserving a common end.
For our purposes, it does not matter whether this end is intrinsic or extrinsic, natural or artificial. What Darwin did not show, however, is how the fundamental biochemical systems upon which all organisms rely for their survival, could have came into existence, in the first place.
But it seems to me that this proposal ignores the most fundamental characteristic of living things: their teleology. A contrivance is a complex, co-ordinated arrangement of parts subserving a common end. So my question is: how did these arrangements of parts that are supposed to have arisen through autocatalytic reactions billions of years ago ever come to subserve a common end?
Actually, science does not make moral or value claims on anything. Science can explain how the Earth rotates around the sun and how black holes work, but not why they exist in the first place. You must be logged in to post a comment. Spread the love. Why is Dawkins making this so easy for us? August 22, at am. God chaser says:. Eric Anderson says:. Gregory says:. Joe says:. August 22, at pm.
Barb says:.
0コメント