I have commonly seen theists use the anthropic principle to defend the belief in a creator and to attempt to justify the idea that this being created the universe with life in mind.

I have yet to see this argument against this principle being used for said purposes and I would like to hear some answers to this idea by those who might better know the anthropic principle than I. I am familiar with other arguments that supply possibilities of parallel universes and such but I am curious if there actually is a fatal error in the very basis of this principle that has clearly arisen due to an obvious presupposition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

Due to the "proof in the pudding"[mmmmmmmmm pudding] thread, I was thinking about irrationality.

I'm not really trying to "prove" or really argue anything here, these are just my thoughts.

I think it's rather obvious that irrationality is in our nature. Nobody is 100% rational.

I mean compare Creationists to 9/11 "truthers". Both are insanely irrational, both compartmentlize, both massively project, hold to double standards etc...

But here's the thing:

The Creationist most likely grew up in a Creationist household, was exposed to Creationism from relatives and friends etc...

The 9/11 "truther" , however, was most likely not. It is highly unlikely they attended weekly meetings of 9/11 being an inside job. It is unlikely that they were raised as a "truther" [since most of them probably were adults when 9/11 happened]. Most probably just came to their beliefs without a lot of coehersive pressure from friends/relatives.

Even on the Creationist side, take VenomFangX and Kirk Cameron, both claim they were former evolutionists/atheists, I have no idea about Kirk, but Venom says that he converted after he saw Kent Hovind video.

Even look at the "atheist" countries, the same survey that said that 23% of Swedes believe in God, also revealed that

This thread will serve as a critique of Daniel Dennett's book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (more specifically, it will focus on his explanation for the emergence of consciousness as found on pages 173-176 of Chapter 7)

I have asked repeatedly for materialists on this particular forum to explain to me how insentient bits of matter in motion give rise to sentient bits of matter in motion. The standard response is: "Consciousness is an emergent property." But this isn't really a scientific theory or a materialistic explanation. It's simply an evasive tactic. I would simply prefer the honest reply: "I don't know how. My belief in materialism is ultimately based on a faith commitment."

In his book entitled "Consciousness Explained," philosopher Daniel Dennett states that if your model of consciousness requires that "you have to say "then a miracle" occurs you haven't begun to explain what consciousness is." pg. 455

Hey everyone. I've read some other threads where people have tried to help people here with troubling issues.

My problem is this, and it was my fault for getting pulled in:

I got dragged into one of those vortices of philosophical debate, that of 'moral authority.' Basically, I stated that my position is that morality is, for the most part, arbitrary and changes over time. To which another poster said "Then you believe X, Y, and Z nasty things are okay because you have no authority to say it's not wrong." This is, not surprisingly, coming from a theist.

Anyway, I need some help here. My moral philosophy is really crude, but I feel like it should be able to stand on its own with a bit of help from folks here.

Here's the link, and it's been frustrating me for days: http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1803&start=200

I have noticed that I am getting far too angry and am starting to resort to my usual snarkiness.

I think it's best to clear something up, to determine if my perception is accurate, or it is merely bias.

It's because of the absurd double standard I see on this board.

Here is a perfect example

Look at the stats the OP posted.

Look at the stats I posted.

I can just see the responses to my stats pouring in now.

"They just SAY they're Theist"

"You're ignoring the other factors!"

"That doesn't show anything!"

I know nobody has said that [yet], but from what I've seen, that is my prediction. And that is preciously why I just get so pissed off.  It's like stats are only valid if they are convient. 

Here's another gem

It can pretty much be summed up as "Well, I don't make that argument, therefore your perception is wrong."

Where I work I am accountable to meet certain metrics. We review these values periodically and set goals at a quarterly basis to try and meet and/or improve these values. If we don't meet our objectives, we are obligated to identify a valid reason or we take a hit on our bonuses and even potentially get RIF'd (Reduction In Force).

I often see debate around here regarding the benefits of Christianity on our society and the potential harm Atheism has on our morality. If this is the case it should be quite apparent by gathering a few key metrics. The first question I asked is where do we expect to see this influence of Christianity and the obvious answer was the United States.

United States

* Christian: (78.5%)
          o Protestant (51.3%)
          o Roman Catholic (23.9%)
          o Mormon (1.7%)
          o other Christian (1.6%)
    * unaffiliated (12.1%)
    * none (4%)
    * other or unspecified (2.5%)
    * Jewish (1.7%)
    * Buddhist (0.7%)
    * Muslim (0.6%)

Christianity accounts for 78.5% of the population, that would seem to qualify this nation as a Christian majority.

it turns out i accidentally founded a new religion.

i was on facebook arguing with some christians when i came up with a religion merely for arguments sake. turns our people are starting to take it seriously, so i made a facebook page. that was on saturday. in only afew days i already have roughly 20 followers, despite the fact that we say that the universe was made last wednesday, and that the earth is made from a burnt marshmallow.

specifically, i started by saying this;

manofmanynames,

You say you are unafraid of confrontation. GREAT! I wish more theists would take your attitude insted of falsely equating blasphemy and criticism to hate.

NOW, lets get on with it.

1. Define your god.

Then we will start from there.

For those of you who aren't atheists, and are wondering why we get all worked up all the time, I think I've figured out a way to show you:

I invented the wheel.

This video is from a British comedy show called Outnumbered.

Children are the future!