Evolution - A Weak Argument for the Anti-Supernatural?

[yip1997]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Imagine if you saw Dick Cheney with a rifle. He started shooting randomly in different directions. The first shot hit a beetle on a maple leaf. What is the chance that Dick Cheney's first shot would hit a beetle? Next to zero. So it must be a miracle!

What if Dick Cheney hit a fly instead of a beetle on the first shot? It's another miracle!

You see, no matter how small the chance is for Dick Cheney to hit a beetle, the combination of the two facts, that he indeed hit a beetle, and that the chance is next to nothing, still does not prove that Dick Cheney aimed at the beetle.

I think james_bond has a very good point here.

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Actually, let me be more direct: if you want to verify the supernatural why not test it directly?

How do you verify supernatural?

I am a Christian, but Supernature or God is really a weak argument for something we can't explain today imo.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from traderNik:

I don't really feel comfortable clicking on any of those links. 'New World Thinker' or whatever? Er, no, I don't think so.

There's another one of the faithful on here who used to post up links from Christian fundamentalist sites and suggest that they represented 'support' for his statements. I am going to assume that you're not as cynical as that.

At any rate, you may not be the only one who feels that way, but the facts are the facts. We are in a secular bear market in religiosity that started in the Middle Ages. In a few thousand years, belief in all of these separate 'Gods' will be replaced by a universal spirituality that doesn't make the (outrageous) claim that this or that historical/allegorical text is the 'Word of God'. Already, contemporary Christians are admitting that the Bible isn't to be taken literally, and is in fact best seen as a guide for living well. I have no problem with that. Just take that 'Creator God' part out and all will be well.

None of these were fundamental Christian sites as far as I know. Furthermore, the scholars and theologians they quoted were almost for sure anything but fundamental - probably quite the opposite.

But notice that you're talking about a "universal spirituality" that is now dominating things. I agree with that completely. But that is not atheism and that's my point.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Hansel H:

But I can't resist pointing out that those prolific ancient Greeks were believers too - in some pretty silly stuff when it came to religion.

Hey, which one of us guys wouldn't worship a few giant, fifty foot, nymph-like godesses of fertility for a few years?

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from traderNik:

Lots of people become more spiritual in their old age. Lots of people lose their religion when faced with inconsolable tragedy. Such is life.

That's not the cool part. You're assuming I'm excited that he moved up the "Belief Scale". No, what I was commenting about was that he recognized one of the inherent problems in the Origin of Life Dilemma.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from yip1997:

I think james_bond has a very good point here.



How do you verify supernatural?

I am a Christian, but Supernature or God is really a weak argument for something we can't explain today imo.

It's kind of a good point. The problem is we don't have any probailities or distributions, so we can't really get anywhere. We can really make up any model we want, which is his point...

But my point as far as the supernatural is this: it's not that hard to find the supernatural if you want to. And all of this discussion is really about determining whether or not there is a supernatural realm.

So I guess I just wonder why people have never tried it? I mean that's what I did, but then, hey, I grew up post-hippies. Again, I don't really want anyone to try the occult actually, because as I said, I think a lot of things are on the spiritually dangerous side.

But a lot of these threads seem like people analyzing football all their lives without ever having played. Even Johnny seems that way.

I mean why not just pick up one of the many books on the supernatural and see if there really is any evidence for it? (I wish people would pick up a book on Christian miracles, but I know that would go over like a lead balloon.) Is it going to kill you?

I'm a Christian and I remember bringing up the Phoenix Lights Incident and noone had even heard of it on this site. I'm not supposed to be the one who knows about these things...

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

That's not the cool part. You're assuming I'm excited that he moved up the "Belief Scale". No, what I was commenting about was that he recognized one of the inherent problems in the Origin of Life Dilemma.

Ah, okay. I see your point.

See, for me, there is no 'Origin of Life Dilemma'. I see our quest for knowledge in epochal terms, not in mere centuries. Our inquiries have only just started and much of what is accepted as good science now will probably be laughed at in 1000 years. Nevertheless, science is constantly amazing me, showing that things I thought were almost religious in their substance (such as telepathy) are now scientifically demonstrable (see MIT study I quoted a while back).

The spontaneous organization of life isn't any weirder to me than the workings of an individual molecule of water. Anyone who thinks the two are poles apart doesn't understand much of chemistry. Eventually we will be shown how such 'miracles' are not in fact miracles, but workings of the natural world.

With regard to spirituality, I read your first post and assumed that you're a Christian, which usually means something more specific and, in my previous experience, more restrictive and dogmatic. If you're one of those Christians who understands that your beliefs aren't relevant to the majority, we are all good. My issue is with those proselytizing Evangelicals who claim that their personal fairy-tale should somehow affect my life. I will assume you're not one of these until shown otherwise.

If you want to see the absolute worst of the Religious Dogmatists, check out the thread entitled 'Intelligent Design is not Creationism'. In it you will see a sickening brand of assertion/denial/obfuscation and blatant intellectual dishonesty. Check the posts by ZZZzzzzzzz and Teleologist.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from traderNik:

My issue is with those proselytizing Evangelicals who claim that their personal fairy-tale should somehow affect my life. I will assume you're not one of these until shown otherwise.

Definitely not Shoe.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Hansel H:

Definitely not Shoe.

Yes, upon reviewing the thread, I tend to believe it. I just have a very wary take on believers, since my experience with them has not been good.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from traderNik:

My issue is with those proselytizing Evangelicals who claim that their personal fairy-tale should somehow affect my life. I will assume you're not one of these until shown otherwise.

I really come here to chat and also learn about science and how other people think. But I hope you recognize that you are far more aggressive than I am: note that you just called my beliefs a "fairy tale".

That's a perfect example of how Christians are expected to be quiet little Prince Myshkin figures while everyone else gets to say whatever they feel like.

You feeling sorry for me yet?

No, I used to get irate at stuff like that on these threads and attack back, but now I figure people are just people...

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I really come here to chat and also learn about science and how other people think. But I hope you recognize that you are far more aggressive than I am: note that you just called my beliefs a "fairy tale".

Maybe Nik is suggesting that proseletyzing evangelicals' beliefs are fairy tales with no reflection on your beliefs. Seems like a reasonable dude.

I go to bed.