31–39 of 39 posts
The "natural world" we observe is not the world God created. It is a ruined version of it.
Who ruined it? Certainly not humans, who haven't been genetically engineering anything until recently. So who created these predators / parasites / diseases designed to kill and maim?
Why, Satan of course
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an atheist too, but Dove's point is a fair one. The fact that nature is filled with chaos and conflict doesn't conflict with the idea that it was created by a human-like mind, since humans have an aesthetic preference for stories and art that involve conflict. Presumably, God also saw it artistically pleasing that some children should live their entire lives in intolerable pain and then die before reaching their…
Presumably, God also saw it artistically pleasing that some children should live their entire lives in intolerable pain and then die before reaching their third birthday, but that's not even especially extreme by the standards of human literature. Yes, but while it's acceptable to write about horrible things in a literary context, it would be considered extreme to enact them. So presuming that I actually exist, and t…
If you were to create a world containing Ichneumon wasps, though, when you have the power to not do so, you're just a sadist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who ruined it? Certainly not humans, who haven't been genetically engineering anything until recently. So who created these predators / parasites / diseases designed to kill and maim?
Who ruined it? Why, Satan of course
Good stuff. Just finished Dawkins' new book: The Greatest Show on Earth - should be introductory biology reading for high school students. However, still prefer his The Selfish Gene for raising my consciousness the most.
"Foxes seem well-designed to catch rabbits. Rabbits seem well-designed to evade foxes. Was the Creator having trouble making up Its mind?" I suppose the author thinks God must be either pro-rabbit or pro-fox? That seems odd to me. Calvin and Hobbes argue a lot--just think of how self-defeating that is. How short-sighted of Bill Watterson to have overlooked that he could have assigned them milder temperments. Why all…
Did you stop reading after a couple of paragraphs? The author is an atheist, and uses the supernatural as metaphor to introduce his subject. He states quite clearly that he believes that evolution by natural selection is quite sufficient (even necessary) to explain what we can observe and that no god or gods are necessary.
It is a simple case of confirmation bias, I think. An atheist does not expect Christianity to make sense, so when he runs across something counterintuitive, he is very quick to conclude it is a simple mistake. This is unfortunate; a bit of dialogue with Christian intellectuals would likely enrich him with ideas he would otherwise find alien.
As a conoisseur of ideas, I have been tremendously enriched by serious dialogues with those of opposing views. The prejudices and biases are different. Even if we disagree on foundations, this leads them to say things I would not think of, to ask questions I would never have raised, to point out flaws in reasoning I think straightforward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably, God also saw it artistically pleasing that some children should live their entire lives in intolerable pain and then die before reaching their third birthday, but that's not even especially extreme by the standards of human literature. Yes, but while it's acceptable to write about horrible things in a literary context, it would be considered extreme to enact them. So presuming that I actually exist, and t…
Indeed. If you were to write a novel about an Ichneumon wasp, you might be considered a little bit twisted, but so long as the novel was good that would be accepted as part of your literary licence. If you were to create a world containing Ichneumon wasps, though, when you have the power to not do so, you're just a sadist.
A simple motivating example: I spent a while undergoing some martial arts training, and at times it was painful. Injuries weren't intended, but could the class have possibly been conducted with a little more deference to my sore feet, with perhaps one less bruise here or there?
In a philosophical sense, of course it could have. But this is not evidence of sadism on the part of the instructor (or the fellow students who gave me such a beating). In a practical sense, spending too much effort avoiding pain would have undermined one of the purposes of the class: teaching me to fight through it. Teaching me that some things are worth enduring pain to learn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, wish people would critique good versions of their opponents rather than bad versions. Otherwise, no one learns anything. Both sides remain content in their arguments and assume the other side is a moron.
I have no idea what you two are talking about. Are you ambiguously trying to argue for creationism? If so, could you point me to those "good arguments"? I've never seen them.
The "natural world" we observe is not the world God created. It is a ruined version of it.
Who ruined it? Certainly not humans, who haven't been genetically engineering anything until recently. So who created these predators / parasites / diseases designed to kill and maim?
I am not attempting to arguing that the creation account is accurate, I am pointing out that the author is not describing the Creation account accurately.
It seems to be an effect strategy when trying to win an argument to tell a half truth about the apposing idea or position then attack that idea or position based on the half truth. By truth I mean the "true" creation account not the accuracy of the creation account.
I was away for a few days so I could not respond in a more timely manner.
On a completely different subject regarding down voting. Does it mean that one does not agree with the content, that the content has no insight, or that the content adds no value? The third is the area that I/We are trying to solve in a web application solution soon to be deployed.
Using my initial comment as an example had I not posted that comment what "value adding" content would have never been created. If my content resulted in "value adding" content is it not then "value adding" content? Is a good proxy of "value adding" content, content which produces or causes other content creation?
Good stuff. Just finished Dawkins' new book: The Greatest Show on Earth - should be introductory biology reading for high school students. However, still prefer his The Selfish Gene for raising my consciousness the most.
By the time I read "The Selfish Gene" I didn't really see anything that enlightening in it. "The Extended Phenotype" is the one that I found most enlightening.