tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post2838612973272690278..comments2023-10-26T03:12:48.945-07:00Comments on Dorkman's Blog: Secular Sunday: Case for a Creator: Chapter Three, Part 2Dorkmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-66232252217839103562009-01-15T09:07:00.000-08:002009-01-15T09:07:00.000-08:00Case in Carniphage's point: I see the perfect math...Case in Carniphage's point: I see the perfect math in water (h2o). I see that the reasons it does what it does is the result of mathematics (in the realm of physics). My partner sees water as designed. Its properties are required to create life. He believes the mathematics behind h2o were designed to create life.<BR/><BR/>It's the same belief, but he went one step past what I feel is the end to give it a reason. I simply see no evidence of a reason, no need for a reason and no evidence of a need for a reason. When I try to put a reason behind the facts, I start hitting all kinds of brick walls in the logic that follows based on that reason.<BR/><BR/>Of course, you will get those who claim "His Plan" is unknowable. That's where Carniphage is 100% correct when trying to discuss this. They tend to ignore you.<BR/><BR/>Still, you will also get those who have created the universe in their image. I have found that latter type to become hostile when challenged (unlike the former). I feel that they want it easy and that the challenge threatens to require them to think further than their faith. I also feel that, even if they were convinced, they still wouldn't think beyond their universe, leaving a empty space surrounding their existence (which is not empty at all). They would be unhappy as Atheists.<BR/><BR/>Some people just can't do it. Again, is it really all that bad, though?TheGamuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05838582756635371404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-63777120566713631152009-01-14T02:45:00.000-08:002009-01-14T02:45:00.000-08:00You'd think so, but not actually. The gaping holes...You'd think so, but not actually. The gaping holes are more easily dismissed, because you can construct a worldview that explains or closes them, and/or can make yourself cognitively blind to them by accepting such a worldview. How many theists do you know who hold contradictory beliefs and yet can say them one after another as though they logically follow? <BR/><BR/>(The question is of course rhetorical, since we both know that the answer, to some extent, is "all of them.")<BR/><BR/>No, the holes they've got an explanation for. You've got to start by showing what's wrong with the explanation. It's with the small cracks that reality can start to wedge itself in, and eventually, if the person is really searching for the truth, it reaches critical mass and the whole thing shatters. <BR/><BR/>That's how it worked for me, I've heard of others having the same experience, and I have no reason to believe that there aren't still others out there. A lot of people are theists simply because they've never had their beliefs properly challenged; they didn't know there were questions to be asked, let alone how to ask them. <BR/><BR/>There are the stark-raving mouth-foaming theists out there in the world, to be sure. But frankly they probably stopped reading my blog the very first time I mentioned that I am a non-believer, if they ever bothered to start. I'm convinced that the people who do read here are rational people at their core; they just may hold certain irrational beliefs, and so I am dedicating Sundays to pointing that out.<BR/><BR/>And make no mistake, Strobel is no minor player. He's one of the bestsellers in the "liberal" Christian set, the ones who want to be able to say they have rational reasons to believe, and not just faith-based ones (they don't, but Strobel makes them feel like they do). I would say Strobel is second only to Josh MacDowell in influence, as gauged by how often people bring up his books. <BR/><BR/>Hell, I've been hearing about Evidence that Demands a Verdict since I was prepubescent, and back then even just hearing that someone tried to write a book disproving Christianity, then became a Christian because he found so much proof, was, I admit, enough to convince me. I didn't even read the book and I took it as fantastic proof of Christ's power. <BR/><BR/>And then I outgrew that. So, I believe, can others.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-70290977643485542992009-01-14T01:52:00.000-08:002009-01-14T01:52:00.000-08:00Interesting. I have never met a religious person w...Interesting. <BR/><BR/>I have never met a religious person who could be persuaded by rational arguments. <BR/><BR/>There are people who are rational. They adopt a naturalistic world view, and are interested in working out how stuff works.<BR/><BR/>And there are the others. They start with a feeling that the world should be a certain way - and work backwards from there. The supernatural fits their needs. <BR/><BR/>Of course, these two contrary viewpoints lead to many arguments. But these are not arguments that can be won. Because both sides are playing by completely different rules.<BR/> <BR/>Strobel is just playing American Football, and you are playing soccer. When he suddenly picks-up the ball and runs, it looks like blatant cheating. It's not to him. <BR/><BR/>So I guess what I am saying is, if you want to open the eyes of theists, then picking-apart a pseudo-rational argument in a dense minor text is a really hard way to do it. <BR/><BR/>If there are theists who have enough residual rationality left - then it might be easier to draw their attention to the giant gaping holes than the tiny cracks.<BR/><BR/>C.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16985727964118115952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-14691062381350091172009-01-14T00:54:00.000-08:002009-01-14T00:54:00.000-08:00Carniphage, I don't think that's entirely fair to ...Carniphage, I don't think that's entirely fair to say. I think that some theists genuinely <I>do</I> want to discuss this, they genuinely <I>do</I> want to understand and seek the truth, and they genuinely <I>do</I> have the potential to see it. I know from experience because I was that guy. I was pretty Jesus-freaky back in the day, but I wanted to understand the truth, and eventually did, to the demise of my religious faith. <BR/><BR/>I mean, let's look at the origin of me even reading this book. Instead of preaching Jesus at me Chick-tract style and expecting me to jump on board with it, he sent me what he believed was at least an attempt to give answers and reasons and rationales to the subject. <BR/><BR/>I think people like Drew have a genuine interest in rational inquiry; they've just been so sidetracked by snake-oil salesmen like Lee Strobel that they don't quite know the right questions to ask or how to frame them. But they <I>want</I> to ask the questions. <BR/><BR/>That's why I've begun losing patience with Strobel's dishonesty -- because honest, well-meaning people, ones who actually want truth and reason, get drivel instead. <BR/><BR/>Admittedly, it's because of their faith that they're willing to accept it, because first and foremost they want to hold onto their faith. So if they can satisfy that urge for actual information with something that superficially qualifies, without threatening and/or while strengthening their conviction, then they'll take it happily. <BR/><BR/>That's why I'm going at Strobel so hard, while trying to provide the actual facts he's working so hard to obscure or misrepresent. Some theists do want to know the truth, genuinely, and that's what I'm trying to do my small part to communicate here.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-7867926557921246352009-01-13T13:27:00.000-08:002009-01-13T13:27:00.000-08:00If you ask a religious person if they have faith. ...If you ask a religious person if they have faith. They will proudly declare they have. In spades!<BR/><BR/>The old part of our culture values having faith. - And typifies a "loss of faith" as a weakness.<BR/><BR/>But it is not so.<BR/><BR/>Embracing faith, means not having to rely on such fragile mechanisms as logic and reason. Having faith literally requires that evidence and argument must take a back seat to feeling,sentiment and certainty. That's not ordinary certainty, it's a special hardcore certainty that comes only with many years of cultural indoctrination. <BR/><BR/>So these dudes are effectively immune to your earthly human logic. <BR/><BR/>As a regular, rational person this is hard to grasp. It's like meeting a human who does not need to breathe or eat. <BR/><BR/>If you want to disagree with a regular person, you engage them in debate. And following the rules of rational discourse - lead them to see the truth. Step by step - the process of argumentation.<BR/><BR/>This process is a waste of time on the faithful. <BR/>They will engage in a form of pantomime that looks like an argument. They look like they are debating. But they start with the conclusion. Because they know the end point at the outset.<BR/><BR/>What is worse is that the very act of engaging in a debate will legitimize their point of view. If a creationist were to debate with Dawkins, the charade would be exploited. It would add credibility to the supernatural point of view.<BR/><BR/>Trying to persuade a theist they are wrong is like talking to a rock - and asking it to fly. It can't possibly work. Instead you just have to pick it up and throw it.<BR/><BR/>So it's best not to debate them - just mock them more.<BR/><BR/>C.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16985727964118115952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-29989396512716217922009-01-12T16:52:00.000-08:002009-01-12T16:52:00.000-08:00Evolution. Intelligent [sic] design. Heh.Part of t...Evolution. Intelligent [sic] design. Heh.<BR/><BR/>Part of the problem of theistic design is probability.<BR/><BR/>When something has already happened, its probability is 1 in 1; a guaranteed event (because it has happened under the conditions that existed and, therefor, will always happen under all those same conditions). Many people rely in the 1:1 and refuse to believe their life happened largely as a matter of chance... until they go to a casino and lose.<BR/><BR/>Now, let propose the alternative: What is the probability of this ever happening again? People begin to think that it's not possible and could never have happened on its own in the first place, and so, we must exist by design.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the problem is: all it takes is 1 out of any number to make it happen. I believe in that 1 chance. It makes me appreciate everything a heck of a lot more than when I thought I believed someone made all this just for me (to use and abuse because it's mine -- my right to be alive instead of being darned lucky to be alive). It's enough to make me see life through a near-death experience. (That's what it is after all.)<BR/><BR/>Then again, others believe that all of existence is precious because it is a "gift" from the "creator"; a privilege to live and not a "right". Sadly, far too many are like how I was and think they somehow deserve to be alive.TheGamuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05838582756635371404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-18630355124507508272009-01-11T15:32:00.000-08:002009-01-11T15:32:00.000-08:00Please let Strobel's arguments stand or fall on th...Please let Strobel's arguments stand or fall on their own merits. There is no need to poison the well. http://is.gd/fqiuDrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.com