Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

No you didn't. I merely came in to point out the difference between (a) and (b) and why it makes no sense to try to use one to refute the other. That is the only point I have made in this thread. Therefore my goalposts have remained where they were when I entered the thread.

You started with the arguement that "it is unlikely someone would die for something they know is false."
We provided you with examples of this very thing.
You added the addendum "willingly."
That is be definition, moving the goal posts.

And even then we showed example of this, and that how unwilling death could be interpreted as martyrdom.

PDN wrote: »

So, I point out the very real difference between (a) and (b), and then I get accused of moving the goalposts, being smug, being petulant, and of engaging in semantics. When, quite reasonably, I point out that such insults in response to a straightforward and polite post are hardly likely to encourage theists to engage with this forum, I now get accused of whinging.

Welcome to the A&A forum.

Dramatic exits don't really work when you do them twice....

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You quoted what I said about position (a) and then posted what Soul Winner said about position (b) as if they were talking about the same position. It's not for me to determine whether you're doing it deliberately or not.

No I didn't, read it again.

I quoted what you said about (a) and then Soul Winners position which also relates to (a)

"If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears."

:rolleyes:

Genuine belief being the key phrase here. Soul Winner is asking for an alternative explanation for how these people would genuinely believe, demonstrated by willingness to die, all this if it wasn't true, an argument you yourself seem to realize is silly. People genuinely believe and die for things that aren't true all the time, as Zillah pointed out with his flaming monk.

If you insist in being needlessly argumentative then I'm questioning what exactly you think you are bringing to this discussion.

robindch

I'm still interested to find out how many disciples died, how they died, what reason they thought they were dying for, and how everything was transmitted without error or bias back to the guys who wrote down their stories.

I'd have thought this vital plank in the christian religion would have been of some interest to christians, but with the question avoided twice in one week, it seems I'm wrong!

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

History seems to suggest that any scientific discover is simply absorbed into the dogma and doctrine...

I have that same impression of those who tie themselves to the evolutionary model. Every discovery is woven into the core idea - and is cited as a strengthening of the dogma. I suppose the same goes for religion as for scientific theory: so long as the observations can be accomodated, the 'theory' can be considered sound. If the theory can't adapt to accomodate then it gets dumped.

So far so good in terms of Gods existance in the face of this latest science (which says less about the creation of life than it does the partial copying of it)

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have that same impression of those who tie themselves to the evolutionary model. Every discovery is woven into the core idea - and is cited as a strengthening of the dogma.

Just to clarify, do you reject evolution?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have that same impression of those who tie themselves to the evolutionary model. Every discovery is woven into the core idea - and is cited as a strengthening of the dogma.

What do you mean by the "core idea"?

To me the core idea of evolution is that species slowly evolve into other species. The details have significantly changed since Darwin's day.

Saying that new discoveries are woven into the dogma is a bit like saying new discovers of cosmology are woven into the dogma of "outer space exists"

Contrast that with what religions do and the difference should be clear.

liah

Some people here need to watch Derren Brown's "Messiah" episode.

Just sayin'.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to clarify, do you reject evolution?

In what I way? I think it fits the realm of the scientific method as it is currently done. Which is not to say I think science best explains the realm of reality.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

In what I way? I think it fits the realm of the scientific method as it is currently done. Which is not to say I think science best explains the realm of reality.

So is that a no?

And what do you think works better at explaining reality than rigorous experiment based on falsifiable hypothesises?
Guessing?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

In what I way? I think it fits the realm of the scientific method as it is currently done. Which is not to say I think science best explains the realm of reality.

In the way that the theory of evolution describes how life gradually changed from pre-single celled organisms to all the life we see today through a process of mutation and natural selection. Do you accept this version of events as being accurate?

And if not, what do you think happened? Basically I'm asking are you a young (or old) earth creationist?

Sam Vimes

King Mob wrote: »

And what do you think works better at explaining reality than rigorous experiment based on falsifiable hypothesises?
Guessing?

I've been through this with him. He thinks that empiricism is circular reasoning because it's all within the same god defined system and that personal experience is just as good. The miracles of technology that empiricism has produced and the millions of different and contradictory ideas that personal experience alone has produced appears to have no effect no his position

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

In what I way?

In that it is such an inaccurate model of the phenomena of biological life and the processes that life operate under that it has no use or value for understanding said phenomena and processes.

Do you understand what science is for?

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

So is that a no?

And what do you think works better at explaining reality than rigorous experiment based on falsifiable hypothesises?
Guessing?

Please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please dont say...
:pac:

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please dont say...
:pac:

Unfortunately so. He has the reasoning that if god reveals himself to him then he can know it's real but he doesn't seem to consider the fact that if god does not reveal himself to him and he has some kind of hallucination (as must have happened to all those people in the world who claim to have had the same kind of experience of a different god to the one he supposedly experienced) he can still think he knows, which is indistinguishable from actually knowing

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In the way that the theory of evolution describes how life gradually changed from pre-single celled organisms to all the life we see today through a process of mutation and natural selection. Do you accept this version of events as being accurate?

And if not, what do you think happened? Basically I'm asking are you a young (or old) earth creationist?

That this is what happened in reality? Not necessarily.

You see, I factor in God and his plan and once you do that, all scientific bets are off. For example, Scripture suggests that the position of the unbeliever is permitted to be sustained as intellectually, emotionally satisfying. As a living, thinking, reasoning being, there must be a congruency in his position permitted him in order that he can sustain his unbelief. And permitting him to sustain his unbelieving position is part of Gods plan for him.

I don't have a view on when the world was created. I do believe in an actual Adam and Eve, if that's any help.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So is that a no?

And what do you think works better at explaining reality than rigorous experiment based on falsifiable hypothesises?
Guessing?

God explains reality better than science can. You see, science says it only attempts to explain a part of reality. But because it can't take account of the whole, it can't be sure even it's own realm won't be reframed.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unfortunately so. He has the reasoning that if god reveals himself to him then he can know it's real but he doesn't seem to consider the fact that if god does not reveal himself to him and he has some kind of hallucination (as must have happened to all those people in the world who claim to have had the same kind of experience of a different god to the one he supposedly experienced) he can still think he knows, which is indistinguishable from actually knowing

Which is the same problem faced when wondering whether the objective reality is actually objective. It's not, I take it, something that keeps you up at night.

What's good for the goose..

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

That this is what happened in reality? Not necessarily.

You see, I factor in God and his plan and once you do that, all scientific bets are off. For example, Scripture suggests that the position of the unbeliever is permitted to be sustained as intellectually, emotionally satisfying. As a living, thinking, reasoning being, there must be a congruency in his position permitted him in order that he can sustain his unbelief. And permitting him to sustain his unbelieving position is part of Gods plan for him.

So god tricks people into being atheists by creating misleading evidence that only the saved can bring themselves to ignore?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't have a view on when the world was created. I do believe in an actual Adam and Eve, if that's any help.

Right so, just wanted to what type of believer I was dealing with.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

That this is what happened in reality? Not necessarily.

You see, I factor in God and his plan and once you do that, all scientific bets are off. For example, Scripture suggests that the position of the unbeliever is permitted to be sustained as intellectually, emotionally satisfying. As a living, thinking, reasoning being, there must be a congruency in his position permitted him in order that he can sustain his unbelief. And permitting him to sustain his unbelieving position is part of Gods plan for him.

Expertly dodged.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't have a view on when the world was created. I do believe in an actual Adam and Eve, if that's any help.

Unless you believe they were the first two homo saipens, and that there where no other similar creatures on the earth. (which is both impossible on every level, and demonstrably false), then no you don't believe in the actual Adam and Eve described in the bible.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

God explains reality better than science can. You see, science says it only attempts to explain a part of reality. But because it can't take account of the whole, it can't be sure even it's own realm won't be reframed.

But God isn't an explanation. It doesn't explain anything, leaving aside the issue that you have no way to find out if it is an accurate explanation (ie Did God actually do anything or not)

It is like coming home to find your house has been destroyed and a shopping center build where it was

You ask "What happened" and the answer is "Bob did it". Who would think that was an explanation of what happened?

It isn't an explanation. It isn't an answer. "God did it" is simply a reason to stop asking the question.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is the same problem faced when wondering whether the objective reality is actually objective. It's not, I take it, something that keeps you up at night.

What's good for the goose..

Well no it's not the same problem really because empiricism has produced endless results that prove it to be reliable and personal revelation has produced endless results that prove the exact opposite. Yes we could all be brains in jars but that is the only scenario where empiricism can be considered in the same league as personal experience in terms of reliability

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

God explains reality better than science can.

Really?
Then please provide an example of one advance made by divine revelation.
Can you show a single testable hypothesis made by God?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You see, science says it only attempts to explain a part of reality.

Yea, the bits that actually exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But because it can't take account of the whole, it can't be sure even it's own realm won't be reframed.

And?
How do you know this doesn't apply to your guessing?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is the same problem faced when wondering whether the objective reality is actually objective. It's not, I take it, something that keeps you up at night.

What's good for the goose..

So any belief is as valid as any other belief since no beliefs are 100% objective?

Would you accept then the mother who refuses to give her dying son medication that will probably save his life because she believes that the water she had blessed in a Hindu temple will also do the job?

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

So any belief is as valid as any other belief since no beliefs are 100% objective?

Would you accept then the mother who refuses to give her dying son medication that will probably save his life because she believes that the water she had blessed in a Hindu temple will also do the job?

No I don't think he'll agree with that. His belief is correct because he's experienced it. That doesn't mean that everyone else's beliefs are correct, anyone who claims to have had an experience that contradicts his at the very least wrong and most likely a tool of Satan (a term that he has applied to catholicism for example). The existence of other people who appear to be just as sure as him of contradictory things does not seem relevant to him for some reason

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't think he'll agree with that. His belief is correct because he's experienced it. That doesn't mean that everyone else's beliefs are correct, anyone who claims to have had an experience that contradicts his at the very least wrong and most likely a tool of Satan (a term that he has applied to catholicism for example). The existence of other people who appear to be just as sure as him of contradictory things does not seem relevant to him for some reason

Ah right

There is a name for that isn't there, people who think only their experience is considered valid (not a nasty name, I mean a school of philosophy)

I could turn the question around and ask him would he himself bet on the life of his child based on what he believes to be true if that contradicted medical knowledge, say for example he thought God told him don't do medicine have faith instead.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a name for that isn't there, people who think only their experience is considered valid (not a nasty name, I mean a school of philosophy).

The 'I'm righters,your wrongers' ? Ancient Roman weren't they ?

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

You started with the arguement that "it is unlikely someone would die for something they know is false."
We provided you with examples of this very thing.
You added the addendum "willingly."
That is be definition, moving the goal posts.

Ah, so you thought that I was initially saying that to die unwillingly for something would be an indication of the truth of one's beliefs? You seriously thought that? Like really?

Dramatic exits don't really work when you do them twice....

I see. So because I said I was out of this discussion you thought you could sling an insult accusing me of 'whingeing' without me responding.

You are a courageous internet warrior aren't you?

Nobody's going to use that old canard about 'no atheists in foxholes' when there's a big brave boy like you in the atheist ranks.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

You are a courageous internet warrior aren't you?

Calm down + direct your ire towards ideas, not people.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No I didn't, read it again.

I quoted what you said about (a) and then Soul Winners position which also relates to (a)

"If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears."

:rolleyes:

Genuine belief being the key phrase here. Soul Winner is asking for an alternative explanation for how these people would genuinely believe, demonstrated by willingness to die, all this if it wasn't true, an argument you yourself seem to realize is silly. People genuinely believe and die for things that aren't true all the time, as Zillah pointed out with his flaming monk.

If you insist in being needlessly argumentative then I'm questioning what exactly you think you are bringing to this discussion.

I don't think I'm being needlessly argumentative. I think I'm holding a mirror up to some rather strange posting styles and debating tricks and you guys don't llike what you see in the mirror.

Soul Winner said, "If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian."

You managed to ignore the first relevant phrase (I've put it in red type to make it impossible for you to pretend you didn't see it this time).

As for the second relevant phrase, you (quite accidentally and innocently I'm sure) selectively edited Soul Winner's quote so as to omit it altogether - even though it clearly indicates that Soul Winner was referring to the idea of people dying for something they knew to be fictional, not simply for something they believed to be true.

(If the red type isn't prominent enough then I can always use a bigger font if you wish)

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so you thought that I was initially saying that to die unwillingly for something would be an indication of the truth of one's beliefs? You seriously thought that? Like really?

Nope, that's not exactly what I was saying.

You could have been suggesting that because they knew it was when caught they would instant recant and therefore be spared.

We provided an example of something like this happening.

We have also provided example how an unwilling death can be interpreted as martyrdom.

You don't seem to want to address these point.

PDN wrote: »

You are a courageous internet warrior aren't you?

Nobody's going to use that old canard about 'no atheists in foxholes' when there's a big brave boy like you in the atheist ranks.