What Atheists Should Learn From Religion

04/13/2012 01:12:05 PM · #101

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In the case of the "miracle" baby, the MD license actually helps open my mind.

To what exactly? As a response to my post, what are you suggesting as an explanation... that it's a natural, medical impossibility, DOCTOR?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/13/2012 01:20:38 PM · #102

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the case of the "miracle" baby, the MD license actually helps open my mind.

To what exactly? As a response to my post, what are you suggesting as an explanation... that it's a natural, medical impossibility, DOCTOR?

I'm not suggesting anything. But I've been in the situation where others have not. Between you and me, I'm the only one that has declared a child dead. I know what it involves and do know that it isn't so easily dismissed with "oh, it must have been error". You don't just declare a baby dead on a whim.

Paul, that's not a proper application of Occam's Razor. Don't worry. It happens all the time. Even if it were, it does not prove things, it only guides us on liklihoods. Miracles, by definition, would be very unlikely.

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 13:21:22.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/13/2012 01:21:22 PM · #103

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(assuming getting an MD requires above average intelligence)

Didn't your medical school explain the proper spelling/meaning of Ass|u|me ...?

Q: "What you you call someone who graduates at the bottom of their medical school class?"
A: "Doctor."

I saw an interesting (really!) show on statistics last night -- the host was a professor in international health. He gave a group of US medical students a "pre-test" before his lecture series, where he asked them to pick which of several pairs of countries had the higher infant mortality rate, a subject about which they might have higher-than-usual interest and exposure to information . They only answered (on average) correctly about 36% of the time, worse than a group of chimpanzees, who managed at least the expected 50% attainable by making random choices, while a group of university administrators were only able to manage a tie with the chimps ...

04/13/2012 01:22:52 PM · #104

You get a nice, friendly eye-roll Paul.

04/13/2012 01:52:44 PM · #105

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Between you and me, I'm the only one that has declared a child dead.

And this means what, that you know better than anyone else what happened in Argentina? Five medical professionals were suspended over this and a malpractice suit is coming. Do you think there's any way a court is going to buy "miracle resurrection" as a defense? This isn't exactly the first time in history a doctor or hospital has made such a mistake, and if it wasn't a mistake then we should experience similar miracles more often... perhaps after a week or a month of death.

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 13:56:12.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/13/2012 02:16:02 PM · #106

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Between you and me, I'm the only one that has declared a child dead.

And this means what, that you know better than anyone else what happened in Argentina? Five medical professionals were suspended over this and a malpractice suit is coming. Do you think there's any way a court is going to buy "miracle resurrection" as a defense? This isn't exactly the first time in history a doctor or hospital has made such a mistake, and if it wasn't a mistake then we should experience similar miracles more often... perhaps after a week or a month of death.

Oh, well, if someone has been suspended, then we clearly are at the bottom of things!

We can just drop it, you didn't understand my point at all. The point is not whether this is a miracle or not. The point is the impossibility of proving it one way or the other definitively.

Flash

Nikon D700

04/13/2012 02:19:33 PM · #107

Originally posted by scalvert:

. perhaps after a week or a month of death.

...or maybe 3 days, with maybe a shroud as a photographic negative of the transformation, and perhaps written accounts of engagement with others after the resurection - but even then you would still not believe it - so why even bring it up?

Here is a basic summary of positions betwen the atheist/agnostic and the believer.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/13/2012 02:20:13 PM · #108

1: Impossible to determine.
2: ?????
3: Miracle!!!

How is this reasonable at all?

Flash

Nikon D700

04/13/2012 02:28:10 PM · #109

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
but I do not see groups of people in matching t-shirts with large signs and bullhorns out at popular tourist destinations in major cites promoting secular humanism.

DC rally

Does that mean an ethnic rally is an attempt to convert people to being black or Hispanic and a women's rally is promoting sex changes?

What possibly are you talking about? Brennan posted a simple statement to which I provided evidence to address his post. Period. Perhaps you missed the sentence that speaks directly to the assailing of religion eventhough the original intent of the rally was not to - but the temptation was simply too great.

04/13/2012 02:44:59 PM · #110

Originally posted by Mousie:

1: Impossible to determine.
2: ?????
3: Miracle!!!

How is this reasonable at all?

Nobody here is saying that.

04/13/2012 02:46:54 PM · #111

Just to lighten the mood...

A religious man is on top of a roof during a great flood. A man comes by in a boat and says "get in, get in!" The religous man replies, " no I have faith in God, he will grant me a miracle."

Later the water is up to his waist and another boat comes by and the guy tells him to get in again. He responds that he has faith in god and god will give him a miracle. With the water at about chest high, another boat comes to rescue him, but he turns down the offer again cause "God will grant him a miracle."

With the water at chin high, a helicopter throws down a ladder and they tell him to get in, mumbling with the water in his mouth, he again turns down the request for help for the faith of God. He arrives at the gates of heaven with broken faith and says to Peter, I thought God would grand me a miracle and I have been let down." St. Peter chuckles and responds, "I don't know what you're complaining about, we sent you three boats and a helicopter."

04/13/2012 02:53:03 PM · #112

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We can just drop it, you didn't understand my point at all. The point is not whether this is a miracle or not. The point is the impossibility of proving it one way or the other definitively.

Ah, so then your point is that we must be open to the possibilities, of which there are precisely three: 1. The medical staff screwed up. 2. The medical staff was competent, but life signs were too weak to register but later managed to recover despite the hostile conditions. 3. The baby was in fact dead and resurrected by supernatural forces. Since we can't disprove the last one, that could be a plausible explanation, too (major fallacy alert). Courts would be very interesting indeed if such an argument held any credibility.

04/13/2012 02:58:23 PM · #113

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We can just drop it, you didn't understand my point at all. The point is not whether this is a miracle or not. The point is the impossibility of proving it one way or the other definitively.

Ah, so then your point is that we must be open to the possibilities, of which there are precisely three: 1. The medical staff screwed up. 2. The medical staff was competent, but life signs were too weak to register but later managed to recover despite the hostile conditions. 3. The baby was in fact dead and resurrected by supernatural forces. Since we can't disprove the last one, that could be a plausible explanation, too (major fallacy alert). Courts would be very interesting indeed if such an argument held any credibility.

On a logical, philosphical level three is not ruled out. If you recall, the whole reason I brought this up was your talk about nothing being supernatural because everything is natural. "proof" in the courts is likely to be a different critter from "proof" in a logical argument.

It's interesting, just last night I read an article by Alvin Plantinga where he calls out Dawkins for essentially making the exact same a priori error of assumption. This one was about evolution and Dawkins argument that God is very unlikely to exist because he must be more complex than the life he created. I should try to dig it up. It's hard to find things again on Zite though.

04/13/2012 03:02:41 PM · #114

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:
. perhaps after a week or a month of death.

...or maybe 3 days, with maybe a shroud as a photographic negative of the transformation, and perhaps written accounts of engagement with others after the resurection - but even then you would still not believe it - so why even bring it up?

Mmm... three days for a corpse to be physically resurrected- inconsistent with a belief in spiritual resurrection, with maybe a shroud that has never been dated any older than 1260AD (consistent with the date of first appearance in church history) despite multiple independent tests, and conflicting stories written decades or centuries later by authors who were not there and which have grown more elaborate over time. Yeah, you'll have to do a little better than that.

04/13/2012 03:05:14 PM · #115

I actually had it pulled up on my ipad. Here's the link, but he discusses more than one topic and the only part I'm interested in is the subsection called "The monumentally improbable God". The key is quoted below:

More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins's own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it is has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone."

But of course God isn't a material object at all and hence has no parts. God is a spirit, an immaterial spiritual being, and therefore has no parts at all. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

The point is Dawkins is so embedded in his materialistic worldview that he can only conceive of God as a materialistic entity. This is, of course, ridiculous, but Dawkins cannot conceive of otherwise.

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 15:05:31.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/13/2012 03:05:15 PM · #116

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

On a logical, philosphical level three is not ruled out.

On a local, philosophical level the burden of proof falls on the positive argument rather than proving non-existence. Got anything there? Nope.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/13/2012 03:05:43 PM · #117

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just to lighten the mood...

A Unitarian/Universalist is fishing with Jesus when one of the oars gets loose and floats away.

"Don't worry," says Jesus, as he climbs over the gunwale and walks over to retrieve the offending accessory.

Later, when someone asks the man about his experience fishing with the Lord, he replied "It was OK, I guess, but can you believe that guy can't even swim?!"

(adapted from A Prairie Home Companion)

04/13/2012 03:05:52 PM · #118

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On a logical, philosphical level three is not ruled out.

On a local, philosophical level the burden of proof falls on the positive argument rather than proving non-existence. Got anything there? Nope.

I was never attempting to prove it, was I?

04/13/2012 03:06:49 PM · #119

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But of course God isn't a material object at all and hence has no parts. God is a spirit, an immaterial spiritual being, and therefore has no parts at all.

Bzzzt! Positive claim. Prove it.

04/13/2012 03:09:01 PM · #120

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I was never attempting to prove it, was I?

You were making a positive claim of possibility. Thus, the burden of proof falls on you to show that it's possible.

04/13/2012 03:22:36 PM · #121

Originally posted by scalvert:

1. The medical staff screwed up. 2. The medical staff was competent, but life signs were too weak to register but later managed to recover despite the hostile conditions..

We all enjoy making positive claims...

04/13/2012 03:25:14 PM · #122

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But of course God isn't a material object at all and hence has no parts. God is a spirit, an immaterial spiritual being, and therefore has no parts at all.

Bzzzt! Positive claim. Prove it.

This is a logical claim. God, by any common definition, is not material (the philosophical definition). It's axiomatic.

04/13/2012 03:28:44 PM · #123

"God is a spirit, an immaterial spiritual being, and therefore has no parts at all."

I find this assertion wildly amusing as a programmer.

Now where oh where did I put those toolkits? On my desk? In the file cabinet? I know I have some representations floating around somewhere, but for the life of me I can't seen to find the actual physical parts.

04/13/2012 03:29:54 PM · #124

And what of the trinity? Not parts?