Atheists Promote 'Good Without God' Message in Big Apple

JoshGilman »

Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:18 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

Alockslee,

Were you recently elected English teacher of CP? I get enough English in my English III class, and I really find it annoying to come onto CP and witness a English debate, especially since the original topic has nothing to do with it.

Atheists Promote 'Good Without God' Message in Big Apple

JoshGilman »

Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Alockslee,

Defining good as following the law is merely one interpretation of what good may be. Since there is no universal or absolute object from which to derive what is good and what isn't, one may simply choose to say that not following the law is good. Therefor, we're brought right back to the original problem of subjective good.

Furthermore, seeing as there is no universal court which defines what is good and what isn't, your argument once again falls prey to subjectivity.

Circular reasoning isn't the answer ;)

Atheists Promote 'Good Without God' Message in Big Apple

JoshGilman »

Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:17 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

Also, what's up with the thumbs lately? Usually they are fairly balanced, however it seems someone's been going overboard lately.

Atheists Promote 'Good Without God' Message in Big Apple

JoshGilman »

Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

Alockslee,

No, it doesn't, because what society says is neither universal nor absolute. Therefor, the good is subjective, and one can only be good according to his or her own standards, and at that rate most people in the world are good.

Atheists Promote 'Good Without God' Message in Big Apple

JoshGilman »

Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 6

How can you be good without God when you have no absolute or universal standard with which to judge whether you're actually good or not ?

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"Could it be said that religion is the science of discovering God?"

I would say that it's science that is the act of discovering God. At least that's how it was in the early scientific revolution.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

By the way, your son sounds a lot like myself. I currently just graduated high school this year at the top of my class and am on my way to Nuclear School for the Navy. I too have suffered bias, and not from those against Christianity, but from fundamentalists that literally believe science is evil. So, I can certainly connect with you there.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Rhi Bran, I'm not saying it doesn't go both ways. I certainly agree with you on that. There are quite a few Christian apologists and theologians that I do not have much taste for due to some of their ignorant standards.

Either way, no matter who is doing it, it's wrong. Some people just let their anger and bias get the best of them.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

Rhi Bran,

If Dawkins wanted to educate, he would not scare off those not agreeing with his views by slandering them. I know Dawkins is a very intelligent man, and I personally loved some of his early publications, but somewhere in the 90's something hit him and he went overboard. Offending people is not the way to educate them.

It's like me going over to the Middle-East and spreading the Word of God by telling the Muslims they are delusional and insane because they believe Mohammad was a prophet. I'll then proceed to rip apart the Koran (not literally) and belittle all the Muslims. After all this, I turn around and say I was just trying to educate them.

It doesn't work like that, and for some reason Dawkins fails to understand this.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

"So when you say there's a debate about evolution you are being dishonest."

Newton would of said the same thing when Einstein first proposed that some of the fundamental aspects of his theory were inaccurate. At the time, Newtonian physics was fact, and yet Einstein thoroughly dismissed some of it's conclusions in one sweeping paper.

Point is, science is about progress, and while some fundamental laws stay the same, just because you think something is fact doesn't mean it should be exempt from any scientific scrutiny.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Homosexual Man,

I would read it, but apparently I have to pay?

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Your not understanding my point.

Either way, I would love to go look up previous arguments, however that amount of time escapes me as I'm in the process of prepping for a calculus test.

Thus, I will leave with those figures, and hopefully someone else can better explain my original point.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Indeed, but the evolutionary theory deeply requires the preexisting specificity found in DNA and simple cell structures. Genetics is a foundational science for evolutionary theory, so I figure it's best to start with the foundations rather than going backwards.

In other words, I don't understand how it's possible to discuss B without first establishing A.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Homosexual Man,

Not so much. The mutagenesis experiment performed by Douglas Axe in 2004 revealed a stunning odd of the chances of random mutations creating ANY of the very short 150-amino-acid functional proteins. The number, 1 to 10^74, shows just how little the chance hypothesis, which evolutionists love to quote, fails to explain the occurrence of such specificity.

To further the numbers, since the random mutations connecting the amino acids would have had to be made by peptide bonds, the odds of a 150-amino-acid protein forming by all peptide bonds is 1 in 10^45. Furthermore, since the amino acids would have had to been left-handed (instead of right-handed) is once again, 1 in 10^45. Combining these three odds gives the chances of a working 150-amino-acid (which once again is very short) coming into existence in the prebiotic soup is 1 in 10^164.

Keep in mind, there are about 10^80 protons, neutrons, and electrons in the universe. Mathematicians have likened these odds to marking a single proton, neutron, or electron in the universe, and then picking that particle the first time. Except in this case, the odds are 84 orders of magnitude smaller. Or, for those not good with numbers, a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller.

Keep in mind, this is for a mere 150-amino-acid functional protein, which by itself is utterly useless. Just some food for thought.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:32 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 19

By the way, for anyone else that still wishes to argue with bobxxxxxxx, you would do good to go into the DNA paradox. It's ground that evolutionists do NOT like to fight on, they would much rather talk about things like Ardi, which becomes completely irrelevant when the first life cannot be explained.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:29 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 18

bobxxxxxxx,

You should read it because it has a lot of scientific truth in it. Meyer along with Dembski made plenty of contributions to science, especially regarding the effective use of the chance hypothesis. Not to mention he made some key insights into the relation between casual existence and intelligent design.

Anyways, it's clear you have no respect whatsoever for science nor any of your fellow human beings. This being said, I will no longer be wasting my time talking to you. You would do very well to just leave this site, as you serve absolutely no purpose other than to offend people with nonsense and ridicule them based on your own ignorant standards.

As TLChild said, I will certainly be praying for you.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:11 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 13

bobxxxxxxx,

Read "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer. It's a personal narrative of his studies through Oxford and all the amazing scientists he met there that embraced Intelligent Design. Sure, "creationists" might just have Ken Ham, but if you think besides him Evolution dominates, you have yet to see the true academic world. Fact is, from Johannes to Maxwell to Einstein, our scientific origins has been full of Intelligent Design proponents.

Furthermore, Meyer introduces the DNA paradox and the failure of the chance hypothesis to solve it. Once again, Dawkins stating Evolution was fact is a complete and utter lie, as the DNA paradox is one blatant hole in the entire theory.

Dawkins Refuses to Debate Intelligent Design Scholars

JoshGilman »

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:59 pm Agree: 12   Disagree: 22

Intelligent design has no evidence? It uses the same principles of historical science that Darwin and every other scientist who has theorized about the origin of life has used. Few people realize that there is a distinct scholarly guidelines used by historical scientists, and Intelligent Design fits it perfectly.

Dawkin's ignorance has no bound.

Pastors: Jesus Loves the Glutton, Crook, Porn Star, Religious

JoshGilman »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

DelightntheLord,

Do not feel left out my brother! In no way do I, or anyone else on CP, claim to know the truth of the matter. If we did, we would all be liars. This is God we're talking about, and thus we will never truly understand the way in which He works. It's not to say that we shouldn't try, however we should not be discouraged when things get tough.

I find that a lot of scholars are more in the wrong than average people like you and myself. I don't aim to discredit them, however I also don't put them in a superior position to myself as no one can truly understand the mind of God. It's encouraging just to know that there are people actively seeking to understand God and thus come closer to Him. Keep it up everyone :)

Pastors: Jesus Loves the Glutton, Crook, Porn Star, Religious

JoshGilman »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DelightntheLord,

I started listening to some of that link anyways because I rather like MacArthur, and I thought it was interesting that one of the first things John said about summing up this issue was quoting Romans 8:29 which just so happens to be the exact same verse I just quoted that I said summed up my views. I think the problem is that your misunderstanding me and thus concluding wrongly about what I think.