Christians, Carnivals, Shakespeare, and Atheists
by When it comes to reasoning and intellectual ability is it really the Christian who is guilty of “blind mindless faith”?
“Hurry, hurry, hurry…”
I love carnivals. Walking down the Midway and seeing all the rides and games of skill and chance. All the pretty lights and interesting noises that distract you from the business at hand. “Come one, come all…” the barker cries, “…three balls for a dollar. Try your luck. Just break three plates and get your choice of any of these beee-utiful prizes.” Of course no one tells you the balls are weighted or that the plates are set up so they just chip and never completely break. The only person who can break all three is the carnie, or an ex-carnie. (or if you’ve practiced a lot and bring a really pretty girl with you)
I also love talking to atheists because they are always such a bundle of conflicting “facts”, opinions, and complete and utter nonsense.
One of the most interesting I’ve heard recently is the opinion that Christians are “mindless followers”, “sheep”, accepting everything on “blind faith”. As one atheist snickered recently “Why do you think they call them a “flock”?
Personally, I find this amusing because of the sheer number of “Dawkin-ites” who blindly and without discrimination absorb the drivel put out by author and ethologist (someone who studies animal behavior) Richard Dawkins. The man should include carnival huckster in his biography for some of the “scams” he puts forward as proof of the non-necessity of God.
“Come one, come all…”
My favorite is the “Methinks it is like a weasel” scam which basically goes like this – Dawkins says that life comes from non-life, that life happened on it’s own, something we have yet to see today, or have been able to force to happen, somewhere in the distant past the components of life arranged themselves randomly and became life. To illustrate this the first thing he does is to reference the probability concept of an infinite numbers of monkeys in a room. typing on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinitely long time, would sooner or later have to produce all the works of Shakespeare by chance.
The first problem with this is that it violates the laws of statistical impossibility. Something that has an exponentially small chance of happening is statistically impossible.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentStephen Segall, MD
On August 16, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“I also love talking to atheists because they are always such a bundle of conflicting “facts”, opinions, and complete and utter nonsense.”
Thanks for establishing the tenor of this conversation and affording me the opportunity to write without regard to your sensibilities. I realize that other freethinkers have done this to you and other theists in the past, but that was them and then, and this is me and now.
“the drivel put out by author and ethologist Richard Dawkins. The man should include carnival huckster in his biography for some of the “scams” he puts forward as proof of the non-necessity of God.”
How ironic that a religious huckster and charlatan such as you would choose to say such a thing about Sir Richard Dawkins, Ph.D. I visited the page linked to your name to see what your credentials, but found none, just some pictures of women, a polar bear and grass growing.
You do realize that your tone and your slurs have not only completely discredited you, but justifies my disrespect for you as well, don’t you?
“Something that has an exponentially small chance of happening is statistically impossible. “
You need a better dictionary.
“Let’s use a simple example to demonstrate . . . Statistical impossibility is just like this. If something is statistically impossible, it is impossible.”
Yes, but nonthing that you have described so far, however unlikely, is impossible. If something is statistically unlikely, it is possible. And with the passage of time, it becomes ever more likely. So this whole train of thought is fallacious. Have you acquired that dictionary yet?
The first thing Dawkins does that proves he’s a carnie, is attempt to rig the game. So he picks what he wants the outcome to be. When you know where you want to go it’s always much easier to get there.
Here’s a cartoon that you might enjoy: http://breakingspells.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/science-religion.gif
“What a crock of crap!”
My sentiments exactly.
Stephen J. Ardent
On August 16, 2009 at 3:05 pm
What a stunning refutation! It’s wrong because you say so. LOL!
I do have a question though, what is it about the new atheist movement that just loves boring cartoons?
And why do atheists think that cartoons somehow cover the lack of critical thinking that goes into not only their responses but their core beliefs as well.
Stunning example, bravo!
norbert
On August 27, 2009 at 6:29 pm
You’re completely wrong about the weasel program – it does not lock-in matching letters. I’ve written a version myself and can send you both the code and the results so you can explore it for yourself.
The program generates a number of “progeny” sentences, which are mutated versions of a parent sentence. It then compares all the progeny to the target sentence and picks the closest match, then repeats the step, using this “best-fit” progeny as the new parent. At no point is any letter locked-down.
Furthermore you’ve completely misunderstood the point of the program. It’s not a demonstration of how life comes from non-life (where did you get that idea?), nor is it intended to “destroy the faith of believers” (please!). As Dawkins himself stated in the Blind Watchmaker, it’s simply to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection over a purely random search.
Stephen J. Ardent
On September 7, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I’m terrible sorry to break this to you “norbert”, but the letters are locked down in the original program. This by definition is the fairy story of “cumulative evolution”. The act of choosing the progeny phrase is the act of locking into place the result you want to end up with. It is carnival semantics to whitewash any other way. It is a cheat and a lie, and sadly we do not find cumulative evolution at play anywhere in nature.
norbert
On September 10, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Hi Stephen,
I said the program demonstrates “cumulative selection”. We do find this in nature all the time. One example is the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The ability of a given strain of bacteria to withstand the effects of an antibiotic is variable within a population (i.e. some bacteria are less resistant to the antibiotic, while some are more resistant). Those bacteria with more resistance are more likely to survive a dose of the antibiotic. The survivor’s progeny inherit this antibiotic resistance. That’s how so-called “super bugs” evolve that hospitals are having such a difficult time combating.
Note that I’m not claiming the bacteria evolve into a new species. Speciation is not what the “weasel” program is meant to demonstrate. It simply demonstrates, in a fairly trivial way, the concept of “cumulative selection”.
Regards,
“norbert”
Stephen J. Ardent
On September 10, 2009 at 9:57 pm
The weeding out of intolerant bacteria, the same thing as deliberately breeding for a particular trait are well known. It is not however cumulative evolution. Natural selection yes. Cumulative evolution forecasts that whole functioning systems come together at the same time, which they must, otherwise there would be no benefit to pass on an incomplete or non-functioning system. And it just doesn’t happen. It cannot apply to the “weasel” program because the the letters are not a functioning system to begin with, and they do not become one without manipulation, and without the manipulation another spin of the letters and the configuration would be lost.
norbert
On September 10, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I used the phrase “cumulative selection” not “cumulative evolution”. The weasel program is a simple demonstration of “cumulative selection”, just like what we see in selective breeding and the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. It’s nothing more than that.
Stephen J. Ardent
On September 11, 2009 at 12:48 am
Which is why it’s a semantic fraud. Thank you.