Sunday, November 15, 2009
Pesky Improbabilities
That’s the most that atheists can say. When confronted by the impossible odds of life appearing on earth by accident, never mind this universe coming into being by accident, atheists are not affected at all. They blink, look back to their pizza and beer and say, “Well, whatever the odds, here we are so the odds must have been just right.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Still engaged in overgeneralizing what you think we say. Here it is again, because you do not seem to be able to understand that your fellow human beings, who are all apparently creatures of God, do not deserve better than prejudicial stereotyping.
You said
That’s the most that atheists can say. When confronted by the impossible odds of life appearing on earth by accident, never mind this universe coming into being by accident, atheists are not affected at all. They blink, look back to their pizza and beer and say, “Well, whatever the odds, here we are so the odds must have been just right.”
A stereotype is an incorrect perception of a people based on minimal experiential evidence. Stereotyping is therefore rightly seen as a negative way of seeing people. This is even true of positive stereotypes. Again, a positive stereotype is where we use a blanket expression for a whole people, i.e. all the Chinese are great at maths, all Germans are well organised or all English people are well mannered. Although the intent behind the statement is positive, it still does not reflect the truth.
Way to role model that good, rich Jesus Christ loving to us heathens. Keep on emulating the rich love of God by your stereotypes and generalizations.
I am an atheist. I have never said any such thing to myself. Nor do I eat pizza or drink beer. Thank you, once again, for your educated assumptions.
I would encourage all of you other atheists to speak for yourselves and correct him in assuming what we all say and think. Please, let him know if this is how you see the creation of the universe.
"the creation of the universe."
Interesting use of words.
Hawking put the odds of a life sustaining universe coming into being by accident to be 10 ^ 1,230
Zero or impossible is 10 ^ 50
There are an esitmated 10 ^ 80 subatomic particles in the universe.
Are you disagreeing with what I wrote?
I am telling you that your posting is stereotyping what you think atheists say. I could not care less about your content, truth be told. You are claiming that you know what we say, and that we blink into pizza and beer and summarize findings. I will not even consider what you have to say as long as you continue to generalize.
Again, do you have an intellectual pipeline that makes you privy to the thoughts of millions of atheists all over the world as the look at their pizza and beer?
If you wish to engage in critical debate over content, you need to display basic respect toward your opponent. And, basic intellectual consideration involves attempting to refrain from displaying assumptions and stereotypes in characterizing them.
It is clear that you need our arguments for validation of your beliefs. In a previous posting you stated that blogging has confirmed your beliefs. You might want to consider how to treat those who debate you.
So I'll take that as "I fit absolutely with your stereotype of what atheists believe about probabilities. But I don’t like that, so I won’t answer."
I will not answer if you refuse to accept responsibility for overgeneralizing and stereotyping a large group of people.
Let me rephrase this argument, or contextualize it in a different framework for you. Allow me to teach you how to properly and constructively debate someone.
Let’s try this one:
Blank Statement: (An example- thats' the most atheists can say)
Country B is dangerous and the people there are a bunch of criminals. I ain’t goin’ there. They are all hoodlums and thugs, and they’re going to beat me up.
OK, get ready for the pat and idiotic answer:
Not all. Same as in other countries, some people are good and some are bad. You have criminals where you are, too. In addition, I’ve known a guy from country B and he was a nice guy. I think you are saying that because you are just prejudiced and you don’t like people from country B.
Now, let’s do a more civilized generalization: (Which is what I am asking of you)
Country B has an unusually high crime rate. Actually, it ranks the third highest in the world in the number of murders, kidnappings, rapes, and armed robberies committed at any given time, both in the metropolitan areas and the countryside. In comparison, my native country ranks only the 156th or near the bottom, that is to say, it is one of the safest places in the world with the lowest per capita number of crimes. There has not been a kidnapping case for 25 years, whereas, in country B, some 20 kidnappings occur every year. This is why I think Country B is just too dangerous for me to go to at this time.
Your opponent is left speechless and can’t argue back.
So, you can take your refusal to acknowledge your intellectual sloppiness and laziness as me not wanting to answer, or you can provide me with an interesting, respectful debate. The choice is yours, but I do not engage in content with someone who generalizes and stereotypes.
I dare you to rewrite that post without your absurd generalizations of a mass of people. I double dare you to try and model that posting objectively with actuals facts and sources to validate your gross assumptions.
tinkerbell - do you even listen to yourself?
"Allow me to teach you how to properly and constructively debate someone."
Good grief you're full of yourself aren't you. Just like all other atheists.
That’s the most that Christians can say. When confronted by the impossible odds of YHWH existing, never mind the contradiction-filled Bible being an accurate discription of this magic sky daddy, Christians are not affected at all. They blink, get back to beating their wives and burning witches and say, “Well, whatever the odds, here we are so the odds must have been just right.”
That’s the most that Christians can say. When confronted by the impossible odds of YHWH existing
Then how do you account for the 10*1,230? Something more subtantive than "We just did, no intelligence behind it, blah blah, magic, blah blah talkorigens link, blah blah etc." I hope.
never mind the contradiction-filled Bible
Let's Keep It Simple Stupid. Name ONE contradiction.
Christians are not affected at all. They blink, get back to beating their wives
And the domestic abuse figures you can cite comparing practicing Christians with the irreligious are......?
and burning witches
Given that you've cited this as an example, I know you would have no problem whatsoever citing for us the percentage of Christians who have ever burned a witch. Tinklepoo? Does this qualify as "overgeneralization"?
When we compare the percentage of atheists that dismiss the odds of "this universe coming into being by accident" with the percentage of Christians that are known witch-burners, which percentage is significantly higher?
Hello JD,
I believe the point of Chris' post is to satire Makarios' posting style with its strawmen and overly broad generalizations.
Gorth, if you were in front of me right now, I could honestly look you in the eye and state that practically every atheist I have ever encountered has either dismissed the odds entirely or did not advance an intelligible argument to support their unbelief in this matter.
Now, for an apples to apples comparison, I wonder how many witch-burners Mr Mackey has had contact with......
state that practically every atheist I have ever encountered has either dismissed the odds entirely
Well, I think they have every right to. It's like claiming claiming that the odds of winning the lottery are so high that no-one has won the lottery. Add to this the serious objections other scientists have about these "odds".
By the way, Makorios said "Hawking put the odds of a life sustaining universe coming into being by accident to be 10 ^ 1,230", which isn't true. It wasn't Hawking.
All I will say is- typical-
You said-
tinkerbell - do you even listen to yourself?
"Allow me to teach you how to properly and constructively debate someone."
Good grief you're full of yourself aren't you. Just like all other atheists.
When confronted with your generalizations, hypocritical assumptions, and your inability to produce an articulate well thought out argument, you resort to a personal insult. All I am asking you to do is formulate an argument, or observation based on credible sources. You cannot, resorting to blanketing us all as we stare into our pizza and beer.
Because, and the answer is really simple- you cannot.
@ JD Curtis-
The whole point, which you have clearly missed, is that noone is willing to have a discussion with someone who uses broad generalizations bordering on discrimination. If he wishes to debate, he needs to be a little more articulate.
By the way JD, I can happily provide you with many facts. If you learn to be respectful that is.
@ Gorth-state that practically every atheist I have ever encountered has either dismissed the odds entirely
I agree with you, but at least he is qualifying it by saying that it is every atheist he has encountered, instead of his imaginary pipeline where he is listening to the thoughts of every atheist on Earth. After all, only he personally knows what we all think.
Let's Keep It Simple Stupid. Name ONE contradiction.
Oh, I've seen this a thousand times. Let me predict how this goes:
-Christian challenges non-religious person to show ONE contradiction.
-Non-religious person gives a few of their favourite contradictions.
-Christian goes to the bookshelf to look for books with names like "Biblical Difficulties Solved!!" and types either a long and convoluted reply or a simple "Copyist error".
-Non-religious giggle at the convoluted lengths the religious go to avoid the obvious.
-Repeat.
We humans deal with pesky improbabilities all the time.
The weather lightning earthquakes
Not so very probable somebody will likely get struck by lightning once in their life and to be struck twice is pretty improbable ..Yet it has happened.
But Mak i agree with tinkbell you dont know what atheist all think about these things.Maybe your problem is more you really wish you did know what they all think.You are not so used to the idea of people free thinking.Maybe its you are used to people being willing to be willing to follow something somebody else says they should just follow without question.That type of thing.
So what if atheists dont just simply guess and assert it must just be "the gods" for eveything they yet dont understand,its best to try to be sure about things first isnt it.
Mak every single noise you hear outside at night that you dont understand,do you just simply let your mind run loose and simply guess it must be some ghost or a thief or something.Or do you reserve judgement until you have better evidence and some real proof,after all what good does one ever gain? for worrying about a thief or a ghost who doesnt even exist?.You only lose sleep for nothing.
I think you are just a little angry non believers wont simply agree to also just assert gods without real evidence and proof.
Tinkbot,
My whole point, which you have clearly missed, was that practically every atheist I have ever encountered has either dismissed the odds entirely or did not advance an intelligible argument to support their unbelief in this matter.
and for comparison, I wonder how many witch-burners Mr Mackey has had contact with......
If practically every single one of them has that mindset, then how is it a "broad generalization" as opposed to an accurate statement of fact?
I agree with you, but at least he is qualifying it by saying that it is every atheist he has encountered, instead of his imaginary pipeline where he is listening to the thoughts of every atheist on Earth.
Correct. Angry, bitter, nihilistic, argumetive internet atheists would actually be a subset of the larger atheist population that I encounter when it comes to my dealings with atheists. Further more I note that neither Glen nor Gorth cited explanations/examples.
Not so very probable somebody will likely get struck by lightning once in their life and to be struck twice is pretty improbable ..Yet it has happened.
And for a comparative study, what are the odds as compareed to those cited my Mak? < > or about the same?
@JD- Again, you have clearly missed the point, and you have resorted to again, providing personal insults.
My whole point, which you have clearly missed, was that practically every atheist I have ever encountered has either dismissed the odds entirely or did not advance an intelligible argument to support their unbelief in this matter.
I have clearly stated, many many times that I am not willing to discuss content with him as long as he continues to weakly argue his assumptions. If that makes it easy for you guys to think that I am refusing to do so because you think that I am unable to do this, then so be it. Why should he have his cake and eat it too? He is insulting in his simplistic attitude, and if you cannot understand that, then there is no hope for you too. The medium is the message.
And, because you persist.
You said-
and for comparison, I wonder how many witch-burners Mr Mackey has had contact with......
If practically every single one of them has that mindset, then how is it a "broad generalization" as opposed to an accurate statement of fact?
Actually, had you done some research, you would understand that "witch burning" is still an issue today. Recent media reports have surfaced that this is being done in Africa, India, and even reports are surfacing in New England. And, to make it worse, this is involving pastors accusing innocent children, taking money from the family to exorcise them, and then kill them. Please, see for yourself, here is a link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDt1GxKR-VHAg1Lq3LcUNx2-Y0YwD9BD96180
If you are unable to make the distinction between difference a broad generalization and fact, perhaps you could look to what I earlier posted. I think that example could show you the difference.
Actually, my grandmother was struck by lightning twice in her life, and actually lived to tell.
Correct. Angry, bitter, nihilistic, argumetive internet atheists would actually be a subset of the larger atheist population that I encounter when it comes to my dealings with atheists. Further more I note that neither Glen nor Gorth cited explanations/examples.
Yes, of course... Do you think that you could at least spell argumentative right?
Recent media reports have surfaced that this is being done in Africa, India, and even reports are surfacing in New England.
Yes, I am all too aware of the atheists that writhe with glee after a tribe burns a witch in Africa. People are burning people anyway Tinkerpoo. Christian or not.
Again, so we can have a comparison, what percentage of Christians are known witch-burners and how does that stack up against the percentage of atheists that offer weak, convoluted arguements when faced with "the impossible odds of life appearing on earth by accident, never mind this universe coming into being by accident"?
Are they anywhere close to one another?
Actually, my grandmother was struck by lightning twice in her life, and actually lived to tell.
Sorry to hear that. Did you ever figure the odds of such an occurance?
Yes, of course... Do you think that you could at least spell argumentative right?
Whoa. Easy there Tinky-tink-tink on the Ice Skating Rink. Who are you? The Grammer Nazi?
@JD- Whoa. Easy there Tinky-tink-tink on the Ice Skating Rink. Who are you? The Grammer Nazi?
Really, how easily you throw the word Nazi around. Too many people on this earth, that insinuation is really cruel. How wonderfully you radiate and emulate the love of Jesus by your choice of insult.
Read the link before you ask me to contrast anything. It is clear that you did not. Missionary Christian pastors are going to Africa, convincing third world people that their children are witches, taking money to exorcise them, and often are killing them in the process.
Actually, if you feel that you could provide me with a link that could provide a stat that clearly shows me " a comparison, what percentage of Christians are known witch-burners and how does that stack up against the percentage of atheists that offer weak, convoluted arguements when faced with "the impossible odds of life appearing on earth by accident, never mind this universe coming into being by accident"?, I would gladly take a look at it.
Otherwise, learn to articulate properly.... This is a consistent problem among bloggers.
@JD I have been thinking. This posting is the last time that I will respond to you. I challenge and criticize Mak cause I think that he has potential, and if he would step us his game, I feel that I could learn from him. I also believe, despite his love for broad generalizations and simplistic assumptions, that he has value as a person.
You, however, are not worth it. There is nothing to learn from you. So, say what you like, you will get no more attention from me.
Tink! Baby Doll! What's going on here? We were a team, getting to the bottom of deep, philosophical stuff. Pity that you gave up like that. With your wit and wisdom I was beginning to doubt my own faith and consider yours. I was AT LEAST staring agnosticism right square in the face. And now I'm back to being a theist again. Drat. It was fun while it lasted.
Actually, if you feel that you could provide me with a link that could provide a stat that clearly shows me " a comparison, what percentage of Christians are known witch-burners and how does that stack up against the percentage of atheists that offer weak, convoluted arguements when faced with "the impossible odds of life appearing on earth by accident, never mind this universe coming into being by accident"?, I would gladly take a look at it.
How many arguments on this thread even attempt to address's which Mak brought up? Any?
It's a shame that there are no other Christians on this thread to compare notes with. Trust me though, the number is overwhelming. If only those witch-burning stats would have been released by now.....
The witch burning was not the point of my comment.
My comment was actually one of Makarios comments with some words changed.
Yes, it was a comment on the over generalization and strawmaning and stereotyping.
Don't worry Chris- I got it.
JD"And for a comparative study, what are the odds as compareed to those cited my Mak? < > or about the same?"
I dont see how statistics of compared odds does anything much to disprove or change the fact that already we do see we do have many things which are often very random.
When we see and experiences so many improbable things happening already in our world all around us,our need of confronting improbabilities is not such a great surprise.It doesnt take any faith to believe in improbabilities because we often do see and experience them, meaning we actually do have evidence for proof of the existence of there being some improbabilities we have yet to fully understand.
"how does that stack up against the percentage of atheists that offer weak, convoluted arguements when faced with "the impossible odds of life appearing on earth by accident, never mind this universe coming into being by accident"?
Are they anywhere close to one another?"
No the Christians always have had by far the much more convoluted arguements.How could things become much more convoluted than a mad belief built around the supposed holy bible ...Where the convoluted coiled and twisted belief rubbish involves bullcrap stories of even talking snakes and noahs arks etc etc which could never honestly involve much honesty or truth.The holy bible must be one of the most convoluted stories and weakest posibilities of actual total truth in all history.
So in my opinion any atheists argument that lacks in clarity,surely must still be a whole lot less convoluted than a book jam packed full of guess work and mythical deluded imaginations like written within the bible.
"Correct. Angry, bitter, nihilistic, argumetive internet atheists would actually be a subset of the larger atheist population that I encounter when it comes to my dealings with atheists."
What do you expect JD Curtis,a pat on the back and a gold medal and a welcome home coming party? ...When mad theists of many differing beliefs have long filled our world with religious bigotry born of deceit and guesswork by faithful folk.Did you really expect to be treated to complete happiness and complete welcome ?,should we really be expected to not be ready to argue with deluded fools who often dont even see the mega damage their beliefs do cause, even though the evidence is so plain to see its almost there slapping them right slap bang! in their own face.Even thought they still cant see it at all!,and carry on regardless like complete utter zombies.
In my opinion your claim of atheism supposedly equaling nihilistic tendency,hasnt even a leg to stand on in any real honesty or decency of fact.Not that im foolish enough to ever expect much fact or decency to often be forthcoming from many folks of faith.
Non believers feel human values exist so much,that they are NO LONGER WILLING to simply stand by quietly like they did for many years, while god believers ruined the value of human life by use of deluded deceitful god beliefs.
It is faith belief that first rejected our original human established laws and institutions,when trying to impose their overuling rule by use of religious rights etc..Of unproven belief of mythical gods lacking in fact.It is the faithful who have often displayed the tendency of anarchy ,as they split and divided our families and communities! and world! rejecting our ORIGINAL human laws of value of family and community in the process.It is the faithful who have tended far more towards total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself.
Ok Folks... There are things that are highly improbable and things thatare HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AS TO BE STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Can't we use math? I know that all of you atheists are thinking types. Is the disciplne of mathematics to be considered "mythology"? No, it comes in quite handy when building bridges and such.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after umpteen entries we are at...
A. The "the impossible odds of life appearing on earth by accident, never mind this universe coming into being by accident" are 10^1230. Lightning striking a person twice has been advanced as an example of something statistically improbable, however nobody has cited the odds of that occuring in order that we might have a comparison. If nothing else, you are all proving my earlier so-called "generalization" when I stated practically every atheist I have encountered "has either dismissed the odds entirely or did not advance an intelligible argument to support their unbelief in this matter." And the beat goes on......
Witch-burning was brought up and when I inquired what percentage of Christians are known-witch burners I havent gotten an answer yet. Is it a high percentage or such a low number as to be statistically meaningless?
"Lightning strikes the ground approximately 25 million times each year in the U.S. According to the NWS, the chance of an individual in the U.S. being killed or injured during a given year is one in 240,000. Assuming an average life span of 80 years, a person's odds over their lifetime becomes one in 3000. Assuming the average person has ten family members and others with whom they are close, then the chances are one in 300 that a lightning strike will closely affect a person during their lifetime."
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/faq/faq_ltg.php
I dont know what the stats are for the odds of being struck twice.
JD .."practically every atheist I have encountered "has either dismissed the odds entirely or did not advance an intelligible argument to support their unbelief in this matter."
The random matters and odds simply are well known to be a part of peoples lives JD,people dont necessarily dismiss them just because some folk dont bother advancing a argument about the odds and random matters of life as we understand it.They just understand odds and randoms honestly exist,why always bother arguing about whats know to be.Many will simply not bother to know the stats for spontaneous combustion for instance its too much for the average Joe Blogs to be worring to much about,after all scientists still try hard to try to find more ways to understand all these random things a little better.
That the odds this universe coming into being by accident" are 10^1230,are very much more unlikely to odds that of somebody being stuck twice by lightning.
Does nothing to prove a god or intelligent being is in control.
It only proves people are stuck by random lightning and spontaneous combustion far far more often, than universes can be observed comeing into being by accident.
So what?.Big deal.It still fits what we see and experience and observe.We dont see more unverses coming into existence,maybe it even fits the stats of odds of 10^1230 perfectly.
Folks of faith would have us look at how much the odds are at,disregard all the other many evidences of all the OTHER random odds we ALREADY see and experience... And just jump to conclusions by stupid use of some very imaginative mythical guesswork that supposedly maybe there must be some supernatural god/s intelligence in control of whats happening.
Its one thing to not totally dismiss the possibility of some type of intelligent control and be agnostic/atheist,until possibilitys of intelligent control is totally proven incorrect.
But its a whole different kettle of fish to simply not understand something,so then in a knee jerk reaction simply throw all reasoning aside!. Discard all evidence of all the MANY odds/randoms etc we DO actually see!,while foolishly jumping with a great leap of faith to conclusions of guesswork that god/s must really exist.
Thats very dangerous as well as stupid,and the amount trouble its caused worldwide has proved its dangerous.
Thats what did happen though with ancient humans as their undeveloped brains tried to grasp for any reason they could think of,to try to maybe understand why their personal family member had been picked out to be the one struck down by lightning.
Human do ALL see and observe many random matters to prove its the odds of such a thing happening are what it really comes down to.
We dont ALL see Gods controling matters that happen,to change the evidence and proof we do have, and prove things are not random
What is there to dismiss JD Curtis?
In reality you are suggesting they dismiss evidence of god,but there is no decent evidence of god.How do you judge people so harshly of dismissing something thats so obviously non existant?.
Sure suggest they dont argue to a perceived standard of the level you like to see them argue the point with you.
But is still rubbish and overgeneralizing to suggest how the universe existence came about is simply being dismissed by atheists.Im sure a very large number or folks of faith dont really confront the issue of matters of the universes existence either.
Yet, let Dawkins say that we should not worry about the existence of Creator God because His existence is highly improbable and all atheists shout in unison, “Yes, yes High Priest Dawkins. It’s highly improbable. There is no God.”
"“Yes, yes High Priest Dawkins. It’s highly improbable. There is no God.”"
Mak i dont need any Dawkins,and as a matter of fact as yet personally i have never even read one of his books.
It does not take need of any Dawkins,for humans to be able to easily observe and experience that there is no real evidence around us, of any god/s existing.
It is the folks of faith making such a big deal! out of Dawkins,many non faithful folk dont even really know the man.
Yet many still see absolutely no evidence of God/s
Post a Comment