|
Scott
|
 |
« on: September 22, 2008, 04:07:52 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2008, 10:52:33 AM » |
|
i'll try to watch this tonight & will be sure to comment as soon as it's done! (=
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2008, 02:46:12 PM » |
|
i'll try to watch this tonight & will be sure to comment as soon as it's done! (=
pretty long, eh? I still haven't finished it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2009, 11:53:05 AM » |
|
I stopped the video at the questions section. (Long Version) I don't know as much about Judaism as Christianity, nor do I know that much about Christopher Hitchens. But this debate wasn't about Judaism, it was all about Christopher Hitchens, as if he was some sort of Atheist Jesus.
The majority of the time the Rabbi talked, he talked about Christopher Hitchens, and when he did speak about science, he clearly didn't understand what he was talking about, despite he himself saying he had studied.
I would first like to say, that Albert Einstein, was an atheist. He has written many times that he holds no personal gods, and any gods you find him writing are not what you think.
Secondly, the eye, as Christopher Hitchens said, doesn't show design at all. It is in fact, backwards. (By backwards, I mean the way it interprets light.) But that doesn't matter, the big thing about the eye was that it was SOOOOOOOOO improbable for it to involve. I'm sure you remember the countless 0s after some number. Yes, the eye magically evolving to fit a human is impossible, just like a god appearing out of no where who was omni-x is impossible as well. But thats not how evolution works.
Evolution works in slow increments. The eye was not always the eye. The nose was not always the nose. The liver was not always the liver. And in the future, the X was not always the X.
Also, evolution doesn't need Natural Selection, despite what the Rabbi said. No, evolution can, and does occur without Natural Selection; however, Natural Selection guides evolution. Some people say that God uses evolution as a tool. Natural Selection is that God.
Overall, Christopher Hitchens isn't really the "best" atheist, or the "leading" atheist, so why pin him up as our Jesus? Atheists don't follow anyone for Atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in theistic like Gods. That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2009, 11:50:42 PM » |
|
I stopped the video at the questions section. (Long Version) I don't know as much about Judaism as Christianity, nor do I know that much about Christopher Hitchens. But this debate wasn't about Judaism, it was all about Christopher Hitchens, as if he was some sort of Atheist Jesus.
The majority of the time the Rabbi talked, he talked about Christopher Hitchens, and when he did speak about science, he clearly didn't understand what he was talking about, despite he himself saying he had studied.
I would first like to say, that Albert Einstein, was an atheist. He has written many times that he holds no personal gods, and any gods you find him writing are not what you think.
I haven't seen that video since I posted this, and thus have forgotten 95% of its contents. But I do wonder- what does Einstein have to do with anything? Sure, Einstein was tremendously gifted but that doesn't mean he knows whether or not God exists. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a quote from Einstein saying he was concretely atheist OR a believer. That's because he was smart enough to know that for the simple fact that a thing can't be proven or unproven, it would be completely ridiculous to base any sort of beliefs on it. Calling yourself an 'atheist' means you deny the existence of God. This is like denying the existence of a rock existing on some moon billions of light years away. How silly would it be to say with absolute certainty that the specific rock in question exists or does not exist without any possible way of verifying? 100%. So with that said, we can only rely on probabilities. If you pay close attention to what Einstein says, he isn't telling you a god doesn't exist. He's telling you that there might be a God and if he does exist, "he does not roll dice." And that is because Einstein based his evidence for God on how the universe fits together as a puzzle: nothing is random, everything has an origin and it's measurable. Secondly, the eye, as Christopher Hitchens said, doesn't show design at all. It is in fact, backwards. (By backwards, I mean the way it interprets light.) But that doesn't matter, the big thing about the eye was that it was SOOOOOOOOO improbable for it to involve. I'm sure you remember the countless 0s after some number. Yes, the eye magically evolving to fit a human is impossible, just like a god appearing out of no where who was omni-x is impossible as well. But thats not how evolution works.
Evolution works in slow increments. The eye was not always the eye. The nose was not always the nose. The liver was not always the liver. And in the future, the X was not always the X.
I somewhat agree that the 'eye' argument is a weak one. However, who said a god appeared out of no where? Also, evolution doesn't need Natural Selection, despite what the Rabbi said. No, evolution can, and does occur without Natural Selection; however, Natural Selection guides evolution. Some people say that God uses evolution as a tool. Natural Selection is that God.
Evolution depends on Natural Selection, since those individuals that mutate and do not survive do not reproduce. "Natural Selection is that God." ? Natural Selection uses Evolution as a tool? What? Overall, Christopher Hitchens isn't really the "best" atheist, or the "leading" atheist, so why pin him up as our Jesus? Atheists don't follow anyone for Atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in theistic like Gods. That is all.
The point in pitting these two together is that they are (to some extent) the extreme of either side. What they have in common is that they believe something without concrete evidence. Theists: In order to believe in a god you've never encountered, you need to make a leap of faith. Atheists: In order to have a lack of belief in gods, you have to assume none exists. In either case, your foundation for belief is flawed. Neither side can ultimately verify what they believe, thus either side is faith-based.
Faith: belief that is not based on proof. So really no one expects an actual winner in the debate, because the very basis of the argument makes a true "win" impossible. What we can take away from this video is that both sides have very convincing arguments. They ask you to wonder "which side is more convincing?" But it doesn't matter. True logic should tell you that there is no certainty without concrete proof, despite what you believe to be "probable." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2009, 10:00:06 AM » |
|
I haven't seen that video since I posted this, and thus have forgotten 95% of its contents. But I do wonder- what does Einstein have to do with anything?
Sure, Einstein was tremendously gifted but that doesn't mean he knows whether or not God exists. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a quote from Einstein saying he was concretely atheist OR a believer.
That's because he was smart enough to know that for the simple fact that a thing can't be proven or unproven, it would be completely ridiculous to base any sort of beliefs on it. I too have forgotten the majority of the contents of this video; however, the Rabbi used Albert Einstein as a proponent for religion. Basically, misquoting him when he talked about Gods. (He meant things more along the lines of nature.) No, I'm not hard-pressed to find evidence of Albert Einstein saying that he holds no personal Gods of his own. I do not have the book with me, but I'm fairly certain that he did in fact say he was an Atheist. I could be wrong on the last part, but he definitely wasn't a believer. Calling yourself an 'atheist' means you deny the existence of God.
This is like denying the existence of a rock existing on some moon billions of light years away. How silly would it be to say with absolute certainty that the specific rock in question exists or does not exist without any possible way of verifying? 100%. This argument is horrible. Comparing a rock to a God is completely bogus. There are rocks everywhere in the galaxy, I can find millions of them laying around. A God/Gods are not that abundant, or so we assume. We have absolutely no physical evidence of them existing at all, and we have as much reason to assume they exist as a unicorn. Comparing an object that we know exists to something that has no proof of existing is stupid. He's telling you that there might be a God and if he does exist, "he does not roll dice."
And that is because Einstein based his evidence for God on how the universe fits together as a puzzle: nothing is random, everything has an origin and it's measurable. Absolute bullshit until you find me a quote. However, who said a god appeared out of no where? I will get to this in a later post. But you can dwell upon it. Evolution depends on Natural Selection, since those individuals that mutate and do not survive do not reproduce.
"Natural Selection is that God." ? Natural Selection uses Evolution as a tool? What? Evolution does not depend on Natural Selection. We, as a whole, do though. On my mothers side of my family, the majority of us have some extra skin under our eyes. Basically, the baggy look you get under your eyes when you don't sleep enough. Evolution is a population changing over time. If I grouped up my family together, we would be a population. This is including immediate other families that we are related too as well. If you looked at this population, you would find that it is slowly changing over time to the 'baggy' eyed look. However, Natural Selection played absolutely no role in this at all. This look neither gives us an advantage or disadvantage in reproducing. Natural Selection acts as a God in determining who lives and who dies. What species are around, etc. This is not a hard concept, and I am surprised that you could not pick it up. In either case, your foundation for belief is flawed. Neither side can ultimately verify what they believe, thus either side is faith-based. "Verifying" Atheism is completely stupid. Atheism is a lack of belief in something. I have a lack of belief in magical fairies flying around in gardens. Why do I have this lack of belief, because there is absolutely no proof. You wouldn't be agnostic to this belief, and if you are, then I think your problem doesn't exist in verification, but rather in commitment issues. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2009, 11:02:10 AM » |
|
I haven't seen that video since I posted this, and thus have forgotten 95% of its contents. But I do wonder- what does Einstein have to do with anything?
Sure, Einstein was tremendously gifted but that doesn't mean he knows whether or not God exists. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a quote from Einstein saying he was concretely atheist OR a believer.
That's because he was smart enough to know that for the simple fact that a thing can't be proven or unproven, it would be completely ridiculous to base any sort of beliefs on it. I too have forgotten the majority of the contents of this video; however, the Rabbi used Albert Einstein as a proponent for religion. Basically, misquoting him when he talked about Gods. (He meant things more along the lines of nature.) No, I'm not hard-pressed to find evidence of Albert Einstein saying that he holds no personal Gods of his own. I do not have the book with me, but I'm fairly certain that he did in fact say he was an Atheist. I could be wrong on the last part, but he definitely wasn't a believer. "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." -- Einstein [ Found Here] Calling yourself an 'atheist' means you deny the existence of God.
This is like denying the existence of a rock existing on some moon billions of light years away. How silly would it be to say with absolute certainty that the specific rock in question exists or does not exist without any possible way of verifying? 100%. This argument is horrible. Comparing a rock to a God is completely bogus. There are rocks everywhere in the galaxy, I can find millions of them laying around. A God/Gods are not that abundant, or so we assume. We have absolutely no physical evidence of them existing at all, and we have as much reason to assume they exist as a unicorn. Comparing an object that we know exists to something that has no proof of existing is stupid. The example was abstract not literal, and for the sake of comprehension. How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster then? He's telling you that there might be a God and if he does exist, "he does not roll dice."
And that is because Einstein based his evidence for God on how the universe fits together as a puzzle: nothing is random, everything has an origin and it's measurable. Absolute bullshit until you find me a quote. However, who said a god appeared out of no where? I will get to this in a later post. But you can dwell upon it. Evolution depends on Natural Selection, since those individuals that mutate and do not survive do not reproduce.
"Natural Selection is that God." ? Natural Selection uses Evolution as a tool? What? Evolution does not depend on Natural Selection. We, as a whole, do though. On my mothers side of my family, the majority of us have some extra skin under our eyes. Basically, the baggy look you get under your eyes when you don't sleep enough. Evolution is a population changing over time. If I grouped up my family together, we would be a population. This is including immediate other families that we are related too as well. If you looked at this population, you would find that it is slowly changing over time to the 'baggy' eyed look. However, Natural Selection played absolutely no role in this at all. This look neither gives us an advantage or disadvantage in reproducing. Natural Selection acts as a God in determining who lives and who dies. What species are around, etc. This is not a hard concept, and I am surprised that you could not pick it up. Ad Hominem might win fights for you elsewhere, but it just makes you look ignorant here. Keep that shit to yourself. Here's the biological definition of 'evolution' from dictionary.com- "Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." While in small populations evolution doesn't depend on natural selection, in larger populations it does. If a mutation, recessive trait, etc. make it less likely for an organism to reproduce or to evade predators, those traits will eventually get weeded out. Humans don't have to worry about predators so much these days, so it becomes more about the increased chances of reproduction. "Baggy eyes" to a degree won't necessarily have an effect on reproduction, but could and in that case 'natural selection' would play a large role. In either case, your foundation for belief is flawed. Neither side can ultimately verify what they believe, thus either side is faith-based. "Verifying" Atheism is completely stupid. Atheism is a lack of belief in something. I have a lack of belief in magical fairies flying around in gardens. Why do I have this lack of belief, because there is absolutely no proof. You wouldn't be agnostic to this belief, and if you are, then I think your problem doesn't exist in verification, but rather in commitment issues. If atheism can be defined as A) "the lack of belief in something," then sure -- it would be pointless to verify a 'lack of belief.' On the other hand, if atheism is defined as B) "the doctrine or belief that God does not exist," then verification would prove necessary to make it legitimate. However, if your definition fits A, then the full statement would be something to the effect of: "The lack of belief in something without proof." So if that's the case, you aren't an atheist, you are a weak agnostic OR agnostics are weak atheists. In either of these case, you would never say "I know with absolute certainty that fairies do not exist," as that would as ridiculous as the opposite of the statement (without proof). Without proof, no logical person would commit themselves either way. Even if you were to say, I am almost certain fairies do not exist, it would still be somewhat committal. In terms of these definitions, to be committal without evidence isn't logical. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2009, 11:32:19 AM » |
|
So Albert Einstein wasn't an Atheist. My point would be that he wasn't a theist like the person in the video said he was. No, you're example is your entire logic. The only reason you are an Agnostic is because "we can't be certain." According to you, you can't prove or disprove God. The logic being that saying that there isn't something out there with 100% conviction is just silly. However, I ask you this, are you agnostic to the following?: There is a magical, invisible, pink (teehee) unicorn that flies around the earth listening to peoples wishes. If you are agnostic to this, then you are deluded. And yes, that is ad hominem. Previously, you had no knowledge of this Unicorn, until I told you. Previously, you did not believe in this unicorn, because you have no proof that it exists. Previously, that is until someone you don't even know wrote about it. Now, why be agnostic to it? There is still absolutely no proof it exists except for my word, and my word alone. Will you live your life becoming agnostic to every fairy tale you hear that can't be 'disproven'. No, of course not. The God case is only different in that millions of people believe this fairy tale, despite there being no evidence. This also goes to say that if we ever did find, even the slightest evidence for God, then I would be a theist, or agnostic. Ad Hominem might win fights for you elsewhere, but it just makes you look ignorant here. Keep that shit to yourself. Ooh. The big-man got butt hurt. No, seriously, nothing in my post was meant to be offensive, but taking offensive to what I have written is your own prerogative. While in small populations evolution doesn't depend on natural selection I rest my case. Well, actually I don't, although I shouldn't have to elaborate. A person as educated as yourself (and clearly not ignorant like myself) would know that evolution typically does take place in small populations. Of course, 'small' is relative, so it really isn't a good word. Typically isn't a good word either. It implies majority and that isn't what I mean. You said evolution needs Natural Selection. Now we both agree that it doesn't. End of story, oh wait: but it just makes you look ignorant here Hypocrisy and neglect to realize that we both just said the same exact thing. Damn, you are too good Scott. I tell ya. As for the rest: I know with absolute certainty that fairies don't exist. Although, again, if in the future, proof for fairies existing came about, then I would definitely change my tune. Other wise, no, they don't exist. Also, I know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. Call it what you will, atheism, weak agnosticism, whatever. Religious based labels don't define me or my beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2009, 01:18:29 PM » |
|
Just got back from cross country practice.
Okay, so let's both drop the tough man persona. It's been fun, don't get me wrong, but I don't want this to go farther than just joking around.
Anyways, so you seem eager to debate agnosticism. Fine, I don't have a problem with that. Make a new thread, or return to your old one, and we can have a real debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2009, 04:15:18 PM » |
|
So Albert Einstein wasn't an Atheist. My point would be that he wasn't a theist like the person in the video said he was.
No, you're example is your entire logic. The only reason you are an Agnostic is because "we can't be certain." According to you, you can't prove or disprove God. The logic being that saying that there isn't something out there with 100% conviction is just silly.
However, I ask you this, are you agnostic to the following?: There is a magical, invisible, pink (teehee) unicorn that flies around the earth listening to peoples wishes.
If you are agnostic to this, then you are deluded. And yes, that is ad hominem. Previously, you had no knowledge of this Unicorn, until I told you. Previously, you did not believe in this unicorn, because you have no proof that it exists. Previously, that is until someone you don't even know wrote about it.
Now, why be agnostic to it? There is still absolutely no proof it exists except for my word, and my word alone. Will you live your life becoming agnostic to every fairy tale you hear that can't be 'disproven'. No, of course not.
I suppose I am deluded then, because the point of agnosticism is to base decisions on knowledge. Things that can not be dis/proven are unknowable, and therefore should not be decided upon concretely. It doesn't mean I'll live my life thinking fairies, monsters, unicorns, aliens, etc. exist, but I also won't assume that they do not.
The God case is only different in that millions of people believe this fairy tale, despite there being no evidence.
This also goes to say that if we ever did find, even the slightest evidence for God, then I would be a theist, or agnostic.
Slightest evidence? Let's say there's even convincing evidence that a god exists; it doesn't mean you have to be theistic but to say that despite the evidence, it's not possible is looney tunes. Ad Hominem might win fights for you elsewhere, but it just makes you look ignorant here. Keep that shit to yourself. Ooh. The big-man got butt hurt. No, seriously, nothing in my post was meant to be offensive, but taking offensive to what I have written is your own prerogative. While in small populations evolution doesn't depend on natural selection I rest my case. Well, actually I don't, although I shouldn't have to elaborate. A person as educated as yourself (and clearly not ignorant like myself) would know that evolution typically does take place in small populations. Of course, 'small' is relative, so it really isn't a good word. Typically isn't a good word either. It implies majority and that isn't what I mean. You said evolution needs Natural Selection. Now we both agree that it doesn't. End of story, oh wait: You cherry-picked the argument to try and win it? Sure, species start out in small populations that obviously need to reproduce to maintain the species itself. That, in and of itself, is natural selection. Smaller groups within a species may develop mutations or recessive traits may surface and as long as it doesn't interfere with natural selection, that trait may get passed on. So while evolution doesn't depend on natural selection directly, really it always depends on the ability to reproduce naturally (which is semantics for 'natural selection.'). but it just makes you look ignorant here Hypocrisy and neglect to realize that we both just said the same exact thing. Damn, you are too good Scott. I tell ya. Saying the same exact thing with regard to what? As for the rest:
I know with absolute certainty that fairies don't exist. Although, again, if in the future, proof for fairies existing came about, then I would definitely change my tune. Other wise, no, they don't exist.
Also, I know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. Call it what you will, atheism, weak agnosticism, whatever. Religious based labels don't define me or my beliefs.
Without proof, you know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist? Just like Christians know with absolute certainty God does exist, despite a lack of proof? I'm sorry, I just don't see the argument for your case here. The point of the 'Does God exist?' forum is to provide evidence one way or the other. Saying "God exists" or "God does not exist" because you say so isn't enough. Pointing out evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god either. It might disprove some examples of god, but not all. In fact, in an actual 'god' debate, we'd have to define what 'god' consists of. Are we talking about the Christian God? The Jewish God? Zeus? The god that watches but never interferes? The god that initiated the big bang but doesn't interfere? Each has its own weaknesses in argumentation, but a blanketed true or false statement based on virtually nothing makes no sense at all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2009, 04:18:05 PM » |
|
Just got back from cross country practice.
Okay, so let's both drop the tough man persona. It's been fun, don't get me wrong, but I don't want this to go farther than just joking around.
Tough man persona? Naw, everyone's cool with each other here as long as there are no personal attacks. The point is to debate the argument, not the person. Anyways, so you seem eager to debate agnosticism. Fine, I don't have a problem with that. Make a new thread, or return to your old one, and we can have a real debate.
Debate agnosticism? It's already well-defined: Agnosticism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
London_Rain
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2009, 05:12:34 PM » |
|
C'mon, you can't tell me you weren't having fun earlier. I know I was. And what I meant by debate agnosticism was for us to debate its merits against those of others, like atheism.
I think you just like linking things mister.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2009, 10:10:25 PM » |
|
C'mon, you can't tell me you weren't having fun earlier. I know I was. And what I meant by debate agnosticism was for us to debate its merits against those of others, like atheism.
Of course I was having fun; I thrive on debate. :] I think you just like linking things mister.
I just like references as it makes the argument more credible. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
