When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...
Started by Gerry Rzeppa, December 17, 2014, 11:01:45 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMI really think you're missing the point here. I've said that none of these subjects really interest me because they're all disputed. And they mostly concern things that I consider far out of the realm of the provable: pre-history. So when I post a link to an article on creation.com, or to a Wikipedia article on Schroeder, or to a page on some other site you don't like, I'm not saying they're necessarily right and you're wrong, or even that I'm in full agreement with everything the referenced piece; I'm simply demonstrating that the subject is disputed, most likely impossible to resolve, and thus not of immediate interest to me.
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMIt seems to me the important things in life ought to be more obvious to an experienced and mature human than that. Which is why I try to focus on things we have all experienced first-hand.
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMThings like:(a) our own individual creative endeavors (like writing posts on this forum);(b) the ubiquitous appearance of design in things natural and artificial (like guitar amps and human bodies);(c) clear distinctions in kind (like fish and people);(d) belief as the prime motivator behind all enduring pursuits (including all of the very non-scientific "Aha!"s and hunches and insights and inspirations that drive the entire scientific enterprise);(e) practical and scalable simulations (balloons and blimps come to mind);(f) simple probability calculations (as in, "What's the chance of that ever happening?"); and(g) the aesthetic, moral, and emotional corollaries of different doctrines (Could an unbeliever, for example, ever convincingly write a story like "Les Miserables"?).
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMNow it appears to me that the atheistic evolutionary perspective on things requires me to reject, in one sense or another, all of the above. In effect, if I have understood everyone's replies to my posts here correctly, the "Happy Atheist" community view is that:(a) the concept-design-construction paradigm that all people in all times and all places have found so effective bears no relation to how the universe (or we ourselves!) have come to be;(b) our experienced intuitions regarding the appearance of design in human artifacts can usually be trusted, but the same intuitions regarding natural things must be considered completely and utterly illusory;(c) clear distinctions in kind are really mere differences in degree;(d) reason must be exalted to a position far beyond its capacity to replace belief as our prime motivator;(e) practical and scalable simulations aren't important;(f) simple probability calculations aren't important; and(g) that we must abandon all hope when we enter here, since our certain and not-too-distant end -- whatever we think, say, or do -- is non-existence.
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMAnd that's all I have to say about that.