The Forum > Article Comments > Five atheist miracles > Comments
Five atheist miracles : Comments
By Don Batten, published 2/5/2016Materialists have no sufficient explanation (cause) for the diversity of life. There is a mind-boggling plethora of miracles here, not just one. Every basic type of life form is a miracle.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Page 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- ...
- 87
- 88
- 89
-
- All
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 18 May 2016 9:53:16 AM
| |
Dan,
There seems to be more innuendo in your comments to me on this thread than anything else. <<The comparisons between attending sceptics conferences and going to church, how far do you want to continue down that path?>> I don’t necessarily “want” to go down it any further, but if the two are analogous in other ways that become relevant to the discussion, then I’ll mention them. Why? What is it that you’re suggesting? What is it that you really want to say? Again, having been a fundamentalist Christian myself once before, I’m pretty sure I know what it is. I see two possibilities: one confuses denialism with scepticism, the other commits the False Analogy fallacy. But I’d prefer it to come from you first. Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 18 May 2016 10:17:38 AM
| |
I'm back from Townsville & I believe I had a great week-end. It was a great experience.
Banjo: You never know, but a big friendly hug like that between one of the greatest coaches in Australian football history and a little boy of seven or eight could have been quite physical. Just as well your father was there, Dan. Yes. You never know, with the reputation of Coaches now-a-days. ;-) grateful: I’d argue that if our beliefs are solely the product of “environment and community”, then any notion of free will is a delusion. I would argue that "Peer Pressure" is also a factor, more so in some Communities than others. Especially if you may lose you head if you don't conform to the Community you are with-in. That, will negate "Free Will" every time. S de M: The comparisons between attending sceptics conferences and going to church, how far do you want to continue down that path? The difference is that you are free to attend a Sceptics Conference, where-as in some communities you are compelled to attend at least once a week, or 7 times a day, depending on the Religion & the Community. The Penalties range from disenfranchisement, Ostracisement to Beheading. Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 18 May 2016 10:18:55 AM
| |
Dan,
While you ponder your response to my question, I’d just like to add to the dissimilarities between attending church and attending sceptics’ conventions that Jayb pointed out. I’ve racked my brain trying to come up a second similarity, but I can’t. The dissimilarities, on the other hand, are coming to me faster than I can get them down: 1. Sceptics can employ the scientific method to all their inquiries, without the need to compartmentalise; 2. sceptics don’t thrust beliefs and standards, based on unprovable dogmas, onto the rest of society; 3. sceptics don’t have a Holy Book from which they cannot deviate; 4. sceptics don’t have to engage in mental gymnastics to reconcile a dogma with real-world observations; 5. sceptics can apply Occam’s Razor in all cases; 6. and, my favourite, sceptics are content with, “I don’t know”, as an indefinite answer. Which is a lot more honest than just making stuff up. That last one there was just one of many reasons why Don Batten’s article was nonsense, and why your argument, that if you were an atheist then you would have to believe the absurd notions that Batten put forth, was invalid. Anyway, that’s enough for now. I wouldn’t want to be hypocritical by performing the Gish Gallop myself. Hopefully, though, the above should actually help you to refine your response to my initial question, rather than overwhelm you. Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 19 May 2016 1:13:22 PM
| |
Jayb wrote:
<<grateful: I’d argue that if our beliefs are solely the product of “environment and community”, then any notion of free will is a delusion. I would argue that "Peer Pressure" is also a factor, more so in some Communities than others. Especially if you may lose you head if you don't conform to the Community you are with-in. That, will negate "Free Will" every time.>> I think "peer pressure" comes under "community". In any case, "free will" can not be negated by coercion. Look at the definition a bit more carefully: "When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions." http://www.informationphilosopher.com/... Free will is when a choice is made without being "determined or necessitated by prior events". If i say "I don't believe" not because it is true but to avoid discrimination and abuse, then that has no affect on my choice to believe. I still believe because i have chosen to believe. No-one can force me to disbelieve. I'm saying the opposite to appease others and harm. That is what having an existence that is independent of this world means; a spiritual existence. If we are a simply “big brained animals”, then our existence as such has been solely “determined or necessitated by prior events”. If there is no spiritual existence then my ‘choice’ must be ascribed to some stimuli or randomness (perhaps operating at a psychological level). Culture would be solely “a bonding mechanism for big brained animals”. Yet, even if we accept culture as a “bonding mechanism”, the fact remains that it is my choice whether I conform to the culture or not. The existence of this choice cannot be explained by evolution. cont... Posted by grateful, Thursday, 19 May 2016 1:33:43 PM
| |
cont...
To exercise free will we need an existence that is independent of our existence in this world. This is what I would mean by spiritual existence: there is a soul that lives on when our bodies have long ceased functioning. If on the other hand, there is no spiritual existence then culture is purely functional with no role for free will. So either culture serves as an expression of free will or the notion of freewill itself is a delusion. To conclude, freewill presupposes that each and every one of us has a spiritual existence; an existence that is independent of our worldly existence. So I'm asking (Leo, you and others): Where do you stand: Are you denying that we can exercise choice? Posted by grateful, Thursday, 19 May 2016 1:34:09 PM
|
The comparisons between attending sceptics conferences and going to church, how far do you want to continue down that path?
Banjo,
You can probably guess the point as I was getting at with the Ron Barassi comparison. Life is full of meetings, interactions and experiences. Our many personal encounters vary from mundane to life changing; articulate or cathartic; individual or collective; etc.
I agree that the physical side to my meeting with Barassi did make it stick in my memory more readily. But I suppose that the point I was alluding to is that
many of us have other experiences that mirror these personal encounters, which we label 'spiritual' as they can be deeply impacting without there being any physical component at all.
Perhaps without any physical component it becomes all that more subjective and harder to substantiate or analyse.
But all personal encounters are somewhat subjective. For example, if my father became senile and couldn't remember the Barassi meeting (and I guarantee Barassi isn't going to remember it), then since it is hard to substantiate, must you challenge my contention that I once really met the legendary Ronald D Barassi?