That's fine, nobody said you couldn't have your beliefs.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
That's fine, nobody said you couldn't have your beliefs.
Nice double negative there...
Better to say that those who have no reason...have no reason...
Non God is meaningless, of course, we agree...which is why it is meaningless for atheists to assume non God.
Now, if you have no concept of God...which would be a lie of course, perhaps you would have a reason to be mute about the topic of God, but heaven knows you have been nothing if not verbose with your opinions on the topic and concept of God...
The fact established many moons ago is that for an adult raised in western civilization and exposed to western culture since an early age...they do have a concept of God, which they either reject, accept, or claim incompetence to understand the concept. Or you could be brain dead and therefore be incapable of having an reason at all.
So which is it, are you just incompetent, or a liar when it comes to your belief (positive or negative) in God?
Better to say that those who have no reason...have no reason...
Non God is meaningless, of course, we agree...which is why it is meaningless for atheists to assume non God.
Now, if you have no concept of God...which would be a lie of course, perhaps you would have a reason to be mute about the topic of God, but heaven knows you have been nothing if not verbose with your opinions on the topic and concept of God...
The fact established many moons ago is that for an adult raised in western civilization and exposed to western culture since an early age...they do have a concept of God, which they either reject, accept, or claim incompetence to understand the concept. Or you could be brain dead and therefore be incapable of having an reason at all.
So which is it, are you just incompetent, or a liar when it comes to your belief (positive or negative) in God?
Do you also think "Chris" looks good in a helmet?
There's that false equivalency thing again. The majority of scientists, whose sole agenda is the quest for knowledge, are in general agreement that the theory fits the facts better than any other theory. The scientists in jem's corner may be vocal, but they are in a decidedly very small minority and, as luck would have it, just happen to be religious. So much for objectivity.
Neither you nor I are sufficiently versed to adequately assess the body of knowledge in question. Mere repetition of choice phrases and references off the Internet do not replace years of study. And so, the question is, whom to believe. A relatively small cadre of obviously biased "scientists" or the majority? Scientific fact may not be a matter of consensus or vote, but when you are not in the position to adequately judge the evidence, the question is, whom do you believe? A relatively very small contingent of the obviously biased? We each make our choice.
I think you are dismissive of vast bodies of science not because you are stupid (because I know you are not stupid), but rather because it suits your purpose. In that respect, you are no different than the political Right who push the invisible hand and trickle down. Hey, they're theories, right? And all theories are equal, eh? They may secretly know better, at least the smarter among them, but they will keep that to themselves because it serves their purpose to do so.
To dismiss the painstaking work and the intellectual capital that went into the study of evolution and its various branches over a period of generations in favor of your personal musings and imaginings is troubling to me. Kiddind aside, I truly expected better from you.
An assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Evolution has more evidence supporting it than any opposing theory.
Say I agree with you that the majority of scientists are pure of intention, and have no ulterior motive.
So?
Are they devoid of their personal opinions? Are the machines completely without a personal bias? Are the devoid of emotions? Have we seen almost an entire agreement amongst scientists...only to be proven wrong at some point in the future?
I don't think we can evaluate the legitimacy of science on the basis of "intent" of the scientists, can we?
That seems to be your argument, which is flawed...if you think about it.
Science is a methodology, not the opinions of scientists. Scientists are the ones who "practice" science. Emphasis on practice of science, just like a practice of medicine, law, and religion. All good intentions...but all fallible due to the equipment that cannot be removed from the equation...i.e. the human mind.
If you really want to be precise, since the body of scientists think the human mind is an evolving thing...not something completely evolved, that would be even a greater reason to cast doubt on the majority of scientists...as their minds are still in a state of evolving...not having evolved to a point to truly understand or grasp the entirety of all factors that influence scientific opinion...
I understand you have your faith in scientists, and there is nothing at all wrong with that...as long as the dogma of scientists is not forced onto the people any more than the dogma of The Church is forced onto the people...
"I think you are dismissive of vast bodies of science not because you are stupid."
That's your opinion, and it speaks to you thinking you are "smarter"...so if you have a need to feel smarter, by all means feel that way. It has no bearing on the reality of a situation, now does it?
"An assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
An assertion without complete and foolproof evidence that rules out all other possibilities, is not a complete assertion.
You are satisfied with you incomplete assertions? Okay by me. It doesn't matter when we are discussing the truth of a situation, for the gap between a real truth and an incomplete assertion is a miss as good as a mile...
Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are wrong, but I support you choosing how to live your life, what to believe, what to have faith in...but I reject you claiming to know that your way, which may be right for you...is the way that is right for others.
Same goes for theists who proclaim their way is superior.
To each their own, let science discover more and more fact, and with each fact, revise their opinions...that is a never ending process.
The truth is, and it takes an educated and humble man to accept this, is that the more we discover, the more questions remain unanswered, as each particle of fact just reveals less about the real nature of the whole...
So?
Are they devoid of their personal opinions? Are the machines completely without a personal bias? Are the devoid of emotions? Have we seen almost an entire agreement amongst scientists...only to be proven wrong at some point in the future?
I don't think we can evaluate the legitimacy of science on the basis of "intent" of the scientists, can we?
That seems to be your argument, which is flawed...if you think about it.
Science is a methodology, not the opinions of scientists. Scientists are the ones who "practice" science. Emphasis on practice of science, just like a practice of medicine, law, and religion. All good intentions...but all fallible due to the equipment that cannot be removed from the equation...i.e. the human mind.
If you really want to be precise, since the body of scientists think the human mind is an evolving thing...not something completely evolved, that would be even a greater reason to cast doubt on the majority of scientists...as their minds are still in a state of evolving...not having evolved to a point to truly understand or grasp the entirety of all factors that influence scientific opinion...
I understand you have your faith in scientists, and there is nothing at all wrong with that...as long as the dogma of scientists is not forced onto the people any more than the dogma of The Church is forced onto the people...
"I think you are dismissive of vast bodies of science not because you are stupid."
That's your opinion, and it speaks to you thinking you are "smarter"...so if you have a need to feel smarter, by all means feel that way. It has no bearing on the reality of a situation, now does it?
"An assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
An assertion without complete and foolproof evidence that rules out all other possibilities, is not a complete assertion.
You are satisfied with you incomplete assertions? Okay by me. It doesn't matter when we are discussing the truth of a situation, for the gap between a real truth and an incomplete assertion is a miss as good as a mile...
Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are wrong, but I support you choosing how to live your life, what to believe, what to have faith in...but I reject you claiming to know that your way, which may be right for you...is the way that is right for others.
Same goes for theists who proclaim their way is superior.
To each their own, let science discover more and more fact, and with each fact, revise their opinions...that is a never ending process.
The truth is, and it takes an educated and humble man to accept this, is that the more we discover, the more questions remain unanswered, as each particle of fact just reveals less about the real nature of the whole...
Not so nice absurd reasoning you have there.....
But then your argument for God , for faith, as can be seen quite clearly, relies entirely on a rhetoric of absurd reasoning.
You can't force concepts onto people however much you believe or wish you could.
Your suggestion that every adult must have a concept in the style western civilization describes because they were exposed and brought up in that world is downright Orwellian.
This is not a totalitarian state where people must have concepts.
Do you live in North Korea or something?
Of course I'm mute about God. You don't mention it, then I've no reason to.
But I'm not mute about nonsensical , ridiculous and often dangerous delusions riding on the back of faith and belief like yours.
Especially where they insinuate themselves into society.
You want your God , fine. Keep it to yourself.
My argument is with yours and others' never endingly various and ludicrous concepts of it.
I have no concept positive or negative.
No reason to. Non of it makes any sense.
And you can't make me Herr OptionalZzz, by hope wish or force, as much as it sounds like you want to.
ps do you actually know what a double negative is!?
But then your argument for God , for faith, as can be seen quite clearly, relies entirely on a rhetoric of absurd reasoning.
You can't force concepts onto people however much you believe or wish you could.
Your suggestion that every adult must have a concept in the style western civilization describes because they were exposed and brought up in that world is downright Orwellian.
This is not a totalitarian state where people must have concepts.
Do you live in North Korea or something?
Of course I'm mute about God. You don't mention it, then I've no reason to.
But I'm not mute about nonsensical , ridiculous and often dangerous delusions riding on the back of faith and belief like yours.
Especially where they insinuate themselves into society.
You want your God , fine. Keep it to yourself.
My argument is with yours and others' never endingly various and ludicrous concepts of it.
I have no concept positive or negative.
No reason to. Non of it makes any sense.
And you can't make me Herr OptionalZzz, by hope wish or force, as much as it sounds like you want to.
ps do you actually know what a double negative is!?