Wow! This Sam Harris guy sure is an idiot. He must be the Benny Hinn of the atheists: He says what people want to hear and he says it in a most colourful way(i.e. the graph). Truth be damned! What I find most amusing is how many of his disciples on here have been sticking their chests out and proclaiming the superiority of their science and reason to christianity. Really where is your science and reason? Sam Harris used none in developing his graph and you all blindly believed him without an ounce of critical thinking.
When I first seen this thread I rolled my eyes: Another thread taking pot shots at christianity. You would think that you guys would get tired of regurgitating the same old arguments and go off and live your godless lives. But obviously your faith in a godless universe needs to constantly be reinforced by belittling and in your weak minds destroying the pillars of christian orthodoxy.
Perhaps I'm being a little too hard on you guys. I mean I do have some advantages; I actually have read the bible and studied it from time to time. Also, I do have some interest in religious history. What do you guys got? An ardent faith in a godless universe? Blind devotion to your religious leaders such as Sam Harris or Dawkins?
Sam Harris must have scoured the internet to come up with his 395 questions about the bible. He might have even raided christian sites for questions all the while ignoring any answers he got along the way. That would have been the hard part (Ignoring the answers he got along the way). Because these questions aren't new ones. They've been asked and answered for the last 1900 years. The only difference is today you've got idiots like Sam Harris who find a question and go: Aha! I've just disproved the bible. He does this without any attempt to find a reasonable answer himself or looking at any christain apologists who have addressed the same questions over the centuries. After all if Sam did that his chart wouldn't look nearly as pretty and his predetermined conclusion nearly as strong.
Lets look at just the first 2 of Sam's questions which Sam concludes as evidence that the bible isn't reliable:
The first is an apparent discrepancy between the number of men Adino killed at one time between IISam 23:8 and IChron 11:11. In IISam 23:8 the number is 800 and in IChron 11:11 the number is 300. Also in IChron 11:11 the name of the warrior is Jashobeam not Adino. Both Adino and Jashobeam are identified in their passage as the chief of the captains but, of course they both could have been the chief of the captains being as IChron 11 records the beginning of David's 40 year reign as king of Israel whereas IISam23 records the time of David's death. So what exactly is making Sam go "Aha!" ?
The second discrepancy Sam identifies is in Rom 4:2,3 and James 2:21. In Rom 4:2,3 it says Abraham wasn't justified by works before God but, rather by belief. In James 2:21 it says the Abraham was justified by works. It goes on in the verse 22 to explain that Abraham's faith is what produced Abraham's work and then is verse 23 to affirm that Abraham's belief was imputed to him for righteousness. I guess Sam didn't feel the need to read beyond verse 21. After all verse 21 gave Sam his (Aha!). Why read on and spoil it?
When I first went to Sam's chart I was going to go through the first ten questions but,after I seen the calibre of the first 2 I realized the futility of the exercise. Sam isn't asking to find answers. He is building an argument on a bed of sand.
What doesn't make sense to you? It was a pretty straight forward comment.
I find it actually humorous (mmm humous) that atheists are usually the most radical with their beliefs. Thankfully they don't follow any religion or they'd probably be the ones knocking on your doors and the ones strapping them selves with C4 and yelling "Allahu akbar"
First of all, believers or Christians are not the same thing as religious, in my opinion. I'm a believer and a Christian, but I don't know if I'd call myself religious. I know many, many believers who are not religious. They can believe in a deity but if they don't practise a faith then I wouldn't call them religious.
To address your question, the statement was that athiests care more about religion than do Christians (to use the term I think should be used). Many athiests care more about debunking faith than they do about faith or religion. I'd say that the only thing about religion that the more militant athiests care about is discrediting it. They don't care about religion per se.
I'll start with a question, do you know how many mutations there are between you and your parents?
They're rare, but when you factor in the time scales involved as well as the # of generations and the size of the population, the rate of beneficial mutations are sufficient to explain the diversity of life.
The mutation argument is an interesting one, and something that is often used by intelligent designers to suggest beneficial mutations are not frequent enough in nature to account for transitional forms (even over millions of years)- I agree that their argument is based upon the very false pretense that mutations must be easily observable before we can determine their effect on selection. Yes, mutations are meant to be looked at on the cellular level, which in the majority of instances are difficult to observe. AC gave a great example a few posts back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I don't think there's a lack of fossil evidence at all.. there's lots of very good lines with good representation over time.. equine evolution and whale evolution being two. There are lots of great fossils.
More would be nice, but fossilization is a rare event, we're fortunate to have what we do.
And incidentally with the understanding of genetics, evolution would be the correct conclusion even if we didn't have a single fossil.
Yes, the typical response we have all heard is that the fossil catalogue is too small- which is why there is not an abundance of intermediary forms. While I agree with this to a point, I think even the best of evolutionary biologists are honest enough to admit that the fossil record should start yielding better evidence as the record becomes increasingly populated. This is not an indictment, but simply an observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
But basically this boils down to an argument from incredulity. "I can't think of how this organ is useful if it isn't complete, therefore it can't have evolved", which is a logical fallacy.
Yes, I agree to a point, but only because my question on "half an organ" is way too much of a generalization. A better way of looking at things is to measure how frequently in nature (both past and present), an organism with an evolving organ benefits over an organism without said evolving organ (and has an increased chance of selection because of it)- on a cellular and foraging level. The studies are being done, but I admit its been some time since I have read anything in this field.
Anyways, I realize my questions are actually very old and possibly straw men- perhaps I need to update myself on what the big questions in evolutionary biology are today?? That doesn't mean I support an alternate theory, but rather that I feel the study of evolution has a long way to go (which goes without saying). Do I agree completely with intelligent designers? No. Do they raise a lot of good questions? Of course, but so did Stephen Gould
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 11-13-2010 at 12:13 PM.
The mutation argument is an interesting one, and something that is often used by intelligent designers to suggest beneficial mutations are not frequent enough in nature to account for transitional forms (even over millions of years)- I agree that their argument is based upon the very false pretense that mutations must be easily observable before we can determine their effect on selection. Yes, mutations are meant to be looked at on the cellular level, which in the majority of instances are difficult to observe. AC gave a great example a few posts back.
But given the current abilities to look at the genome, it's not impossible to observe. We can look at and read the DNA directly.
Between you and your parents, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 mutations. Now obviously not all or even a significant portion of those can be deleterious, otherwise life would die out within generations.
Most are neutral, either because their effect is neutral with respect to current selective pressures, or because they fall within non-coding portions of the genome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Yes, the typical response we have all heard is that the fossil catalogue is too small- which is why there is not an abundance of intermediary forms. While I agree with this to a point, I think even the best of evolutionary biologists are honest enough to admit that the fossil record should start yielding better evidence as the record becomes increasingly populated. This is not an indictment, but simply an observation.
Well technically speaking, every fossil is a transitional fossil.
Fossilization is a physical processes, not evolutionary processes. It only happens in specific conditions, specific kinds of habitats. So you would expect to see lots of fossils for organisms that inhabit those habitats, and few fossils for organisms for organisms that live in habitats that rarely produce the conditions for fossilization.
Many types of animals don't fossilize well. Natural processes destroy fossils. It takes a long time and effort to properly analyze fossils, there are tons of fossils sitting unanalyzed.
And despite all that, the fossil record still produces excellent records for some lineages, and there is an abundance of intermediary fossils. You just will never get an intermediary fossil for every species, but you don't expect that and neither do you need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
The mutation argument is an interesting one, and something that is often used by intelligent designers to suggest beneficial mutations are not frequent enough in nature to account for transitional forms (even over millions of years)- I agree that their argument is based upon the very false pretense that mutations must be easily observable before we can determine their effect on selection. Yes, mutations are meant to be looked at on the cellular level, which in the majority of instances are difficult to observe. AC gave a great example a few posts back.
But given the current abilities to look at the genome, it's not impossible to observe. We can look at and read the DNA directly.
Between you and your parents, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 mutations. Now obviously not all or even a significant portion of those can be deleterious, otherwise life would die out within generations.
Most are neutral, either because their effect is neutral with respect to current selective pressures, or because they fall within non-coding portions of the genome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Yes, I agree to a point, but only because my question on "half an organ" is way too much of a generalization. A better way of looking at things is to measure how frequently in nature (both past and present), an organism with an evolving organ benefits over an organism without said evolving organ (and has an increased chance of selection because of it)- on a cellular and foraging level.
Almost any change that doesn't confer a benefit will be selected against, so any "partially formed" organ will still have to have a benefit. But it's not very useful to look at it from the current state and evaluating in terms of the "finished" product, because there is no finished product. There's just change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Anyways, I realize my questions are actually very old and possibly straw men- perhaps I need to update myself on what the big gaps in evolutionary biology are today?? That doesn't mean I support an alternate theory, but rather that I feel the study of evolution has a long way to go (which goes without saying). Do I agree completely with intelligent designers? No. Do they raise a lot of good questions? Of course, but so did Stephen Gould
Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish is a GREAT book, goes into lots of detail about the genetic evidence.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is a good book as well, more a general book.
Interesting stuff, Calgaryborn. How about the following?
Thou shalt not kill.
- Exodus 20:13
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side... and slay every man his brother...
- Exodus 32:27
Sorry I'm not interested in playing this game. Your on a computer. You've got google. Why should I answer any questions for you. What happens if I fail to know or find an answer? Does that prove that no rational answer exists?
Being as your new to this discussion I'll give you one clue: Down load a Hebrew lexicon of the old Testament. One written in english of course.
I think this is an important post Peter. I work with one of the kindest, honest and good people you'd ever meet - but he honestly believes without a shadow of a doubt that Noah built an ark with two of each animal and that all life originated from God creating Adam and Eve. Seeing his faith ripped apart by two atheist co-workers for no other reason to flex their intellectual muscles was absolutely depressing.
If a good Christian upbringing made this man the way he is what right do these guys have to try and rip down the foundation his morals/ethics are built on? They might as well be going door to door handing out leaflets.
There's a delicious irony in the behaviour of the intolerant, closed-minded zealots that you describe here.
I love the concept of atheists as condescending. As if you can be more condescending than someone who tells you that they have perfect knowledge of something without even having to think about it, and with all the thinking you can do with your human brain you can never reach it.
The fact of the matter is that there are contradictions in the bible, and calgaryborn can explain away all he wants but mental gymanstics aside, the fact is that the approved english translations of the bible currently in use are both approved by various christian sects and yet are clearly full of contradictions. Many of those sects preach biblical inerrancy so it is appropriate for non-believers to point out internal inconsistencies in the bible as a challenge to specific religious beliefs such as biblical inerrancy (but not faith itself).
The reaction of religious believers who feel that an attack on biblical inerrancy is automatically an attack on their core beliefs strikes me as something of a persecution complex. Non-believers have had to listen to Christian philosophy and history in the public ideas marketplace for a couple of thousand years, but it is unfair for atheists to publicly air any critique of religious tenets or dogma.
I think many religious people have a long way to go to accept that tolerance includes tolerance of others publicly stating their disagreement with your own base beliefs. Right now it seems that many religious folks are grudgingly tolerant of my right not to believe in a deity, but not of my right to discuss the rationale for same.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
But obviously your faith in a godless universe needs to constantly be reinforced by belittling and in your weak minds destroying the pillars of christian orthodoxy.
Us weak-minded folk don't have a nifty building that we can go to every week to listen to some weirdo reinforce our beliefs, so we have to do it on the internet in our spare time.
Just for interest's sake... do you think Sam Harris should have to pay taxes?
Us weak-minded folk don't have a nifty building that we can go to every week to listen to some weirdo reinforce our beliefs, so we have to do it on the internet in our spare time.
Just for interest's sake... do you think Sam Harris should have to pay taxes?
Sure why not. I have to. My pastor has to. Even Benny Hinn has to pay taxes.
I think a little less taxation and a lot less government intrusion into Sam and my life would be best, though.
There's a delicious irony in the behaviour of the intolerant, closed-minded zealots that you describe here.
You're absolutely right there is.
My only point in this whole thread is that I'm finding Atheists becoming as intolerant and aggressive as some of the more aggressive religious door knockers. Both sides are equally annoying and offensive. Maybe it's because, just like anything, as more people join the higher the number of jackasses there are become that lunatic fringe.
If believing in the teachings of the bible makes you a better person - do it.
If believing that an omniscient entity is absurd but you can still live your life by moral social standards - do it.
Atheist, Bapist, Jehovah's Witness, Jedi - Respect and tolerance, everything else is people trying to long c*ck each other.
