why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, or that the universe existed before it? I believe Russell believed the universe was eternal. To many scientists, the big bang clearly implies or perhaps explicitly shows that the universe had a definite beginning, some near 20 million years ago. What evidence is there that God had such a beginning. What evidence do you have that God is not eternal? What evidence do you have that God does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

You really have no understanding of philosophy or logic do you? You can't ask someone to prove a negative.

BTW, you are close in your "20 million years ago" statement about the big bang; it's actually more like 13 billion.

I appreciate being called illogical by you since you basically are proving yourself to be an uninformed moron in nearly every post you make.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.


[/ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class because it is not science, it is philosophy. Here is an elementary explanation of the scientific method with an example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis that would be equivalent to intelligent design:

Science proceeds by making observations of nature (experiments). If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it. Arguing back-and-forth about what should happen, or what ought to happen, is not the way science makes progress.

Consider this hypothesis:

Hypothesis A:

"Our universe is surrounded by another, larger universe, with which we can have absolutely no contact."

This statement may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. By its very nature it is not testable. There are no observations that a scientist could make to tell whether or not the hypothesis is correct. Ideas such as Hypothesis A are interesting to think about, but science has nothing to say about them. Hypothesis A is a speculation, not a hypothesis.

Intelligent design is not testable. It has no predictive value in an experimental setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[siegfriedandroy]

Clearly nobody in this forum has come anywhere near even minimal comprehension of what i am trying to say. some have resorted to ad hominem attacks, w/o specifically and positively proving anything i've said to be blatantly contradictory. on the other hand, i have shown several examples of blatant inconsistencies in the pseudo-logic of some of your responses. it's amazing how arrogant people can be when it is clear they know next to nothing of any value. perhaps there are atheists who can provide a more formidable challenge (by formidable i mean capable of reading above a 6th grade level, and understanding even the most simplistic and basic moral implications of atheism). these atheists simply do not exist yet on this thread. arrogant ignoramii is all i have come across so far.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly nobody in this forum has come anywhere near even minimal comprehension of what i am trying to say. some have resorted to ad hominem attacks, w/o specifically and positively proving anything i've said to be blatantly contradictory. on the other hand, i have shown several examples of blatant inconsistencies in the pseudo-logic of some of your responses. it's amazing how arrogant people can be when it is clear they know next to nothing of any value. perhaps there are atheists who can provide a more formidable challenge (by formidable i mean capable of reading above a 6th grade level, and understanding even the most simplistic and basic moral implications of atheism). these atheists simply do not exist yet on this thread. arrogant ignoramii is all i have come across so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

I exist, ignorant and sometimes guity of arrogance. Weakish comprehension skills but good enough if you write clearly.

What's the point you want to address?

chez

[siegfriedandroy]

Nothing really, Chez! Just frustrated by the lack of legitimate responses and presumptuous nature of many of the posters here. Guess that's what I should expect, though. As for yourself, you at least do not appear quite as arrogant (and hopefully not as narrow-minded) as the others in your camp on this thread, which is refreshing.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read a little bit between the lines (actually, i think the question is stated fairly explicitly), you will see that i am asking that question solely in connection with the philosophical implications of atheism.

If you, as an atheist, woke up tomorrow and began fanatically teaching dianetics, or ID, or that the moon is made up of green cheese, I believe you would be no less rational than in desiring that evolution be taught. If you cannot understand why, then you simply do not understand some simple fundamental implications of materialistic philosophy, namely that ultimately, nothing matters, especially where the universe came from. Even if evolutionary theory were true, what does it matter whether or not people know this true. It would serve zero value to society in knowing this. Again, I'd propose that even in an atheistic universe, it would be more beneficial for all to be truly Christian than for all to be atheist. Hitler and Stalin (two atheists) were, along with Mao (probably an atheist, im not sure), were responsible for more death than anyone else in the history of the universe.

You say you desire your kids and for people generally to basically 'not be ignorant' and know the truth about our origins. Please tell me why this truly matters. You can give me all your subjective reasons (as you tried to do), but they are no more valuable than another atheist who says he wants everyone to believe in creation (even though he knows evolution is true). If you just try to think a little bit deeper, perhaps you will know what im really saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

See hedonism, logical positivism, utilitarianism, etc. There are other ways to make value judgements other than by what your religion tells you.

If you are not able to understand that there are ways of actually assessing the value of something even if you are an atheist, I don't see why anyone else here should bother responding to you.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget the high falootin philosophers. Not Ready is right about them. But you are confused also. For the fifth time at least:

The meaning of life is:


Topless dancers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly I have missed something again. I thought we had all agreed that the meaning of life is to SIIHP.