4 things needed to destroy myth of creator deity

[elder999]

As to the elephants and art. Is it art if we train them to do it?

I suppose Michaelangelo was born able to do this:

 

[Archangel M]

Training in mechanics/techniques is not "art". Much like in Martial Arts.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Training in mechanics/techniques is not "art". Much like in Martial Arts.

I believe that elder's point was that the existence of instruction doesn't preclude it being art. One has to learn to play the notes before performing on stage (unless you're a pop star).

 

[Archangel M]

True, but with Punishers example (Elephants trained to paint) I see his point. Unless there is some evidence of using those techniques to express something BEYOND the technique..is it "art"?

 

[Jenna]

It's already happened. Dinosaurs with feathers. Progressively hominid fossils. Fish with lungs. Still alive, a lizard species in the midst of transition from egg laying to live birth.

A few minutes on Google would have shown you innumerable transitional fossils. Like this set:

Transitional fossils are not even slightly rare. The fact that you think they don't exist demonstrates that you have already made up your mind instead of looking first.

And that was exactly my point (which referenced the post before it) and I think you missed or ignored: why are you wasting time trying to prove your point of view to someone who has already made up their mind? Why do you want to change the point of view of someone else to match your own????

 

[Empty Hands]

And that was exactly my point (which referenced the post before it) and I think you missed or ignored: why are you wasting time trying to prove your point of view to someone who has already made up their mind? Why do you want to change the point of view of someone else to match your own????

I read both posts, but did not gather your point from what you wrote. My apologies.

To answer your question, the demonstration is mostly for those on the sidelines. There are people out there who will be swayed by education and facts. They can also be swayed by lies and misinformation. If those with the facts refuse to speak up, then the liars and the ignorant carry the day. When they do that, then there are consequences for the rest of us.

Also, I feel that education of the public is a responsibility of my profession. It is my duty to counter the liars and put forth the facts where I can. Scientific denialism is increasing in power, as we even see on this forum again and again and again. That will have social consequences, and I won't just ignore it.

 

[elder999]

True, but with Punishers example (Elephants trained to paint) I see his point. Unless there is some evidence of using those techniques to express something BEYOND the technique..is it "art"?

From time to time,a new piece of art by one of the old masters is "discovered," only to be found, upon later study, to have been done by said master's student(s). The difference between "art," that which is innately felt and personal,and "craft,"that which can be taught, is often a thin line-just as in martial arts: how many of us are truly only martialcraftsmen and technicians,mimicking as best we can what our teachers train us to do? Likewise, how can we look at the work of an elephant-even a trained one-and know the innate feeling of the elephant that fashioned it,and whether it is "art" or not?

Pastore's statement to this effect smacks of the same sort of hubris and chauvinism that led to the thinking that "man was the only animal that made tools." Or has fun. OR has emotions. All of which,to one degree or another , have been proven by science to be untrue.

As to the elephants and art. Is it art if we train them to do it? Do we have examples of animals doing art in their natural habitate? Are their examples of animals "creating" things outside of rudimentary tools to get food?

Here:
[yt]Nh9XL08Akwc[/yt]
Give this a try-I did, once, a long time ago. It may be "rudimentary," but it's hardly simple, and displays a great deal of creativity, and even critical thought, in my opinion.

and, here:

[yt]EBYPlcSD490[/yt]

My family's fortune was made hunting and killing these magnificent creatures (along with right whales and spermwhales),who sing a song we can't entirely decipher,and show as much curiosity about us as we do about them at times. In fact, my family was directly responsible for helping to discover the whale grounds in the very waters shown here,back in the early 19th century. Ascribe this whale's display to whatever you like-you can no more "know," than we can know that whales don't dance their own form of ballet in the ocean depths,and purely for the pleasure of artistic expression.....yet they were hunted almost to extinction,because of the notion that mankind sits at the pinnacle of God's creation.

Again-Mr. Pastore's argument's are weak, and, in my opinion, completely uneccessary-the "big bang" and "God"-even the Christian "God,"-need not be mutually exclusive at all-especially to believers. Atheists are a different story,of course-everything and "God" are mutually exclusive to them, and why in the world would I want to even try changing their minds about it??

 

[fangjian]

To answer your question, the demonstration is mostly for those on the sidelines. There are people out there who will be swayed by education and facts. They can also be swayed by lies and misinformation. If those with the facts refuse to speak up, then the liars and the ignorant carry the day. When they do that, then there are consequences for the rest of us.

Also, I feel that education of the public is a responsibility of my profession. It is my duty to counter the liars and put forth the facts where I can. Scientific denialism is increasing in power, as we even see on this forum again and again and again. That will have social consequences, and I won't just ignore it.

Right on. If someone comes on to a forum and says something like "Capoeira comes from Taiwan or Intelligent Design is science", don't be all 'offended' and then call me a 'militant whatever' , if I come back with a counter argument and say your claim is baseless.

 

[fangjian]

from Prager University:

We live in a morally inverted world where men and women, while biologically different, are in every other way the same; where the United States is an imperial power; where Israel is the cause of terror in the Middle East; where bigger government is better government; where God is a fiction.

How did we get turned so upside down? The short answer is education. How do we set things right? The short answer is education. The first kind of education is secular, values-free, anti-patriotic, and politically correct; the kind of education most kids get from kindergarten through college.

At Prager University we're proposing a new kind of education, an antidote to the venom you've been force fed. It's based on the premise that solid, common sense ideas can purge you of years of toxins. Five minutes is all it takes. Watch any of our video courses and find out what we mean.

hahahaha

For your knowledge, if you really wanna receive an education but can not attend a school, go to link below instead. Set an hour or so of your time aside per day for watching a few 10 min lectures, and going through the practice examples.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

 

[Ken Morgan]

The video is such a crock of ****.

Essentially a guy with no background in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry or astronomy, or any of the sub categories of the afore mentioned subjects, has the audacity to lecture us on the faults or current limitations of science?

His whole argument is essentially, science is not perfect because it can’t explain everything, and since it is not perfect and can't explain everything, god must be the only viable answer that is left to us.

When this quack gets a PHD in at least biology and physics and completes a few decades of post graduate work and study, his opinion will then have validity, until then….. :BSmeter:

 

[MA-Caver]

This has been an enjoyable thread to read. Mainly because it hasn't degenerated into a yelling screaming I'm right you're wrong argumentative one. There have been some disagreements yes but they're not rude (that I've perceived) or derrogratory <sic> and I must say on the topic of religion it's quite refreshing. So thanks to all (thus far) who have participated.

I also loved Tez's question of why do people have to be that way because they don't believe as others do. Excellent question and probably worthy of it's own thread.

I agree also with oftheherd's statement that the video poses a question and a challenge and that the line of thoughts from the posts in this thread are doing exactly what I suspect the video intended... created a topic for discussion. I didn't get any "this is right and everything else is wrong" attitude from the video. After all he only had 5 minutes to get his "challenge across".

I haven't read his book, has anyone here? He seems to be saying he was challenged to disprove theism, and could not.

Myself, I am a Christian. I believe in one God in three parts; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I believe God the Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth in human form to shed His blood to pay for the sins of anyone who will believe that and ask for forgiveness from sin that Jesus' blood purchased, and ask Jesus into their heart, claiming the salvation that offers, by calling on the name of the Lord. I believe that belief will ensure when I die I will go to heaven. I also believe that God gives us free will to choose to believe Him and His Bible, or not. The consequences for those not believing are to go to hell when they die, and no chance to leave there for all eternety. I believe that based on reading the Bible, and by faith.

Since I believe in free will, everyone is entitled to make up their own mind. I cannot, nor by my reading ot the Bible, should not try, to force anyone to accept my beliefs. I can only explain them and hope people accept those beliefs, and by faith believe as I do.

So to all you you who do not believe in God, that is your choice. I will not argue with you, but will be happy to explain what the Bible says. Since Christianity is a faith based religion, it would be foolish of me to argue with you. You may choose to belive the Bible, or not. I don't hate you nor consider you stupid. Only lost. You are free to think of me as you wish as well.

I appreciate your "testimony" and must say that my BASIC beliefs are very much aligned with yours. I don't think however that God is so absolute that if you don't believe you're going to hell. Jesus Christ gave his life to pay for whatever debts we lack to enter God's kingdom. Yet for the ones that don't believe I think there's also an "get out of hell" card for them. But again that is another thread/topic entirely.
But I do have a question for you... WHY do you believe in what you believe?
My own personal spiritual experiences have been ranged from mild to wild. Also my journey of learning about God in this life will only end with my death. After I die... well I guess I'll find out first hand exactly who's right and who's wrong... or not.

I am so done with organized religion because "everybody is right and everybody is wrong". There are so many variations that's it's nigh impossible to disconcern the truth from any of them and yet so much truth from all of them... it's just not the WHOLE truth, or to simply say everybody is right and nobody is wrong just that they don't know it all.

True that, no proof of life beyond death except by faith in one's belief's. Again, my own personal spiritual experiences have taught me that there is life beyond death and the experiences were so profound that there cannot be any doubt in my mind and most importantly... in my heart (where I know my soul resides).

I'm one of those weirdos that believe in both creationism and evolutionism. God, created everything a long long time ago and everything that He hath wrought is still evolving ... including humans. The universe that He created is still expanding and growing and stars and planets are still being made, Darwin was correct that we are all still changing. A look at ANY life form on this planet compared to 100 to 10,000 years ago will show those changes however subtle. And I believe God is still creating... why else are we still finding "unknown or new" animals/plants/birds/et al today? Our own life cycles prove to us that not everything happens with a BANG or poof there ya are. A loaf of bread isn't just suddenly made; ingredients have to be gathered, mixed in the proper order at the proper time, given time to rise before putting it in the oven and given time to bake and then given time to cool... now take that concept, add forever, multiply it by infinity and maybe that is what creation is about.

At least it is to me anyway.

Few days ago I watched a program on the History (or was it Discovery) channel where they took man's intelligence and it's "unexplained" leaps and bounds thanks to intervention of aliens from other planets paying us occasional visits. Where the cave man living in caves suddenly now are building pyramids to suddenly creating ideas ala DaVinci to suddenly creating rockets to suddenly making atomic weapons to going to the moon to huge Cray computers to the portable laptops and deep space satelites <sic>... and pondering what technological leap is just waiting to be given to us on their next visit.
Totally leaving the prospect of God granted intelligence out of the equation. I was offended I'm sad to say because I like to think of myself as an open minded intelligent person. Yet my heart was appalled at their proposals. Man's evolution attributed to Alien intelligence indeed. Oh, and they blamed natural catastrophies on aliens too, saying that it was their way of cleaning house to make room for the next step in man's evolution. So we have no possible way of growing, changing without their help. Before I clicked the remote's off button I spoke to the commentator (who I know couldn't hear me anyway ) "I'm sorry but you guys can just kiss my big hairy white butt!"

But, they could be right and I could be wrong.

 

[fangjian]

WHY do you believe in what you believe?

I guess I would say, I believe what I believe because all of my beliefs/worldview are a product of the scientific method, which is so far, the best way to find out if something is true or not.

 

[DragonWC]

The false assumption that everyone have about the scientific method is that it must be a something and it must be objectively measureable for it to be true. There is an inner science to know God. It is call Yoga, and it deals with no-thing. Yoga is not to be confuse with the westernize Hatha Yoga that are mainly compose of asanas (postures) which main benefits are only physical.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

 

[Jenna]

I read both posts, but did not gather your point from what you wrote. My apologies.

To answer your question, the demonstration is mostly for those on the sidelines. There are people out there who will be swayed by education and facts. They can also be swayed by lies and misinformation. If those with the facts refuse to speak up, then the liars and the ignorant carry the day. When they do that, then there are consequences for the rest of us.

Also, I feel that education of the public is a responsibility of my profession. It is my duty to counter the liars and put forth the facts where I can. Scientific denialism is increasing in power, as we even see on this forum again and again and again. That will have social consequences, and I won't just ignore it.

I accept your world view and that of many others. Whilst I may not agree with your view, personally I am not someone to preach to the converted as I regard your view as holding as much personal importance to you as mine does to me. I respect your right to hold your view and would only ask that you respect mine.

As with all followers of science, you have based the "correctness" of your view on an assumption (as have I as a believer, incidentally). That assumption is that our scale of measurement of accuracy is the right one. You, as a religious non-faithful, have applied a metric of *scientific proof* and set about assuring your view is at the upper echelons of that scale (ie. it is, in your mind well proven). I, as a believer, would not accept your scientific scale as the basis on which to found my view, as my view is based upon a scale of emotion and very hard-won life experience. I cannot give you my "proof" for my worldview any more than you can give me yours. And that is ok!

I hope you follow.

Regarding how those with an opposing view to yours dictate or colour your choices and freedoms, well, naturally I could argue the same. Personally I believe the Dawkins and Hitchens vehicle is intentionally a viewpoint steamroller that homogenises every opposing viewpoint to theirs and tempers much of the media (as I see it). Nevertheless, fortunately for us both, we live in an apparent democracy where we do at least have the impression of freedom at election polls and we are certainly free to switch off a channel or not read material that we feel is incongruous with our own viewpoints.

I do not want to appear argumentative (personally I am tired of the berating attitude of many scientific proponents, as I would guess you are tired of the sanctimoniousness and apparent naivety of many religious devotees - coincidentally so am I). Instead of being argumentative, I am simply seeking to state that while both world views are refutations of each other, at the same time we need not be angry or hostile towards followers of the opposing view.

I hope this is clearer and apologies for any confusion earlier. I see dead-horse flogging threads like this and occasionally feel compelled to be supercilious or disruptive. The day there is a genuinely open discussion on this argument I would gladly partake I hope you are well, Jenna.

 

[Jenna]

I guess I would say, I believe what I believe because all of my beliefs/worldview are a product of the scientific method, which is so far, the best way to find out if something is true or not.

Who says this is the best way to know what is true and what is not? What is your proof for this?

 

[fangjian]

Who says this is the best way to know what is true and what is not? What is your proof for this?

Whether the subject is Biology, Economics, Self Defense from Edged Weapon etc., the method below ( or the other variations of it ) is demonstrably the best. It gets results and you can make accurate predictions.

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

 

[elder999]

Whether the subject is Biology, Economics, Self Defense from Edged Weapon etc., the method below ( or the other variations of it ) is demonstrably the best. It gets results and you can make accurate predictions.

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.

 

[Jenna]

The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.

Succinct as ever

 

[Jenna]

Whether the subject is Biology, Economics, Self Defense from Edged Weapon etc., the method below ( or the other variations of it ) is demonstrably the best. It gets results and you can make accurate predictions.

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

... Sorry, let me restate.

How do you define science as the best methodology for proving a concept? Naturally I mean proving and not disproving via some notional reductio ad absurdum.

You cannot disprove the existence of a deity to me (a believer) using your own scientific methodology. You can certainly not do it using my metric of belief.

So I mean how do you define science as the best methodology for proving a concept? Especially when the concept is the existence of something (a belief) you cannot disprove using that methodology.

BTW, I am not looking to argue the point over the existence or non-existence of a deity. That would be an utterly pointless exercise. I am simply challenging your self-righteous belief in science as the be all and end all (pardon the pun).

Thank you, Jenna

 

[fangjian]

The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.

You will have to define the word god and the claim, I guess. That can mean many things.