You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
I don't oppose teaching design, where design is known, i.e. art or architecture. I don't know anyone who thinks that artisans or architects are not designers.
Design nor chance is known in biology, cosmology, etc.
In areas where we don't know, no need for wild guessing in order to promote atheism or theism.
Teach what we know, the processes we know.
Why any reasonable person would be opposed to that is beyond me.
In public schools, there is no need to indoctrinate a child's mind to be atheistic or theistic ideology, to indoctrinate chance or design when it is not known if chance or programming is causal.
I think children need a basis for speculation, and a good basis is the scientific methodology supported with the rigors of testing and logic.
When a child has mastered the basics, then they will be in a position to reason to their own conclusions, not be a mindless person regurgitating the party line. Children learn the basic math first, they don't proceed to advance mathematical concepts until they have mastered the primary level of understanding.
This flawed concept that the opinions of scientists reflect scientific truths needs to be carefully understood.
The logical uncertainty of chance happenings rather than programmed happenings needs to be communicated in a manner that is not swimming in a sea of bias, but rather in a detached unbiased representation of what we know, and what we don't know.
That you would oppose any of what I suggest, illustrates your bias, and probably a fear underlying that your position is in danger of being exposed as that of a faith based, rather than proof based ideology.
Design nor chance is known in biology, cosmology, etc.
In areas where we don't know, no need for wild guessing in order to promote atheism or theism.
Teach what we know, the processes we know.
Why any reasonable person would be opposed to that is beyond me.
In public schools, there is no need to indoctrinate a child's mind to be atheistic or theistic ideology, to indoctrinate chance or design when it is not known if chance or programming is causal.
I think children need a basis for speculation, and a good basis is the scientific methodology supported with the rigors of testing and logic.
When a child has mastered the basics, then they will be in a position to reason to their own conclusions, not be a mindless person regurgitating the party line. Children learn the basic math first, they don't proceed to advance mathematical concepts until they have mastered the primary level of understanding.
This flawed concept that the opinions of scientists reflect scientific truths needs to be carefully understood.
The logical uncertainty of chance happenings rather than programmed happenings needs to be communicated in a manner that is not swimming in a sea of bias, but rather in a detached unbiased representation of what we know, and what we don't know.
That you would oppose any of what I suggest, illustrates your bias, and probably a fear underlying that your position is in danger of being exposed as that of a faith based, rather than proof based ideology.
Quote from stu:
Didnât you mean you mean to say "I don't know anyone who thinks that artisans or architects are not designers.".
As your arguments get so bizarre, it may not be a mistake.
Of course design is known of in biology, cosmology, etc. Just as much as it is in architecture.
And as for architects, they are completely biological in nature.... and are designers.
Biological design personified.
You can't not teach the science in the theory of evolution or abiogenesis , which is what you want, just because they don't show the need or necessity for an intelligent designer creator. Both those subjects are scientific and they both contain known scientific facts.
You just want to exclude certain learning from school and argue against known science, not because it isn't knowledge, which of course it is, but because your personal religious preconceptions of an intelligent designer creator happen to be diminished by fact.
Of course design and chance is known in biology, cosmology, etc. Both are scientifically explained.
It is intelligent design creationism which is not known, has no explanation , where design becomes guesswork wrapped up in wishful thinking, and fat chance is all you have in hope of it.
Going by what you say then , intelligent design is out as far as teaching goes.
And as science does include proofs and all of the science in evolution and abiogenesis does include possibility, due to favorable combinations of circumstances, in a word chance, you should have no real problem with the teaching of both in school.
Science won't cease to be taught to children in public schools just because you have personal religious predispositions for intelligent design creationism.
It is intelligent design creationism which is not known, has no explanation , where design becomes guesswork wrapped up in wishful thinking, and fat chance is all you have in hope of it.
Going by what you say then , intelligent design is out as far as teaching goes.
And as science does include proofs and all of the science in evolution and abiogenesis does include possibility, due to favorable combinations of circumstances, in a word chance, you should have no real problem with the teaching of both in school.
Science won't cease to be taught to children in public schools just because you have personal religious predispositions for intelligent design creationism.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I don't oppose teaching design, where design is known, i.e. art or architecture. I don't know anyone who thinks that artisans or architects are not designers.
Design nor chance is known in biology, cosmology, etc.
In areas where we don't know, no need for wild guessing in order to promote atheism or theism.
Teach what we know, the processes we know.
Why any reasonable person would be opposed to that is beyond me.
In public schools, there is no need to indoctrinate a child's mind to be atheistic or theistic ideology, to indoctrinate chance or design when it is not known if chance or programming is causal.
I think children need a basis for speculation, and a good basis is the scientific methodology supported with the rigors of testing and logic.
When a child has mastered the basics, then they will be in a position to reason to their own conclusions, not be a mindless person regurgitating the party line. Children learn the basic math first, they don't proceed to advance mathematical concepts until they have mastered the primary level of understanding.
This flawed concept that the opinions of scientists reflect scientific truths needs to be carefully understood.
The logical uncertainty of chance happenings rather than programmed happenings needs to be communicated in a manner that is not swimming in a sea of bias, but rather in a detached unbiased representation of what we know, and what we don't know.
That you would oppose any of what I suggest, illustrates your bias, and probably a fear underlying that your position is in danger of being exposed as that of a faith based, rather than proof based ideology.
Chance is not known or knowable in biology.
Since there is no force of chance, no law of chance, the concept of chance used in biology and cosmology is just like some filler paste trying to fill in the gap in between two pieces of wood.
Chance is a word used to explain what can't be explained, rendering chance theory nothing but an uneducated guess to make a prior theory fit the preconceived proposition.
The terribly confused suggest that the happenings are a combination of chance and design, suggesting that there is a designated reason for some aspects of happenings in the world, and other non designated reasons. These people are miserably confused, as they claim design and chance both did it.
Design? By what design? By chance? By what chance?
Laughable...but of course the atheist will bristle and become irritable when forced to explain why some things are designed and some things are by chance.
Since there is no force of chance, no law of chance, the concept of chance used in biology and cosmology is just like some filler paste trying to fill in the gap in between two pieces of wood.
Chance is a word used to explain what can't be explained, rendering chance theory nothing but an uneducated guess to make a prior theory fit the preconceived proposition.
The terribly confused suggest that the happenings are a combination of chance and design, suggesting that there is a designated reason for some aspects of happenings in the world, and other non designated reasons. These people are miserably confused, as they claim design and chance both did it.
Design? By what design? By chance? By what chance?
Laughable...but of course the atheist will bristle and become irritable when forced to explain why some things are designed and some things are by chance.
Quote from stu:
Of course design and chance is known in biology, cosmology, etc. Both are scientifically explained.
It is intelligent design creationism which is not known, has no explanation , where design becomes guesswork wrapped up in wishful thinking, and fat chance is all you have in hope of it.
Going by what you say then , intelligent design is out as far as teaching goes.
And as science does include proofs and all of the science in evolution and abiogenesis does include possibility, due to favorable combinations of circumstances, in a word chance, you should have no real problem with the teaching of both in school.
Science won't cease to be taught to children in public schools just because you have personal religious predispositions for intelligent design creationism.
It doesn't surprise me neither chance nor design is known to you in biology .
It's essential to your assertions that such things are not known of.
To an ID'er, denial and ignorance is everything.
Yes of course you do already know that magical chance thingy/theory.
You call it "design" but of course it is actually intelligent design creationism .
It's essential to your assertions that such things are not known of.
To an ID'er, denial and ignorance is everything.
Yes of course you do already know that magical chance thingy/theory.
You call it "design" but of course it is actually intelligent design creationism .
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Neither chance nor design is known in biology.
So here's you chance to prove your statement.
I already know that magical chance thingy/theory.
Go ahead and explain the design theory.
Waiting for your proof based on what is actually known by observers and observations (not speculated greasy imaginations of random ignorant chance) of design and chance in biology.
Happenings are happenings in the universe. Without any question, things happen.
Why and how do they happen? This is the part where scientists rely on their own imaginations to fill in the gaps.
Explanations of why things happen the way they do, or that we even happen to have a universe at all, and a universe that supports human life, are shaped by the bent of the person groping for an explanation, and in the absence of factual evidence of cause...he renders simply guesses. If one is predisposed to chance, then they will believe and accept chance without question. If someone doesn't believe in chance, but rather believes in cause and effect, that person will not be satisfied to give credit to chance, when giving credit to chance, or luck, or anything else that is not explained...is just a practice of superstition and sloppy thinking.
The one who opposes the concept that the universe exists by design, and subscribes to the belief that non life by itself combined with itself and the environment by chance to produce life is atheistic.
Gee, I guess that makes stu an atheist without evidence or proof of the cause of anything at all...just sloppy guessing to fill in the enormous gaps where we have no knowledge of cause.
So laughable this lifeless primordial soup...that just happened by itself...then just happened by itself to assemble itself into life. When and how did this primordial soup first appear? How long did this primordial soup exist before it magically created life from itself? What created this primordial soup? Oh yeah, some external forces of nature just happened along by chance to cause the generation the process of life from non life. The soup was just sitting there doing nothing on its own, and suddenly and magically, like the story of God breathing life into a piece of clay...the soup was breathed upon by some external lifeless force to produce life. Some lifeless process produced life. Sure, it happens all the time. Some chance encounter of two lifeless existences produced life from lifelessness.
How do these things just happen by themselves? Well, ask an atheist and they will tell you a bedtime story that Mr. Chance was behind all of it. Mr. Chance was there before the big bang, Mr. Chance was there when the primordial soup was assembled from non soup. Mr. Chance was there when life first came on the scene from lifeless soup. Mr. Chance was there in each change in life from one form of life to another form of life. Mr. Chance explains everything. Fables are like that.
A child might believe that, this magical and mystical force of Mr. Chance...but of course the real and true objective scientist sees no Mr. Chance, no force of chance, no law of chance...he just sees cause and effect...and if he is really desperate to create a theory to explain what he doesn't know...he will apply his childhood fairy tale of Mr. Chance doing it all.
QUOTE]Quote from stu:
It doesn't surprise me neither chance nor design is known to you in biology .
It's essential to your assertions that such things are not known of.
To an ID'er, denial and ignorance is everything.
Yes of course you do already know that magical chance thingy/theory.
You call it "design" but of course it is actually intelligent design creationism . [/QUOTE]
Happenings are happenings in the universe. Without any question, things happen.
Why and how do they happen? This is the part where scientists rely on their own imaginations to fill in the gaps.
Explanations of why things happen the way they do, or that we even happen to have a universe at all, and a universe that supports human life, are shaped by the bent of the person groping for an explanation, and in the absence of factual evidence of cause...he renders simply guesses. If one is predisposed to chance, then they will believe and accept chance without question. If someone doesn't believe in chance, but rather believes in cause and effect, that person will not be satisfied to give credit to chance, when giving credit to chance, or luck, or anything else that is not explained...is just a practice of superstition and sloppy thinking.
The one who opposes the concept that the universe exists by design, and subscribes to the belief that non life by itself combined with itself and the environment by chance to produce life is atheistic.
Gee, I guess that makes stu an atheist without evidence or proof of the cause of anything at all...just sloppy guessing to fill in the enormous gaps where we have no knowledge of cause.
So laughable this lifeless primordial soup...that just happened by itself...then just happened by itself to assemble itself into life. When and how did this primordial soup first appear? How long did this primordial soup exist before it magically created life from itself? What created this primordial soup? Oh yeah, some external forces of nature just happened along by chance to cause the generation the process of life from non life. The soup was just sitting there doing nothing on its own, and suddenly and magically, like the story of God breathing life into a piece of clay...the soup was breathed upon by some external lifeless force to produce life. Some lifeless process produced life. Sure, it happens all the time. Some chance encounter of two lifeless existences produced life from lifelessness.
How do these things just happen by themselves? Well, ask an atheist and they will tell you a bedtime story that Mr. Chance was behind all of it. Mr. Chance was there before the big bang, Mr. Chance was there when the primordial soup was assembled from non soup. Mr. Chance was there when life first came on the scene from lifeless soup. Mr. Chance was there in each change in life from one form of life to another form of life. Mr. Chance explains everything. Fables are like that.
A child might believe that, this magical and mystical force of Mr. Chance...but of course the real and true objective scientist sees no Mr. Chance, no force of chance, no law of chance...he just sees cause and effect...and if he is really desperate to create a theory to explain what he doesn't know...he will apply his childhood fairy tale of Mr. Chance doing it all.
QUOTE]Quote from stu:
It doesn't surprise me neither chance nor design is known to you in biology .
It's essential to your assertions that such things are not known of.
To an ID'er, denial and ignorance is everything.
Yes of course you do already know that magical chance thingy/theory.
You call it "design" but of course it is actually intelligent design creationism . [/QUOTE]