quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd And if you have some time, his presentation before the Q&A (Part 1): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU

I'm reminded of myself when I used to ask McKechnie for Bible contradictions when I was 16.


It looks like he is making the mistake of the 'lazy man fallacy'. For instance when he attributes the jewish children's justification of war being anchored in religion, when clearly the same results could be recreated elsewhere where neighbouring nations have a history of conflict without an overt religious component.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

Last edited by Subey on Sep-08-2007 at 14:52

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I'm reminded of myself when I used to ask McKechnie for Bible contradictions when I was 16. It looks like he is making the mistake of the 'lazy man fallacy'. For instance when he attributes the jewish children's justification of war being anchored in religion, when clearly the same results could be recreated elsewhere where neighbouring nations have a history of conflict without an overt religious component.

YES... this is the single weakness of Dawkins' doctrine.

Otherwise, however, you can't argue with it. Also like I said, Part 1 isn't the main video I wanted people to watch -- I agree he doesn't make his case there as fully as I would have liked. But the Q&A does cover a lot of material.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd YES... this is the single weakness of Dawkins' doctrine. Otherwise, however, you can't argue with it. Also like I said, Part 1 isn't the main video I wanted people to watch -- I agree he doesn't make his case there as fully as I would have liked. But the Q&A does cover a lot of material.

It is all 'lazy woman fallacy' from where I am observing (not to be confused with the lazfx fallacy )

The following will appear extremely tangential.

I'm sure you are familiar with those baby toys that are meant to stimulate development, such as the one where you take the star shape and place it in the star depression. Or put the pyramid shape through the triangle hole.

What would happen if we sat you down in front of that toy? (not to be confused with Toynbee ) Well you would solve it instantly. It would have absolutely no value to you.



The inverse of this scenario is what I refer to as 'The Lord of the Flies Conundrum'. It is a problem that is at the outer limit of your faculties to solve. If we sit you down in front of this problem it's solution may take years, or you may have to leave it unsolved for a future generation to build on your work.

My question to you is, if god exists, then what kind of problem would you want god to give the human race?



My point being. Harkening back to my example with the 'ghost in the house'. Let's imagine the perspective that God is directly involved with the content of the Bible and its stories. Would you like the solution to those stories to lean towards the baby toy, or the lord of the flies conundrum?

Speaking for myself, if I were designing a 'lord of the flies conundrum' I'd set up some 'easy' answers to snare 'lazy women' along the way.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I'll try to reword your argument for MrJiveBoJingles to see if it helps. A ghost lives in my house. I do not believe in ghosts. I will never interpret any 'ghostly' phenomena in my house as being sourced by the ghost. In essence I will never travel down that road of exploration far enough to find the ghost.

EXACTLY. Thank you.

Worldview is like a sive. Some beliefs, assumptions, and opinions will fall through the sive and become accepted. The others that are incompatible with the fundamental worldview will never fall through and be accepted.

Which is why an atheist will never believe in the bible, because it against his worldview to believe in it. THe opposite is true for a god-believer.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Speaking for myself, if I were designing a 'lord of the flies conundrum' I'd set up some 'easy' answers to snare 'lazy women' along the way.

Yeah, I've heard it's pretty hard in Scandinavia

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton When all differing world views are catagorized into the most basic catagories, they would be theism, pantheism, and naturalism. At the heart of theism is the axiom of a supreme creator god outside of the cosmos. At the heart of pantheism is the axiom that god is the cosmos. At the heart of naturalism is the axiom that the cosmos is all that is, was, or ever will be. Got it?

Quick question...

What if I were to give merit to all 3 scenarios?