Dawkins, atheism & intelligent design

[godless dave]

I would like to see religion cease to exist, but it's not something one person can destroy. It can only be destroyed if everyone stops believing in it, and you can't make someone else stop believing in something.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Regarding the Job 26:7 quote, I think that describing the Earth as "hanging on nothing" is a perfect description, requires very little interpretation, and matches what science knows. What did you expect, a treatise on Newton's Laws?

 

[Simon39759]

Sure, why not? That would have been conclusive.

Right now, all we have is a vague description that fits with the way any Middle-eastern people of the time would have described his beliefs and that just happen to be vague enough not to be directly contradicted by more recent evidences.

 

[hereisjoe]

Don't talk about the argument. Just say "he's insane" and that suffices as an answer. Nice critical thinking job! A Rasberry Nobel to you!

 

[Magyar]

Don't talk about the argument. !

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word argument because the tireless regurgitation of a set of beliefs developed by a bunch of goat herding, illiterate nomads from the desert 2000 years ago who were totally clueless about the realities of the universe does not constitute an argument!

then perhaps we maybe able to respond.

 

[qayak]

Regarding the Job 26:7 quote, I think that describing the Earth as "hanging on nothing" is a perfect description, requires very little interpretation, and matches what science knows.

Do you really think it matches up to science? It seems to me that the Earth is where it is for a very good reason and "nothing" doesn't begin to describe it.

The writer of the scriptires could have said, "I have no frackin' idea about any of it" and he would have been just as accurate as what he actually wrote. And, two thousand years later, you would come along and think it was an excellent description of what science has shown to be true.

What did you expect, a treatise on Newton's Laws?

Truth be told, I expected something a whole lot more impressive from the feared and glorified sky daddy. However, I am left shaking my head thinking about how uninspired religious people really are. They choose the pathetic myths of a crappy book over the wonders of reality.

 

[qayak]

Don't talk about the argument. Just say "he's insane" and that suffices as an answer. Nice critical thinking job! A Rasberry Nobel to you!

Well, in this case the argument relies on the mental state of the person expressing it. That person is under a delusion which severely limits their ability to understand reality.

 

[Simon39759]

Don't talk about the argument. Just say "he's insane" and that suffices as an answer. Nice critical thinking job! A Rasberry Nobel to you!

Who said anybody was insane?



You made an argument, hinted at it anyway, that the quote from the book of Job was so accurate that it could only have come from an all-knowing God.

I disagree and consider the quote rather vague and short, it could equally describe a lot of cosmological systems, including the one we would expect to find among the writers of the book if they did not have access to any particular 'scientific' knowledge and instead relied on the cosmology prevalent in the region. They certainly seem to have taken the whole myth as the base of Job from such a regional tradition.

I also pointed it that this ancient cosmological system would actually be much more consistent with other part of the OT that are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge, parts that are, for the most part, left out by Christian apologetists.

So, between the two hypothesis:

-Ancient Hebrews were magic and knew something uncanny about the universe.
-Yet; they only mention it in a short an ambiguous quote and the many other references are demonstrably wrong.

Or:
-Ancient Hebrews relied on tradition and knowledge common through the region at the time.
-This cosmology was applied consistently between the book of Job and the book of Genesis, compiled, according to scholars, at the same time by roughly the same people.
-In one instance, a passing reference to this cosmology is brief and ambiguous enough so that not to contradict directly what was later discovered by modern science.

I will chose the second one as more likely.

 

[Hux]

What did you expect, a treatise on Newton's Laws?

To paraphrase Sam Harris (very loosely) would you not expect the Supreme creator of the Universe to understand and describe the physical laws He had established? Might not the very question of His existence have been answered centuries ago, had he forewarned of radios, iPods, X Ray technology et al in the book of His words? Would it not have been impressive and but a work of a moment for an Omni x 3 being? And yet here we have what some say is the direct words of God who with a few exceptions of guesses (well within the ratio of tossing a coin) gets all the rest completely and utterly wrong.

So yes, if you are going to create a universe, you need a little knowledge of what works and what does not. Otherwise its just Dumb and directionless.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;

Joe appears to have disappeared, but perhaps he could tell us what this is supposed to mean. Which northern skies? What does the Bible mean when it says they're spread out over nothing?

he suspends the earth over nothing."

Which is simply wrong - the Earth isn't "suspended over nothing" by any divine being, it orbits the Sun at the centre of the solar system.

 

[hereisjoe]

Have any of you yahoos noticed the banner under the website at the top? It states "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.? Hmm? I think you all missed that hint.

A lot of what Bwinwright says is valid, or at least something to 'critically think' about. But what has he received in return? A villification of his viewpoint, almost everywhere here. Note one reply: "...a despicable work that has no divine source at all, the Bible. The less said about that ridiculous and offensive work, the better." Nice come-back, Sherman Bay. That should catapult you into the stratisphere of the Mensa league for sure!
Seriously, almost every atheist on the planet shovels the "you're dumb" ******** at every creationist continuously. THEN they refuse to debate science. Tch, tch! Such a bunch of losers.
Mr Bwinwright, I would suggest you stick to science, as I can agree with a lot you say. But quoting scripture here is like waving garlic at vampires. Not to say that these atheists would ever decently contend that it is possible to have faith in something unseen while being perfectly capable of comprehending good science. They cannot multitask that way. They are self-wired only to rant, tho there are sometimes exceptions.

 

[Sledge]

bwinwright has no interest in discussion, just throwing crap at us and then speeding off, like a driveby from an orangutan that's played Grand Theft Auto too much.

 

[Twiler]

What's a yahoo?

 

[Nonpareil]

A lot of what Bwinwright says is valid, or at least something to 'critically think' about. But what has he received in return? A villification of his viewpoint, almost everywhere here.

Well, yes. For several reasons.
He never responds to any posts in these threads. He is simply spamming his writings in an effort to gain popularity. He has no interest whatsoever in actual discussion, and as such we see no reason to act as if we cared one bit about anything he has to say. He is also often flat-out wrong.

Note one reply: "...a despicable work that has no divine source at all, the Bible. The less said about that ridiculous and offensive work, the better." Nice come-back, Sherman Bay. That should catapult you into the stratisphere of the Mensa league for sure!
Seriously, almost every atheist on the planet shovels the "you're dumb" ******** at every creationist continuously. THEN they refuse to debate science. Tch, tch! Such a bunch of losers.

If you want to debate creationism, create a thread for that. We'd be happy to talk about it with you.

 

[John Jones]

Have any of you yahoos noticed the banner under the website at the top? It states "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.? Hmm? I think you all missed that hint.

.

Bwinright has never discussed anything the two years or so that I've been lurking and posting here.

He tosses Molotov cocktails through the windows of this forum, then speeds away until the next time.

 

[devnull]

but please, joe, let's discuss the science

 

[yomero]

Have any of you yahoos noticed the banner under the website at the top? It states "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way.? Hmm? I think you all missed that hint.

I don't want to be a yahoo. Can I be a google instead?

 

[Hokulele]

Mr Bwinwright, I would suggest you stick to science, as I can agree with a lot you say. But quoting scripture here is like waving garlic at vampires. Not to say that these atheists would ever decently contend that it is possible to have faith in something unseen while being perfectly capable of comprehending good science.

Please list one example of the science posted by bwinwright with which you agree. Then, let us discuss whether or not it is good and why.

 

[paximperium]

Please list one example of the science posted by bwinwright with which you agree. Then, let us discuss whether or not it is good and why.

This will be most amusing. Let's see his "science".

 

[dio]

Note one reply: "...a despicable work that has no divine source at all, the Bible. The less said about that ridiculous and offensive work, the better."

I do not see anything wrong with that reply. The bible is what it is, not what you would like it to be.

Seriously, almost every atheist on the planet shovels the "you're dumb" ******** at every creationist continuously.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that attitude. If you come spouting your local, primitive, patched-up, incoherent, idiotic creation tale, you will be called dumb, yes.