Aww crap I was on 20/20 and i missed it! Did anyone see it?Here’s a link on-line http://abcnews.go.com/2020/. You need to click “the unbelievers” on the right in the video section.They seemed to do a pretty good job of interviewing us. What’d ya think?
Kay, um… I just wanted to say as an atheist who very much does support the anthropic principle:
A) It requires no god nor intelligent designer for us to be here for non-random reasons.
B) It requires no god nor intelligent designer for there to be “higher” purpose in nature.
C) Willfully ignoring evidence for, “B”, doesn’t mean that it’s “just a feeling”.
r2d
It does? I’m no expert, but that’s not my understanding. If, for example, a fly species were to grow, lose, and again grow wings over numerous generations in response to environmental pressures then the 2nd wing growth would be an independent mechanism to the original.
This would be a different mechanism to reanimating dormant genes. I’m not sure that reanimation would be considered a part of evolution by natural selection.
But I fear I am treading out of my depth…
island,
Would you care to enlarge upon “It requires no god nor intelligent designer for us to be here for non-random reasons.”?
Am I right in thinking that non-random infers an intent, which in turn infers an intelligence? Or perhaps you’re suggesting that humans are an inevitable occurance?
I’m not sure how you justify your claim.
I’m also going to head-off the next inevitable question:
I don’t need to identify a mechanism to say that any physical need for intelligent life will be non-random reason enough to bring it into existence in order to satisfy the need without need of an intelligent designer. If “intent” is the same thing as preordained “inevitability”, then we were “intended” by the physics from the moment of the Big Bang, in this context.
I don’t need to identify the mechanism because I am only stating a fact.
I don’t mind identifying a plausible mechanism, but I must first get an honest admission that I don’t need one to make the point. I’ve obviously been playing the game too long…
“BUt this is the point. If it were timeless it wouldn’t need regular updates of language to make it – errr – timely.”
if you can read hebrew then read the oldest version you can find, i cant, so i’ll read the most modern translation that i can so i get the most out of it. the fact that it gets translated so more people have an opportunity to read it does not change the content or the value of how timeless the messages are.
“Whether people of all ages and cultures cangrasp it equally is beside the point. “
That is the whole point! the bible to be valid must be able to be understood by all and it is. what people do with it is there own doing and has no validity on the book itself. it even says in the bible that not everyone who cries Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. so the bible supports the fact that not everyone who claims to have it figured out actualy do.
“All it proves is that it’s a popular book. Popularity is not a good indicator of truth. If a million people believe a foolish thing – it is still a foolish thing”
so your saying 5 billion + are foolish for beleiving in a god of some form? seems like your the only one with half a brain.
kinda feels like the crazy guy in the mental ward saying he is the only sane one and the entire world is crazy.
imac79
But if your claim is “If God wrote a book we would expect it to be timeless.” we should all be able to read an original text. Of course the fact that there are no original texts in existence tends to invalidate this test.
Which simply means that not everyone gets the same message from the bible. Therefore the test of “If God wrote a book we would expect that it would be understood by everyone.” is prima facie unsupported.
imac
I’m saying their beliefs are unsupported by any credible evidence and are unreasonable. I’m sure people have many reasons for maintaining their illusions, some of which are pragmatic, and some of which are foolish.
Ad hominem attacks only show further the weakness of your argument. Attack the argument not the arguer if you want to gain anything from the exchange.
Sometimes the majority is just plain wrong. Look through history and you’ll see examples in spades.
imac
Who is it then who has the book figured out correctly, and how do you know they are right?
imac79:
Actually, while the KJV isn’t a good translation, I have a copy, & I rather enjoy the language. I’ve had harder reads.
I’m a huge fan of Shakespeare, BTW, & again, it’s not a hard read. Not like say, the Iliad.
I can’t read Dostoevsky at all. THAT’S a hard read.
Actually, no, that proves nothing at all, since belief was effectively legislated since Theodosius. It was illegal to be a blasphemer/infidel for many, many centuries, in many countries.
The bible is a fun read, but composed primarily of fables.
You can say that for just about any ‘holy book’. Again, proves nada.
Oh, & please capitalize, use punctuation, etc., unless of course you’re the next e.e. cummings.
here are some facts about the bible that seem to set it apart in my mind from any religion i has explored
B. No other book has been translated more than the Bible.
C. Complete books of the Bible have been translated into 2,303 languages.i
D. The entire Bible has been published in 405 languages.
E. The entire New Testament has been published in over 1,034 languages.
F. The Bible can now be read by 90% of the world population in their own
language.
“We are less than a generation away from the Bible becoming the world’s
first universally translated book.”ii
G. The Bible is the best selling book internationally.
H. No book has ever had more influence on history, civilization, ethics, art,
music, literature, architecture, philosophy, politics and even our calendar than
the Bible.
I. There have been more books written about the Bible than any other book.
A. IS THE BIBLE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE?
About 100 years ago, it became popular to criticize the Bible because some people felt
that it had historical mistakes in it and some believed that eventually archaeology would
prove that the Bible is not historically accurate. However, just the opposite happened.
Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in
the small details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past
century which support every book of the Bible. Here are some examples?
Critics used to believe?
?that Moses could not have written any of the books of the Bible because
they believed that writing did not exist that early in history?
but then?
?in 1902, archaeologists discovered the Code of Hammurabi which was
written long before Moses was born.ix
Critics used to believe?
? the Bible was wrong because they felt that King David was a myth.
They pointed to the fact that there was no archeological evidence that
King David was an actual historical figure?
but then ?
?in 1994 archaeologists discovered an ancient stone that was inscribed
with the references to ?King David? and the “House of David.”
Critics used to believe?
?that the Bible was wrong because there was no evidence (outside of the
Bible) that a group of people called the Hittites ever existed. Thus, they
felt this proved that the Bible is a mythical creation of ancient Hebrew
writers?
but then?
?in 1906, a German archaeologist named Winckler was excavating in
Turkey and discovered the capital city of the Hittite empire, the entire
Hittite library and 10,000 clay tablets documenting the Hittite history.
Scholars translated these writings and discovered that everything the Bible
said about the Hittite empire was true.
Critics used to believe?
?the book of Acts was not historically accurate. A man named Sir
William Ramsay, one of the greatest historical/archaeological scholars in
history, decided to try to disprove the Bible as the inspired Word of God
by showing that the book of Acts was not historically accurate?
but then?
?after 30 years of archaeological research in the Middle East, Ramsay
came to the conclusion that ?Luke is a historian of the first rank; not
merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ? this author should be
placed along with the very greatest historians.? He wrote a book on the
trustworthiness of the Bible based on his discoveries x and converted to
Christianity based on his research.
Sir Ramsay found no historical or geographical mistakes in the book of
Acts. This is amazing when we realize that in the book of Acts, Luke
mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, 9 Mediterranean islands and 95 people
and he did not get one wrong. Compare that with the Encyclopedia
Britannica. The first year the Encyclopedia Britannica was published it
contained so many mistakes regarding places in the United States that it
had to be recalled.xi
Critics used to believe?
?that the Old Testament could not be reliable because they felt that over
a long period of time the Old Testament writings would have been
changed, altered, edited or corrupted?
but then?
in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. These scrolls contained, among
other writings, every book in the Old Testament (except Esther). Until the
Dead Sea Scrolls were found the earliest copy of the complete Old
Testament was from 900A.D. Scholars compared this copy with the Dead
Sea Scrolls (produced around 1,000 years earlier) and found that the Old
Testament had been handed down accurately through the centuries.
The great Jewish archaeologist, Nelson Glueck (who is known to be one of the top
three archaeologists in history) said this?
“No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single,
properly understood Biblical statement.”xii
al quotes are from
http://www.ramsforchrist.net/library/apologetics/05.pdf
imac79
WOW, are you ignorant.
An argument from popularity is absurd.
Even archaeologists in Israel deny the historicity of the Buybull.
imac79:
I’ve been trying to be polite about this, but that sentence makes you sound like a 14 year old.
W/o looking at your copy ‘n paste website, that’s McDowell, ain’t it?
Historically, the bible comes apart. It’s comprised of the occasional historical event, swaddled in a vast blanket of fictions.
An argument from popularity is for children. Peer pressure isn’t an indicator of much more than a herd mentality.
Here’s 1 for instance: the Exodus never happened.
Here’s another: no prophecies ever came true. Not ONE.
imac79:
Wouldn’t be possible that Nelson Glueck (he was a rabbi) named his discoveries under his very own assumptions taking more a religious stand rather than a scientific one?
If I may suggest a good piece of archaeological information about this subject is “The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. It is a short compilation of archaeological studies in the Middle East.
totally off topic.
I was just outside looking through my telescope at the bright object slightly below and to the left of the crescent moon. Does anyone know what it might be? It’s really weird in the it’s orange and blue…
Just a thought b4 I go searching the web.
Perhaps it’s the FSM…
Never mind – I’m pretty sure it’s just Venus. Very cool view of it thought.
Sir William Ramsay was a chemist. Glueck was an archaeologist, but 1 of the top 3?
Typical. These same folks think C.S Lewis was 1 of the greatest minds of the 20th CE.
All 3 of these guy barely scratched the surface of Western civilization.
Unimpressive.
HealthNZ: That was Venus you were looking at. You may have noticed that through your telescope it did not appear round. Venus has phases similar to our moon’s.
Thanks Ronster666, I don’t think I’d ever actually found Venus before so I was thrown for a while. New experiences.