Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not)

[~SJ~]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

You said, "There is no afterlife"... but you don't know that for sure. My aunt passed away today and I'm hoping that if it was at all possible, somehow she'd be with my late uncle now.

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

You said, "There is no afterlife"... but you don't know that for sure. My aunt passed away today and I'm hoping that if it was at all possible, somehow she'd be with my late uncle now.

Huh? Who is this aimed at?

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

You said, "There is no afterlife"... but you don't know that for sure. My aunt passed away today and I'm hoping that if it was at all possible, somehow she'd be with my late uncle now.

it's ok I found it.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

I'm guessing that you are suggesting that if God was the direct author of Genesis he could have done better

Something like that. Probably more like if God wrote genesis he could have failed a lot less.

then demonstrate how you know what God's objectives were

Talk about moving the goal posts.

No I don't, I only bring this up when people make claims like "Genesis is as scientific as it could be" or "Genesis couldn't be more scientific because moses wouldn't have understood how to write it down", etc. I don't have to demonstrate anything about god or his objectives, I am merely dismissing a human claim about genesis: that it could not have been more scientific.

People use this argument a lot, Parker mentions it in his response to "If God wrote it, why is so much of it wrong?" his response is that human beings had to write it down and they didn't actually understand the science. HE used that argument, I responded to it because it's simply incorrect. Then YOU used that argument with your moses "short play", and again I brought it up to say you were wrong.

I don't have to demonstrate *anything* about god to use it as a counter argument to people's claims about genesis. Especially when they are exclusive claims like "genesis could not have been more scientifically accurate [for some reason or other here]".

I suggest that many more of your beliefs and disbeliefs are similarly poorly based. Not very friendly of me, I guess, but that's what I think.

Indeed, most people suggest that most other people's beliefs and disbeliefs are poorly based. You as a theist (or if you really are an atheist) will thing that Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs have poorly placed belief, while they will think you have poorly placed belief. This really does not come as a surprise to me.

I do however have a question: are you a creationist?

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

You said, "There is no afterlife"... but you don't know that for sure. My aunt passed away today and I'm hoping that if it was at all possible, somehow she'd be with my late uncle now.

It's possible, anything's possible SJ, always remember that. Personally I don't think there's any harm in hoping, however don't forget you're living in reality here and now so try not to dwell on this dilemma too long.

 

[ercatli]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

Talk about moving the goal posts.

This is important because it is fundamental to what I've been saying, and I don't think you understand it yet (I'm not suggesting you have to agree with me, but it would be nice if you could understand me).

There is a difference between what you say and the strength with which you say it, and a difference between a fact and an opinion.

My criticism with most of what has been said in this discussion is not so much with the content, but with the certainty. If the original post had said "I wonder whether this dude understands how the eye evolved", I could have answered the question and there's no argument. And so .....

I don't have to demonstrate anything about god or his objectives, I am merely dismissing a human claim about genesis: that it could not have been more scientific.

People use this argument a lot, Parker mentions it in his response to "If God wrote it, why is so much of it wrong?" his response is that human beings had to write it down and they didn't actually understand the science. HE used that argument, I responded to it because it's simply incorrect. Then YOU used that argument with your moses "short play", and again I brought it up to say you were wrong.

You have said: "I am ..... dismissing", "it's simply incorrect" and "you were wrong". These are strong, certain statements, claiming to be factual, and I should legitimately ask you to demonstrate such claims. (Which so far you haven't done.) That is not shifting the goal posts, but a standard of argument - you make a proposition, you justify it.

In contrast, I have made few definite statements. I have qualified most of what I have said; I have stressed my lack of knowledge because I haven't read the book (which no-one else has either). So much so that you and others are still uncertain of my viewpoint. And if I make a definite statement, I can and do provide a reason. So no shifting of goalposts.

I don't have to demonstrate *anything* about god to use it as a counter argument to people's claims about genesis. Especially when they are exclusive claims like "genesis could not have been more scientifically accurate [for some reason or other here]".

I don't think I ever made such a claim. But you have made claims (I prefer to say propositions), and if you want me to consider them, you need to provide some demonstration. And I don't think it can be done.

For surely it is true that neither you nor I know a lot about Hebrew culture and language a millennium (give or take a few centuries) BC, and we don't really have any idea what those people could or could not have known or written. We need expert historians to tell us, and even they are guessing a bit.

And I think it is also true that neither you nor I know whether Parker has built his case on any reasonable foundation or not, because we haven't read the book.

Indeed, most people suggest that most other people's beliefs and disbeliefs are poorly based. You as a theist (or if you really are an atheist) will thing that Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs have poorly placed belief, while they will think you have poorly placed belief. This really does not come as a surprise to me.

It depends on how they are presented. I have no problem recognising that someone can think differently to me but nevertheless present their views in a reasonable and well-based way (sadly, I find few others, whether atheist or theist, who can see any merit at all in opposing viewpoints), just as I can recognise people who I agree with but who present their views poorly.

I do however have a question: are you a creationist?

No.

So, to conclude, can you see what I'm driving at? Things are not as certain as you have presented them, and, I guess, as you have been led to believe. An open mind, even to people like Parker who you instinctively want to disagree with, might help you be more accurate, and even find new truths.

Best wishes.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

I should legitimately ask you to demonstrate such claims

So you have a big task.

And if I make a definite statement, I can and do provide a reason.

But you have made claims (I prefer to say propositions), and if you want me to consider them, you need to provide some demonstration. And I don't think it can be done.

I haven't watched the video [that you claimed was your evidence]

You claim I need to provide evidence while simultaneously admitting that you have dismissed my evidence. You are a master of doublespeak, the politicians must be jealous.

If the original post had said "I wonder whether this dude understands how the eye evolved"

I've never sought to defend this statement, don't imply that I did.

I don't think I ever made such a claim.

You brought up the moses play, that is equivalent to making the claim that genesis couldn't have been more scientifically accurate, because that's the primary purpose behind that moses play.

And even then, you'd only have an argument to me if I believed God wrote Genesis and I agreed with what you thought of his objectives, which I have not given you any information about yet, one way or the other.

I criticize parker, you say "that's unfair!" I say why I think it is fair because parker's position is flawed for a set of reasons and your response is "but I never made that claim!" No, you didn't make the claim, parker did, that's the claim I am disputing and that was the claim you defended, whether or not you made the claim is irrelevant. Saying I have to prove all sorts of things for my counter-argument to have validity is flawed, because my counter-argument was never meant to stand as a proposition all its own, only as a response to another claim. You *are* moving the goalposts, whether you admit it or not.

For surely it is true that neither you nor I know a lot about Hebrew culture and language a millennium (give or take a few centuries) BC, and we don't really have any idea what those people could or could not have known or written. We need expert historians to tell us, and even they are guessing a bit.

Surely anything is possible for god?

And I think it is also true that neither you nor I know whether Parker has built his case on any reasonable foundation or not, because we haven't read the book.

I'm not criticizing his book, I am criticizing his words in the interview.

(sadly, I find few others, whether atheist or theist, who can see any merit at all in opposing viewpoints)

You're a bigot just as bad as any racist I've ever met. The only difference is that they say things like "sadly, I find black people are inherently less intelligent", while you instead are of the opinion that almost everyone else is closed minded and you are one of the elite few open minded people. Get off your high horse, it's screwing with your perspective.

Things are not as certain as you have presented them

That is the nature of debate my friend, you don't like it then pick a different proposition and demonstrate it. No one enters a debate with the opening phrase "I think that maybe it's possible that..."

An open mind, even to people like Parker who you instinctively want to disagree with, might help you be more accurate, and even find new truths.

Oh I love the open mind argument. I'd present you with evidence that it's a worthless argument, except you've already proven to me you're not interested in any. The reality is, I have a rather open mind, I will accept anything given convincing evidence. Lacking that, I simply won't accept whatever thing being proposed. Indeed the best way to convince me of something is to beat me in a debate in which I take the side that "something" is false, because in doing so you must pass all criticism I can muster. Criticizing me for skepticism is closed minded.



But you are right, you haven't made yourself a clear position here, and that's not a good thing. You've set yourself up in a position where you don't defend claims, you only attack me, there is no debate here, you have demonstrated no interest in a rational conversation, only in attacking me with X one moment and then claiming that my responses are invalid because you don't actually believe X. I think I shall leave now.

 

[ercatli]

Re: Andrew Parker Lost The Game (And The Metro, Happily, Did Not

You claim I need to provide evidence while simultaneously admitting that you have dismissed my evidence. You are a master of doublespeak, the politicians must be jealous.

Unnecessary and unfriendly. I didn't watch the video, but I conceded your point (I agreed that Genesis could possibly have been more scientific), so I didn't need to. My criticism was that having said that it could possibly have been different, your task, if you want to make statements like you did, is to show that it must or should have been different. Which you haven't done.

I've never sought to defend this statement, don't imply that I did.

Of course you didn't, and of course I didn't imply that. I'm sorry if you thought I did. I mentioned it (1) because that was my reason for joining this discussion, and (2) it illustrated the point I was making, about making unwarranted assumptions.

You brought up the moses play, that is equivalent to making the claim that genesis couldn't have been more scientifically accurate, because that's the primary purpose behind that moses play.

Another unwarranted assumption. Why not ascertain what my point is rather than assume, especially when you assume wrongly? I would think it silly and unwarranted to claim that Genesis "couldn't have been more scientifically accurate". The point of the play is (1) to have a laugh, and (2) to show that while it is possible that Genesis could possibly have been more scientifically accurate, it isn't necessarily so easy in actuality.

Surely anything is possible for god?

That's what most philosophers assume, with the proviso that things that are logically incoherent are excluded. But just because something is possible, doesn't mean it will happen. I suppose God could have made this morning's sky red and blue striped with yellow clouds spelling out the words "hello world", but I didn't see it. Your argument doesn't depend on what God could have done, but on what he should or must have done. Again, spelling out an argument in a semi formal fashion and providing evidence is a lot harder than just making general and unsubstantiated claims.

You're a bigot just as bad as any racist I've ever met. The only difference is that they say things like "sadly, I find black people are inherently less intelligent", while you instead are of the opinion that almost everyone else is closed minded and you are one of the elite few open minded people. Get off your high horse, it's screwing with your perspective.

Also unnecessary and unfriendly. What I said is unfortunately the truth. I am a member of about half a dozen atheist forums, and I have posted many times over several years. I cannot recall a single time when any atheist has admitted there is a single shred of an argument or reason for theism - mot once! - and I have seen atheists call theists "delusional" and far worse (even "bigots"). I have seen some theists behave the same way, although I have seen some who don't. Your intemperate outburst conforms to the pattern - don't you see you have given further evidence to what I said?

That is the nature of debate my friend, you don't like it then pick a different proposition and demonstrate it. No one enters a debate with the opening phrase "I think that maybe it's possible that..."

I wasn't aware we were having a debate, just a conversation. And unfortunately, an increasingly unpleasant one.

But you are right, you haven't made yourself a clear position here, and that's not a good thing. You've set yourself up in a position where you don't defend claims, you only attack me, there is no debate here, you have demonstrated no interest in a rational conversation, only in attacking me with X one moment and then claiming that my responses are invalid because you don't actually believe X. I think I shall leave now.

You will recall that I was proposing leaving the thread when you said "I find this regrettable, we've barely had any exchanges at all.". So I said: "I'm happy to continue what seems to be interesting, friendly and productive, but I think we may have squeezed all the juice out of this lemon." So I had no intention to "attack" you (and I certainly haven't called you any names like you have called me), merely participate in a friendly conversation.

You have obviously had enough, and it no longer meets my criterion of being friendly, so we can both agree to terminate. Thanks and best wishes.