It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God bless america (Richard Dawkins)

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I know. I sent a P.S. to that effect.




posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Not really ... I've heard folks that have recovered from cancer speak about it as if they defeated an enemy in battle.

Speaking of intellectually inconsistent ... so if gods exist they would be responsible for "blind random evolutionary forces" no?

Since you offer nothing to prove that gods exist, while acknowledging that blind forces do ... /shrug

The interviewer asks what Steven would say to God IF God existed.

Steven was far too nice, from my perspective.


Apologies, I was speaking hypothetically to demonstrate the inconsistency of Fry's position.

I personally am unsure if blind random forces exist.

If there is a supreme all powerful deity, then everything is under their control and what we may assume is random may simply be beyond our mental ability to find order in.

The same could be said even if there is no deity. It is just something that we may never know.



"If there is a supreme all powerful deity, then everything is under their control and what we may assume is random may simply be beyond our mental ability to find order in."

Really? How long would you play poker if you knew you would be dealt a royal flush every single time? No fun whatsoever!

However, if God created at say a 50-50 split between things he could control and things he could NOT control. Now we've got a game.....and some fun.....surprises....


I'm crap at poker (probably too many tells) but I suspect that God is atemporal so that means that from our perspective, unchangeable/unchanging.

He could play poker but would be aware of the outcome even if there were occurrences that were random.

IDK first He plays dice, now poker. As some wag put it, lets just hope He isn't into snooker.




posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
"If there is a supreme all powerful deity, then everything is under their control and what we may assume is random may simply be beyond our mental ability to find order in."

Really? How long would you play poker if you knew you would be dealt a royal flush every single time? No fun whatsoever!

However, if God created at say a 50-50 split between things he could control and things he could NOT control. Now we've got a game.....and some fun.....surprises....


Randomness cannot be designed by intelligence because the moment you have intelligent design you have a structure and pattern to whatever it is you're creating. In pure randomness there is no such thing.

Additionally, if you can control 50% of outcomes you will come out ahead in all situations. In the 50% you can't control you will at times win the game through skill or luck while you're also guaranteed to win 50%. Even if you can only win 1 game in 100 through variance you'll find yourself with a 50.5% win rate. Even in a game which is considered to be pure skill like Chess there is still a variance rate of around 15% where the weaker player will sometimes beat the stronger player (assuming the skill gap isn't too wide). So realistically in any game you choose you're looking at a minimum of a 57.5% win rate if you can control half of the outcomes.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

If one wanted a game, something interesting, diverting, so on, one would permit a fallen angel, to name one example, with free choice in his decision processes.

Yes, eventually the randomness side would, by it's nature, end up in an eventual win. No argument on that score.

Solitare...

For a 'game' to exist, a 'not-know' must exist. In the case of a 'God' he has the option-surely you won't argue this-of 'knowing' himself and watching with interest/amusement at our playing that game without our 'knowing' OR include himself in that not-knowing the end result.

Knowing it all before hand??? BORING....



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Sorry, but you assume too much in claiming that randomness cannot be designed.

Try breaking a 'rack' in eight ball. Then tell me randomness cannot be designed.....is see your addiction to arguing is still intact....


edit on 5-11-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Solitare...

For a 'game' to exist, a 'not-know' must exist. In the case of a 'God' he has the option-surely you won't argue this-of 'knowing' himself and watching with interest/amusement at our playing that game without our 'knowing' OR include himself in that not-knowing the end result.

Knowing it all before hand??? BORING....



Games can exist with access to perfect information. Golf, Chess, and Go are three examples. Note that despite having perfect information none of those games have been solved.


originally posted by: nwtrucker
Try breaking a 'rack' in eight ball. Then tell me randomness cannot be designed.....is see your addiction to arguing is still intact....


You're confusing infinite possibilities with randomness. There is an infinite number of ways the balls can break in pool but they won't break in a random pattern, with enough precision one can make the same break each and every time if they can perfectly replicate conditions over and over again, the game is nothing more than applied physics.

On the other hand there is a very large but finite number of ways a deck of 52 cards can be arranged, 8.0658175e+67 ways if you want to be precise about things. While it is theoretically possible to design a system that can randomly arrange the cards, no human shuffling is random (actually, the "better" you are at shuffling the less random things get) and computers are also incapable of generating randomness. The only way I'm aware of to generate truly random strings of information is in measuring radioactive decay (sidenote: this is how Vernam Ciphers are produced), but in the case of a game like Poker or Blackjack the games are not random, and the deeper you push into a deck the less random the game becomes. This is because each card seen provides information as to the next card which gives you more and more concrete information. To take things to it's conclusion, after you've seen 51 cards in a deck you can determine the 52nd card.
edit on 5-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: nwtrucker I don't know why people are so against these two scientists, they are both engaging intelligent people. They are not trying to destroy anyone's faith.

A few years ago a friend gifted me a copy of Dawkins book - The God Delusion. What a breath of fresh air I thought. I agreed with everything I read in that book and I still do. However, because of that book I watched vids on youtube and those shown on the telly of Dawkins - on his mission to destroy peoples faith!

Although I agree with most of what he says, I came to the conclusion the man is actively trying to destroy religion. I saw many examples of it.
For me that is wrong!
The only time I would support him on this issue is when he talks about saving children from religion. I think that is a worthy cause because I believe its down to the individual to choose whether they want to believe in supernatural beings, it should not be forced upon them.
Dawkins however is not content with that, he most definitely considers it his right to destroy religion, and as I said, the man is on a mission to do just that. Do you remember the adverts he had put on the sides of buses?



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Yep.

Its called trolling and you take it to a whole new level.
edit on Thursday26fAmerica/Chicago2015-11-05T23:26:58-06:00263026308America/Chicago by lifecitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: lifecitizen
a reply to: randyvs

Yep.

Its called trolling and you take it to a whole new level.


Nah, you're just easy.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Ddrneville

To be honest both men are riding on their own coattails.

Dawkins will flog the dead horse named 'the God delusion' till the end of time and NDT will do the chat show rounds. What else do they have in common? They spend a lot of time on twitter.

Men of their expertise have achieved more than I possibly could, but nowadays they are merely the public face of science, facing the cameras and twittering when they get the chance when other scientists have their heads down and doing work. Granted folk like Brian Cox and NDT are bringing science to us all in a way we can understand, but when they are in the makeup chair, there are dozens of people making breakthroughs and not getting a second of recognition.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Anyone else find it odd that "God" only seems to appear in a tangible, experiential way to dumb hillbillies?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk
If people's faith iis damage can be destroyed by a book, by an athiests you have to question how strong that faith was in the first place

edit on 6-11-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
So, do those of you with religious faith, who do not feel the need for evidence to justify that faith, feel that same logic applies everywhere in life?

As in, say a courtroom, when arguing someone's innocence or guilt? Is scientific fact needed there? Or is one's "faith" in belief enough to convict/set an accused free?

I'm genuinely curious to know.
edit on 6-11-2015 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme
So, do those of you with religious faith, who do not feel the need for evidence to justify that faith, feel that same logic applies everywhere in life?

As in, say a courtroom, when arguing someone's innocence or guilt? Is scientific fact needed there? Or is one's "faith" in belief enough to convict/set an accused free?

I'm genuinely curious to know.


Most people believe in their faith, beyond a reasonable doubt. So to them it would be enough to convict.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Define God for me.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


I knew you couldn't resist....

Both your points miss mine. If one knows the result before the result occurs, we are talking deity level of unrestricted potential, then there is no 'game'.

There are games with incremental levels of knowns and unknowns, but that's mere semantics as far as my point goes.(Which you avoid.
)

As far as confused between infinite possibilities and randomness, that is your issue, not mine. The difference between the two approaches non-existent. As a matter of fact, Randomness , at least in one definition, contains "infinite possibilities" within it.

Anyways I'm done with this.




edit on 6-11-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: VoidHawk
If people's faith iis damage can be destroyed by a book, by an athiests you have to question how strong that faith was in the first place

I think you misunderstood my comments

There are now many vids of Dawkins shown on the tv and many more on the tube, and after watching many of them, I had no choice but come to the conclusion that Dawkins is on a mission.

He claims to be an atheist. I too am a non believer.
So long as those who choose to believe in gods do not interfere in my life (and don't force their beliefs on to children), then I'm happy for them. I think that would be the view of most people who do not believe in gods.

You'll notice I do not refer to myself as an atheist. There's a reason for that.
Dawkins does state that he is an atheist. There's a reason for that too.

I do not believe in the great spaghetti monster. Do we have a label for those who dont believe in the great spaghetti monster? No we dont!
So why do we have a label for those who don't believe in gods?
Its simple.
By classifying people as This or That, we create division!

He's an extremely intelligent man, and I agree with a great deal of what he has to say, his book The God Delusion opened my eyes in so many ways, and I'm grateful for that. But! A true non believer does not go around the world ridiculing people for their beliefs, and does not spend MILLIONS placing anti religious adverts on London buses! A true non believer simply minds their own business!

Dawkins does not mind his own business!
Watch as many vids as I have of Dawkins and you have no choice but realise that Dawkins is actively seeking to create division. He's on a mission, and I'd bet that he's being paid for creating that division.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mulder85
Anyone else find it odd that "God" only seems to appear in a tangible, experiential way to dumb hillbillies?


My personal observation is that people of all 'grades' of intelligence, from all types of terrain have personal experiences of God.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ddrneville
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.


"To fear God is the beginning of wisdom" - King Solomon.



new topics




 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join