| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Martin Phipps" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2007 08:02:40 PM |
| Object: |
Intelligent Design? |
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
One obvious improvement over current design would be to have more
women than men. This should be obvious to farmers who breed animals:
you don't need a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women. Mormons who believe in polygomy
might wonder why God didn't design a world in which there were many
more women than men. This would also be an improvement for women in
many ways: in a democratic country, most of the leaders would be
women, as would most of the company executives, doctors, lawyers and
university professors. Men would only have a clear advantage when it
came to jobs that require upper body strength. It wouldn't be so much
of a patriarchial world if there were more women than men: if anything
women would have the upper hand and would perceive themselves as
"sharing" the available men (as opposed to being in harems for the
pleasure of men). It would also be a less violent world: most violent
crimes are commited by men, which reflects the fact that men are
perceived to be more aggressive than women; by extention you would
expect far less war and better negotiations between neighbouring
countries.
The reason why we have a 1:1 ratio of men to women is because of
biology: women have XX chromosomes whereas men have XY chromosomes and
when men produce sperm they produce an equal number carrying X and Y
chromosomes. Surely if God existed He could have done better than
that.
Martin
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 03:07:27 AM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not
designed to make people happy.
The theist would argue that people have the power to make
themselves & each other happy, and we choose not to use
that power.
It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live long
enough to pass on your genes.
If you're going to take it that far, you either conclude
that there's no purpose at all, or you're inventing
something of a contradiciton.
You're crediting life to some agent, some power, even as
you openly attack uch notions.
Surely if God existed he could have done a better job.
If anything, this is your biggest mistake. An commoner
in ancient times had quite a different perspective of
the world than you do. If a supreme being existed, you
would be more distant from it -- it's perspective --
than a commoner from ancient times is from you.
Put another way: You're arguing that God couldn't exist
unless he saw things & thought exactly like you. My usual
way of describing arguments like your's is: "An all
powerful, all seeing, all knowing being can't exist if
it doesn't think exactly like the close genetic relative
of a chimp.
Needless to say, it is ineffective on theists. You might
as well stick your hand in your armpit and make fart
noises, for all the good it'll do...
One obvious improvement over current design would
be to have more women than men. This should be
obvious to farmers who breed animals: you don't need
a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women.
This is *Seriously* flawed as well.
Farm animals don't provide for themselves. The farmer
does that.
So unless you're arguing that turning the human race
into pets or livestock would be an improvement, your
argument ends there. And if you are claiming that then,
well, I know a great many atheist who would argue
against you... argue that they wouldn't see being a pet
as an improvement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 03:37:33 AM |
|
|
On Mar 4, 5:07 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not
designed to make people happy.
The theist would argue that people have the power to make
themselves & each other happy, and we choose not to use
that power.
It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live long
enough to pass on your genes.
If you're going to take it that far, you either conclude
that there's no purpose at all, or you're inventing
something of a contradiciton.
You're crediting life to some agent, some power, even as
you openly attack such notions.
Why do we exist? Because we were born. Why were we born? Because
our parents had sex. Why did our parents have sex? Because they were
horny. Why were they horny? It was human instinct. Why do we have
this instinct? To pass on our genes. We exist to pass on our genes
and we exist because we pass on our genes. Instinct is the agent.
It's not supernatural.
Surely if God existed he could have done a better job.
If anything, this is your biggest mistake. An commoner
in ancient times had quite a different perspective of
the world than you do. If a supreme being existed, you
would be more distant from it -- it's perspective --
than a commoner from ancient times is from you.
Put another way: You're arguing that God couldn't exist
unless he saw things & thought exactly like you. My usual
way of describing arguments like your's is: "An all
powerful, all seeing, all knowing being can't exist if
it doesn't think exactly like the close genetic relative
of a chimp."
Needless to say, it is ineffective on theists. You might
as well stick your hand in your armpit and make fart
noises, for all the good it'll do...
One obvious improvement over current design would
be to have more women than men. This should be
obvious to farmers who breed animals: you don't need
a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women.
This is *Seriously* flawed as well.
Farm animals don't provide for themselves. The farmer
does that.
So unless you're arguing that turning the human race
into pets or livestock would be an improvement, your
argument ends there.
It is an argument that intelligent people can pick apart but it should
be great against theists who do, in fact, see themselves as sheep. :)
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
05 Mar 2007 04:14:58 PM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why do we exist? Because we were born. Why were we born?
Because our parents had sex. Why did our parents have sex?
Because they were horny. Why were they horny? It was
human instinct. Why do we have this instinct? To pass on
our genes.
No. You're describing it as an agent -- a force/intelligence
-- when an atheistic approach would be to describe it as a
result.
For example, I can drop a big stone in a little stream and
the water would flow around it. The water flowing around the
stone is simply a result. The water does not exist to flow
around the stone, and neither does the stone exist to make
the water flow around it. Things just happen that way.
Reason implies choice. If you prefer, it has the connotation.
"I left my shoes in front of the door for a reason. The reason
is because they were wet, I didn't want to tread on the carpet,
and I'm going right back out. That's why I left them there
instead of leaving them on or storing them someplace more
appropriate."
There's no "Reason" for existing, not from an atheistic view.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
03 Mar 2007 11:14:22 PM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
God did do a better job. The purpose of life is not to pass on your genes,
but to pay the price for something better.
One obvious improvement over current design would be to have more
women than men. This should be obvious to farmers who breed animals:
you don't need a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women.
What is so good about that? We need one man for each woman to take care of
her and provide for her as she cares for the children. How would you have
felt growing up with only a mommy? Or maybe you did, in which case it
wasn't that much fun, was it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 04:39:57 AM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
God did do a better job. The purpose of life is not to pass on your genes,
but to pay the price for something better.
Uh huh. Prove it.
Your opinion doesn't count.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
03 Mar 2007 11:43:55 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12ukld8mg8htr96@corp.supernews.com...
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
God did do a better job. The purpose of life is not to pass on your genes,
but to pay the price for something better.
Why is that?
And what is the price?
<snip>
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 12:22:28 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.po> wrote in message
news:45ea5c93$0$27047$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12ukld8mg8htr96@corp.supernews.com...
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
God did do a better job. The purpose of life is not to pass on your
genes,
but to pay the price for something better.
Why is that?
It is the only possible reason for going to work for so many years.
And what is the price?
The price is going to work every day, what you give up in life, in order to
obtain a better, more perfect tomorrow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 03:29:24 AM |
|
|
On Mar 4, 2:22 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <sto...@bellsouth.net.po> wrote in messagenews:45ea5c93$0$27047$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12ukld8mg8htr96@corp.supernews.com...
"Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
God did do a better job. The purpose of life is not to pass on your
genes,
but to pay the price for something better.
Why is that?
It is the only possible reason for going to work for so many years.
And what is the price?
The price is going to work every day, what you give up in life, in order to
obtain a better, more perfect tomorrow.
We can do that here on Earth. Your imaginary Heaven is just a
distraction.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 03:27:40 AM |
|
|
On Mar 4, 1:14 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
God did do a better job. The purpose of life is not to pass on your genes,
but to pay the price for something better.
If that were the case then we'd be better off going to Hell and then
seeing what comes after that. It'd be like a cosmic version of Deal
or No Deal. :)
One obvious improvement over current design would be to have more
women than men. This should be obvious to farmers who breed animals:
you don't need a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women.
What is so good about that? We need one man for each woman to take care of
her and provide for her as she cares for the children.
That is such a condescending view of women you have. Not all women
want to spend their lives raising children. Nor is it something all
women are particularly good at doing.
How would you have
felt growing up with only a mommy? Or maybe you did, in which case it
wasn't that much fun, was it?
Only boys need male role models so the key is to have the same ratio
of men to women in each generation.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 12:43:27 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com>
bloodied us up with this:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to
live long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he
could have done a better job.
God did do a better job. The purpose of life is not to pass on your
genes, but to pay the price for something better.
Something better? I guess this is typical of the delusional mindset.
Why can't you accept what you have? Are you that lazy that you can't
make what you have the best there is?
One obvious improvement over current design would be to have more
women than men. This should be obvious to farmers who breed animals:
you don't need a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women.
What is so good about that? We need one man for each woman to take
care of her and provide for her as she cares for the children. How
would you have felt growing up with only a mommy? Or maybe you did,
in which case it wasn't that much fun, was it?
That's sociology, not probability. And it's the thinking by this set of
society that their miserable lives can't be all there is. So they make
up an afterlife where their level of society gets exhaulted to the top,
and their superiors are cast into eternal agony. It makes life easier,
doesn't it?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
03 Mar 2007 09:33:14 PM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
One obvious improvement over current design would be to have more
women than men. This should be obvious to farmers who breed animals:
you don't need a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women. Mormons who believe in polygomy
might wonder why God didn't design a world in which there were many
more women than men. This would also be an improvement for women in
many ways: in a democratic country, most of the leaders would be
women, as would most of the company executives, doctors, lawyers and
university professors. Men would only have a clear advantage when it
came to jobs that require upper body strength. It wouldn't be so much
of a patriarchial world if there were more women than men: if anything
women would have the upper hand and would perceive themselves as
"sharing" the available men (as opposed to being in harems for the
pleasure of men). It would also be a less violent world: most violent
crimes are commited by men, which reflects the fact that men are
perceived to be more aggressive than women; by extention you would
expect far less war and better negotiations between neighbouring
countries.
I don't know the situation where you are, but here in the UK there is a
strong trend towards young women becoming more violent/aggressive.
Some are even more violent/aggressive than their male counterparts.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 12:27:00 AM |
|
|
In article <1172973760.174436.93740@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
martinphipps2@yahoo.com says...
by extention you would
expect far less war and better negotiations between neighbouring
countries.
Maybe, if they didn't all make catty comments about what the other women
were wearing.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
03 Mar 2007 09:11:13 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2007 18:02:40 -0800, "Martin Phipps"
<martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
One obvious improvement over current design would be to have more
women than men. This should be obvious to farmers who breed animals:
you don't need a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women. Mormons who believe in polygomy
might wonder why God didn't design a world in which there were many
more women than men. This would also be an improvement for women in
many ways: in a democratic country, most of the leaders would be
women, as would most of the company executives, doctors, lawyers and
university professors. Men would only have a clear advantage when it
came to jobs that require upper body strength. It wouldn't be so much
of a patriarchial world if there were more women than men: if anything
women would have the upper hand and would perceive themselves as
"sharing" the available men (as opposed to being in harems for the
pleasure of men). It would also be a less violent world: most violent
crimes are commited by men, which reflects the fact that men are
perceived to be more aggressive than women; by extention you would
expect far less war and better negotiations between neighbouring
countries.
The reason why we have a 1:1 ratio of men to women is because of
biology: women have XX chromosomes whereas men have XY chromosomes and
when men produce sperm they produce an equal number carrying X and Y
chromosomes. Surely if God existed He could have done better than
that.
It's not just mathematics, Martin. Without bothering to explain it to
you from memory, let me just suggest you pick up a copy of "The Red
Queen" by Matt Ridley. It's one of the most profound books I've ever
read, equivalent almost to Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". Ridley
explains the origin of sex and several things about sex, such as why
there are an equal number of men as women.
Ridley's book has the same ring of truth that I felt about Dawkin's
book 25 years ago. If he isn't right on the money, then he's at least
very close.
___________________
Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
05 Mar 2007 07:46:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:02:40 -0800, Martin Phipps wrote:
One thing that seems obvious to me is that life is not designed to
make people happy. It seems to me that the purpose of life is to live
long enough to pass on your genes. Surely if God existed he could
have done a better job.
One obvious improvement over current design would be to have more
women than men. This should be obvious to farmers who breed animals:
you don't need a 1:1 ratio of men to women because a single male can
impregnate a whole group of women. Mormons who believe in polygomy
might wonder why God didn't design a world in which there were many
more women than men. This would also be an improvement for women in
many ways: in a democratic country, most of the leaders would be
women, as would most of the company executives, doctors, lawyers and
university professors. Men would only have a clear advantage when it
came to jobs that require upper body strength. It wouldn't be so much
of a patriarchial world if there were more women than men: if anything
women would have the upper hand and would perceive themselves as
"sharing" the available men (as opposed to being in harems for the
pleasure of men). It would also be a less violent world: most violent
crimes are commited by men, which reflects the fact that men are
perceived to be more aggressive than women; by extention you would
expect far less war and better negotiations between neighbouring
countries.
The reason why we have a 1:1 ratio of men to women is because of
biology: women have XX chromosomes whereas men have XY chromosomes and
when men produce sperm they produce an equal number carrying X and Y
chromosomes. Surely if God existed He could have done better than
that.
For that matter, why go with sexual reproduction at all? It's risky in
terms of disease. Particularly before modern medicine. And child birth
used to be a leading killer of women.
Surely a "god" could come up with a better way...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
05 Mar 2007 08:41:55 AM |
|
|
On Mar 5, 9:46 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
For that matter, why go with sexual reproduction at all?
Be careful what you wish for. Cloning may well be the future but some
of us are going to prefer the old fashioned way of reproducing. ;)
It's risky in
terms of disease. Particularly before modern medicine. And child birth
used to be a leading killer of women.
Our heads are just too big to pop out of our mothers easily. If God
existed then he should have designed us with smaller heads.
Look at it this way: if God existed and he wanted us to be sheep then
why would he have created us at all? Why not create sheep and leave
it at that?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
05 Mar 2007 09:45:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:41:55 -0800, Martin Phipps wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:46 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
For that matter, why go with sexual reproduction at all?
Be careful what you wish for. Cloning may well be the future but some
of us are going to prefer the old fashioned way of reproducing. ;)
Ah but by the time we can do that, we'll probably also be able to do some
really wicked "virtual"... um... entertainment. <G>
It's risky in
terms of disease. Particularly before modern medicine. And child birth
used to be a leading killer of women.
Our heads are just too big to pop out of our mothers easily. If God
existed then he should have designed us with smaller heads.
Or bigger women. Apparently, based on our head/brain size, human gestation
*should last about 21 months. Which makes sense when you think about how
other animals get up and walk within hours of being born and we take
another twelve months just to stop drooling.
Basically, we're all "premies."
Look at it this way: if God existed and he wanted us to be sheep then
why would he have created us at all? Why not create sheep and leave
it at that?
Dunno but whoever designed the human spine was a sadist...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 12:32:12 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com>
bloodied us up with this:
The reason why we have a 1:1 ratio of men to women is because of
biology: women have XX chromosomes whereas men have XY chromosomes and
when men produce sperm they produce an equal number carrying X and Y
chromosomes. Surely if God existed He could have done better than
that.
It's 50/50 just like the probability that your prayer will be answered.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 07:29:33 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98E8E545AC3E7vicman@66.250.146.128...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com>
bloodied us up with this:
The reason why we have a 1:1 ratio of men to women is because of
biology: women have XX chromosomes whereas men have XY chromosomes and
when men produce sperm they produce an equal number carrying X and Y
chromosomes. Surely if God existed He could have done better than
that.
It's 50/50 just like the probability that your prayer will be answered.
The probability that any prayer will be answered is zero.
The probability that any prayer will _appear_ to be answered is 50/50.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 09:50:55 PM |
|
|
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
The probability that any prayer will be answered is
zero. The probability that any prayer will _appear_
to be answered is 50/50.
Dude, if that were true James Randi would have paid
out the million, or been exposed as a hoax, YEARS
ago...
I think what you wanted to say is that the probibility
for a person receiving a positive result from their
prayer is identical to them receiving the same positive
result without praying.
...though I doubt that there's a living theists who
wouldn't claim that this isn't true.
Then again, it's scientifically meaningless. It's
untestable. Silent prayers? Hello? And just what is a
prayer? Does reciting the Pledge of allegience move
one over to the "praying" column?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 10:54:51 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173066655.741714.83010@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
The probability that any prayer will be answered is
zero. The probability that any prayer will _appear_
to be answered is 50/50.
Dude, if that were true James Randi would have paid
out the million, or been exposed as a hoax, YEARS
ago...
Think of it this way.
"Please (add diety(s) of your choice), XYZ is very ill, don't let him die."
If XYZ recovers, it appears to the theist that the prayer has been answered.
If XYZ dies, it appears to the theist that the prayer hasn't been answered.
It, therefore, appears to the theist that the probability of their prayers
being answered is around 50/50 (depending on how ill/likely to recover XYZ
was). The law of averages states that, given two choices (XYZ lives or XYZ
dies/heads or tails), you're going to guess right about 50% of the time,
with a large enough sample.
I think what you wanted to say is that the probibility
for a person receiving a positive result from their
prayer is identical to them receiving the same positive
result without praying.
Agreed, hence the statement that the probability of a prayer (actually)
being answered is zero,
But that's not what I was saying.
...though I doubt that there's a living theists who
wouldn't claim that this isn't true.
Agreed. See above.
Then again, it's scientifically meaningless. It's
untestable. Silent prayers? Hello? And just what is a
prayer? Does reciting the Pledge of allegience move
one over to the "praying" column?
Theists 'know' what a prayer is or isn't :-)
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design? |
04 Mar 2007 08:31:59 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> bloodied us up
with this:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98E8E545AC3E7vicman@66.250.146.128...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com>
bloodied us up with this:
The reason why we have a 1:1 ratio of men to women is because of
biology: women have XX chromosomes whereas men have XY chromosomes and
when men produce sperm they produce an equal number carrying X and Y
chromosomes. Surely if God existed He could have done better than
that.
It's 50/50 just like the probability that your prayer will be answered.
The probability that any prayer will be answered is zero.
The probability that any prayer will _appear_ to be answered is 50/50.
Smiler,
The godless one
I meant to say that...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
