HUGE collection of anti-atheist/agnostic/darwinist arguments.

SF
SF's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
HUGE collection of anti-atheist/agnostic/darwinist arguments.

JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Where would you like to

Where would you like to start?

Answers for:


I read through the introduction and I can already tell you the description of a skeptic is wrong.  If that is wrong, then it would be pretty safe to assume the rest of it is wrong.

 


SF
SF's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
As far as I read, their

As far as I read, their "scientific" arguments were all nonsense so what's left is biblical interpretation. They use the Cosmological Constant argument to "prove" design - I'd really like a good reply to this one.

 

I was amazed at the fact that they tried to justify the biblical atrocities, the problem of evil in the world, etc. And then there's:

 

They also mock Einstein: Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.

 

Their view on "Who Created God? also deserves a good reply.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Oooo!  You really dug into

Oooo!  You really dug into this!  Gimme a bit to do my homework and we will discuss this at length - LOL  It looks very interesting!


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
SF, where the heck did you

SF, where the heck did you find out about this site?

I've known all of these arguments for years, but this is the first time I have seen something approaching a library of arguments.

PS: The Cosmological Constant Argument is a derrivitive from the Privileged Planet Thesis. It is another Teleological argument, so while you can point out that using numbers to prove design is circular, it still is an emotionally swaying argument just by sheer numerical force (even though it isn't a true appeal to emotion.)

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


SF
SF's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
I first saw a video (

I first saw a video ( http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-we-still-dont-know.html ) that presented the Cosmological Constant's apparent fine tuning and I googled for more info. That's how I got here.

 Their information on the CC is legit, and although it's the same old "argument from design", it's more of a challenge due to it's precise apparent fine-tuning (one part in 10 to the power 120?). In the video they explain it by using a "multiple-universes" scenario, but these guys reject it from the start (they even use Occam's Razor, LOL!)


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
LOL I have an avatar now. I

LOL I have an avatar now.

I would also like an explaination for that quark-antiquark argument against the Big Bang, but that can wait. 

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


SF
SF's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
The first website was the

The first website was the Christian's best shot.

I think this is the Muslim's best shot:

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

 

I say we take out two birds with one stone Smiling

The muslim's arguments aren't as sophisticated as the christian's arguments, but he is regarded as an intellectual in Turkey and dresses like a pimp ( http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php )

 

LE: Let's just address the arguments from the first page, since Ken Miller already made fun of Harun Yaha here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5636631971168635709


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
SF

SF wrote:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.php

Will someone debunk these, point-by-point?

Dang, whose lifetime project do you think this might be?  That site's got a bazillion articles.  I'm sure I could find counter-argument papers to a lot of them, if I took some time.  But I certainly don't have the time/motivation to try to find counter-argument  papers to them all.

 


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Most skeptics take

Quote:

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs."

 Huh?  I've never heard any skeptic say that!


Godan
Theist
Godan's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

It is another Teleological argument, so while you can point out that using numbers to prove design is circular...

So, are we supposed to use out feelings or what? 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Godan! We're glad

Welcome Godan!

We're glad you're here.

We'd love for you to introduce yourself and tell us a bit about yourself in the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor thread.

By the way, hang around the forums, read some of the threads and you'll see comments with specific types of arguments (such as teleological).  Some members are quite versed in philosophy.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
LOL. Somebody has google

LOL. Somebody has google alerts.

Unfortunately, they didn't read the news last year after the entry was modified on May 16.

In December of '06, Smoot and Mather won the Nobel Prize for their 'baby picture' of the universe using the background measures from the COBE satellite.

http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Nobel/

By the way, Tonto might have missed the tent because his head was so full of GARBAGE that it clouded his reason.

And you should update your stem cell research category. While you were compiling last year's research, ten other things happened. Only one of which in the US. Your table 3 in the stem cell article ignores at least six other sources of viable stem cells and is inaccurate at best. Adult autologous stem cells have high price tags associated with them because they require surgery to extract and implant. DUH! Cadaverous stem cells are also expensive as per a friend at the University of Louisville. Apparently, corpses require a great deal of care.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Godan
Theist
Godan's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: By the way,

Susan wrote:

By the way, hang around the forums, read some of the threads and you'll see comments with specific types of arguments (such as teleological). Some members are quite versed in philosophy.

I'm sorry, I don't really like philosophy. I'm more of a numbers person. As a scientist, I work with numbers all day. Numbers are your friend. Philosophy is something you do when you don't want to look at the numbers.


Godan
Theist
Godan's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: LOL.

darth_josh wrote:

LOL. Somebody has google alerts.

Don't have Google alerts. Another atheist assumption. Got it from site stats (80+ visitors from here). Thanks for the free advertising!

darth_josh wrote:

And you should update your stem cell research category. While you were compiling last year's research, ten other things happened. Only one of which in the US. Your table 3 in the stem cell article ignores at least six other sources of viable stem cells and is inaccurate at best. Adult autologous stem cells have high price tags associated with them because they require surgery to extract and implant. DUH! Cadaverous stem cells are also expensive as per a friend at the University of Louisville. Apparently, corpses require a great deal of care.

The list is the major categories of stem cells. Adult stem cells are already used to treat and cure dozens of diseases. The cost is relatively low, since it involves removal of bone marrow, which is a short, relatively simple procedure. It is much lower than cloning, which costs ~1,000/egg. This involves the use of dangerous drugs to induce hyper-ovulation and extraction. Of course, cloning has never worked in humans, and will probably be extremely inefficient if there is ever found a way to make it work. Hwang used ~2,000 eggs and ended up with zero clones. Yep, $2,000,000 for zip! The main problem with all allogeneic transplants is that the recipient needs to take anti-rejection drugs all their life. Autologous is clearly the medically-preferred method if it can be made to work. This (and the tumorigenic nature of ESC) is why emybryonic stem cells have never been transplanted into human patients. You should volunteer to be the first!

 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Oooooh! Someone's looking to

Oooooh! Someone's looking to stir things up! Wink
I'll have you know that it's we philosophers who'll tell you what your numbers actually are and why your scientific method is actually worth anything! Tongue out

On a more serious note, it's common misconception that philosophers just mess around with wishy washy theories that have no bearing on real life. Although I guess that's a kind of philosophy, the same way seeing how many storeys you have to drop a mouse from for it to splatter is kind of science, there's a more serious side to the discipline too. All the questions regarding God are philosophical, even the ones where science are involved.

(I'll bet that there's plenty of philosophical questions that you considered scientific, just because you didn't find them bizaare or silly.)