The Bicker Board

[MyManao]

So go ahead and show that other posters believe in the supernatural...

Clarke's three laws seems apropos..

From.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages that are known as Clarke's three laws, of which the third law – that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" – is the best known and most widely cited. They are part of his ideas in his extensive writings about the future.

The laws are:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
   
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
   

And, as the article states, number three is very fitting for all this 'supernatural' dissing. As several have pointed out, how pompous does one have to be to demand that they know what they are going on about? Especially when we consider how primitive of a species we are. But OMG numero uno.. was written as if good ol' Arthur was hanging here on PW and describing our wannabe specifically.

[TomK]

And, as the article states, number three is very fitting for all this 'supernatural' dissing. As several have pointed out, how pompous does one have to be to demand that they know what they are going on about? Especially when we consider how primitive of a species we are. But OMG numero uno.. was written as if good ol' Arthur was hanging here on PW and describing our wannabe specifically.

(bolding is mine)

How do "we" determine how primitive a species we are? The time we have been in existence, the level of intelligence we've achieved, or something else? Is it because you are pompous enough to believe you talk for everyone, or is "we" a special group of people? We have no evidence of any other intelligent civilization we can compare ourselves to, so I'm wondering how you've determined that we're so primitive. I can easily make the argument that a belief in gods comes from an age when the human race was much more primitive than it is now, viewed itself as the center of whatever universe it conceived, and believed that moving objects in the sky were gods or somehow controlled what happened on Earth. Somehow, those beliefs still exist today within certain groups of people. Perhaps those groups are the "we" you refer to, I don't know.

[kalakoa]

How do "we" determine how primitive a species we are?

The same way "The" "Native" Hawaiians know who they are.

[TomK]

That makes no sense at all. Care to qualify what you mean?

[TomK]

Clarke's three laws seems apropos..

From.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages that are known as Clarke's three laws, of which the third law – that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" – is the best known and most widely cited. They are part of his ideas in his extensive writings about the future.

The laws are:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
   
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
   

And, as the article states, number three is very fitting for all this 'supernatural' dissing. As several have pointed out, how pompous does one have to be to demand that they know what they are going on about? Especially when we consider how primitive of a species we are. But OMG numero uno.. was written as if good ol' Arthur was hanging here on PW and describing our wannabe specifically.

I'm struggling to find the relevance of this to anything. Arthur C Clarke was a sci-fi author and contributed to the idea of geostationary orbits. Other than that, what does this have to do with anything? It seems to me you're just reaching out and grabbing anything to make a point, no matter what it addresses. And now you're suggesting aliens or gods with technology are here, but we don't understand them? Seriously?

What comes next? Star Trek quotes?

[TomK]

TomK - It's much easier to show that other posters believe in the supernatural.
So go ahead and show that other posters believe in the supernatural. That a belief in the hard problem of consciousness, or in unseen and little understood powers, or Newton's alchemical ideas and practices are outside of the natural world.

Your desperate attempts at earning your junior Horseman of New Atheism badge only demonstrates how little you've actually thought about or studied these issues.

Maybe instead of engaging in freshman reductive materialism, go read anything of substance on these topics and come back with some new ideas instead of repeatedly parroting Dawkins, Hitcheson, et al. and actually engage in the conversation at hand, instead of the one you're imagining in your head as you're the only one going on about fairies, leprechauns, and mermaids.

What a load of codswallup. Not only do you engage in ad hominems you show no evidence to argue about. It's just a bunch of insults. Of course, I mentioned fairies, leprechauns, and mermaids, as there's the same amount of evidence that any of them exists as a god. None of that group is seen as omnipotent; they didn't create the universe, nor did they create a planet where there is so much suffering and armed conflict. They didn't create a world where children die horribly from cancer, yet have people build churches, temples, cathedrals, etc., because they need to be worshipped. What an asshole.

[Rob Tucker]

Tom, the single most clear thing you posted a couple posts back was "I don't know". No one does. That's the main overall point.

[TomK]

If you don't know, why even believe in a god? There has to be a reason you believe in such a being. What is it? I don't go around building things that claim to be the church of atheism. There's no need for that, but something makes people think there's a god, fights wars in his name, deals with all the suffering a god must take some responsibility for, unless that being is an omnipotent, uncaring entity that only exists if people have faith, and even then doesn't show up when needed.

[Rob Tucker]

Good idea.

[TomK]

How is anything I said in the post you responded to a "good idea"? I know your idea is to spam "good idea" when asked difficult questions, but seriously? Don't you feel at least a little bit stupid for spamming the same thing again when no idea has been presented? It's pretty clear you can't answer the question honestly which was:

"If you don't know, why even believe in a god?"

It's a sad reflection on religion and those who believe in a god. Ask them a question and you get insults in return and spam saying "good idea". At least Punatang makes an effort which I appreciate. Others just do what they can to avoid answering simple questions. Now let me ask you this, Rob. The christian bible has several passages in it that endorse slavery. Do you think slavery is a good idea or a bad one?