# DAwkins interviews creationist automaton



## Ramirez

This is funny as hell, this women's blank stare and fixed smile is just creepy.

  It is like watching Richard Feynman trying to explain quantum mechanics to Pamela Anderson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs&feature=PlayList&p=BB2DE15B73D30FCE&index=0


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> This is funny as hell, this women's blank stare and fixed smile is just creepy.
> 
> It is like watching Richard Feynman trying to explain quantum mechanics to Pamela Anderson.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs&feature=PlayList&p=BB2DE15B73D30FCE&index=0



I would first like to say that I believe that evolution is scientific fact, not fiction.

Having said that, I would also like to say that I do not disbelieve in the concept of Creationism, even if it is not literally as described by many religious persons and texts.  As a Catholic, my Pope has stated that the concept of evolution is not incompatible with that of Creation.  They could well both be true, in ways that we do not yet understand.

With specific reference to videos such as this, I dislike setups designed to make another person look stupid as if that proves one's point.  Yes, Dawkins is very intelligent, and the woman being interviewed is not an intellectual match for him.  This hardly makes Dawkins right, it simply means he wins the debate.

Why must debate on serious topics be mockery?  Is that the only way to make one's point, to 'win' the argument?


----------



## Dirty Dog

And people think that zombies aren't real....


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> With specific reference to videos such as this, I dislike setups designed to make another person look stupid as if that proves one's point.



Well I am the one saying that she isn't too bright not Dawkins.

actually that woman seems to have quite a lot of influence in her particular baliwick.  

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2107


Really , she is a good candidate to illustrate his point.


 Did you watch the entire interview?  Dawkins is (unusually) quite gentle with her, even saying at one point he doesn't understand how an intelligent woman like her can keep denying the evidence when he keeps putting it in front of her.

Edit: In fact there are some youtube posters saying he was too easy on her and perhaps someone more harsh like Christopher Hitchens would have really made her look foolish.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> Did you watch the entire interview?  Dawkins is (unusually) quite gentle with her, even saying at one point he doesn't understand how an intelligent woman like her can keep denying the evidence when he keeps putting it in front of her.
> 
> Edit: In fact there are some youtube posters saying he was too easy on her and perhaps someone more harsh like Christopher Hitchens would have really made her look foolish.



I don't know Dawkins, but to me he comes off as snarkish.  He's 'gentle' because he knows he has made her look foolish and unintelligent.  Again, that kind of mismatch doesn't prove right or wrong - it just makes him look like a colossal jerk (at least to me).

This is precisely why I no longer read Boing-Boing.  What was once rational debate from the side of the Left became nothing more than a snark-fest and let's pull down their pants and laugh at them bully tactics.  If that gets you off, good for you.  It does nothing for me.


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know Dawkins, but to me he comes off as snarkish.  He's 'gentle' because he knows he has made her look foolish and unintelligent.  Again, that kind of mismatch doesn't prove right or wrong - it just makes him look like a colossal jerk (at least to me).



 Well to paraphrase Alan Rickman from Bottle Shock you think he's an @sshole, he isn't, its just that he is British and you're not.


----------



## Jenna

I think that Richard Dawkins and his array of minions are wholly blind in their own dogma.  The irony is thick as fog around Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al.  That they deride those who oppose their viewpoint as "indoctrinated" and "fundamentalist" without appreciating the depth of their own unswerving creed is just too unbearable for me to take them seriously.  Though the concepts may arguably be well-founded, I pity neo-Darwin theorists having to suffer the lamentable Dawkins as a figurehead.  Understanding concepts without understanding the motivations of the people to whom those concepts supposedly apply is not the mark of superior intellect in my opinion.



Ramirez said:


> Well to paraphrase Alan Rickman from Bottle Shock you think he's an @sshole, he isn't, its just that he is British and you're not.


Is Richard Dawkins' nationality pertinent??


----------



## Ramirez

Jenna said:


> I think that Richard Dawkins and his array of minions are wholly blind in their own dogma.



If you want to argue his atheist philosophy you may have a point, here however the subject is just evolution,  there is no dogma, just empirical evidence.


----------



## Jenna

Ramirez said:


> If you want to argue his atheist philosophy you may have a point, here however the subject is just evolution,  there is no dogma, just empirical evidence.


Haha no I think the server here is too scarce on space to contemplate creationism vs evolution  I am stating only that Richard Dawkins in particular is, in the most ironic way possible, horribly evangelical in his preaching.. Almost, um, fundamentalist, I would suggest Jenna x


----------



## Omar B

Funny.  I'm an atheist but I've never read Dawkin's book, but people keep recommending it to me.


----------



## Jenna

Omar B said:


> Funny.  I'm an atheist but I've never read Dawkin's book, but people keep recommending it to me.


As an athiest, you should read Dawkins in exactly the same way that you might read the Bible or the Qur'an ie. as though you were reading the literature of the proselytiser.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Dawkins, Hitchens and many others are constantly debated about their beliefs, the creationists put out many intelligent folks to do so. They will accept any debate, any time, with anybody.

  I doubt Dawkins just decided one morning to walk in and debate the woman, Im sure there were schedules to organize, they must have needed her permission to talk with her, permission to film it, a release, etc. I doubt this woman is some poor deer in the headlights who got caught as she walked into work one morning, I would be surprised if she didnt get a few weeks notice. 

  RD didnt make her look foolish and unintelligent, she did that all by herself. 

   She has said many things in the past that no one has challenged her on, so RD chatted with her. No different then a politician being asked questions about a subject they claim to be an expert about. What, because she lacks the knowledge base to back up her claims, she should get a bi? If she lacks the knowledge to defend her position, she should not say anything at all. Dawkins prepares himself very well, so does Hitchens, Harris and Dennet, they probably know the scriptures better then most of the people they chat with. 

  If it was Dennet, Hitchens or Harris chatting with her, they would have taken her throat.

  Heres the four horsemen http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890# 

  Why do people always think that the atheists come from the left?? The terms are not synonymous. Ive been a card carrying conservative for over 25 years, I know many atheists on the right.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Jenna said:


> Haha no I think the server here is too scarce on space to contemplate creationism vs evolution  I am stating only that Richard Dawkins in particular is, in the most ironic way possible, horribly evangelical in his preaching.. Almost, um, fundamentalist, I would suggest Jenna x



Actually No. Provide the evidence to prove his point wrong and he will change his mind. You can't say that about the theists.


----------



## Ramirez

Ken raises a good point Bill, this woman is out there promoting a ideology is a public figure and probably working actively to prevent evolution being taught in public schools.

 Why should you think Dawkins is making her look foolish when she puts herself in the public forum willingly?


----------



## Ken Morgan

Jenna said:


> As an athiest, you should read Dawkins in exactly the same way that you might read the Bible or the Qur'an ie. as though you were reading the literature of the proselytiser.



   Actually religious scriptures are fiction and Dawkins is non fiction. Did you ever read his works?


----------



## Jenna

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually No. Provide the evidence to prove his point wrong and he will change his mind. You can't say that about the theists.


LOLs.. I think to ask me for evidence of the existence of a deity is quite peculiar. I am a poster on a martial arts forum?


----------



## Omar B

It would be great to believe in all that religious stuff, but I just can't.  Many other atheists I meet are of the same mindset.  We did not accept faith (belief without proof) but rather arrived at a conclusion.  When the religious call atheists closed minded and dogmatic I find it a bit funny, it's like they are looking in a mirror.


----------



## Jenna

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually religious scriptures are fiction and Dawkins is non fiction. Did you ever read his works?


Yes, very good.  I have read Dawkins pamphlets.  Dry and but quite entertaining.  I would recommend them certainly.  I have also spoken to him [albeit momentarily] at their last "There's Probably No God" campaign that they ran on the buses here.. I would not rescind my opinion of him


----------



## Gordon Nore

Ramirez said:


> Why should you think Dawkins is making her look foolish when she puts herself in the public forum willingly?



I think that provides the basis for the interview. It's not like Dawkins showed up out of the blue, and she gave the interview.

Now it's interesting that atheism has been thrown into the Creationism/Evolution debate. One doesn't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Similarly, a Christian does not have to believe in Creationism.

Evolutionists are not on the side of scientific rightness (dare I say, correctness) because they are atheists; they're on the scientifically correct side because they are talking about science, not faith or religion.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Well to paraphrase Alan Rickman from Bottle Shock you think he's an @sshole, he isn't, its just that he is British and you're not.


I think he was behaving like an ******* also, and I am British.


----------



## Sukerkin

I can see I'm going to have to watch this now so as to be able to increase the sample size to two .


----------



## arnisador

Jenna said:


> Richard Dawkins



He's speaking near us next week, I think--we are trying to get tickets.



> The irony is thick as fog around Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al.  That they deride those who oppose their viewpoint as "indoctrinated" and "fundamentalist" without appreciating the depth of their own unswerving creed is just too unbearable for me to take them seriously.  Though the concepts may arguably be well-founded



...for example, the fact that medicine works...



> I pity neo-Darwin theorists having to suffer the lamentable Dawkins as a figurehead.  Understanding concepts without understanding the motivations of the people to whom those concepts supposedly apply is not the mark of superior intellect in my opinion.



Well, it's the mark of a scientific intellect.

Richard Dawkins is just the best-known of those few scientists who bother to try to refute the anti-scientific bleatings of the creationists. Here's an excerpt on the subject, from his latest book:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140


----------



## celtic_crippler

The "facts" that go against evolution?

Evolution is "questionable"? 

There's "no" evidence for evolution?

"Close-mindedness"?

....sigh...wow...

Whatever...I had to stop watching because it occured to me that this person may actually have some sort of influence over things that may effect my life and that really disturbed me. 

She's not the only person on the planet living in La-La Land. 

I don't know why people still cling to supernatural gobbeldy-gook in the 21st century. 

This woman would probably think it silly for a grown up to believe in the Tooth Fairy yet in the same breath expects you to belive that an invisible man wave his hand and created  you and me out of dirt. 

This same person would most likely think you insane for praying to Poseidon to stop the flooding caused by the recent Tsunamis, yet encourage you to accept that praying to her "god" would be more productive. 

Hypocrosy and ignorance. I dream of a day when people no longer cling to the supernatural to explain things or for relief from strife and instead take it upon themselves to what they can to better their world. 

I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. That is not my intent, but you can not deny the evidence. 

...well...I guess you can...as evidenced here... but claiming the sky is green does not change the fact that it appears blue to most and that it is caused by how the human eye distinguishes color and how our atmosphere filters particles of light.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Gordon Nore said:


> I think that provides the basis for the interview. It's not like Dawkins showed up out of the blue, and she gave the interview.
> 
> Now it's interesting that atheism has been thrown into the Creationism/Evolution debate. One doesn't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Similarly, a Christian does not have to believe in Creationism.
> 
> Evolutionists are not on the side of scientific rightness (dare I say, correctness) because they are atheists; they're on the scientifically correct side because they are talking about science, not faith or religion.


QFT! I believe in evolution and creatitionsm. There is irrefutible evidence of evolution and now the Wilkinson probe has tracked the known universe to its beginning (almost). The trouble is that there is noone out there who can supply evidence of what was there the second before that beginning, if anything. There is noone out there who can explain why or even how it happened. At that point there is just speculation.

The trouble with Dawkins and Hitchens is that you can agree with them about evolution but if you disagree with their opinion that there is no deity, you will be dismissed as being ignorant.

Their atheism is the new intolerant religion. This interview was chosen by Dawkins because the woman's refusal to accept any and all evolutionary theories is quite frankly kooky and he want to tar all other 'believers with the same brush. It really is in the Michael Moore style of cherry picking.


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> I think he was behaving like an ******* also, and I am British.



That was a joke, but please he was being incredibly easy on her, she gave him so many opportunities to make her look like a bigger fool and didn't take them,  like Ken said Hitchens would have had her in tears.


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> Their atheism is the new intolerant religion. This interview was chosen by Dawkins because the woman's refusal to accept any and all evolutionary theories is quite frankly kooky and he want to tar all other 'believers with the same brush. It really is in the Michael Moore style of cherry picking.



 Did you watch it all? He quite explicitly points out that there are many evolutionary scientists who are also believers , he even names them and IIRC cites books by them, he  also tells her that evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church and the Church of England...so where is this tarring of all other "believers"?


----------



## yorkshirelad

Celtic, fortunately for all here there is no point arguing the toss about the existance of a deity. The truth is that we will not know until we have breathed our last. I think I can see enough of a reason in my world to justify a belief in a creative intelligence. I wouldn't be too arrogant to believe that I understand such a being or that I could hazard a guess of what it is, how it looks or why it makes the decisions it makes, but I still believe in it.

I'm just a little amused when unbelievers accuse me of naivete or of stupidity when they themselves don't know and just BELIEVE the contrary.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> That was a joke, but please he was being incredibly easy on her, she gave him so many opportunities to make her look like a bigger fool and didn't take them, like Ken said Hitchens would have had her in tears.


I'm aware it was a joke and maybe he did 'go easy on her', but he still came off as an ******* in tone. He was patronizing in the extreme.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> Ken raises a good point Bill, this woman is out there promoting a ideology is a public figure and probably working actively to prevent evolution being taught in public schools.
> 
> Why should you think Dawkins is making her look foolish when she puts herself in the public forum willingly?



I think Dawkins saw an opportunity to make someone look foolish whom he felt deserved to be ridiculed and he took it.  It wasn't about proving his point, it was about creating a laughingstock for his sycophants.

But what do I know?  I'm just a stupid ******* American, I clearly don't get it.  Right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> Did you watch it all? He quite explicitly points out that there are many evolutionary scientists who are also believers , he even names them and IIRC cites books by them, he  also tells her that evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church and the Church of England...so where is this tarring of all other "believers"?



I did not watch it all, nor would I.  I frankly want my 60 seconds back.  He was into smacking her about the head and shoulders for the benefit of his many followers, and he got what he wanted.  Like the difference between Johnny Carson and David Letterman.  Carson was gentle and funny, Letterman plays being gentle because he enjoys being mean.

I think you made a mistake assuming that everyone here would enjoy poking fun of the woman and her 'automaton' behavior.  The more I think about it, the less I think of people who find the event amusing.


----------



## celtic_crippler

yorkshirelad said:


> Celtic, fortunately for all here there is no point arguing the toss about the existance of a deity. The truth is that we will not know until we have breathed our last. I think I can see enough of a reason in my world to justify a belief in a creative intelligence. I wouldn't be too arrogant to believe that I understand such a being or that I could hazard a guess of what it is, how it looks or why it makes the decisions it makes, but I still believe in it.
> 
> I'm just a little amused when unbelievers accuse me of naivete or of stupidity when they themselves don't know and just BELIEVE the contrary.


 
Even the most intelligent and gifted among us have argued that there is too much order in the universer for there NOT to be some supreme intelligence behind it...

What is too arrogant is to think think that such an intelligence is flawed by the same flaws and short-comings as we are... but that's probably best left for a separate thread. 

One thing that is not arguable, is that there is plenty of evidence to support evolution while there is none to support creationalism. 

Snakes have bones that prove that they once had appendages. Humans are being born without an appendix...because we no longer use it. Evolution is logical, easily proven, and real. I've yet to see any evidence to prove that females evolved from the rib of a male.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Gordon Nore said:


> Evolutionists are not on the side of scientific rightness (dare I say, correctness) because they are atheists; they're on the scientifically correct side because they are talking about science, not faith or religion.



May I say that in my opinion, many evolutionists, like many creationists, do not have a grasp of just what it is they believe in or why it works (or doesn't).  I've many an evolutionist whom I could pound in the ground like a tent stake, metaphorically speaking, because they hadn't the first bleeding clue about how evolution works.  When it came right down to it, they believed in evolution because they believed in it.  That's religion.

I know there are many evolutionists to whom that does not apply.  But I speak of the masses.  They are as extremist and angry and incapable of grasping the facts as the uber-creationists.  But they sure do like to poke fun at 'automaton' creationists to make themselves feel better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> Humans are being born without an appendix...because we no longer use it.



That is not how evolution works.  And that's my point.  Most evolutionists haven't the first clue how it works.  Which makes belief in it a form of religion, belief without evidence.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Did you watch it all? He quite explicitly points out that there are many evolutionary scientists who are also believers , he even names them and IIRC cites books by them, he also tells her that evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church and the Church of England...so where is this tarring of all other "believers"?






Watch the above interview with Bill O'Reilly. It was originally posted on youtube by some fool, so please ignore the original posters biased add ons.
If you notice at around 2.07 into the clip. Bill says "You don't know how everything got there" and Dawkins replies, "We're working on it". So it seems theat Dawkins motives are not just trying to discover the beginnings of evolution, but also to try and prove the non existance of a deity.


----------



## Flea

I did find it a little sad that she pointed to a belief in Deity as a prompt for people to respect human dignity.  Where was she on 9/11?  Or any other countless atrocities committed in the name of the Divine ... now _that's_ naive.


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> Evolution is logical, easily proven, and real. I've yet to see any evidence to prove that females evolved from the rib of a male.


I agree that evolution is logical. There is no evidence that females evolved from a male rib because it is a parable, to me anyway. I believe in a creative intelligence because of the logic in evolution, not despite it.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bill Mattocks said:


> That is not how evolution works. And that's my point.


I know how evolution works. It went, Germ to fish, to mermaid, to man. (I stole that from Ricky Gervais):rofl:


----------



## Gordon Nore

yorkshirelad said:


> Their atheism is the new intolerant religion.



I believe there is merit in this argument, I'm sad to say.

In my case, seven years of Catholic education left me an agnostic, and most of what I've seen and heard of organized religion in the thirty years since has pushed me to the brink of full-blown atheism.

It is much too easy to dismiss the faithful based upon the rantings of an ever-louder chorus of narrow-minded individuals. Fortunately, in life I've come to know a few people of very deep personal faith who have a wonderful capacity to spread their spirit around, rather than proselytize everyone in sight and make them think the way they do.

I've no problem with a belief in Creationism or, for that matter, Intelligent Design. But neither of these is science, and therefor one cannot debate them against a scientific theory, just as one cannot debate evolution against a theological construct.

If I were asked to teach Creationism in my school tomorrow -- unlikely, in an Ontario public school -- I could probably do it. After all, I teach a variety of things about different beliefs that people have that have nothing to do with science. For instance, I have a Native dream catcher hanging on the wall in my library. Dream catchers were used by First Nations peoples to catch bad dreams from disturbing their children's sleep. A kid asked me about it the other day -- Does it really catch bad dreams, Mr Nore?

Well, I said, if the kid feels better and sleeps through the night, who's to say it didn't work? Heck, I told my kid about the tooth fairy, and, as a result, losing a tooth was the cause of celebration, rather than upset. Absolutely nothing scientific about it. And nothing wrong with it either.

Now, when someone says they want Creationism or Intelligent Design taught in my son's science class, that's when I start looking for Ashton Kutcher in a trucker's cap. That's over the top. It's not science, but, just as important, it is not the role of a scientist to tell someone they shouldn't believe in God on that basis.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> That is not how evolution works. And that's my point. Most evolutionists haven't the first clue how it works. Which makes belief in it a form of religion, belief without evidence.


 
What?!?

No clue as to how it works? Sorry Bill, but that's ridiculous. 

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. There's no "faith" involved here...faith is necessary to believe such things like the entire world was flooded and that a single man was able to collect every animal on the planet onto a boat to preserve thier existance. 

The *fact *that a species adapts to it's environment in order to survive and therefore evolves into another species is a little bit easier to swallow. 

I was just watching Nat-Geo last night and they were studying the Congo River and the various species of Tiger Fish as a result of how that river isoloated the fish and forced it to "evolve" or perish. 

Show me proof that that some invisible man waved his magic wand and created these various "species" instead of things like natural selection, or genetic drift actually affecting it and maybe you'll begin to win me over. 

Again, please don't be offended as I'm not intentionally attacking anyone's religous beliefs but I'm just one of those people that require some facts in order to sway my opinion.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> Their atheism is the new intolerant religion.



It's actually just the old science. A-theism is no different from a-unicornism and a-LochNessMonsterism. Scientsist say the same for all of them: Show me the evidence for your position.

Strictly speaking scientists are (when acting as scientists) agnostic on the existence of gods (and unicorns and Nessie), but eventually the lack of evidence makes one weary of drawing the finer distinction.

People who believe in the methods of science don't necessarily know all about all branches of science. They trust in the scientific community and the peer-review system, just as religious individuals may not have learned Greek and Hebrew but believe in the system that trains their priests. (For those denominations that don't expect their clergy to read the actual bible, just a translation...nevermind.) Evidence in favor of trusting science: Planes, trains, and automobiles. Evidence in favor of trusting the religious system: The fallacy of positive instances.



yorkshirelad said:


> He was patronizing in the extreme.



What other option did he have?


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> What other option did he have?


Um....to not be patronizing.

It's interesting to note that in the past science and religion were quit harmonious. Some, if not most of the greatest scientific minds in our history have believed in both science and the deity.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Their atheism is the new intolerant religion. This interview was chosen by Dawkins because the woman's refusal to accept any and all evolutionary theories is quite frankly kooky and he want to tar all other 'believers with the same brush. It really is in the Michael Moore style of cherry picking.



I've never seen atheism as a religion, I don't think any atheist does.  It's just an opinion on one topic.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> It's interesting to note that in the past science and religion were quit harmonious. Some, if not most of the greatest scientific minds in our history have believed in both science and the deity



...because the religious types would torture the scientists otherwise. Science is an ever-eviolving web of knowledge. In the time of the ancient Greeks, the Zeus theory may have been a pretty good one--who else could have created the four elements? The modern scientific method took some while to really catch on.

Scientists are products of their environments and respond to cultural forces. My similarly irreligious wife and I were  married in a church--what would my mother have said if I hadn't been? The difference is that science is self-correcting, whereas religion has its feet set in concrete. (Er, except when it doesn't.) Everyone may have believed the world to be flat at some point (or not), but scientists are able to take in new evidence and adjust their views in light of the data.

"_When someone convinces me that I am wrong, I change my mind_. _What do you do_?" --John Maynard Keynes, when accused of being wishy-washy in his (economic) opinions


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> ...because the religious types would torture the scientists otherwise. Science is an ever-eviolving web of knowledge.


Einstein wasn't an atheist and rebuked those who said he was. Was he threatened with torture by the Princeton elite? :rofl:


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> What?!?
> 
> No clue as to how it works? Sorry Bill, but that's ridiculous.



No, it's not ridiculous.  You stated that people are being born more and more without an appendix, and that is evolution.

First, as far as I know, it's not true that more people are being born sans appendix than before. 

But second, even if that were true, it's not an example of evolution. It's an example of random mutation, which is the basis for evolution.

If being born without an appendix (or with a third eye, or with green skin) conveys a survival advantage, then those with the mutation will tend to survive and breed better those without the mutation, and those with the mutation will eventually become the new normal.

Having no appendix does not convey a survival advantage to modern man.  A person born without an appendix is no more or less likely to survive and breed that a person with one.  It would be a mutation, but not an example of evolution.



> "Belief" has nothing to do with it. There's no "faith" involved here...faith is necessary to believe such things like the entire world was flooded and that a single man was able to collect every animal on the planet onto a boat to preserve thier existance.



Not at all.  Faith is when a person holds a belief that has no rational basis that they can explain.  There is a rational basis for evolution, but if a person can't explain it because they do not understand it, then they are practicing 'faith' in that thing, which I equate with religion.

If I believe that moss always grows on the north side of trees, but I have no idea why, then that is faith, not science - even if there is science to explain why moss grows on the north side of trees.  My statement is true - many people 'believe' in evolution without understanding the first thing about it - and that is faith.  Just another form of religion.



> The *fact *that a species adapts to it's environment in order to survive and therefore evolves into another species is a little bit easier to swallow.



But that is not evolution.  Species do not adapt to their environments.  Species mutate, and most mutations do not result in a survival advantage.  Those that do tend to survive.  Species do not mutate more in response to environmental pressure, they mutate all the time.



> I was just watching Nat-Geo last night and they were studying the Congo River and the various species of Tiger Fish as a result of how that river isoloated the fish and forced it to "evolve" or perish.



Nope.  The fish mutates constantly, just like everything else that lives and breeds.  Some mutations are better adapted to a changing environment, and those with the better mutation will survive and therefore breed, passing on that mutation to the next generation, until it becomes the new normal.

The fish did not produce more mutations as a result of pressure due to isolation.  It produced the same number it always had.  But conditions changed, which no longer favored the original, and did favor one of the mutations.  That mutation survived because it had a survival advantage - purely as a result of random chance.



> Show me proof that that some invisible man waved his magic wand and created these various "species" instead of things like natural selection, or genetic drift actually affecting it and maybe you'll begin to win me over.



I do not believe one can prove creationism.  In my concept, it is not hard to imagine the invisible man set up the rules that govern evolution.  So you would have evolution, but a cause for it to exist.  However, I won't attempt to prove it because I cannot.  That is the basis of faith - one cannot prove it.  Just like a person who believes in evolution but does not understand how it works.  Whether it is true or not is beside the point - if they believe in it and can't explain it, that's faith.  Just like my faith in God and creation.



> Again, please don't be offended as I'm not intentionally attacking anyone's religous beliefs but I'm just one of those people that require some facts in order to sway my opinion.



But you don't have any facts.  You do not know how evolution works.  No offense either, but that makes your belief in evolution a faith.  You believe in it, but you don't understand it.  Me too, I just call my faith religion and you call yours science.


----------



## elder999

> Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
> -- *Richard Dawkins*
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- *Richard Dawkins*, _The Selfish Gene_[/FONT]
> 
> My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.
> -- *Richard Dawkins*, _The Devil's Chaplain_ (2004)
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- *Richard Dawkins*, _The Devil's Chaplain_ (2004)[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- *Richard Dawkins*, _The Humanist,_ Vol. 57, No. 1[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- *Richard Dawkins*, _The Devil's Chaplain_ (2004[/FONT][/FONT]


 
Richard Dawkins is brilliant, witty,erudite, and urbane. He's also rude and insensitive, not to mention a man with a mission: the _eradication of religion_. He has his reasons-some of them good ones-and probably views himself as in the vanguard of the next step in man's evolution. 

Many "religious" people are against evolution in principle. This is, of course, a mistake-exactly the kind of mistaken "thinking" that Dawkins (rightly) derides. Make no mistake, though-the debate wasn't about "evolution vs. creationism," for him, it was strictly "R. Dawkins v. religion."

The two positions are, naturally, irreconcialable. I'm pleasantly surprised-given his past behavior-that he handled the woman so gently. On the other hand, her position has *no scientific basis whatsoever*. 

Evolution is more than a viable theory (testable, disprovable) it's probably *the law*, like "gravity." "Intelligent design," being neither testable nore disprovable, *is not* a "viable theory," in fact, it's _not a theory at all._


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> But you don't have any facts.  You do not know how evolution works.  No offense either, but that makes your belief in evolution a faith.  You believe in it, but you don't understand it.  Me too, I just call my faith religion and you call yours science.



I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.  Not the first time I've heard a christian try to call a belief in evolution "faith."  It's quite the misnomer and ignores the fact that everything born on earth is a creature in transition, we see diseases evolve over short term.  You pointed out mutation, yet don't seem to get that evolution is a mutation.

Evolution's been observed on micro and macro scale.  It's not a matter of faith, but of observable evidence.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, it's not ridiculous. You stated that people are being born more and more without an appendix, and that is evolution.
> 
> First, as far as I know, it's not true that more people are being born sans appendix than before.
> 
> But second, even if that were true, it's not an example of evolution. It's an example of random mutation, which is the basis for evolution.


 
...sigh...that IS evolution. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> If being born without an appendix (or with a third eye, or with green skin) conveys a survival advantage, then those with the mutation will tend to survive and breed better those without the mutation, and those with the mutation will eventually become the new normal.
> 
> Having no appendix does not convey a survival advantage to modern man. A person born without an appendix is no more or less likely to survive and breed that a person with one. It would be a mutation, but not an example of evolution.


 
Mutations that result as a result of the current envirnonment is evolution. This is simple BIO 101





Bill Mattocks said:


> Not at all. Faith is when a person holds a belief that has no rational basis that they can explain. There is a rational basis for evolution, but if a person can't explain it because they do not understand it, then they are practicing 'faith' in that thing, which I equate with religion.


 
Okay... that's pretty much what I said. Faith does not necessarily require proof, but science does. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> If I believe that moss always grows on the north side of trees, but I have no idea why, then that is faith, not science - even if there is science to explain why moss grows on the north side of trees. My statement is true - many people 'believe' in evolution without understanding the first thing about it - and that is faith. Just another form of religion.


 
Actually it is science if proof exists that moss grows on the north side of trees...easily provable or disprovable...just check a tree or two. LOL

But you have a point in that when people believe in something without a valid reason it is mostly faith. Faith in what they are told by a trusted individual or other trusted source. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> But that is not evolution. Species do not adapt to their environments. Species mutate, and most mutations do not result in a survival advantage. Those that do tend to survive. Species do not mutate more in response to environmental pressure, they mutate all the time.


 
Yes it is. BIO 101. 

For example: Darwin made note of the different species of finch in the Galapogos islands and that thier beaks had evolved to adapt to the different food sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches





Bill Mattocks said:


> The fish mutates constantly, just like everything else that lives and breeds. Some mutations are better adapted to a changing environment, and those with the better mutation will survive and therefore breed, passing on that mutation to the next generation, until it becomes the new normal.


 
Yup. Natural Selection is a key component in regards to evolution. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The fish did not produce more mutations as a result of pressure due to isolation. It produced the same number it always had. But conditions changed, which no longer favored the original, and did favor one of the mutations. That mutation survived because it had a survival advantage - purely as a result of random chance.


 
Sigh...Isolation is a key variable to the evolution of a species. Refer to above in regards to the Galapagos Finches. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not believe one can prove creationism. In my concept, it is not hard to imagine the invisible man set up the rules that govern evolution. So you would have evolution, but a cause for it to exist. However, I won't attempt to prove it because I cannot. That is the basis of faith - one cannot prove it. Just like a person who believes in evolution but does not understand how it works. Whether it is true or not is beside the point - if they believe in it and can't explain it, that's faith. Just like my faith in God and creation.


 
You can't prove creationism and that's the point. However, you also can't really win an argument with someone that devoutly believes in their religion. 

Whether it's true or not is beside the point? Not in my world, but then I'm not trying to convince anyone to live in my world. If you want to believe in the Easter Bunny I'm not going to try and stop  you. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> But you don't have any facts. You do not know how evolution works. No offense either, but that makes your belief in evolution a faith. You believe in it, but you don't understand it. Me too, I just call my faith religion and you call yours science.


 
No proof? No facts? Whatever...

There's plenty of proof and facts in any basic Biology text. 

Being  cynic at heart I tend to believe in things that are supported by fact. I'm not about to try and conduct a basic BIO 101 class here nor am I attempting to poke holes in anyone's religous beliefs. 

If you want to believe in things that have no basis in reality and can not be supported by fact I will not stand in your way. It's a free country and you can believe in the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Gremlins, or whatever... As long as you're not trying to replace fact with fiction in our schools' textbooks I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Celtic,

Respectfully, Bill is correct with respect to random mutation. It is a small difference in how things are worded, but an important difference. However, I think that he should get off your jock because your line of thought is sound. 

Bill, you know I think you're awesome.   Most people don't know the nuts and bolts of natural phenomena. For instance, I have forgotten a substantial portion of the particle physics I tucked away in college. But it doesn't mean that my acceptance of physical explanations for the way matter and energy behaves is faith. Faith is believing something to be true without evidence. But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Celtic,
> 
> Respectfully, Bill is correct with respect to random mutation. It is a small difference in how things are worded, but an important difference. However, I think that he should get off your jock because your line of thought is sound.
> 
> Bill, you know I think you're awesome.  Most people don't know the nuts and bolts of natural phenomena. For instance, I have forgotten a substantial portion of the particle physics I tucked away in college. But it doesn't mean that my acceptance of physical explanations for the way matter and energy behaves is faith. Faith is believing something to be true without evidence. But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.


 
String theory...well...when you do...and understnd it...how about explaining it to the rest of us. LOL


----------



## Chris Parker

yorkshirelad said:


> Einstein wasn't an atheist and rebuked those who said he was. Was he threatened with torture by the Princeton elite? :rofl:


 
Just to address this point, I think what Arnisador was getting at was less Einstein, and more Gallileo, you know, _eppur si muove _and all that...

Interestingly, though, Eistein had his very honest religious beliefs which led him to want to desire a particular universe, what is known as a "constant universe", which is supported by a Creator theology. In essence, the universe size and spacings are constant, as they were in the beginning (when created). However, he was a scientist, so he went about exploring the physic and laws that govern such things, giving us the Theory of General Relativity amongst other things, being the fist to successfully contradict aspects of Newtonian Physics. 

The problem was that his work showed that his religious belief in a constant universe was not supported by the scientific realities. Physics shows the universe constantly expanding, moving outward from a central point, indicating that there was a definate beginning point and time. This is sometimes refered to as a Finite Universe Model, as it has a definate beginning and end, and is the origin of what is known as the Big Bang Theory. For the record, this theory is not without it's problems (mainly, first there was nothing, which exploded, releasing everything that was inside it...). The best, and most credible attempts to overcome this, as well as manage to integrate Quantum Physics with General Relativity, is what is known as String Theory, or sometimes M-Theory. Unfortunately at this point there is no way to feasibly test the hypothesis, however all the maths works... Ed Witten is the best guy to check out here.

So Einstein was religious, and had a world view that was based in his religious beliefs. But being a scientist, he opened his mind to gaining an understanding of the realities of the universe, and that actually went against his religious beliefs. So, instead of hiding the new evidence, or ignoring it because it didn't work the way he wanted it to, he changed his beliefs about the way God showed His hand in the universe. He didn't stop being religious, he didn't become atheist, he didn't stop being a physist, he just realised that he needed to better understand how the two interacted in his world view. A better way, I feel.

Oh, by the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I am far more on Dawkins side here. And I would have not been anywhere near as gentle or patient with Wendy Wright... But as he says in the interview, that was done for a TV show on Darwin, not religion, so that is why he was tempered. And his take on religion, although relevant on a number of his other shows and publications, has limited relevance here.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

celtic_crippler said:


> String theory...well...when you do...and understnd it...how about explaining it to the rest of us. LOL


 
You will have quite a wait, my friend.  I really liked physics in college, but differential equations was too much for me so I didn't take it as far as I was inclined.


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:


> String theory...well...when you do...and understnd it...how about explaining it to the rest of us. LOL


 

I could explain it, but Bob doesn't have enough bandwidth for the "mom the shrink" explanation....:lol:



			
				Crhis parker said:
			
		

> Just to address this point, I think what Arnisador was getting at was less Einstein, and more Gallileo, you know, _eppur si muove _and all that...



The more you know about that story, the more you see that it was _personal._Gallileo had been friends with Pope Urban VIII since befor he was Cardinal Barberini....


----------



## Chris Parker

Ha, agreed on the bandwidth required... but it is interesting, to say the least. I would steer people towards things like Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe book (or the DVDs for easier consumption...) for probably the easiest-to-understand description of String Theory.

As to Gallilieo, yeah, very true. And honestly, _eppur si muove_  is most likely scientific folklore than anything else. It would not have been the smartest thing for Gallileo Gallilea to say at that point...


----------



## yorkshirelad

Chris Parker said:


> But as he says in the interview, that was done for a TV show on Darwin, not religion, so that is why he was tempered. And his take on religion, although relevant on a number of his other shows and publications, has limited relevance here.


So you're saying that choosing this particular "kooky" woman to interview wasn't an attempt to make the faithful look stupid? I would say the religious debate has everything to do with dawkins and thi thread. The guy is not about merely conducting scientific research to understand evolution more thoroughly. His MO is and has been debunking the idea of a deity. Did'nt you see the ads he placed on the sides of London buses?

I for one have FAITH in God. I also believe in evolution not merely as theory, but as proven science. There are many others who believe as I do, but Hawkins doesn't necessarily want to interview or be interviewed by them because once you get past the argument of evolution, there is no way of knowing if there is or isn't a deity. His interview with O'Reilly proves that. Oh and btw, the probability is that he didn't want the O'Reilly interview, but he knew that as a result of it, his book sales would go through the roof.


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> The more you know about that story, the more you see that it was _personal._Gallileo had been friends with Pope Urban VIII since befor he was Cardinal Barberini....


Even though Galileo was a personal friend of Urban, he was also a true believer. His love of the Bible was such that he felt impelled to create an updated version which would reconcile science with christinaity, catholicism in particular. His love for his religion and science is what got him in trouble with the powers that be.


----------



## elder999

yorkshirelad said:


> Even though Galileo was a personal friend of Urban, he was also a true believer. His love of the Bible was such that he felt impelled to create an updated version which would reconcile science with christinaity, catholicism in particular. His love for his religion and science is what got him in trouble with the powers that be.


 
Galileo was a man of immense ego, who delighted in overturning the dogma of Aristotle and others who came before him-he also delighted in attempting to overturn Church dogma (which, as far as science goes, was largely based on Aristotle) and *that's* what got him into trouble......
.....that, and he thought he'd get a pass from his old pal Maffeo.....:lfao:


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi, Yorkshirelad,

No, that is not what I am saying. Dawkins has on many occasions gone out specifically to knock down religion, and has had TV programs, books, and more to do just that (but no, living in Melbourne, Australia, I haven't seen the ads on London buses). But what I am saying is that that is not what that interview was about. The religious aspects, to me at least, are a minor part of it. I personally don't feel that Wendy Wright is representative of all people of faith, I feel she is representative of ignorance and unwillingness to learn. Her place was not to assist him in debunking religion, but to assist him in pointing out unthinking blind ignorance, and in that she excelled.

His arguments were all skewed towards the evidence of evolution, not attacking her for being religious. In fact, most of her arguments against evolution boiled down to her belief that non-religion (atheism) equals a lack of "respect" for human beings, which I see as completely unrelated to whether or not there is evidence for evolution, which is what Richard was trying to get across to her. She would say that there was no evidence, Richard would present multiple examples, and she would then ask for evidence to be presented (?). This was then punctuated with references to atheists leading to worse societies (and completely ignoring Richards agreement that a Darwinist society would not be a good thing).

In fact, Richard refered to a number of senior clergy members, up to and including the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Catholic Church who think the same way you do, with a combination of Creationism and Evolution. And he goes on to state that that, although not his belief, is fine with him. It's the complete uninformed negation of evolution that he is fighting against here. The religion stuff is for other times... 

I am glad that you have a positive force in your life in the form of faith. That's what it is for, really. So that's a good thing. As to the interview with O'Reilly, is this the one you're refering to: 



 ? Because I think that Bill is the one coming off badly, not Richard. And as you say, once you get past the question of evolution, the idea of whether or not there is a deity of any form is a matter of faith, not proof, so we leave the realm of science there.

I mean really, we could look at many different things as being that spark of the Divine. It could be an intelligence, deliberately creating and watching. Or it could be found in the laws of nature, hidden in the patterns of DNA, sub-atomic particles dancing around each other. Or it could be the creation itself, the original moment when everything began, sending it all on the pathto where we are now, and beyond. Or none of them. But that's a theological discussion. We could get into that, but I don't know if we really want to, it'll just get messy, and too many people will be unintentionally hurt by different expressions of spirituality.

Hmm, I'm not sure about Galileo re-writing a version of a scientifically acurate Bible, I've never come across that before. Where did you get that information from? He was certainly religious, as we were in the time of the Holy Roman Inquisition it would only be natural, and he certainly had religious friends, but all writings I have seen attributed to him are purely scientific and mathematic in nature. 

He was asked by Pope Urban VIII to write both pro- and anti-heliocentric arguments (heavy on the anti...), and include the Pope's personal views in the book. He wrote the book, titling it "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems", and in it he had a character called Simplicio (said in the preface to be a reference to Simplicius, an Aristotelian philosopher) present most of the Pope's geocentric views... whether deliberately or not, Simplicio has the connotation of "simpleton", or "slow-witted" in Italian, so that was not taken well. For the record, it is popularly accepted that Galileo did not act out of malice, and did not intend to embarrass the Pope. However, the fallout resulted in Galileo's house arrest after being brought in to Rome to defend his writings.

Remember that this was the time of the Inquisition, so writings were supposed to be approved by the Papacy, and that was something Galileo had neglected to do, getting neither Papal nor Inquisition approval.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure about Galileo re-writing a version of a scientifically acurate Bible, I've never come across that before.
> .


I can see where my post did seem like I was saying that Galileo wrote a version of the Bible. What he did do was take certain text from the old testament in particular and tried to explain it in rlation to the POV of the writer's truth and then the particular science. In his 12 year work 'Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, Ptolmaic and Copernicon', he explains the arguments of both systems with preference to the planets revolving around the sun. He was, however a staunch believer in the Deity and found little conflict in his belief in God and Science, although he did have a problem with catholic dogma.

As for his interview with O'Reilly, we see what we want to see. He had to admit that he didn't know the true origin of the universe and because of that his atheistic belief is just as much blind faith as that of believers.


----------



## Chris Parker

Cool, so you were refering to the pro- and anti- heliocentric arguments in "Dialogue..." that I mentioned earlier, yes? That makes more sense, thanks.


----------



## Jenna

I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.

I have no issue with anyone's position on the matter.  What bothers me is when dogma attempts to force itself.  This [as many athiests seem wholly unaware] is what Dawkins is contemptibly guilty of [in common, granted, with a huge swathe of theists as dictated by their own religion's very mission statement].

Only the professing agnostic can claim any impartiality.

Should Dawkins et al accept their own position as being rigidly dogmatic; verging upon indoctrinated, then I should have no issue whatsoever.


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.


 
I'm not so sure that all "theists" have ABSOLUTE positions. 

I know I don't....lots of the time I refer to the Creator as "the _Mystery_." THough, more often as "Creator."

Sometimes, though, when I'm feeling whimsical, I call Him/Her/It, _"Foot."_ :lfao:

In a more serious vein, I think Dawkins _does_ accept his position as dogmatic: _it's the product of rational thought, which is the *only* kind worth having, and ,if you think rationally, it's the *only* acceptable position, and if you don't take that position then there's something *wrong *with your thinking processes._

Doesn't get much more dogmatic than that....:lfao:


----------



## Jenna

elder999 said:


> I'm not so sure that all "theists" have ABSOLUTE positions.
> 
> I know I don't....lots of the time I refer to the Creator as "the _Mystery_." THough, more often as "Creator."
> 
> Sometimes, though, when I'm feeling whimsical, I call Him/Her/It, _"Foot."_ :lfao:
> 
> In a more serious vein, I think Dawkins _does_ accept his position as dogmatic: _it's the product of rational thought, which is the *only* kind worth having, and ,if you think rationally, it's the *only* acceptable position, and if you don't take that position then there's something *wrong *with your thinking processes._
> 
> Doesn't get much more dogmatic than that....:lfao:


Hmm.. the theists have the belief in the existence of a God or gods.  The athiests believe there is no God or gods, yes?  I think there is no "probably" involved in either doctrine.  Therefore the positions are absolute, no?  Where there is a "probably" or any element of uncertainty then we are not talking bout either theists or athiests, rather the agnostic I think?  Though I would not argue with you for the sake of it  this is just my opinion I am no lexicographer or whatever 

Richard Dawkins, in my time of observing has not I think confessed his dogmatism explicitly.  I will say this, he is a very erudite marketeer, fuelling his campaigns off the fundamentalism that is inherent in many religions here and elsewhere.  Unfortunately I do not believe he is a good persuader [which appears to be his evangelical mission].  To say to a person of faith, "Your faith is a nonsense" and expect an embracing of his ideas demonstrates a lack of even basic psychological and interpersonal understanding that the dogma would seem to have engendered in him.  

He argues his theories clearly, of course, yet to preach to the converted is alas no supreme achievement.


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> I'm aware it was a joke and maybe he did 'go easy on her', but he still came off as an ******* in tone. He was patronizing in the extreme.



 Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?

 Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think Dawkins saw an opportunity to make someone look foolish whom he felt deserved to be ridiculed and he took it.  It wasn't about proving his point, it was about creating a laughingstock for his sycophants.
> 
> But what do I know?  I'm just a stupid ******* American, I clearly don't get it.  Right?



No Bill you are being a stupid ******* period for trying to put words in my mouth, right?


----------



## elder999

Ramirez said:


> Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?
> 
> Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.


 

Easy there, Mark. Dawkins is hardly an ethologist on the level of Konrad Lorenz or Jane Goodall. His earlier books were pretty good at popularizing some ideas-that is, in fact, what his chair was largely about: _"Simonyi Professor for *Public Understanding* of Science"_-but he's hardly done any noteworthy or groundbreaking research,it's more like he's really good at generalizing and unifying ideas for public consumption, which is, in itself, a very good thing. Since the _Selfish Gene_ in the 70's, and the _Extended Phenotype_ in the 80's, he hasn't really done much of anything but expound upon *more* evidence for evolution in a popularizing way, and write, and write, and write against creationism, "pseudoscience," alternative medicine,  and *religion. *

Gotta agree with you about the lady, though......


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.  Not the first time I've heard a christian try to call a belief in evolution "faith."  It's quite the misnomer and ignores the fact that everything born on earth is a creature in transition, we see diseases evolve over short term.  You pointed out mutation, yet don't seem to get that evolution is a mutation.
> 
> Evolution's been observed on micro and macro scale.  It's not a matter of faith, but of observable evidence.



You're not reading what I am saying.  I did not call evolution a faith.  I said that people who believe in it without understanding it are placing FAITH in it.  That is indistinguishable from religion.

Evolution is real.

And for all anyone knows, God could be real.

Belief in evolution or God is faith unless one has proof.

There is proof of evolution, but many of the people who profess belief in it do not understand, nor can they articulate, that proof.

Faith has never been about right or wrong - faith is about belief without proof.

Faith in evolution without proof is religion.  Q.E.D.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> ...sigh...that IS evolution.
> 
> Mutations that result as a result of the current envirnonment is evolution. This is simple BIO 101
> 
> Okay... that's pretty much what I said. Faith does not necessarily require proof, but science does.
> 
> Actually it is science if proof exists that moss grows on the north side of trees...easily provable or disprovable...just check a tree or two. LOL
> 
> But you have a point in that when people believe in something without a valid reason it is mostly faith. Faith in what they are told by a trusted individual or other trusted source.
> 
> Yes it is. BIO 101.
> 
> For example: Darwin made note of the different species of finch in the Galapogos islands and that thier beaks had evolved to adapt to the different food sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
> 
> Yup. Natural Selection is a key component in regards to evolution.
> 
> Sigh...Isolation is a key variable to the evolution of a species. Refer to above in regards to the Galapagos Finches.
> 
> You can't prove creationism and that's the point. However, you also can't really win an argument with someone that devoutly believes in their religion.
> 
> Whether it's true or not is beside the point? Not in my world, but then I'm not trying to convince anyone to live in my world. If you want to believe in the Easter Bunny I'm not going to try and stop  you.
> 
> No proof? No facts? Whatever...
> 
> There's plenty of proof and facts in any basic Biology text.
> 
> Being  cynic at heart I tend to believe in things that are supported by fact. I'm not about to try and conduct a basic BIO 101 class here nor am I attempting to poke holes in anyone's religous beliefs.
> 
> If you want to believe in things that have no basis in reality and can not be supported by fact I will not stand in your way. It's a free country and you can believe in the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Gremlins, or whatever... As long as you're not trying to replace fact with fiction in our schools' textbooks I don't have a problem with it.



Again, you are not reading what I am saying.  I am not saying evolution does not exist or is not real.  It does exist, it is real.

I am saying that belief in evolution without understanding it is faith.

You, sir, do not understand evolution.  Everything in your statements above is wrong, incorrect, a flawed understanding of the process.

Evolution remains real, but you do not understand it.  Yet you believe in it.  That, sir, is faith.

Religion may or may not be based in reality - there is no proof either way.  It is therefore necessarily based on faith.

The difference between science and religion is that religion is always based on faith.  Science is based on faith only by people who do not understand it.

I believe in God - that is faith.  I believe in evolution - in my case, it is not faith, because I understand what it is and how it works (based on the latest evidence and scientific proof).  What you have is faith in evolution.

Faith is not about fact or fiction, faith is about belief without understanding.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Faith is believing something to be true without evidence. But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.



Yes and no.  Faith is indeed believing something to be true without evidence, but faith is, above all, *personal*.  Mankind does not have a faith in God, individual people do.  Mankind does not have faith in Santa Claus, little children do.  Is God real?  Is Santa Claus real?  Faith does not answer this question, and faith remains faith even if God is real (or Santa).  It is about how the individual who has it feels, not about what is real.

Evolution is real, provable, it exists.

Nevertheless, there are many people who have faith that it is real.  Yes, there are objective proofs that it exists, as you say.  But that has nothing to do with individual beliefs.  One who believes - in God, Santa, evolution, or bologna sandwiches, without personal understanding of the truth, is necessarily engaging in faith - that is what faith is.  That is not the same as saying that belief in evolution is faith - it is saying that some who engage in belief in evolution are practicing faith - it's down to the individual.  All faith is individual.

And in this, faith in evolution is fundamentally like faith in religion.

As to string theory, I have more understanding of string cheese.  Which is to say that if I believe in it, my belief is necessarily faith-based, because I do not have personal understanding of it.


----------



## Sukerkin

:lol:  At last!  Something that *Jenna* and I completely and irreconcilably disagree on .

I'm not going to lay out my stall on this issue as it is completely pointless trying to contest an idea founded on faith. 

My fathers being battering me with religion for more than thirty years (ever since I learned to think independantly of what my parents told me was the truth).  I haven't changed my mind and he's not changed his.  Pretty much end of story.


----------



## Tez3

Interesting discussion. Does anyone else though appreciate what a luxury we have though in being able to take time to discuss evolution, religion etc? And for that reason the discussion shouldn't get acrimonious?
By luxury I mean, I have been watching the footage from Sumatra etc on the aftermath of the tsunami and earthquakes in the region, to them struggling for survival along with many others in the world Richard Dawkins and the woman he was having the discussion with must seem frivolous to say the least.
What's the good of understanding evolution v creation when your home and family have been washed away? I'm not saying it's not an important discussion but we have to put it in perspective when we consider the realities of the world. Which is more important really, the theory of evolution or being able to pay the mortgage and keeping a roof over your families heads and food on the table? for that reason this discussion should be looked at as a privilege and pleasure for those of us here, not an all out fight over who's right.
Oh and if you have some spare change, pop it over to the Red Cross or Oxfam etc for the survivors regardless of how you think they were created or evolved.


----------



## Chris Parker

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes and no. Faith is indeed believing something to be true without evidence, but faith is, above all, *personal*. Mankind does not have a faith in God, individual people do. Mankind does not have faith in Santa Claus, little children do. Is God real? Is Santa Claus real? Faith does not answer this question, and faith remains faith even if God is real (or Santa). It is about how the individual who has it feels, not about what is real.
> 
> Evolution is real, provable, it exists.
> 
> Nevertheless, there are many people who have faith that it is real. Yes, there are objective proofs that it exists, as you say. But that has nothing to do with individual beliefs. One who believes - in God, Santa, evolution, or bologna sandwiches, without personal understanding of the truth, is necessarily engaging in faith - that is what faith is. That is not the same as saying that belief in evolution is faith - it is saying that some who engage in belief in evolution are practicing faith - it's down to the individual. All faith is individual.
> 
> And in this, faith in evolution is fundamentally like faith in religion.
> 
> As to string theory, I have more understanding of string cheese. Which is to say that if I believe in it, my belief is necessarily faith-based, because I do not have personal understanding of it.


 
You know, I'd actually alter that a bit. I would define faith as a belief that does not require proof. In this way, faith (in a Divine) is believing in their presence/existance, belief in Santa is not so much faith in this regard, as the existance of Santa can be proved or disproved (any little ones reading this? Santa is real, kids, and he knows what you did... you know what I mean...) quite easily with a trip to the North Pole, or traps set on Christmas Eve...

Evolution therefore is not a matter of faith, as it is a provable concept, whether or not an individual has taken the time to gain an understanding themselves, it can be proven, and has been to gain it's established place within science. At best, you are saying that people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, but that is still not the same as faith.

And in this, belief in evolution is like belief in DNA. Not faith, belief.

As to string theory, I have a belief that it is, if not actually a very good model for a Grand Unified Theory of Physics, it at least points in a very good direction for one... but that is based on my reading, studying, and understanding of it...

Oh, and Tez's post came up while I was typing this, so I'm just going to echo her sentiments here. Fortunate doesn't begin to cover it, I'm sure everybody has places around to donate (I know one of the groups I belong to here sent me an email invite to a charity event next week).


----------



## Jenna

Sukerkin said:


> :lol:  At last!  Something that *Jenna* and I completely and irreconcilably disagree on .
> 
> I'm not going to lay out my stall on this issue as it is completely pointless trying to contest an idea founded on faith.
> 
> My fathers being battering me with religion for more than thirty years (ever since I learned to think independantly of what my parents told me was the truth).  I haven't changed my mind and he's not changed his.  Pretty much end of story.


I think dear Mark, whilst your father and our cherished Mr. Dawkins may have been at diametric opposites in their perspectives, they may not have been so very unalike in their hefty methods of exhortation.  Beating a rational person over the head with an idea serves nothing cept only to strengthen the arm of the beater and strengthen the resolve of the beaten, to which my friend I am guessing, you can bitterly attest.

To me, a dogmatist with a little power and influence can readily become the despot.  Ridiculous?  We see this too often on the "religious" side of the argument [bringing in their wake the most horrendous consequences], yet we fail to acknowledge those same veiled despotic yearnings of our "science is god" athiest voices.

Ah but of course, we do not need to be at odds my friend, nope, you just accept that my position is undeniably right, then we will have wonderful harmony haha.. I am just joking I would have none of it.. there is no opinion that is not valid beyond he who tries to convince humanity of his own absolute righteousness  Jenna x


----------



## Sukerkin

As ever, you bring a smile to my face with your genuine warmth and bright humour, *Jenna* - you also make a very good point too .

I think that there is a fundamental difference between certitude based upon faith and that based upon experimentation but staying clear of dogmatic certainty is important in either case.

I think that, in part, the exasperation that sometimes filters through from the rational side of any debate that has religion in the balance is born from the different foundations both edifices were built upon. It is the nature of science to reduce the probable explanations for things by proving as many of them 'wrong' as possible'. Religion doesn't work that way and, from my personal experience, neither do it's followers. 

So you end up with a clash that feels like the hammer of science battering at the armour plate of religion. I personally think that the clash is regretably necessary if the human race is ever to call itself truly enlightened, otherwise superstition will endure until we destroy ourselves. I would prefer it if were possible not to have such an acrimonious debate that divides societies but without challenge and question then nothing changes - and the status quo is not an acceptable state given the wars and persecution that are born out of competing doctrines.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah, I don't know how you do it, Sukerin, I just can't argue with that girl... she always ruins it by being right.

But a little more seriously, I am with Jenna here, no true scientist should consider themselves an atheist (absolute), as to do so is to close your mind to possibilities. Me personally, I'm definately agnostic. I have no empirical evidence one way or the other, and have not the virtue of faith when it comes to religious matters, so I cannot say definitively that there is or is not a Divine Creator or Deity in some form... I feel that what there is is a wide variety of names for explaining the universe around us, Dawkins uses science as his word, others use God, others use both for different aspects, and all are correct. We can leave it at that, right?


----------



## Flea

Tez3 said:


> By luxury I mean, I have been watching the footage from Sumatra etc on the aftermath of the tsunami and earthquakes in the region, to them struggling for survival along with many others in the world Richard Dawkins and the woman he was having the discussion with must seem frivolous to say the least.
> What's the good of understanding evolution v creation when your home and family have been washed away?  [ ... ] Oh and if you have some spare change, pop it over to the Red Cross or Oxfam etc for the survivors regardless of how you think they were created or evolved.



Thank you Tez!!

I think this also verges on Wendy Wright's point (or at least, it has the potential to) that regardless of our origins our very existence is utterly improbable and therefore miraculous in itself.  As such we need to appreciate one another and help one another as we can.

As an aside, some "evolutionist" (it might even have been Dawkins?) wrote extensively on the concepts of altruism and selfishness.  Some species show behaviors that are highly altruistic, with certain behaviors detrimental to the individual but good for the species.  Defending one's young is a great example.  Homo sapiens sapiens shows tremendous potential for both behaviors, exponentially multiplied by the complexity of our various cultures and technologies.

As such, I'll echo Tez's point about dropping a few monetary units of your choice with the Red Cross in the next few days.  It's constructive, and a very cheap form of altruism at that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> Evolution therefore is not a matter of faith, as it is a provable concept, whether or not an individual has taken the time to gain an understanding themselves, it can be proven, and has been to gain it's established place within science.



Correct.  Evolution is proven and real.  It exists.



> At best, you are saying that people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, but that is still not the same as faith.


I am saying that *some* people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, and that is indistinguishable from the faith people who believe in religion have.

Faith is utterly removed from the truth or untruth of the belief espoused.  God may be real, or not.  Evolution is indisputably real.  But faith in either is not based on a scientific proof of either, it is based on personal choice.

So I continue to maintain that while evolution is real, belief in it without personal understanding is in fact faith.

One has only to watch some of the vociferous debates pro-and-con about evolution versus religion to see that both sides have zealots who are emotionally invested in their belief system to the exclusion of fact, logic, or principle.  These are in fact religious wars, and those who point out that the people on the 'evolution' side look and behave exactly like those on the 'religion' side are correct.  It's all faith at that level, regardless of the reality of God or evolution.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> belief in Santa is not so much faith in this regard, as the existance of Santa can be proved or disproved ...



Actually, that's not exactly right.  The existence of Santa is unfalsifiable, which should come as a relief to boys and girls everywhere.  Santa's existence can be proven, but cannot be unproven.  It would be proven if Santa were to appear and demonstrate his ability to fly around the world and distribute toys to good girls and boys.  There is nothing which can disprove his existence.

The only reason I mention this is because people who claim science as their basis for rational thought often confuse what appears to be true with what is provable.

This is important - science lays claim only to what is falsifiable (can be proven false) according to Karl Popper.  If something cannot be falsified, it is not science.  Religion cannot be falsified - it is not science.

A person who does not possess the ability or knowledge to falsify evolution (or string theory or what-have-you) is operating without science (proof) - they are exercising personal belief.  Personal belief without proof is faith.  Q.E.D.



> Actually, that's not quite right.
> And in this, belief in evolution is like belief in DNA. Not faith, belief.



Again, you confuse faith with what is or is not real.  Faith is personal belief.  It requires neither objective truth nor falsehood, only that the person who espouses makes a personal choice which to believe.



> As to string theory, I have a belief that it is, if not actually a very good model for a Grand Unified Theory of Physics, it at least points in a very good direction for one... but that is based on my reading, studying, and understanding of it...



That's faith.  It may be based on evidence, it may be true (and it may be false), but if you believe in it and cannot personally prove it, that's faith.  Science does not believe in String Theory, science only points at evidence and makes suggestions and suppositions about it.  If the evidence changes, science will change.  Science possesses no faith, but people do.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Jenna said:


> I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.
> 
> I have no issue with anyone's position on the matter. What bothers me is when dogma attempts to force itself. This [as many athiests seem wholly unaware] is what Dawkins is contemptibly guilty of [in common, granted, with a huge swathe of theists as dictated by their own religion's very mission statement].
> 
> Only the professing agnostic can claim any impartiality.
> 
> Should Dawkins et al accept their own position as being rigidly dogmatic; verging upon indoctrinated, then I should have no issue whatsoever.


 
There's no hope for rational discussion with people that deal in absolutes. They're absolutely sure they are always right! LOL 



Ramirez said:


> Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?
> 
> Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.


 
I can relate to Dawkins in this manner. With some people it doesn't matter how much proof you throw at them there is no convincing them that there is even a chance they could be wrong. 

I guess some people that have "faith" require no evidence and/or ignore any evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. LOL 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, you are not reading what I am saying. I am not saying evolution does not exist or is not real. It does exist, it is real.


 
You don't have to convince me of that. I know it's real, but some people won't accept it no matter how much proof is presented. Instead, they adhere to a belief that is not founded on fact; just faith. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I am saying that belief in evolution without understanding it is faith.


 
Faith that science is correct perhaps. I don't have to understand the science behind the combustion engine to know the basics of how it works and I can definately see the proof of it every day on my drive to work. LOL



Bill Mattocks said:


> You, sir, do not understand evolution. Everything in your statements above is wrong, incorrect, a flawed understanding of the process.


 
You're right. My college Biology Professor was an idiot for passing me and I in no way deserved the "B" I recieved for that course. 

I have faith that you know more about it than I do as evidenced by your well thought out and absolutely correct posts within this thread. :lol:

I'll refrain from posting any more links to substantiate my position as I know from previous experience with you that you will not bother to follow them and/or read the information provided by them. :idunno:



Bill Mattocks said:


> Evolution remains real, but you do not understand it. Yet you believe in it. That, sir, is faith.


 
Faith [noun]: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. 

I believe I have logical proof that evolution is real and have actually cited examples; therefore your assertion is wrong... not that you'd ever admit that even with the actual definition staring you in the face. LOL :toilclaw:



Bill Mattocks said:


> Religion may or may not be based in reality - there is no proof either way. It is therefore necessarily based on faith.


 
What? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The difference between science and religion is that religion is always based on faith. Science is based on faith only by people who do not understand it.


 
There's a lot more to differentiate the two than that. For example: Religion's role in explaining man's world (like why a drought occured) has largely been replaced by Science. 

Understanding is not a requirment for belief and therfore equating it with faith is an incorrect assumption. As in the example above, I don't have to understand the intricacies of how the combustion engine works to know that it does. There is plenty of logical proof that is readily available to back it up. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe in God - that is faith. I believe in evolution - in my case, it is not faith, because I understand what it is and how it works (based on the latest evidence and scientific proof). What you have is faith in evolution.


 
Obviously...:shrug:



Bill Mattocks said:


> Faith is not about fact or fiction, faith is about belief without understanding.


 
You almost have it right. It's fiction you accept as fact without logical proof. Understanding has nothing to do with faith. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct. Evolution is proven and real. It exists.


 
Now that we've established that...

Faith is real as well. So? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I am saying that *some* people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, and that is indistinguishable from the faith people who believe in religion have.


 
How so? It doesn't matter. One has logical, irrefutable proof and the other does not. That's the real difference. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Faith is utterly removed from the truth or untruth of the belief espoused. God may be real, or not. Evolution is indisputably real. But faith in either is not based on a scientific proof of either, it is based on personal choice.


 
...um...how can faith be removed from the belief; regardless of factual evidence. Is not faith by it's defintion a belief without proof? :erg:



Bill Mattocks said:


> So I continue to maintain that while evolution is real, belief in it without personal understanding is in fact faith.


 
And you would continue to be wrong. 

Evolution exists regardless of whether you understand it or not. Those that do not understand it may be putting their "faith" in the science that proves it exists, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. 

You can put your "faith" in your priest, reverend, monk...whatever... and what they tell you as "truth", but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support what they tell you is true. 

So, the difference is one is supported by evidence and the other is not. Understanding is irrelevant. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> One has only to watch some of the vociferous debates pro-and-con about evolution versus religion to see that both sides have zealots who are emotionally invested in their belief system to the exclusion of fact, logic, or principle. These are in fact religious wars, and those who point out that the people on the 'evolution' side look and behave exactly like those on the 'religion' side are correct. It's all faith at that level, regardless of the reality of God or evolution.


 
I think you're confusing belief with faith.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> So, the difference is one is supported by evidence and the other is not. Understanding is irrelevant.



We're going to have to continue to disagree, then.  Faith has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with personal belief.  One can have faith in something that is true and one can have faith in something that is false.  Faith is not coupled with the verity of the belief itself.

You say you believe in evolution. I do, too.  But you have demonstrated that your understanding of evolution is flawed.  Thus, you believe in something you call 'evolution' that is not correct.  Although evolution is true, your evolution is not.  Yet you believe in it - and obstinately too, I might add.  In the face of facts, as you have charged religionists with doing.

 How is this different from faith?  I maintain that it is not different from faith.  In fact, it is faith and nothing more.

I am not trying to hold your beliefs up to ridicule.  I am using your statements as an example - many people are just like you.  They claim a set of beliefs.  Those beliefs may or may not be true.  The fact that they claim them without being able to personally understand them doesn't change whether they are true or false, since facts are independent of belief, but they do change whether the belief the person holds is faith-based or not.


----------



## Omar B

Jenna said:


> Hmm.. the theists have the belief in the existence of a God or gods.  The athiests believe there is no God or gods, yes?  I think there is no "probably" involved in either doctrine.  Therefore the positions are absolute, no?  Where there is a "probably" or any element of uncertainty then we are not talking bout either theists or athiests, rather the agnostic I think?  Though I would not argue with you for the sake of it  this is just my opinion I am no lexicographer or whatever
> 
> Richard Dawkins, in my time of observing has not I think confessed his dogmatism explicitly.  I will say this, he is a very erudite marketeer, fuelling his campaigns off the fundamentalism that is inherent in many religions here and elsewhere.  Unfortunately I do not believe he is a good persuader [which appears to be his evangelical mission].  To say to a person of faith, "Your faith is a nonsense" and expect an embracing of his ideas demonstrates a lack of even basic psychological and interpersonal understanding that the dogma would seem to have engendered in him.
> 
> He argues his theories clearly, of course, yet to preach to the converted is alas no supreme achievement.



I disagree.  There's no dogma or doctrine in atheistism.  If I was presented with proof of a god I would believe, it's that simple.  I never got how religious groups tend to think of atheists as one group who see the issue all the same and such.  That's religion.  Being an atheist, I just require proof.


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> And in this, faith in evolution is fundamentally like faith in religion.



No matter how many times you say "faith" in connection with science will not make it so.  Science is built upon proof, faith is not.  You accept that evolution is fact yet you refer to it as faith, I don't see where the mental disconnect is happening here but you've somehow managed to take science fact that you've accepted and turned it on it's head and brought it down to the same level of bible stories ... not fact.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> No matter how many times you say "faith" in connection with science will not make it so.



It is not I that makes it so, it is the word itself.  You see the word 'faith' as incontrovertibly linked to 'religion' but it is not.  It is commonly used to describe religious belief, but religious belief is not required to have faith in any particular thing.



> Science is built upon proof, faith is not.



No, that is not true.  Science is indeed built upon proof, but faith is not linked to proof or disproof of anything.



> You accept that evolution is fact yet you refer to it as faith,...



No, please read my words more closely.  I accept evolution as fact.  I do not refer to evolution as faith.  I refer to a person's belief in evolution without an understanding of it as faith.  My description is of that person - not of evolution.



> I don't see where the mental disconnect is happening here but you've somehow managed to take science fact that you've accepted and turned it on it's head and brought it down to the same level of bible stories ... not fact.



I am not attempting to cast doubt on evolution.  I am showing that people who believe in evolution (or anything) without an understanding of it are engaging in an act of faith, just as people who believe in a particular religion do.

If faith has nothing to do with science, then how does one explain scientists who hold differing viewpoints?  One might be wrong, or both might be wrong, but generally both cannot be right.  But each has...faith...that their own interpretation is the correct one. 

The word 'faith' is often misunderstood and misused.  The primary reason for this is because non-religious people conflate the terms 'religious belief' and 'faith' and treat them as if they were the same.  If I have a religious belief, that is indeed faith, but I can have faith in things that are not religious.  The term does not mean what you think it does...


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> We're going to have to continue to disagree, then. Faith has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with personal belief. One can have faith in something that is true and one can have faith in something that is false. Faith is not coupled with the verity of the belief itself.


 
As evidenced in the way it is defined, faith has more to do with a belief in something that is not supported by fact. 

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, its the definition. 

Belief on the other hand, does not necessarily require proof. 

...but why argue semantics. I think we know where you're coming from. LOL 



Bill Mattocks said:


> You say you believe in evolution. I do, too.


 
Actually it wouldn't really matter if we believe in it or not. Our belief will not change the fact that it does exist simply because there is plenty of evidence to support that it does. 

However, faith does not require evidence or proof. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> But you have demonstrated that your understanding of evolution is flawed. Thus, you believe in something you call 'evolution' that is not correct. Although evolution is true, your evolution is not. Yet you believe in it - and obstinately too, I might add. In the face of facts, as you have charged religionists with doing.


 
Tell you what, produce proof of your PhD in Biology and perhaps I will entertain your assertion that I am wrong. In the mean time, I'll stick with my college professor, the text we studied from, and my sister's take as well (she has a BS in Biology among her other degrees.) 



Bill Mattocks said:


> How is this different from faith? I maintain that it is not different from faith. In fact, it is faith and nothing more.
> 
> I am not trying to hold your beliefs up to ridicule. I am using your statements as an example - many people are just like you. They claim a set of beliefs. Those beliefs may or may not be true. The fact that they claim them without being able to personally understand them doesn't change whether they are true or false, since facts are independent of belief, but they do change whether the belief the person holds is faith-based or not.


 
My belief in evolution is true based on fact, evidence, and research. All of which you have yet to produce in support of your assertions and claims. Until such time as you can do so, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you seriously. :shrug:

Now that I think about it...I believe I still have my notes... 

Perhaps I should share a few of them in order to either prove or disprove your assertion that I know nothing about evolution? Heck...I don't feel like doing any work today anyway so...

From my notes:



> Charles Darwin made a round the wold sea voyage as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle in the 1830's.
> Darwin observed similiarities between living and fossil organisms and the diversity of life on the Galapoagos Islands.
> Darwin's experiences during the voyage influenced his ideas on evolution.
> Lyell's "Principles of Geology" led him to realize that still-operating natural forces gradually change the Earth.
> Upon his return, Darwin began to document his observation and develop his theory of evolution.
> Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was published in 1859
> "Descent with modification" summarizes Darwin's view of life.
> All organisms are related through descent from a remote common ancestor
> Descendants spread into diverse habitats over millions of years and acquired adaptations to their environments.
> Species that are closely related share characteristics
> Darwin proposed Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution
> The essence of Darwin's theory of natrual selection is differential success in reproduction
> Organisms produce more offspirng than the environment can support
> Organisms vary in many characteristics that can be inherited.
> Excessive numbers of organisms lead to a struggle for survival.
> Individual whose characterisitics are best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce
> The unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce leads to a gradual change in the characterisitics of a population over generations.
> Natural selection is supported by evidence from artifical selection
> Example: Common Ancestral Canine - thousands to millions of years of natural selection - Coyote/Wolf/Fox/Jackal/Dog
> Fossils provide stong evidence for evolution


 
...but oh...there's more! 



> Evidence for Evolution
> 
> *Biogeography*: The geographic distribution of species suggested to Darwin that organisms evolve from common ancestors
> Isolated organisms resemble each other more than organisms in similar but distant places.
> *Comparative Anatomy*: Homologous structures are features that often have different function but are structurally similar because of common ancestry
> Vestigial structures are remnants of structures that served important function in an organism's ancestors
> *Comparative Embyology: *common embryonic structures in all vertebrates are evidence for common descent.
> *Molecular Biology:* Comparisons of DNA and amino acid sequences between different organisms reveal evolutionary relationships.
> *Examples of evolutionary adaptation observed over a short time: *Different camouflage adaptations in different environments, development of pesticide resistance in insects
> *Examples of evolutionary adaptation reveals 3 key points about natural selection: *1) natural selection is more of an editing process than a creative mechanism 2) natural selection is contingent on time and place 3) significant evolutionary change can occure in a short time


 
...can't believe I kept those...I need to clean up some files! 








----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, please read my words more closely.  I accept evolution as fact.  I do not refer to evolution as faith.  I refer to a person's belief in evolution without an understanding of it as faith.  My description is of that person - not of evolution.



Wow, I don't know how you tie these knots in your head.  You accept evolution as fact, true and having proof.  But believing in it is somehow faith (as in beliefs without proof).  So where did the proof poof off to while I was sitting there and believing it?

The guys here at the office are really enjoying your posts though, keep 'em coming, my boss put a couple up on the fridge.  LOL.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> As evidenced in the way it is defined, faith has more to do with a belief in something that is not supported by fact.



No.  It is something that does not have to be supported by fact. Your own definition you posted awhile back says so.



> It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, its the definition.



You are misreading the definition you posted yourself.  Please read it again:

_"Faith [noun]: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof."_

Does it say that logical proof is required?  No.  Does it say logical proof is not required?  No.  It says _'especially without.'_  Meaning that one can have faith even with.

If you cannot read and understand the definition you posted yourself, we don't have much more road to travel together.



> Belief on the other hand, does not necessarily require proof.



Correct.  I have never said otherwise.



> ...but why argue semantics. I think we know where you're coming from. LOL



If you think I have an agenda, please do not make sly innuendo.  Just say it.



> Actually it wouldn't really matter if we believe in it or not. Our belief will not change the fact that it does exist simply because there is plenty of evidence to support that it does.



Where have I said otherwise?



> However, faith does not require evidence or proof.



Correct.  Again, where have I said otherwise?

Your error is that your logic is skewed.  Faith does not require proof.  But you presume that the existence of proof therefore makes a belief not faith.  This is an error, and your own statements show it:

"...faith *does not require* evidence or proof..."

By your own words, faith is not dependent upon proof.  Proof in the affirmative or proof in the negative.  One can have faith in things which are true, even things which are provable.  Proof, as you say, is not required.



> Tell you what, produce proof of your PhD in Biology and perhaps I will entertain your assertion that I am wrong. In the mean time, I'll stick with my college professor, the text we studied from, and my sister's take as well (she has a BS in Biology among her other degrees.)



I will not take issue with your teacher, because I do not know what she taught you.  Your understanding is flawed.



> My belief in evolution is true based on fact, evidence, and research. All of which you have yet to produce in support of your assertions and claims. Until such time as you can do so, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you seriously. :shrug:



You still seem to believe I am taking issue with evolution.  I am not.  I am taking issue with your belief in it.  What you believe in as 'evolution' is not correct. Therefore, your belief is 'faith'.  That's the way it is.  It has nothing to do with the fact of evolution.



> Charles Darwin made a round the wold sea voyage as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle in the 1830's.
> Darwin observed similiarities between living and fossil organisms and the diversity of life on the Galapoagos Islands.
> Darwin's experiences during the voyage influenced his ideas on evolution.
> Lyell's "Principles of Geology" led him to realize that still-operating natural forces gradually change the Earth.
> Upon his return, Darwin began to document his observation and develop his theory of evolution.
> Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was published in 1859
> "Descent with modification" summarizes Darwin's view of life.
> All organisms are related through descent from a remote common ancestor
> Descendants spread into diverse habitats over millions of years and acquired adaptations to their environments.
> Species that are closely related share characteristics
> Darwin proposed Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution
> The essence of Darwin's theory of natrual selection is differential success in reproduction
> Organisms produce more offspirng than the environment can support
> Organisms vary in many characteristics that can be inherited.
> Excessive numbers of organisms lead to a struggle for survival.
> Individual whose characterisitics are best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce
> The unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce leads to a gradual change in the characterisitics of a population over generations.
> Natural selection is supported by evidence from artifical selection
> Example: Common Ancestral Canine - thousands to millions of years of natural selection - Coyote/Wolf/Fox/Jackal/Dog
> Fossils provide stong evidence for evolution
> 
> 
> 
> *Biogeography*: The geographic distribution of species suggested to Darwin that organisms evolve from common ancestors
> Isolated organisms resemble each other more than organisms in similar but distant places.
> *Comparative Anatomy*: Homologous structures are features that often have different function but are structurally similar because of common ancestry
> Vestigial structures are remnants of structures that served important function in an organism's ancestors
> *Comparative Embyology: *common embryonic structures in all vertebrates are evidence for common descent.
> *Molecular Biology:* Comparisons of DNA and amino acid sequences between different organisms reveal evolutionary relationships.
> *Examples of evolutionary adaptation observed over a short time: *Different camouflage adaptations in different environments, development of pesticide resistance in insects
> *Examples of evolutionary adaptation reveals 3 key points about natural selection: *1) natural selection is more of an editing process than a creative mechanism 2) natural selection is contingent on time and place 3) significant evolutionary change can occure in a short time



Your notes are accurate.  Your previous statements regarding evolution are incorrect and reveal a flawed understanding of the process.

You indicated a belief that species evolve in reaction to stimulus, such as being isolated.  This is not true - your notes say it is not true.  You failed to grasp your own written notes.  Species mutate constantly, and at a steady and predictable rate.  With or without pressure to adapt, they continue to mutate.  When a viable mutation appears that gives that new mutation a survival advantage over the previous mutation, that new mutation will tend to survive, reproduce, and eventually supplant the original.  That is evolution.  Your notes describe it well.  You said something entirely different.

You also said that people are being born without appendixes, and that is evidence of evolution.  It is not. Being born without an appendix is a mutation.  In humans, it conveys no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolution.  It is not evolution because this mutation does not increase the odds that people without appendixes will outbreed people with appendixes and eventually replace them. You posit that someday people will no longer have an appendix.  This is not true, at least not based on evolution.

Again, your understanding of evolution is flawed.  You believe in something that is in fact true, but your understanding is not true.  Therefore, your belief is faith.

That does not invalidate evolution. It just makes your belief the same as that of a person who believes in God; an act of faith.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would first like to say that I believe that evolution is scientific fact, not fiction.
> 
> Having said that, I would also like to say that I do not disbelieve in the concept of Creationism, even if it is not literally as described by many religious persons and texts. As a Catholic, my Pope has stated that the concept of evolution is not incompatible with that of Creation. They could well both be true, in ways that we do not yet understand.
> 
> With specific reference to videos such as this, I dislike setups designed to make another person look stupid as if that proves one's point. Yes, Dawkins is very intelligent, and the woman being interviewed is not an intellectual match for him. This hardly makes Dawkins right, it simply means he wins the debate.
> 
> Why must debate on serious topics be mockery? Is that the only way to make one's point, to 'win' the argument?


 
I have to agree with you.  Dawkins is a really intelligent man, and for the most part, I agree with his arguments on their merits.  But the way he addresses his opponents, or even those who don't take the argument as far as him, shows him to be very snide and condescending.  I also got this impression from watching one of his speeches on TED.org.  

So what if he's snide, so long as he's right?  Well, the problem is that the evolution/creationism argument (ignoring for the moment whether that nomenclature is accurate) involves great personal feelings as well as rational argument, particularly in the US.  Treating the other side like foolish little schoolchildren, even if they are wrong, is no way to bridge gaps or attempt to enlighten fellow humans.  That's why even though I agree with Dawkin's argument, for the most part, I'm still not a fan of his.


----------



## Omar B

So he should gently rub their bellies and whisper scientific fact to them?  Truth is truth, facts of reality need not be sugar coated or softened ... only to those who are unable to accept them, children.  I've never read a science book/journal or historical account of anything that takes the time to be gentle with the listener because the truth might hurt.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> So he should gently rub their bellies and whisper scientific fact to them?  Truth is truth, facts of reality need not be sugar coated or softened ... only to those who are unable to accept them, children.  I've never read a science book/journal or historical account of anything that takes the time to be gentle with the listener because the truth might hurt.



I completely agree with that.

I would further state that the purpose of the video on Youtube (and perhaps the OP's original purpose posting it here) was not to convince anyone of anything.  The purpose was to belittle and demean someone for the pleasure of it.

They are different things.


----------



## Omar B

If you think so, I think religion does a fine job of belittling and demeaning itself and everything around it enough.  If she could not formulate a cogent agrument she should not have taken the interview, not that there is such an argument to be made against fact.


----------



## Jenna

Omar B said:


> If I was presented with proof of a god I would believe, it's that simple.


Goodness I do not wish to argue semantics with you my friend though the fact that you are prepared to at least countenance the possibility of the existence of a deity means I think you are not an atheist, rather an agnostic.  The atheist position is a little more adherent; rigid; I would say dogmatic. Either way of course is perfectly fine by me  Jenna x


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> If you think so, I think religion does a fine job of belittling and demeaning itself and everything around it enough.  If she could not formulate a cogent agrument she should not have taken the interview, not that there is such an argument to be made against fact.



Look at the various videos of the 'No Touch Knockout' as an example of what I mean.  Whether one believes or does not believe that George Dillman can knock people out without touching them, many of the videos posted around the 'net are posted by people who wish to make fun of him and his beliefs.  It's not whether he is right or wrong, it is _"OMG, look at this idiot!"_

Cruelty is cruelty.  It really doesn't matter how much the person being subjected to it deserves it in someone else's opinion.

I'm glad you brought this up, though.  It seems to be a concept that a lot of people have trouble with.  

There are those who took former President Bush to task for his 'lack of intelligence'.  One of the things they pointed to was his lack of public speaking ability.  But while that is a valid point to attack, the viral spread of hate-based videos that were posted merely to say _"OMG, look how stupid this guy is!"_ were not designed to prove or disprove his intelligence, they were created to demean and insult.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Jenna said:


> Goodness I do not wish to argue semantics with you my friend though the fact that you are prepared to at least countenance the possibility of the existence of a deity means I think you are not an atheist, rather an agnostic.  The atheist position is a little more adherent; rigid; I would say dogmatic. Either way of course is perfectly fine by me  Jenna x



I was raised believing that atheism was a disbelief in God.  However, many atheists claim that they do not disbelieve in God, they are against theism.  They sound the same, but they are different.

Atheists are a very diverse group - it would be a mistake to assume they all believe (or disbelieve, LOL) the same things.


----------



## Omar B

Jenna said:


> Goodness I do not wish to argue semantics with you my friend though the fact that you are prepared to at least countenance the possibility of the existence of a deity means I think you are not an atheist, rather an agnostic.  The atheist position is a little more adherent; rigid; I would say dogmatic. Either way of course is perfectly fine by me  Jenna x



Nope, I'm not an agnostic, I find those mealy mouthed half way, please every side people the worst of all.  Like any person who believes in reality and proof I would believe in a god or gods if there were, but there is not.  You call atheism dogma, as if to say gravity, sunrise and the tides are dogma rather than fact.

It's a christian fallacy that there is such a thing as "atheist dogma."  No such thing, I and many like me just don't believe in magic men in the sky.  There are no atheist churches, nor are there any doctrines.  There is fact and recognition of that fact.  Unless one were to heap all natural, explainable phenomena as doctrine.

Dogma - 


 A doctrine or a *corpus of doctrines* relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a *church*.
 An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonims at doctrine.
 A principle or belief or a group of them: _"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present"_ (Abraham Lincoln).


----------



## cdunn

Bill Mattocks said:


> You indicated a belief that species evolve in reaction to stimulus, such as being isolated. This is not true - your notes say it is not true. You failed to grasp your own written notes. Species mutate constantly, and at a steady and predictable rate. With or without pressure to adapt, they continue to mutate. When a viable mutation appears that gives that new mutation a survival advantage over the previous mutation, that new mutation will tend to survive, reproduce, and eventually supplant the original. That is evolution. Your notes describe it well. You said something entirely different.
> 
> You also said that people are being born without appendixes, and that is evidence of evolution. It is not. Being born without an appendix is a mutation. In humans, it conveys no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolution. It is not evolution because this mutation does not increase the odds that people without appendixes will outbreed people with appendixes and eventually replace them. You posit that someday people will no longer have an appendix. This is not true, at least not based on evolution.
> 
> Again, your understanding of evolution is flawed. You believe in something that is in fact true, but your understanding is not true. Therefore, your belief is faith.
> 
> That does not invalidate evolution. It just makes your belief the same as that of a person who believes in God; an act of faith.


 
Because of the slow drumbeat of mutation, whenever a structure exists, it requires constant selective pressure to maintain. That is, mutants without the structure must not reproduce effectively. Whenever the need for the structure disappears, the gene rapidly becomes 'fossilized', as mutants with non-functional versions of the gene do not die, and  various versions of the the new allele spreads. Given sufficent time, all versions of the allele are non-functional, as it has no defense against mutation. 

For example, there is a class of scent receptors common across all mammals that is coded for by a set of genes called the V1r genes. There are a total of approximately 200 of these genes. In mice, who are highly dependant on their sense of smell to survive, about 140 of these genes produce functional receptors - they allow the mouse to recognize a very wide spectrum of smells, while the roughly other 60 are non-functional. In humans, who use their full color spectrum eyes, a relatively rare adaptation, as their primary interaction with the world, only 4 of these genes still work. 

Use it or lose it.


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was raised believing that atheism was a disbelief in God.  However, many atheists claim that they do not disbelieve in God, they are against theism.  They sound the same, but they are different.
> Atheists are a very diverse group - it would be a mistake to assume they all believe (or disbelieve, LOL) the same things.



Heck, religion's been around for thousands of years and they can't even get straight what they belive.  How many interpretations of the bible and different sects of the same religion are there?

There are no shades of truth, nor are there different flavors like religion.  Facts stand as immutable, not to be interpreted one way or another by different churches.  A=A


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?





Ramirez said:


> Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.


You seem to forget that Dawkins chose HER for the interview. His aim was to find a certain type of believer in order to tar all others with the same brush. In that respect, the ball was squarely in his court. He went easy on her because he knew that she was an easy target. His patronizing tone was meant for the faithful in general_, you seem like an intelligent person, why would you believe such nonsense_*. *

*You obviously have an affinity with Dawkins, but your tactics seem to be a tad more overt. *


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> Heck, religion's been around for thousands of years and they can't even get straight what they belive.  How many interpretations of the bible and different sects of the same religion are there?
> 
> There are no shades of truth, nor are there different flavors like religion.  Facts stand as immutable, not to be interpreted one way or another by different churches.  A=A



I can't disagree with any of that.

You propose to measure religion with the yardstick of science and then deny it because you cannot do so.  I agree that it cannot be done.  Science requires falsifiability.  Since the tenets of religious belief cannot be falsified, they cannot be subject to scientific rigor; they are not scientific.

As the song _"Industrial Disease"_ points out, _"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong..."_  Yes, one of them *must* be wrong.  Both of them *could* be wrong.  However, it would not be correct to say that *both* of them must be wrong, because the religious concept of a human who is a mortal aspect of God cannot be falsified.

You claim atheism, apparently, not on the basis that you do not agree with religion or that you do not believe in God, but on the basis that God does not exist.  Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

This is the error that gives rise to people believing atheists are faith-based in their own way.  No one can know with certainty or prove that God does not exist.  One can only know that there is no proof God exists.  God is not falsifiable, therefore God cannot be subjected to scientific rigor.

Consider the difference between the terms _'guilty'_ and _'not guilty'_.  Guilty means the guy did it (at least in legal terms, it is considered to be proven fact).  However, 'not guilty' does not mean the guy didn't do it - it means it was not proven.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> No. It is something that does not have to be supported by fact. Your own definition you posted awhile back says so.


 
Exactly. So why do you continue to assert that people that believe in evolution are doing so based on faith? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> You are misreading the definition you posted yourself. Please read it again:
> 
> _"Faith [noun]: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof."_
> 
> Does it say that logical proof is required? No. Does it say logical proof is not required? No. It says _'especially without.'_ Meaning that one can have faith even with.


 
Huh? Who's misreading what here? I think I know what I mean more than you know what I mean... just sayin'...unless you're somehow in my head! 



Bill Mattocks said:


> If you cannot read and understand the definition you posted yourself, we don't have much more road to travel together.


 
I think "understanding" has flown the coup and the road you speak of is a one-way street. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct. I have never said otherwise.


 
No, but you seem to confuse belief with faith. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> If you think I have an agenda, please do not make sly innuendo. Just say it.


 
OK, I will... I think you're an alien and your agend is to get into my brain and suck it dry in order to nurish your alien seedlings so that they can hatch and help you take over the world. There...I said it. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Where have I said otherwise?


 
Right there... you said "_otherwise_." It's right there in a quote box for everyone to see. :burp:

Seriously, my point was that you continue to assert that people who recognize evolution is real do so based on faith; not the simple fact that it simply does and the fact that it does is based on scientific fact. The same can not be said of faith in a god. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs but no religion can provide evidence that their particular god is the one and only or the "right" one. You sure can't do it based on which one's been around the longest. :uhohh:



Bill Mattocks said:


> Your error is that your logic is skewed. Faith does not require proof. But you presume that the existence of proof therefore makes a belief not faith. This is an error, and your own statements show it:
> 
> "...faith *does not require* evidence or proof..."


 
Obviously. :shrug: As I am the one asserting that belief in evolution is based on faith. :duh: what was I thinking!?



Bill Mattocks said:


> By your own words, faith is not dependent upon proof. Proof in the affirmative or proof in the negative. One can have faith in things which are true, even things which are provable. Proof, as you say, is not required.


 
Huh? What "faith" are you referring to? Are we off the "religeous faith" thing now? Because I thought this thread had to do with how evolution is disputed by those with "religious faith" that adhere to creationism. :idunno:




Bill Mattocks said:


> I will not take issue with your teacher, because I do not know what she taught you. Your understanding is flawed.


 
She taught me college level Biology and my notes prove that my understanding is flawed as well as her teaching. We all know that you have a PhD in Biology and have given many lectures regarding evolution at all the top schools. Right? 




Bill Mattocks said:


> You still seem to believe I am taking issue with evolution. I am not. I am taking issue with your belief in it. What you believe in as 'evolution' is not correct. Therefore, your belief is 'faith'. That's the way it is. It has nothing to do with the fact of evolution.


 
No, I take issue with your assertion that people's belief in evolution is based on faith and that you continue to try and place them in the same vein as people who believe in a god based on faith. It's not the same. That's what I take issue with. One is based on fact, the other is based on a belief taught to you from childhood with no basis in fact. 

I also take issue with the fact that you continue to assert that my understanding of evolution is flawed, though it is based on an actual education and the accepted rule of science while you continue to fail in backing up anything you claim to be as fact. 

I think what you fail to understand and can't seem to accept is that your opinion is not fact. I understand that it's your opinion and is indeed important to you, but your opinion is not the foundation of scientific facts. And neither is mine or anyone else's for that matter. Until you can prove or at least support your position it is simply hot air. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Your notes are accurate. Your previous statements regarding evolution are incorrect and reveal a flawed understanding of the process.


 
Alrighty then... So my notes are accurate yet the statements based on those notes are incorrect? Gotcha'. Glad we got that straightened out. 

I don't suppose you simply didn't understand what I was saying? No... that couldn't be it. It was definately me. :shrug:



Bill Mattocks said:


> You indicated a belief that species evolve in reaction to stimulus, such as being isolated. This is not true - your notes say it is not true. You failed to grasp your own written notes. Species mutate constantly, and at a steady and predictable rate. With or without pressure to adapt, they continue to mutate. When a viable mutation appears that gives that new mutation a survival advantage over the previous mutation, that new mutation will tend to survive, reproduce, and eventually supplant the original. That is evolution. Your notes describe it well. You said something entirely different.


 
Funny...my notes say otherwise... you know...the ones you said were accurate.  It is in fact a reaction to stimulus within the environment that causes species to adapt; heat, cold, dry, wet...availability of food ..etc. 

When a group of a species migrates into another environment... and become *isolated* from the original group, the factors of the new environment influence how they evolve but have no influence on the original group...BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THERE! 

Darwin points this out by using the examples of the different species of finch in the islands pointing out that their beaks evolved to adapt to the available food sources. 

I think you perhaps misunderstood what I meant by "isolated." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for confusing you. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> You also said that people are being born without appendixes, and that is evidence of evolution. It is not. Being born without an appendix is a mutation. In humans, it conveys no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolution. It is not evolution because this mutation does not increase the odds that people without appendixes will outbreed people with appendixes and eventually replace them. You posit that someday people will no longer have an appendix. This is not true, at least not based on evolution.


 
Perhaps I'm not the one who confused you after all. I don't know where you're drawing this infinite knowledge of science from (propbably because you don't back up anything) but it's terribly skewed and incorrect. 

If a mutation, as you put it, occurs due to an environmental influence it's not evolution? That's what you're saying. Do you know what an appendix is used for? That is...in animals that actually do use one. Here's a homework assignment for you... research that. Then perhaps you'll figure out why humans aren't using them much any more. 

Darwin stated that those best adapted to their environment would survive. If my environment has no meat, and I don't adapt to eating grass then I will likely die. It's really not that complicated. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, your understanding of evolution is flawed. You believe in something that is in fact true, but your understanding is not true. Therefore, your belief is faith.


 
Of course it is, because Bill says so. I don't suppose you'd like to actually present any facts or evidence to prove your assertion? I know it'd be a change for you but change is good! You should try it sometime, you know... evolve a little. :rofl:



Bill Mattocks said:


> That does not invalidate evolution. It just makes your belief the same as that of a person who believes in God; an act of faith.


 
Did you learn to "stretch" like that in MA class or does it come naturally?


----------



## crushing

Omar B said:


> Nope, I'm not an agnostic, I find those mealy mouthed half way, please every side people the worst of all. Like any person who believes in reality and proof I would believe in a god or gods if there were, but there is not. You call atheism dogma, as if to say gravity, sunrise and the tides are dogma rather than fact.


 
I find your reality interesting.  A reality where things don't exist until they are proven to exist.  For example, does Jupiter's moon, Europa, have a global ocean that contains some form of life?  I don't know if you have a mealy mouthed half way answer of "I don't know" or if you will stick to your guns and say that it doesn't exist until someone proves it does.  If a probe is sent to Europa and it does find life, did that life exist before we found it?  Reminds me of that age old question about a tree falling in the woods.

I find the possibility of life on Europa fascinating and I'm not afraid to say that I don't know if it exists, even if it is a mealy mouthed and half way.  And I'm not just saying that to please anyone!

Fortunately, people knowing that they don't really know has led to great advances in knowledge (and/or faith in that knowledge) for everyone.


----------



## Omar B

Well how about the proof that those men who wrote the bible used?  Or the proof of Adam and Eve, proof of original sin (the most monstrous part of religion in my eyes) or any of his supposed appearances.  I don't aqueous to a belief system simply because "You can't prove god does not exist so might as well believe."  Something that exists simply exists, there would be evidence of it, proof that a person can look at and say "Yeah, there it is so I believe."  Not "It's unprovable so might as well believe."

And you are right, not guilty does not mean the guy didn't do it.  he may well have, but that's pure conjecture after not guilty has been pronounced and again, I don't couch my opinions in conjecture.

And I don't "claim" atheism, *I am an atheist*.  You may not wish to accept that and say it's a mere claim, but it is who I am.  I find it disrespectful to refer to it as such, I would never say "you claim christianity" because you said your are a christian and I accepted that.


----------



## Omar B

crushing said:


> I find your reality interesting.  A reality where things don't exist until they are proven to exist.  For example, does Jupiter's moon, Europa, have a global ocean that contains some form of life?  I don't know if you have a mealy mouthed half way answer of "I don't know" or if you will stick to your guns and say that it doesn't exist until someone proves it does.  If a probe is sent to Europa and it does find life, did that life exist before we found it?  Reminds me of that age old question about a tree falling in the woods.



What's wrong with proving something?  If life is on Eurpoa then it's there, there's no denying it.  If a probe finds life there it proves that life is there, it doesn't say a thing for how long it's been there, just that it is.

Your likening it to a tree falling in the forest is pretty funny because I always find that tree thing absurd.  Of course a tree falling produces a sound, it hits the ground doesn't it, and sound is produced by vibration.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> I disagree. There's no dogma or doctrine in atheistism. If I was presented with proof of a god I would believe, it's that simple. I never got how religious groups tend to think of atheists as one group who see the issue all the same and such. That's religion. Being an atheist, I just require proof.


http://firstchurchofatheism.com/. I've found a religious link for you mate. There are many Christians who don't consider themselves religious. They believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. I tend to put atheists like you in a similar bracket.


----------



## celtic_crippler

If you were born to Muslim parents and raised in Iran do you think you'd still be a Christian or do you think you'd follow Islam? 

If that were the case do you think you would so vehemently argue the case for Christianity? 

If you were born and raised by strict atheist, do you think you would still end up a Christian?


----------



## crushing

Omar B said:


> *What's wrong with proving something?* If life is on Eurpoa then it's there, there's no denying it. If a probe finds life there it proves that life is there, it doesn't say a thing for how long it's been there, just that it is.


 
Why do you ask?  No one has said there is something wrong with proving something.



Omar B said:


> Your likening it to a tree falling in the forest is pretty funny because I always find that tree thing absurd. Of course a tree falling produces a sound, it hits the ground doesn't it, and sound is produced by vibration.


 
Yes, I've thought so too, but it is commonly used.  Yes, a tree falling does produces a vibration, which in turn is interpreted as a sound.  So it obviously isn't a sound until something hears it.  ;-)


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> What's wrong with proving something?  If life is on Eurpoa then it's there, there's no denying it.  If a probe finds life there it proves that life is there, it doesn't say a thing for how long it's been there, just that it is.



I don't want to try to speak for crushing, but by his line of questioning (excellent, by the way), your logic would state that if it has not yet been proven that there is life there, then there is no life.  It does not exist until it is proven.



> Your likening it to a tree falling in the forest is pretty funny because I always find that tree thing absurd.  Of course a tree falling produces a sound, it hits the ground doesn't it, and sound is produced by vibration.



The point is that if you are not there to measure it, you cannot prove that it made a sound.  No proof (to you) seems to mean it didn't happen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> Well how about the proof that those men who wrote the bible used?  Or the proof of Adam and Eve, proof of original sin (the most monstrous part of religion in my eyes) or any of his supposed appearances.  I don't aqueous to a belief system simply because "You can't prove god does not exist so might as well believe."  Something that exists simply exists, there would be evidence of it, proof that a person can look at and say "Yeah, there it is so I believe."  Not "It's unprovable so might as well believe."



I am not arguing the validity of religion, nor am I suggesting that you should accept religion.  Again, you put religion in the science box and then deny it based on the fact that it doesn't respond like science.  It's not science.

Once again - science requires falsibility.  If you cannot falsify, it is not science.  Religion cannot be falsified.  Therefore, it is not science.

It is not valid to apply scientific rigor to religion.  Its tenets can  be proven (if God, Jehovah, Allah, etc were to suddenly manifest in a very public and undeniable way) but it cannot be disproven.



> And you are right, not guilty does not mean the guy didn't do it.  he may well have, but that's pure conjecture after not guilty has been pronounced and again, I don't couch my opinions in conjecture.



OK, then we're on the same page.



> And I don't "claim" atheism, *I am an atheist*.  You may not wish to accept that and say it's a mere claim, but it is who I am.  I find it disrespectful to refer to it as such, I would never say "you claim christianity" because you said your are a christian and I accepted that.



I did not mean it as an insult.  I was not sure you were an atheist.  One can defend atheism without being one.  My apologies.


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> The point is that if you are not there to measure it, you cannot prove that it made a sound.  No proof (to you) seems to mean it didn't happen.



But it did make a sound Bill, not because I was not there to hear it does not mean the laws of physics don't still apply.  Scientific laws don't wait for human perception, it just happens.  Tree falls, hits ground, makes sound, I'm at work, not in the office but it did make a sound.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> http://firstchurchofatheism.com/. I've found a religious link for you mate. There are many Christians who don't consider themselves religious. They believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. I tend to put atheists like you in a similar bracket.



Don't put me in any brackets man.  I think that site is hilarious though.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Don't put me in any brackets man. I think that site is hilarious though.


It seems you don't have a problem with putting the faithful in brackets man.

Btw, there are numerous more 'atheist' churches out there promoting their faith. It seems that atheism has turned into quite a religion.


----------



## Marginal

celtic_crippler said:


> What?!?
> 
> No clue as to how it works? Sorry Bill, but that's ridiculous.


I think Bill was commenting on you presenting evolution as a guided process. "People are born without an appendix because they're no longer needed." Makes it sound like the evolutionary process is picking and choosing traits in a conscious manner. 

If people are born with an appendix and live to reproduce, they've made it. If they're born without an appendix and live, they're also viable. (Though they might not be as good at survival as someone with an appendix since the new theory is that the appendix is used as a place to store extra digestive bacteria to repopulate the digestive tract in the event of a disease killing off most of the e coli etc that facilitates digestion.) That's all evolution is. Does a trait aid survival of a line or not? If the trait's undesirable or not as good relative to environment the organism is in, the line may die off. If the trait is beneficial, the line doesn't die.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not arguing the validity of religion, nor am I suggesting that you should accept religion. Again, you put religion in the science box and then deny it based on the fact that it doesn't respond like science. It's not science.
> 
> Once again - science requires falsibility. If you cannot falsify, it is not science. Religion cannot be falsified. Therefore, it is not science.


 
Whoa, Im away from the computer for a few hours and there are suddenly 8 pages!! 
As an atheist Im on the same page as you here Bill. One is science and one is faith, no problem.
Do me a favour, let all the fundamentalists know this too? They seem to think that creationism should be taught in science class.
Just curious, you mentioned the Pope says.. a few pages back. If he didnt say that evolution and religion where indeed compatible, if he took a different viewpoint, would you still think they were?


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> It seems you don't have a problem with putting the faithful in brackets man.



I did?  Sorry, really.  I don't wish to group people at all, if it came off that way I didn't mean to.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> Religion cannot be falsified.
> 
> It is not valid to apply scientific rigor to religion. Its tenets can be proven (if God, Jehovah, Allah, etc were to suddenly manifest in a very public and undeniable way) but it cannot be disproven.


 
So your logic is that since I can not prove God doesn't exist then that proves He does? That's simply not sound logic. 

By that same logic Zeus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy also exist. I don't suppose you believe in them as well? 

I could use your example and say that aliens will eventually land and collect the results of their experiment to see what would happen by adding amino acids to the Earths primordial ooze...those results being human beings of course. How awful would it be to find out you were simply the result of some odd mixture in an aliens Petri dish? 

Using your very own logic, this must also be the case. You can't falsify my assertion; therefore, it must be true.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> No, I take issue with your assertion that people's belief in evolution is based on faith and that you continue to try and place them in the same vein as people who believe in a god based on faith. It's not the same.



It is.



> That's what I take issue with. One is based on fact, the other is based on a belief taught to you from childhood with no basis in fact.



If your understanding of evolution is not correct, it is not based on fact.  Yours is not correct.  Therefore, it is faith.



> I also take issue with the fact that you continue to assert that my understanding of evolution is flawed, though it is based on an actual education and the accepted rule of science while you continue to fail in backing up anything you claim to be as fact.



I have stated the truth as current evolutionary science holds it to be.  Your statements are incorrect.



> I think what you fail to understand and can't seem to accept is that your opinion is not fact. I understand that it's your opinion and is indeed important to you, but your opinion is not the foundation of scientific facts. And neither is mine or anyone else's for that matter. Until you can prove or at least support your position it is simply hot air.



One of us is right and one of is wrong with regard to positions such as _'humans are being born without appendixes and that is evolution'_.  It is not.  Belief that it is would be incorrect.



> Alrighty then... So my notes are accurate yet the statements based on those notes are incorrect? Gotcha'. Glad we got that straightened out.



Correct.



> I don't suppose you simply didn't understand what I was saying? No... that couldn't be it. It was definately me. :shrug:



Yes, it was.



> Funny...my notes say otherwise... you know...the ones you said were accurate.  It is in fact a reaction to stimulus within the environment that causes species to adapt; heat, cold, dry, wet...availability of food ..etc.



Your notes do not say that.  You are reading them as they were apparently given to you, but you clearly do not understand them.



> When a group of a species migrates into another environment... and become *isolated* from the original group, the factors of the new environment influence how they evolve but have no influence on the original group...BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THERE!



You did not say that.  You said that the isolation was the cause of the evolutionary change.   The change happens regardless.  One environment may favor it, another may not.



> Darwin points this out by using the examples of the different species of finch in the islands pointing out that their beaks evolved to adapt to the available food sources.



No.  Their beaks did not evolve to adapt.  That is incorrect, and Darwin did not say that.  They mutated, which resulted in differently-shaped beaks.  One mutation was superior to another for whatever type of food was available on any given island.  Your description gives an anthropomorphic reason for evolution.  Evolution is purely random chance.  You say "X happened, and therefore Y adapted to meet the change imposed by X."  No.  In reality, X happened, and a random mutation resulted in a Y adaptation, which happened to be more successful based on X conditions.



> If a mutation, as you put it, occurs due to an environmental influence it's not evolution?



It does not matter why a mutation occurs, it is not evolution unless it results in a survival or reproductive advantage for that species and it becomes dominant.

Mutations happen constantly.  If they convey no advantage, they are not evolutionary.



> That's what you're saying. Do you know what an appendix is used for? That is...in animals that actually do use one. Here's a homework assignment for you... research that. Then perhaps you'll figure out why humans aren't using them much any more.



I have not stated anything regarding the use of an appendix.  What I have stated is that humans being born with one or without one (a mutation) confers no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolutionary.  If it is not evolutionary, one cannot extrapolate that eventually, humans will have no appendixes.



> Darwin stated that those best adapted to their environment would survive. If my environment has no meat, and I don't adapt to eating grass then I will likely die. It's really not that complicated.



Correct, but *you* adapting to eat grass is not evolution, that's just versatility.  If you have children, and one of them can eat grass, it will  survive and reproduce better than your children who cannot eat grass.  If that child breeds true (passing on the grass-eating gene), then an evolutionary change will have occurred.

The change in environment did not cause the grass-eating mutation to arise.  Your child did not mutate in response to the environment.  It was random chance that happened to work out.

A real-life example of this is lactose intolerance.  It turns out that most people are lactose-intolerant to some extent.  Exceptions appear to be genetically-linked to people deriving from Northern Europeans, who had access to goat and (later) cow's milk.  Being able to digest milk from cows and goats gave a survival advantage to children born in areas where such creatures were plentiful.  That's evolution.  The children did not mutate the genes that allowed lactose tolerance to appear in response to cows - it was a happy accident.  All mutations are accidents.

Lactose tolerance may well have also appeared in people who lived where cows and goats were not plentiful - but in those locations, it gave no advantage. Therefore, the gene did not become dominant in that population.



> Of course it is, because Bill says so. I don't suppose you'd like to actually present any facts or evidence to prove your assertion? I know it'd be a change for you but change is good! You should try it sometime, you know... evolve a little. :rofl:



 It would not matter.  You defend your statements because you are emotionally invested in them.  That is yet another demonstration that they are faith-based.



> Did you learn to "stretch" like that in MA class or does it come naturally?



I love those kinds of questions, where any answer given is wrong.  Let me try one:

When did you quit beating your wife?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ken Morgan said:


> Whoa, Im away from the computer for a few hours and there are suddenly 8 pages!!
> As an atheist Im on the same page as you here Bill. One is science and one is faith, no problem.
> Do me a favour, let all the fundamentalists know this too? They seem to think that creationism should be taught in science class.
> Just curious, you mentioned the Pope says.. a few pages back. If he didnt say that evolution and religion where indeed compatible, if he took a different viewpoint, would you still think they were?



First, I'd like to update the fundamentalists as you suggest.  I seem to have some trouble in that area.  Second, with regard to the Pope, nice one!  Yes, as a Catholic, I generally believe what the Pope says with regard to my faith.  However, since he didn't say it was an article of faith, I am free to disagree with him about it.  If he said that evolution did not exist and it was an article of faith, I'd have a problem.


----------



## Xinglu

crushing said:


> I find your reality interesting.  A reality where things don't exist until they are proven to exist.  For example, does Jupiter's moon, Europa, have a global ocean that contains some form of life?  I don't know if you have a mealy mouthed half way answer of "I don't know" or if you will stick to your guns and say that it doesn't exist until someone proves it does.  If a probe is sent to Europa and it does find life, did that life exist before we found it?  Reminds me of that age old question about a tree falling in the woods.
> 
> I find the possibility of life on Europa fascinating and I'm not afraid to say that I don't know if it exists, even if it is a mealy mouthed and half way.  And I'm not just saying that to please anyone!
> 
> Fortunately, people knowing that they don't really know has led to great advances in knowledge (and/or faith in that knowledge) for everyone.



Thank you for saying that.  The only honest and logical answer towards the existence of God is that of "I don't know."  God can not be empirically proven or disproved.  To not believe requires as much faith as to believe.

Both arguments are logical fallacies in the form of ignorance. Here is an excerpt from one of my old textbooks on the matter:



			
				A Concise Introduction to Logic 10th ed. by Patrick J. Hurley said:
			
		

> The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance", argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
> 
> *Argument from ignorance*
> The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
>  Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
>  Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
> 
> *Argument from personal incredulity*
> Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:
> "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is [or claims to be] unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
> 
> "That's not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying." (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of "people in general" is claimed to agree with the speaker's opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.) This is also called argumentum ad populum.
> 
> An argument from personal incredulity is the same as an argument from ignorance only if the person making the argument has solely their particular personal belief in the impossibility of the one scenario as "evidence" that the alternative scenario is true (i.e., the person lacks relevant evidence specifically for the alternative scenario).
> 
> Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. Here too, it is a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further "evidence." In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion.
> 
> It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God.



Furthermore, Omar, to say that people who admit that they don't know are only trying to appease others is setting up a false dichotomy and it seems clear to me that you are attempting to poison the well so that no one is credible who does take up a agnostic stance.  This, my friend, is poor argumentation and a minefield of fallacies.


----------



## Xinglu

Bill Mattocks said:


> I love those kinds of questions, where any answer given is wrong.  Let me try one:
> 
> When did you quit beating your wife?



The following answer would not be wrong assuming it is true: I have never beat my wife. Furthermore it can be redirected to asking the asker why they assume such a thing.  This allows them enough rope to hang themselves and further exposing their fallacy


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> So your logic is that since I can not prove God doesn't exist then that proves He does? That's simply not sound logic.



It would be if I said that.

Consider the possibilities:

Proof presented: God exists.
Proof presented: God does not exist.
No proof presented: God might or might not exist.

Now, there can be no proof of God's non-existance, religion is not falsifiable.  Think about it yourself, what scientific experiment could be performed to prove God's non-existence?

So we're left with only:

Proof presented: God exists.
No proof presented: God might or might not exist.

If we cannot prove God exists, then we are left with only one result:

No proof presented: God might or might not exist.

The lack of proof for God does not mean God definitely does not exist.  The lack of proof against God does not mean God definitely does exist.  All we can say with regard to God is that He may or may not exist.

Those who believe in God do so based on faith.

If God were to manifest tomorrow, and everyone accepted it as 'real', would the previous faith of those who believe today no longer have been faith?  No, it would still have been faith today.  Because faith is not related to facts, it is just faith.



> By that same logic Zeus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy also exist. I don't suppose you believe in them as well?



I don't, but there are people who do.  Faith is not proof, but faith is also not disproof.



> I could use your example and say that aliens will eventually land and collect the results of their experiment to see what would happen by adding amino acids to the Earths primordial ooze...those results being human beings of course. How awful would it be to find out you were simply the result of some odd mixture in an aliens Petri dish?



I don't get your point on this one.



> Using your very own logic, this must also be the case. You can't falsify my assertion; therefore, it must be true.



Ah, now I see.  A statement which cannot be falsified is not necessarily true.  It merely cannot be falsified.

God is a two-sided coin with respect to reality.  He either exists or He does not.  There is no reality in which God does and does not exist.  One might argue for the existence of a quantum reality in which God has a probability of existing or not, but we can keep this simple.

However, proof is *not* a two-sided coin.  There is proof, there is disproof, and there is lack of proof.  Lack of proof is the equivalent of saying *"We do not know."*  There is neither proof nor disproof for God, so 'we do not know' if He exists or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Xinglu said:


> The following answer would not be wrong assuming it is true: I have never beat my wife. Furthermore it can be redirected to asking the asker why they assume such a thing.  This allows them enough rope to hang themselves and further exposing their fallacy



Good reply, well done!


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> I did? Sorry, really. I don't wish to group people at all, if it came off that way I didn't mean to.


Not a problem mate!!


----------



## Xinglu

Bill Mattocks said:


> Proof presented: God exists.
> Proof presented: God does not exist.
> No proof presented: God might or might not exist.
> 
> Now, there can be no proof of God's non-existance, religion is not falsifiable.  Think about it yourself, what scientific experiment could be performed to prove God's non-existence?
> 
> So we're left with only:
> 
> Proof presented: God exists.
> No proof presented: God might or might not exist.
> 
> If we cannot prove God exists, then we are left with only one result:
> 
> No proof presented: God might or might not exist.
> 
> The lack of proof for God does not mean God definitely does not exist.  The lack of proof against God does not mean God definitely does exist.  All we can say with regard to God is that He may or may not exist.
> 
> Those who believe in God do so based on faith.


I get what you are saying and in form it is correct, however "proof presented" would better read as "assertion" since they are statements not proofs. 

So we have the following Assertions: G (god exists), -G (Not God, or God does not exist), & A (agnostic or without certainty or ability to conclude). We will use P for emperical proof.

The formulas: -P that -G =G, -P that G =-G are both incorrect in form and function.  However, -P that -G = A, P that G = A are valid because they express that no conclusion can be made from the statements made.

The only thing we can logically conclude is that we don't know if God exists or does not exist.  Anything outside of logical uncertainty is taken on faith. and should read as either _probably_ G or _probably_ -G because neither can be ruled completely out and to do so is a logical fallacy.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your notes do not say that. You are reading them as they were apparently given to you, but you clearly do not understand them.


 
You mean as I wrote them. But since you said they were given to me then that must be what happened because you're never wrong. I must've imagined writing all that. Kind of like how you imagine you're right. LOL 



Bill Mattocks said:


> You did not say that. You said that the isolation was the cause of the evolutionary change. The change happens regardless. One environment may favor it, another may not.


 
More like how you interpretted what I said. By all means don't take any responsibility for being wrong. But then, that assumes you would actually admit that you were wrong and I've never seen you do that. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> No. Their beaks did not evolve to adapt. That is incorrect, and Darwin did not say that. They mutated, which resulted in differently-shaped beaks. One mutation was superior to another for whatever type of food was available on any given island. Your description gives an anthropomorphic reason for evolution. Evolution is purely random chance. You say "X happened, and therefore Y adapted to meet the change imposed by X." No. In reality, X happened, and a random mutation resulted in a Y adaptation, which happened to be more successful based on X conditions.


 
*WRONG*. 

I know you refuse to follow a link, especially since they most often show how wrong you are so I'll post it directly...



> *Darwin's finches* (also known as the _Galápagos Finches_ or as _Geospizinae_) are 13 or 14 separate combinatory species of Passerine birds (related to American Emberizidae or Tanagers rather than European finches) related to a group that Charles Darwin collected on the Galápagos Islands during the voyage of the _Beagle_. Thirteen reside on the Galápagos Islands and one on Cocos Island. The term _Darwin's Finches_ was first applied by Percy Lowe in 1936, and popularised in 1947 by David Lack in his book _Darwin's Finches_.[1][2]
> The birds are all about the same size (1020 cm). *The most important differences between species are in the size and shape of their beaks, and the beaks are highly adapted to different food sources*.




On the off chance that you actually care to expand your realm of knowledge...and perhaps be right in the future so as not to be a source of entertainment for Omar's buddies, here's the link in case you want to read more. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches



Bill Mattocks said:


> I have not stated anything regarding the use of an appendix. What I have stated is that humans being born with one or without one (a mutation) confers no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolutionary. If it is not evolutionary, one cannot extrapolate that eventually, humans will have no appendixes.


 
Have you been watching all the X-Men movies? All this talk of mutations... 




Bill Mattocks said:


> It would not matter. You defend your statements because you are emotionally invested in them. That is yet another demonstration that they are faith-based.


 
I don't have to defend them, because they're facts. 

I can't decide whether you actually believe the things you post or if you do it just to play Devil's advocate and/or entertainment purposes. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I love those kinds of questions, where any answer given is wrong. Let me try one:
> 
> When did you quit beating your wife?


 
Not really...I'll show you by responding to your question: I'm not married. :moon:

Try again. :bangahead:


----------



## Omar B

Xinglu said:


> Furthermore, Omar, to say that people who admit that they don't know are only trying to appease others is setting up a false dichotomy and it seems clear to me that you are attempting to poison the well so that no one is credible who does take up a agnostic stance.  This, my friend, is poor argumentation and a minefield of fallacies.



I hear ya man, but I'm not trying to poison any wells or dykes or dams for that matter.  I usually think of this quote in relation to agnostics.
_The agnostic miscalculates.  He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody.  In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect.  He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.  So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved.  As such, he is an epistemological destroyer.  The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack.  The fact is that his view is one of the falsestand most cowardlystands there can be. - Leonard Peikoff
_


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> It would be if I said that.


 
You did. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> If God were to manifest tomorrow, and everyone accepted it as 'real', would the previous faith of those who believe today no longer have been faith? No, it would still have been faith today. Because faith is not related to facts, it is just faith.


 
No, then there would be proof and it would be a fact. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't, but there are people who do. Faith is not proof, but faith is also not disproof.


 
Why not? At least the Tooth Fairy gives you cash money. I mean, if you're going to believe in something you may as well get paid! :lol:




Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't get your point on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Replace "alien" with "God" and you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Mattocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now I see. A statement which cannot be falsified is not necessarily true. It merely cannot be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, yet again, you're saying that because God's existance can not be falsified I can not assert he does not exist and you can assert that he does.
> 
> Fair enough. I don't begrudge anyone believing in anything they want to believe in; especially since I can't disprove the existance of an invisible man sitting up in the clouds judging me and everything I do. A loving and merciful man that will burn my soul for all eternity if I don't believe in him.
> 
> ...hmmm...maybe I should rethink this! I mean, what do I have to lose? I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk buring in hell-fire for all eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Mattocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a two-sided coin with respect to reality. He either exists or He does not. There is no reality in which God does and does not exist. One might argue for the existence of a quantum reality in which God has a probability of existing or not, but we can keep this simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With respect to reality? :lfao:
> 
> One might argue that the Greek Gods are still in charge, but why bother? LOL
> 
> Actually, if we're talking _probability_...it's more probable that your Christian God does not exist. If for no other reason than, considering we group all denominations together including Catholics and Protestants, only about 33% of the entire world is Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Mattocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, proof is *not* a two-sided coin. There is proof, there is disproof, and there is lack of proof. Lack of proof is the equivalent of saying *"We do not know."* There is neither proof nor disproof for God, so 'we do not know' if He exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a lack of proof in support of one's belief, doesn't it go without saying that you can't prove it? Therefore, you either can or can't prove a thing...so it's kinda' like a two sided coin ain't it; you either prove it or you don't.
> 
> You can't prove God exists. I can't prove that he doesn't.
> 
> What we can do is present arguments for and against based on what we do know however. And in that case, most often what we do know tends to lend itself to showing that it's most likely He does not. (Your Christian God that is.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Archangel M

Dawkins.

As with all things "human" you cannot leave out the aspect of Ego and wanting to "lord it over" other people. 

I have met many snarky, inflated, pompous academics who may be intelligent, may even be right, but are flaming *******s about it.


----------



## Makalakumu

I'm an avowed atheist and I pretty much see things like this as a step toward persecution.  Our country used to stay out of the religions business because we learned these lessons the hard way in the Old World.


----------



## Xinglu

Omar B said:


> I hear ya man, but I'm not trying to poison any wells or dykes or dams for that matter.  I usually think of this quote in relation to agnostics.
> _The agnostic miscalculates.  He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody.  In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect.  He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.  So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved.  As such, he is an epistemological destroyer.  The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack.  The fact is that his view is one of the falsestand most cowardlystands there can be. - Leonard Peikoff
> _


Unfortunately that quote is ad hominem, yet another fallacy (they seem to be popping up everywhere on this thread!).  The reality is, it IS the logical position and has nothing to do with not offending anyone, safety, or venerability.  I offend a lot of people by using logic.  Sometimes I enjoy doing so, but I also believe in being honest and rational.  And If I don't know something, the honest thing is to admit it.  And in listening to the arguments on both sides, logic cannot conclude one way or the other so one is left with making an emotional decision based on faith or abstaining from an illogical conclusion.  I abstain because I value my integrity and I cannot have any certainty in theism or atheism.  That does not a coward make  just an honest person.  As I said - People may speak to the probability of A God or Not A God but to speak to the certainty is illogical, irrational, self-deluded, and to a degree dishonest with themselves.  They may want to be certain, they may even think they are, but when we get down to brass tacks they are basing their conclusions on emotions not facts.


----------



## crushing

Omar B said:


> I hear ya man, but I'm not trying to poison any wells or dykes or dams for that matter.  I usually think of this quote in relation to agnostics.
> _The agnostic miscalculates.  He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody.  In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect.  He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.  So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved.  As such, he is an epistemological destroyer.  The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack.  The fact is that his view is one of the falsestand most cowardlystands there can be. - Leonard Peikoff
> _



 :BSmeter:

I don't know if Mr. Peikoff as an authority we are to find appealing, but this quote just doesn't stand.  Considering the strong will and conviction of both the religious fundamentalists and the staunch anti-theists (agnostics don't seem to bother the more moderate atheists too much), the agnostic seems to be the only one with the courage to admit he does not know and that presently there is no way of knowing, and this DOES antagonize many from both sides, including yourself, despite the claims to the contrary by Mr. Peikoff.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Marginal said:


> I think Bill was commenting on you presenting evolution as a guided process. "People are born without an appendix because they're no longer needed." Makes it sound like the evolutionary process is picking and choosing traits in a conscious manner.



Sorry I missed your response.  Yes, that's it exactly.



> If people are born with an appendix and live to reproduce, they've made it. If they're born without an appendix and live, they're also viable. (Though they might not be as good at survival as someone with an appendix since the new theory is that the appendix is used as a place to store extra digestive bacteria to repopulate the digestive tract in the event of a disease killing off most of the e coli etc that facilitates digestion.) That's all evolution is. Does a trait aid survival of a line or not? If the trait's undesirable or not as good relative to environment the organism is in, the line may die off. If the trait is beneficial, the line doesn't die.



One can take it farther - in order for the mutation to become an evolutionary change, it not only give an edge in survival, but it has to do so before reproduction.  If people reproduce first and then die of appendicitis, then being born without an appendix is no advantage at all, just another mutation that may or may not become common.

And yet more - as we humans tend to interfere with what would otherwise be natural selection, most of the old rules no longer apply.  We don't let people with appendicitis die, which *might* give people born without an appendix a survival / reproduction edge.  So there goes that advantage again.  Just a mutation, not evolutionary change.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Xinglu said:


> I get what you are saying and in form it is correct, however "proof presented" would better read as "assertion" since they are statements not proofs.
> 
> So we have the following Assertions: G (god exists), -G (Not God, or God does not exist), & A (agnostic or without certainty or ability to conclude). We will use P for emperical proof.
> 
> The formulas: -P that -G =G, -P that G =-G are both incorrect in form and function.  However, -P that -G = A, P that G = A are valid because they express that no conclusion can be made from the statements made.
> 
> The only thing we can logically conclude is that we don't know if God exists or does not exist.  Anything outside of logical uncertainty is taken on faith. and should read as either _probably_ G or _probably_ -G because neither can be ruled completely out and to do so is a logical fallacy.



Thank you, you said it much better than I did.  I played with that language in college, admittedly I am not good enough with expressing it, although I am clear on the concepts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> So, yet again, you're saying that because God's existance can not be falsified I can not assert he does not exist and you can assert that he does.



Not at all, you can assert that God does not exist.  There is no proof that God does not exist, and so if you assert that, you have faith that it is true - not proof.  This sort of belief is common, but indistinguishable from religion - believing something to be true that cannot be proven.

When I assert God exists - I am engaging in faith because there is no proof.

When you assert God does not exist - you are engaging in faith because there is no proof.

The only statement that can be made about God that is based on fact and not faith is that we do not know if God exists or not.



> Fair enough. I don't begrudge anyone believing in anything they want to believe in; especially since I can't disprove the existance of an invisible man sitting up in the clouds judging me and everything I do. A loving and merciful man that will burn my soul for all eternity if I don't believe in him.
> 
> ...hmmm...maybe I should rethink this! I mean, what do I have to lose? I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk buring in hell-fire for all eternity.



Pascal's Wager.  It's basic philosophy.  Has holes in it.



> Actually, if we're talking _probability_...it's more probable that your Christian God does not exist. If for no other reason than, considering we group all denominations together including Catholics and Protestants, only about 33% of the entire world is Christian.



Personally, I don't know what the probability is that God exists or does not exist.  I would accept as axiomatic that if God exists, He is not as I had pictured Him or as the Catholic Church holds Him to be.



> If there's a lack of proof in support of one's belief, doesn't it go without saying that you can't prove it? Therefore, you either can or can't prove a thing...so it's kinda' like a two sided coin ain't it; you either prove it or you don't.



Side one: Prove
Side two: Disprove
Side three: Cannot prove or disprove

Three sides.



> You can't prove God exists. I can't prove that he doesn't.



Correct.



> What we can do is present arguments for and against based on what we do know however. And in that case, most often what we do know tends to lend itself to showing that it's most likely He does not. (Your Christian God that is.)



Subject to debate, but that's not the debate we were having. If you want to have that debate, it's OK with me.  Doctor Stephen Unwin used Bayes Theory to calculate a 67% chance that an omnipotent being exists.  That says nothing about 'my Christian God' of course, it merely posits that the chances are higher that a God exists than that a God does not.  I don't think I believe that statistic, but it's interesting.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Chris Parker said:


> Santa is real... traps set on Christmas Eve...


 
I like the way you think, sir!


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Chris Parker said:


> Evolution therefore is not a matter of faith, as it is a provable concept, whether or not an individual has taken the time to gain an understanding themselves, it can be proven, and has been to gain it's established place within science. At best, you are saying that people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, but that is still not the same as faith.
> 
> And in this, belief in evolution is like belief in DNA. Not faith, belief.


 
+1 

Chris explained my thinking on this subject in a much more articulate way than I did. Thanks buddy.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> Einstein wasn't an atheist and rebuked those who said he was.



Einstein's views on religion were complicated, but he generally referred to himself as an agnostic and always denied the notion of a personal deity:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." 

He disliked being called an atheist for several reasons, including that "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be _refuted_ ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot", but he was not a religious man either--and most certainly not organized religion.


----------



## Archangel M

Has evolution become a "law" while I wasn't looking?


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

celtic_crippler said:


> Tell you what, produce proof of your PhD in Biology and perhaps I will entertain your assertion that I am wrong.


 
Celtic, if I show you my degree will you become my lackey and do my evil bidding?


----------



## Sukerkin

More of an underlying organising principle of chemical bonding than anything else.

EDIT: In response to *Angel* there - *Jenny* popped a post in whilst my fingers slept laggardly on my keyboard


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Archangel M said:


> Has evolution become a "law" while I wasn't looking?



Yes, perhaps.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.  The fact is that organisms change over time.  The theory is what is currently believed about the mechanisms that bring that about.

When people say _"The theory of evolution,"_ there is often a basic misunderstanding of the term.  Many think it means evolution itself has not been proven.  It has.


----------



## arnisador

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.



Heh, string theory may not be the best example of something for which there is evidence--more and more other physicists complain that it's just mathematical masturbation.



yorkshirelad said:


> Hawkins doesn't necessarily want to interview or be interviewed by them because once you get past the argument of evolution, there is no way of knowing if there is or isn't a deity.



Agreed--strictly speaking, scientists should (in their professional roles) be agnostics, not atheists. Similarly, the same would be true of unicorns, vampires, Counter-Earth, and whether or not we're all just brains in vats--these aren't disproven, it's just that evidence to support such contentions are lacking. But there comes a point where one stops drawing such a strict distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack, at least when not speaking formally and carefully. After all this time without evidence of supernatural entities, serious doubt in their existence is justified.


----------



## blindsage

There are so many assumptions about other people's opinions and ideas on here that it seems like quiet the a** convention.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> As for his interview with O'Reilly, we see what we want to see. He had to admit that he didn't know the true origin of the universe and because of that his atheistic belief is just as much blind faith as that of believers.





Jenna said:


> I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.



Asking for evidence isn't dogmatic...it's a proven method of generating knowledge. These are not mirror-image positions, as much as the superstitious would like to so paint science. Science is a method, not a dogmatic belief. One chooses whether to use science or to use faith as a basic method, but science has justified itself in unambiguous ways while the religious claim that religion has justified itself to them in personal ways. Those are quite different. To believe otherwise is to place penicillin and prayer on an equal footing as a means of treating disease.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Celtic,

I've finally read the REAMS AND REAMS of back and forthishness between you and Bill, so I'll comment (although a page or two will probably be written while I formulate my response).

Bill is right with respect to mutation. It is the only true source of the genetic variability that natural selection acts upon to result in the evolution of species. With respect to populations, founder's effect can establish a new population with a different suite of gene frequencies than the founding population, but the origin of the genetic variation was mutation. 

Mutations don't (generally) result from environmental pressure (let's disregard, fo the sake of argument, the effect of mutagenic substances or radiation). Mutation occurs all the time because many species don't have DNA repair mechanisms and so copies of the genome are rife with mistakes. If the genome is being copied in the process of meiosis, then those mistakes will end up in the germline. If those gametes are then reproduced, the mutation will be passed on. At this point natural selection will act upon it, to the advantage or disadvantage of the individual. 

Darwin's finches are an example of adaptation to the environment, but the environment did not cause the adaptations. Those mutations in individuals which led to slight changes in beak morphology were positively selected, allowing the offspring of those individuals to survive and differentially reproduce. In time, the frequency of adapted to non-adapted beaks changed. Eventually, only those individuals with adapted beaks were left. The wide variety of beak shapes resulted from a wide variety of mutations in the genes that code for beak shape, which were then positively or negatively selected.

However, full props to you and Bill for maintaining a crazy long conversation while I slept, drank my morning coffee, got beautiful, ran errands, ate lunch...


----------



## Andrew Green

Archangel M said:


> Has evolution become a "law" while I wasn't looking?



If it hadn't already been a law for a very long we wouldn't be here talking about it


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

arnisador said:


> Heh, string theory may not be the best example of something for which there is evidence--more and more other physicists complain that it's just mathematical masturbation.
> 
> Thanks, arnisador. I would not want to be guilty of mathematical masturbation. I cannot think of anything more borning.
> 
> Agreed--strictly speaking, scientists should (in their professional roles) be agnostics, not atheists. Similarly, the same would be true of unicorns, vampires, Counter-Earth, and whether or not we're all just brains in vats--these aren't disproven, it's just that evidence to support such contentions are lacking. But there comes a point where one stops drawing such a strict distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack, at least when not speaking formally and carefully. After all this time without evidence of supernatural entities, serious doubt in their existence is justified.


 
This is why I qualify myself as an agnostic. No evidence for the existence of God, but no evidence for the non-existence of God. But frankly, I'm not interested in spirituality or metaphysical questions.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

arnisador said:


> Heh, string theory may not be the best example of something for which there is evidence--more and more other physicists complain that it's just mathematical masturbation.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed--strictly speaking, scientists should (in their professional roles) be agnostics, not atheists. Similarly, the same would be true of unicorns, vampires, Counter-Earth, and whether or not we're all just brains in vats--these aren't disproven, it's just that evidence to support such contentions are lacking. But there comes a point where one stops drawing such a strict distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack, at least when not speaking formally and carefully. After all this time without evidence of supernatural entities, serious doubt in their existence is justified.


 
Thanks, arnisador. I would not want to be guilty of mathematical masturbation. I cannot think of anything more boring.

This is why I qualify myself as an agnostic. No evidence for the existence of God, but no evidence for the non-existence of God. But frankly, I'm not interested in spirituality or metaphysical questions.


----------



## Xinglu

Bill - I missed the Pascel's wager thank you for catching it!

The problem with Pascels wager and it's opposite the Atheist wager is that the entire argument is based in fallacy.  Which fallacy? it is a *false dichotomy* relying on the _*assumption*_ that the only possibilities are:

For the atheists wager: 
a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's actions, or a benevolent god does not exist.

Pascel's wager is similar but focuses on belief not actions:
a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's belief, or a benevolent god does not exist.

Here is the fastest way to show the invalidity of the argument, give more options. God could either be malevolent or not reward actions.

The Atheist Wager implicitly assumes that a god who only rewards faith (and punishes disbelief) is not a benevolent god. In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the actual behavior choices made by the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of whether the individual believes in the god or not. A way of viewing the Atheist's Wager is that any all-powerful god who would decide outcomes based on faith rather than actions is not a benevolent god, and therefore not deserving of worship from a good, principled person. The opposing view, that a benevolent god could require exclusive faith in him through a particular "true" religion, leaves open the question of how it is possible to know which of the hundreds of faiths is the one that reaps reward instead of condemnation.

Furthermore, it assumes that one's legacy either for doing bad or doing good has value to a deceased individual. It could just as easily be argued that if no benevolent god exists the only value of doing evil or good is during life.

With Pascel's Wager, there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many potential gods, some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. This would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. 

As said before: God could either be malevolent or not reward belief. But let us explore this further: In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the belief of the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of the individual's actions, such as rewarding kindness, generosity, humility or sincerity. Perhaps instead God rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith.

Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. Ultimately, an omniscient God would presumably see through the deception and not reward you for your feigned belief.


----------



## Chris Parker

(Just because I feel a little lightness is sometimes needed...)

*Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy (Douglas Adams)*

The Babel Fish is a creation of Adams' within his books. It is put into your ear, and feeds on brainwaves, excreting them into the hosts mind. This has the effect of translating any incoming language into a message the host understands.

From the book (and from memory, so hopefully it's close...)

"I refuse to prove I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway" says Man. "It could not have possibly evolved by chance. It proves you exist, therefore by your own argument, you don't. QED"

"Oh" says God. "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"That was easy!" exclaims Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets himself run over on the next zebra crossing.

*  *  *

Back to the topic.

The best evidence I can think of for people being born without an appendix (for the survival of the species) is more economy than anything else. By removing the appendix, you are not using valuable resources (blood, nutrients, etc) to keep it working. So the lack of an appendix could represent a new evolution.

That said, I am unfamiliar with any studies indicating that this is occuring, this is just my reasoning for how it could work.

Back to your regular thread.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> He disliked being called an atheist for several reasons, including that "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be _refuted_ ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot", but he was not a religious man either--and most certainly not organized religion.


QFT, as a true scientist Einstein would never discount the possible.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Celtic,
> 
> Mutation occurs all the time because many species don't have DNA repair mechanisms and so copies of the genome are rife with mistakes.


 
I should add that even species with DNA repair mechanisms (like mammals) often perpetuate mistakes.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Xinglu said:


> an omniscient God would presumably see through the deception and not reward you for your feigned belief.


 
Therefore, God CAN see through the bedcovers, and we are all destined for hell.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Asking for evidence isn't dogmatic...it's a proven method of generating knowledge. These are not mirror-image positions, as much as the superstitious would like to so paint science. Science is a method, not a dogmatic belief. One chooses whether to use science or to use faith as a basic method, but science has justified itself in unambiguous ways while the religious claim that religion has justified itself to them in personal ways. Those are quite different. To believe otherwise is to place penicillin and prayer on an equal footing as a means of treating disease.


I believe in the deity. I don't know what form the deity takes, but I have FAITH that it exists. I don't push my spiritual beliefs on others and I don't follow a specific churches dogma. I do not evangelize. Because of this I don't want or need to be preached to be atheists and I respet atheists who do not want to be preached to by those with religios beliefs.

Where does the burden of proof lie? It lies in the one who has to prove a point in this instance. I don't require proof that God exists because I have a personal understanding through faith and answered prayers. When oncologists said that my mother would die, we prayed and she lived. They can't explain it. When I have been at my lowest a prayed and pulled through. Now most of my prayers are prayers of thanks for the life, wife and health I have. I, personally need no further proof.

It seems to me that Dawkins is in need of proof that God does not exist, he yearns for it. In the O'Reilly interview, when O'Reilly points out that Dawkins still doesn't know how things came about, he replies, "We're working on it." He seems to have a deep need to disuade anyone from believing in God. It doesn't seem logical to me, but then again, I'm not Dawkins.

Atheists really seem to be the new evangelists. I was annoyed at all denominations who would try convert me to their particular religious ideology. Now I have to hear the same thing from atheists.


----------



## arnisador

Tez3 said:


> What's the good of understanding evolution v creation when your home and family have been washed away?



Well, at the risk of appearing not to get your point, it's good that someone understands evolution as it's a major underpinning of modern medicine, which may well benefit those who are affected by such a disaster.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> http://firstchurchofatheism.com/I tend to put atheists like you in a similar bracket.



Atheists just don't have much in common...any more than people who don't believe in vampires do. Christians have something in common...athesists don't.

I'm reminded of the comment that talking about nonlinear functions in mathematics is like talking about non-elephant animals in biology. Non-Christian, and more generally non-religious, covers a lot of territory, organized only by what people are _not_.

On a somewhat related note, people keep talking about faith as though it leads one inexorably to believe in a god...where are the people whose faith leads them to believe in purple people-eaters? Science uses evidence to sift the possibilities...faith just accepts the locally prevalent mythology in most cases.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

arnisador said:


> On a somewhat related note, people keep talking about faith as though it leads one inexorably to believe in a god...where are the people whose faith leads them to believe in purple people-eaters?



That is why I say that faith is not tied to religion.  Faith is belief without understanding.

Those of us who are religious say that we have faith in God, and for many, that has become the default meaning of the word 'faith'.  But we have faith that many things are true (or not true) and if we have no true understanding of them, whether they are or not literally true is beside the point - our belief is faith.

During this Great Recession (as it is now being called), one is urged over and over to have 'faith in the economy'.  That word is well-chosen.  I do not understand the economy - few if anyone really understands everything about it (if they did, they'd be richer than Warren Buffett).  But the government is urging me to believe in the underlying strength of the economy, to believe that it will recover, to continue spending and not hoarding what little money I can manage to hold on to.  They are asking for belief without understanding, which is faith, and they use that exact word to ask for it.

We are asked to have 'faith in each other' and to 'have faith in the justice system' and to 'have faith that the Cubs will win the pennant this year' and so on.  Every use of the word denotes not religion, but belief without understanding.

So when I say that my belief without understanding in religion is faith, and a person's belief without understanding in evolution is faith, I am not addressing the truth or falseness of religion, or the truth or falseness of evolution.  For the *purposes of belief without understanding it does not matter* if they are true or false.

Faith is not just about religion.  We just often behave as if it is tied to it.



> Science uses evidence to sift the possibilities...faith just accepts the locally prevalent mythology in most cases.



Faith is not that at all.  Faith is belief without understanding.  In anything.  Even things that are provably true.


----------



## Chris Parker

Again, Bill, much though I respect your point of view here, I have to disagree. Faith is not belief without understanding. That is gullibility. Faith is belief without the requirement of proof.

To (hopefully) make myself clearer here, I would hope that you would have a personal understanding of what is it you mean when you refer to God, which by your definition would not be "faith", but "belief". You may not have a scientific understanding, but you do have an understanding. Without it, you have nothing to have faith in. Understanding is integral.

With the baseball (?) team mentioned (I don't really have much to do with sports, and being Australian, my reference to the Cubs is old reruns of Cheers going through my head...), you can have faith in them winning, because you understand what winning entails, and how the team may feasibly achieve that. You may have little to no evidence of them being able to achieve it (losing the last 10 years in a row in little evidence that they will achieve success), but to have faith in this, you need to have some reference and understanding of what it is you are having faith in.

In regards to the economy, economists have understanding. You have understanding of the relative worth of money, how having a lack affects you, and how having more is better (from a certain point of view). Again, to have faith is to have an understanding of what you are having faith in (what "better" means for an economy).

In regards to religion, I am sure that if you asked the clergy if they had an understanding of God, the answer would be yes, they understand what is meant by the term God, even if only to themselves. And that understanding is one of the cornerstones that allows them (and yourself) to have faith.

Does that make sense? I know we're all just arguing semantics here, but the crossed-definitions seem to be hampering our conversation...


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> The best evidence I can think of for people being born without an appendix (for the survival of the species) is more economy than anything else. By removing the appendix, you are not using valuable resources (blood, nutrients, etc) to keep it working. So the lack of an appendix could represent a new evolution.
> 
> That said, I am unfamiliar with any studies indicating that this is occuring, this is just my reasoning for how it could work.



The problem is that that human language is often too imprecise to contain the literal meaning within the words we tend to use.  Many of our word choices appear to give intent to things which happen randomly.

It is correct to say that species mutate, and mutations which best compete and breed in changing environments represent evolutionary change.

It is not correct to say that species evolve to meet changing the changing environment.

Even if they sound the same, they are not.  The second statement implies (although it does not explicitly state) that there is intent.  In other words, it infers the notion that the species in question begins to throw off mutations in order to meet the changing environment.  This would give the species (any species) intelligence to know that it is threatened, and the power to affect its own mutations.

We know that a tapeworm does think about these things.  We know that a tapeworm does not have the power to choose its own mutations.

Evolution has no intent.  It is simply mutations that are happy accidents.  They succeed, by pure random chance.  Most mutations, then, must not succeed and indeed that appears to be the case.  Most mutations are either destructive to the organism or they simply do nothing at all for the organism one way or another with regard to survival and reproductive advantages.  These mutations may persist and be passed on, or they may not, but evolution does not favor them specifically.

Evolution favors mutations that give an advantage in survival and/or reproduction.

Taking the example of the human appendix.  We presume that the appendix today serves no function (which as others have pointed out in this thread, may not be true, even if most of us were raised believing it).

Must we then presume that the appendix served a purpose at one time?  Well, we can't presume that from the standpoint of evolutionary change.  That is because the appendix could be a random mutation that did not convey any particular survival or reproductive benefit, but also did not disappear (which could be due to any number of unknown non-evolutionary reasons).

So it might never have served a purpose (if we only look to evolution to explain it) and it may not serve one now.  We do know that modern man appears to function as well without an appendix as with one. We know that some humans are born without an appendix (a random mutation, or it could even be a retro-mutation), and that those humans appear to suffer no ill effects from not having an appendix.

So from the point of view of humanity, we could well dispense with the appendix.  Even if it turns out to have some purpose, it looks like we can get along pretty well without one.

But evolution says that not having an appendix does not increase our chances of survival or reproduction.  So being born without one is not an advantage.  If it is not an advantage, there is no evolutionary reason for this to take hold and become the dominant mutation.

It might become the dominant mutation, just as the appearance of the appendix in the first place might have become dominant, for non-evolutionary reasons.  But evolution itself does not speak to that.

The most common example of evolutionary change seen today is the MRSA bacterial infection.

People have staph germs living on their skin most of the time.  Some people get staph infections, although most people do not.  In the past, doctors gave antibiotics to kill the staph infections, and that was that.

The problem was that staph, like all living things, mutates.  And viruses and bacteria mutate a lot and often.

As it turns out, some of those mutations were, by chance, resistant to traditional antibiotics.  This gave them a survival and reproduction advantage.  They could continue to spread even when antibiotics were administered.  As a result, MRSA is quickly becoming the dominant form of staph infection.

Doctors fight MRSA by using ever more exotic antibiotics that the MRSA strains have not been exposed to yet, which generally does kill them.  But as staph bacteria continue to mutate, the chances are that at some point, another mutation will be resistant to the newer forms of antibiotics, and we'll be back to the same place again.

Staph bacteria did not know they were under attack.  They did not respond to attack by mutating to meet their changing environment.  They mutate all the time, but most of those mutations did not give a survival or reproductive advantage, so they either died out or did not out-compete the strains they mutated from.  It was pure random chance - luck - that a mutation occurred in the presence of antibiotics that was resistant to those antibiotics.  Whilst its brothers and sisters died off all around it, the MRSA mutation reproduced and had a grand old time, eventually killing its host and spreading to other victims.

This is evolutionary change in action.  Random mutations that happen all the time, but seldom give and advantage, so they don't take over the joint.  Once in awhile, a mutation comes along that really gets the job done, and that one gets all the girls.  But it doesn't mutate because the environment changed, it mutated anyway and it just got lucky.


----------



## Omar B

arnisador said:


> Atheists just don't have much in common...any more than people who don't believe in vampires do. Christians have something in common...athesists don't.
> 
> I'm reminded of the comment that talking about nonlinear functions in mathematics is like talking about non-elephant animals in biology. Non-Christian, and more generally non-religious, covers a lot of territory, organized only by what people are _not_.
> 
> On a somewhat related note, people keep talking about faith as though it leads one inexorably to believe in a god...where are the people whose faith leads them to believe in purple people-eaters? Science uses evidence to sift the possibilities...faith just accepts the locally prevalent mythology in most cases.



It's what seems to happen, people seem to think atheists all belong to a club and get together to plan anti-secular things.  Simply, my opinion is that there is no higher power, doesn't make me want to join up with one crew of people or another.  Religion seems to depend on numbers and gatherings.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> Again, Bill, much though I respect your point of view here, I have to disagree. Faith is not belief without understanding. That is gullibility. Faith is belief without the requirement of proof.



I can understand your point of view, but I can invalidate it.

We say that Christians have faith in the Christian concept of God, right?  And they do so without proof, in your theory.

Now, we know that there is no proof of God today, so we feel pretty safe with that statement.

However, let's say that today, the Christian God appears and makes it clear to all and sundry that He exists and is real.  Consider for the sake of argument that God has been proven to exist.

Now, one can say that people who continue to believe in God are no longer engaging in faith, but are instead choosing to believe in something that can be proven.

However, what was it when God had not proven Himself?  Was it faith then?  After all, God existed then too, He just had not proven Himself to exist.

Faith, then, is not belief without the requirement of proof.  There was proof that God existed the day before He showed Himself, we just didn't know it.  Faith yesterday was belief without understanding.

The facts didn't change in my hypothetical situation.  God existed yesterday, but without proof.  God exists today, but now with proof.  Believers have not changed, the facts have not changed, only their understanding has changed.



> To (hopefully) make myself clearer here, I would hope that you would have a personal understanding of what is it you mean when you refer to God, which by your definition would not be "faith", but "belief". You may not have a scientific understanding, but you do have an understanding. Without it, you have nothing to have faith in. Understanding is integral.



Understanding is a continuum.  I know that 2+2=4 and can prove it.  My understanding is based upon reality and is not a hypothesis and therefore it is not faith.  However, I also know that God exists.  I cannot prove it.  My understanding may or may not be based on reality, and therefore it is faith.

My argument is that although evolution is real, many people who espouse belief in it cannot describe it correctly.  They do not understand it, even though it can be understood.  Their understanding is correct - it is true - but it is still faith, because of their tenuous grasp of it.

I can have faith that it will rain tomorrow, and it may.  I can have faith it will not rain, but it might rain anyway.  I am not a meteorologist, shaman, or precognitor, so my understanding is based on faith, whether it turns out I am right or not.



> With the baseball (?) team mentioned (I don't really have much to do with sports, and being Australian, my reference to the Cubs is old reruns of Cheers going through my head...), you can have faith in them winning, because you understand what winning entails, and how the team may feasibly achieve that. You may have little to no evidence of them being able to achieve it (losing the last 10 years in a row in little evidence that they will achieve success), but to have faith in this, you need to have some reference and understanding of what it is you are having faith in.



You can also have faith in them winning just because you want that outcome very much, despite any odds against it.  Faith does not care about odds.  Faith is blind.



> In regards to the economy, economists have understanding. You have understanding of the relative worth of money, how having a lack affects you, and how having more is better (from a certain point of view). Again, to have faith is to have an understanding of what you are having faith in (what "better" means for an economy).



I have no real understanding of how spending more money makes more money.  Oh, I've read the theories, but I've read just as many competing theories, and I am no expert.  I might just as well be throwing darts blindfolded and taking whatever financial advice is under whatever I happen to hit.  Remember, while there are people urging me to have faith in the economy, there are also people telling me that the economy has not yet finished falling off the cliff yet.



> In regards to religion, I am sure that if you asked the clergy if they had an understanding of God, the answer would be yes, they understand what is meant by the term God, even if only to themselves. And that understanding is one of the cornerstones that allows them (and yourself) to have faith.



That's an interesting argument, I'll give you that.  So you're saying that belief in evolution is NOT faith, because even if a person has no personal understanding of evolution, they have a bulwark to lean against, the people who do understand evolution. I get it!  Well done!

However...

If one uses another's more in-depth understanding of a subject to stand proxy for their own lack of understanding, they are by necessity having faith in that person's knowledge without personally understanding it themselves.  Back to dot.



> Does that make sense? I know we're all just arguing semantics here, but the crossed-definitions seem to be hampering our conversation...



No, I quite like what you say, and I get it even if I do not agree.  It's ever so much better than repeatedly saying that I am not denying evolution, or that all belief in evolution is faith, nor am I demanding that God must in fact exist.  Thank you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> It's what seems to happen, people seem to think atheists all belong to a club and get together to plan anti-secular things.



I do not believe that all atheists believe the same thing, or that they all belong to a club.

However, I do believe that there are many atheists whom I would classify as being 'anti-religion'.  These people do not simply not believe in a God, they seem to have a real need to try to make others not believe in one, either.

In this, they are very much like evangelical Christians, who do believe but share the desire to make others believe as they do too.

Both can be quite annoying to me, and for the same reasons.

However, there is yet a subgroup (IMHO) of the anti-religion sort of atheists, and that subgroup is the club (if you will) that gather around people like Dawkins (nice segueway, don't you think?) and watch in glee as he uses his superior intellect and calm clever tone to utterly destroy one of the other sort - the evangelicals.  This is done, as I've said, for purposes of entertainment, not to prove or disprove a point.

Please understand that I am not accusing you of being a member of this last group. I am just pointing out my belief that such people exist within the greater realm of atheists.



> Simply, my opinion is that there is no higher power, doesn't make me want to join up with one crew of people or another.  Religion seems to depend on numbers and gatherings.



There are also Christians (among other faiths, I'm sure) who do not associate with other Christians.  Most Americans, for example, profess Christianity, but do not attend church regularly.  Estimates vary, but polls indicate that the number is never more than about 40% at the high end.

Like atheists who speak about their beliefs, we see Christians who speak about theirs, or who attend organized religious services.  We do not see the onese who do believe, but neither attend services nor speak publicly about their beliefs.


----------



## Carol

Why would athiests of any sort plan "anti-secular things" ? 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, let's say that today, the Christian God appears and makes it clear to all and sundry that He exists and is real.  Consider for the sake of argument that God has been proven to exist.
> 
> Now, one can say that people who continue to believe in God are no longer engaging in faith, but are instead choosing to believe in something that can be proven.



You know, if god was proven to exist that doesn't make me any more inclined to be a worshiper.  Sure he would be there, and real, but I would throw my money in with the other guy ... yeah, Satan's pretty damn cool.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> You know, if god was proven to exist that doesn't make me any more inclined to be a worshiper.  Sure he would be there, and real, but I would throw my money in with the other guy ... yeah, Satan's pretty damn cool.



Well, he's got that sports car and the red tail and all.

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/tonia/maxwell/series.php

Frankly, I spent a lot of time in my younger days considering the teachings of people like Aleister Crowley.  I've also spent time investigating the various mystery cults, from Thuggee to Hasan-i-Sabah.  I read Robert Anton Wilson and everything I could get my hands on from Antero Alli and such writers, on topics from nootropics to energized meditation to vision quests.  It's a lot of fun.

I still call myself a Catholic.  No real reason for it.


----------



## Chris Parker

You know Bill, I'm going to disagree again. A bit.

I am not saying, and I don't think it is correct, that mutations and evolution are conscious decisions the same way that surgeries are (to alter appearance or function, remove dangerous aspects, implant beneficial ones). That would be choice, from a conscious point of view. But to say that it is completely random is a bit out as well. From that perspective, you could argue that the wolf-like ancestors of modern whales centuries and millenia after entering the oceans randomly evolved flippers instead of legs and feet/hands. Mutation is random, and typically leads nowhere. But evolution is not quite so random. It is the effects of the random interchange of differing genetic groupings, which may or may not lead to repeated traits being found in subsequent generations, often but not always related to the survivability of the species or individuals in question

But it is geared to specific circumstances. Those may include environment (the isolation of the Galapogos Islands, as well as Madagascar and other places), available food sources (more food often equals bigger animals, as well as resulting in specialised feeding methods), spread of available mates (big, showy displays when competition is fierce, loud calls when distance needs to be overcome), and more. Often, evolution can be a way to take a niche position in an ecosystem.

But sometimes evolution is just odd. White tigers have on survival advantage, but they are around (admittedly rare, surviving very rarely in the wild, it seems sometimes bred almost exclusively for Las Vegas magicians...), the Sabre-Tooths had a huge survival advantage, and while individual species may have had their time, the niche they occupied has not been filled (for the record, sabre-tooths as a trait have a very odd evolution cycle. They seem to evolve independantly, be present for a number of species over 10's of thousands of years, then disappear. Then, usually after a gap of another 10,000 years or so, they develop independantly again in another species! Oh, and the last known sabre-tooths were around about 10,000 years ago... just sayin'...), and then we have the Giant Panda.

The Giant Panda just doesn't want to survive from a Darwinian point of view. It is a carniverous animal that lives a solitary life, has adapted to eating only a few species of bamboo (which it's digestive system is not designed to process) which only grows outside of the Panda's habitat (they live high on the mountain, the bamboo grows low), and to top it off, they only learn behaviour by witnessing it. In other words, even if you get two Panda's together, and they happen to be male and female, unless they have already witnessed two Panda's mating, they will be unsure of what to do (and that is not easy when they live such solitary lives!). I;m all for saving the Panda's, but really, they have to make some effort, yeah? But these are all cases of evolution not following the survival of the fittest/strongest that most simplify it down to.

I would be very hesitant to say that "evolution does not have an intent", then follow that by stating that it favours the survival of the species. That could be taken as being contradictory. But I see evolution as a process, so assigning it intent, I agree, is wrong. However, to state that it is simply random chance is denying the purpose evolution plays. While not necessarily a directed action (a creature doesn't just wake up in the morning, and think "you know what, I think I'd like to have thumbs!"), it is a guided process, by the methods and influences listed above.

Oh, and while not consciously being aware of it, on a species level, I think the staph bacteria were aware they were being targeted, and the mutation is part of their survival strategy. It's the same as animals in cold environments developing (evolving) thick coats.

*    *    * (while I was answering you posted again, so I may as well address that one here as well, if you don't mind)   *    *    *

You start by saying *"We say that Christians have faith in the Christian concept of God, right?" *, well that "concept" is your understanding. That is what I was refering to.

I'm going to copy and paste your posted statements from my e-mail notification, as it hasn't come up on this page for me yet. For the record, all bold statements are originally posted by *Bill Mattocks.*

*However, let's say that today, the Christian God appears and makes it clear to all and sundry that He exists and is real. Consider for the sake of argument that God has been proven to exist.
*
Good hypothetical. I accept. But He needs to prove also that He is God. I will accept for now that He has doent hat as well.

*Now, one can say that people who continue to believe in God are no longer engaging in faith, but are instead choosing to believe in something that can be proven.
*
Yes, that is in fact exactly what I would say. They would be operating on a value and belief system based on established facts, not faith.

*However, what was it when God had not proven Himself? Was it faith then? After all, God existed then too, He just had not proven Himself to exist.
*
Yes, without proof faith is all you can have. The existance can be debated, but without the proof all you have is faith. That is the core of the definition.

*Faith, then, is not belief without the requirement of proof. There was proof that God existed the day before He showed Himself, we just didn't know it. Faith yesterday was belief without understanding.*

Yes, faith is belief without proof. By your very example above, which is a very cogent example of how faith operates. The difference here seems to be in the word "understanding". As I am using it, understanding is not scientific proof. That is another concept entirely. Understanding is, rather, the ability to differentiate between one concept and another. If you have a concept of God (that is personal to you), and you can differentiate it from the God of Islam, or the Gods (and Goddesses) of Hindu, or the Roman, Greek, and Ancient Egyptian Deities, or the Native American Great Spirit, or the Japanese shamaistic Shinto animal and nature reverance, then you have an understanding. If you did not have this, you could not truly have faith.
* 
The facts didn't change in my hypothetical situation. God existed yesterday, but without proof. God exists today, but now with proof. Believers have not changed, the facts have not changed, only their understanding has changed.*

No, I would say that knowledge would have changed, possibly understanding as well. But understanding would not have suddenly appeared where it previously was not. It would simply have evolved to adapt to the new environment (to survive...). Yesterday people believed in God with a personal understanding of what they were doing, and who they were having faith in, today we have concrete evidence and knowledge of who and or what God is, and as a result have adapted our knowledge of the universe accordingly. Faith is out, but knowledge and belief remain.

That said, believers may still have faith that God is looking out for them specifically, even if He has no intention of doing so, wouldn't know who they are, or even care. That would be faith, belief without requiring proof. Unless of course, they walked up to God and demanded a showing of his protection of them, but I wouldn't advise that... and that sort of thing denies faith in itself. If I remember my Biblical studies, Deuteronomy states "Do not put your Lord God to the test as you did at Massah", which is referenced again in Luke's telling of Jesus' temptation in the desert ("It is written in the Scriptures, do not test the Lord your God"). I think that's right, might have to google it. My Bible is around here somewhere...

*Understanding is a continuum. I know that 2+2=4 and can prove it. My understanding is based upon reality and is not a hypothesis and therefore it is not faith. However, I also know that God exists. I cannot prove it. My understanding may or may not be based on reality, and therefore it is faith.*

Yeah, I really feel we are confusing my use of understanding with knowledge and facts. The 2+2=4 is simply knowledge and application of principles, not understanding. There is however an understanding of the concept of mathematics and numerical values.
* 
My argument is that although evolution is real, many people who espouse belief in it cannot describe it correctly. They do not understand it, even though it can be understood. Their understanding is correct - it is true - but it is still faith, because of their tenuous grasp of it.*

Hey, I can't fully explain why this particular chord structure sounds great on my guitar, but it's not a matter of faith as to whether or not it does. And again you are confusing understanding (I understand that through a biological process we call evolution species change and adapt over time) with particular knowledge (I know the genome structure of a species of South American tree-frog, and can chart the anatomical changes that have occured as a result of it's habitat being altered and it's food source being changed). This is not a case of faith. Faith would be belief without requiring proof (I believe that the reason the tree-frog is shaped the way it is is because it was made in a factory on Pluto by Mickey Mouses dog, and he really liked big hands on little green things).
* 
I can have faith that it will rain tomorrow, and it may. I can have faith it will not rain, but it might rain anyway. I am not a meteorologist, shaman, or precognitor, so my understanding is based on faith, whether it turns out I am right or not.*

Hmm, not sure if this is a good example for you to give, there are far too many ways for it to be countered. You can have faith that it will not rain despite the weather report saying there will be a storm, but that would be about it. But I think I get what you're getting at. To take it in a martial sense, you are saying that you have faith that you won't be attacked walking to your car after work. You may be attacked, you may not (hopefully not!), but there is no empirical way for you to know at this point in time (I'm leaving the concept of intuition out of this).

In this regard, that could be construed as faith, as you do not require proof as to whether or not you will be attacked before walking to your car. And if you do, that would be bordering on agoraphobia... But your belief is based without requiring the proof. You may require the hope, or the wish that you will not be attacked, but you do not require the proof.

*You can also have faith in them winning just because you want that outcome very much, despite any odds against it. Faith does not care about odds. Faith is blind.*

Ha, yes, you certainly can have faith based on hope, but again it is an understood situation. And blind faith is not a recommendation, and is usually used as a derogatory term to denigrade followers who cannot/do not think for themselves, but blindly only believe what they are told. As I believe I have said, that is far more in the realm of gullibility than true faith. True faith is tested often, and needs to stand up to the scrutiny of such observation and questioning, that is where personal strength of conviction comes in, and this is one of the great benefits of faith, aiding in honing such inner character. Blind faith does nothing of the sort.

*I have no real understanding of how spending more money makes more money. Oh, I've read the theories, but I've read just as many competing theories, and I am no expert. I might just as well be throwing darts blindfolded and taking whatever financial advice is under whatever I happen to hit. Remember, while there are people urging me to have faith in the economy, there are also people telling me that the economy has not yet finished falling off the cliff yet.*

But you do have an understandin gof the concept of money, right? As said, you are getting understanding confused with being expert (knowledge). You simply need to have an understanding of the concepts, whether the same as others, or personally derrived.

*That's an interesting argument, I'll give you that. So you're saying that belief in evolution is NOT faith, because even if a person has no personal understanding of evolution, they have a bulwark to lean against, the people who do understand evolution. I get it! Well done!*

Not quite. I am saying that they have a belief, not faith, not because there is the evidence, scientific knowledge for them to look up, but because they have an understanding of the concepts, and have an awareness that the evidence exists for it's provability.

*However...

If one uses another's more in-depth understanding of a subject to stand proxy for their own lack of understanding, they are by necessity having faith in that person's knowledge without personally understanding it themselves. Back to dot.*

Well, that depends on the subject. In some cases, it does become faith. In martial arts, for instance, not everyone goes out and gets in bar brawls each night, so som faith in the knowledge being pasat on by an instructor is certainly not out of place. But in regard to evolution, there is evidence to back it up, therefore not faith. With religion, there is no evidence, therefore faith. But understanding of the concept(s) is required in both.

In The Who's rock opera, Tommy, we have young lad who is struck deaf, dumb, and blind after witnessing a particularly violent act involving his parents. In one song (Christmas), there is debate over Tommy's spiritual future and development. From the lyrics:

And Tommy doesn't know what day it is,
Doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is,
How can he be saved?
From an eternal grave?

What is being said here is that he cannot possibly have the requisite faith to be "saved" without the required understanding to accompany it. And that is what I am getting at.


----------



## Archangel M

There are a LOT of things in human life that make it worth living. Love, hope, honor, faith. Some people prefer to think of them as mere chemical reactions in the brain. I prefer to believe otherwise.


----------



## Omar B

Great little chat on Darwin and Atheism by Daniel Dennett - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hio4ZtVVLhY&feature=related


----------



## Xinglu

Chris, you just put together one heck of an argument.

You are correct that faith is belief without proof "Now faith is the substance of things choped for, the evidence* of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 KVJ)  and not belief without understanding.

Evidence** = &#8226; noun 1 *information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.* 
2 Law information used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
&#8226; verb be or show evidence of.

Proof**= &#8226; noun 1 *evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.* 
2 *the proving of the truth of a statement.* 
3 a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem. 
3 archaic a test or trial. 
4 Printing a trial impression of a page used for making corrections before final printing. 
5 a trial photographic print. 
6 a specially struck specimen coin. 
7 the strength of distilled alcoholic liquor, relative to proof spirit taken as a standard of 100.

Understanding** = &#8226; noun 1 *the ability to understand something.* 
2 *the power of abstract thought; intellect.* 
3 *an individual&#8217;s perception or judgement of a situation.* 
4 sympathetic awareness or tolerance. 
5 an informal or unspoken agreement or arrangement.
&#8226; adjective sympathetically aware of other people&#8217;s feelings.

It is important that words mean what they mean otherwise there is a communication breakdown.  When we say that faith is belief without understanding then we imply that the evidence is there, which is contrary even to the christian scriptures which say that faith IS the evidence for things not seen.  In other words, belief without anything empirical.

Thanks Chris for taking the time to bring that up 

*It should also be noted that evidence and proof are synonyms, whereas evidence and understanding are not.
**From Oxford English Dictionary, bolded are the definition relevant to the discussion.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Christians have something in common...athesists don't.
> .


Of course atheists have something in common, their lack of belief in God is probably the main one. Name me one atheist who wants creationism even mentioned in schools. There are even churches of atheism right now. More and more atheists are becoming involved in discussions such as this. It is becoming a movement. If you feel lonely, do a Google search and join an atheist group. Dawkins is getting a larger and larger following, he has become the 'high priest' of atheism. Fear not Arnisador, you are not alone.


----------



## Ken Morgan

The atheist movement is about 20% of the US population and growing. Higher in other western countries. Thats a huge demographic, bigger than the Muslims and the Jews. Im surprised some politicians havent made overtures towards them. Political suicide?
Its funny in a very sad way, the most distrusted minority in the US are atheists. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm 
Glad to know bigotry and prejudice are alive and well. So much for religious people being loving, tolerant and understanding.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Archangel M said:


> Dawkins.
> 
> As with all things "human" you cannot leave out the aspect of Ego and wanting to "lord it over" other people.
> 
> I have met many snarky, inflated, pompous academics who may be intelligent, may even be right, but are flaming *******s about it.


 
True. But academics aren't the only ones guilty of being snarky, inflated, pompous, or flaming you-know-what's. That seems to be a human trait for some think that everybody else must be wrong because they don't share their obviously correct opinion. Regardless of topic...



maunakumu said:


> I'm an avowed atheist and I pretty much see things like this as a step toward persecution. Our country used to stay out of the religions business because we learned these lessons the hard way in the Old World.


 
Agreed. Though I don't believe in creationism (from any religeous source) I will fight for their right to believe whatever they wish. I will also fight to keep them from shoving it down other people's throats that do not share those beliefs. 

This can not be allowed in schools simply because it is not based on fact or science and also because if you do allow the Christian version then you must also teach every religion's version of how the universe began. Just because one is Christian does not automatically make one right. 



Xinglu said:


> Unfortunately that quote is ad hominem, yet another fallacy (they seem to be popping up everywhere on this thread!). The reality is, it IS the logical position and has nothing to do with not offending anyone, safety, or venerability. I offend a lot of people by using logic. Sometimes I enjoy doing so, but I also believe in being honest and rational. And If I don't know something, the honest thing is to admit it. And in listening to the arguments on both sides, logic cannot conclude one way or the other so one is left with making an emotional decision based on faith or abstaining from an illogical conclusion. I abstain because I value my integrity and I cannot have any certainty in theism or atheism. That does not a coward make  just an honest person. As I said - People may speak to the probability of A God or Not A God but to speak to the certainty is illogical, irrational, self-deluded, and to a degree dishonest with themselves. They may want to be certain, they may even think they are, but when we get down to brass tacks they are basing their conclusions on emotions not facts.


 
I'm with you there. I admit that I am but a humble peon upon this floating rock and in no way am capable of wrapping my tiny brain around something as vast and complicated as a "supreme being" and what that entails. 

I persnonally feel it is the height of human arrogance to assume one can "know" such a being and/or to assign human characteristics to such a being. 

Those that adhere to any particular religion most often do so because they were raised to do so. A Christian in the US would most likely have been a Muslim if born and raised in Iran. The basis of their belief system is learned. That in itself begs the question of whether or not one would come to "god" on one's own without guidance. I personally doubt it. You would likely either not have a diety (because we are so inundated with science now and have little need for superstition to explain the world around us) or would worship the sun or some other thing that greatly impacted our lives. 

Like George Carlin, I think I'll worship the sun but pray to Joe Pesci...because Joe Pesci seems like a guy that gets things done. LOL 



Bill Mattocks said:


> When you assert God does not exist - you are engaging in faith because there is no proof.


 
I could easily argue that it's a more rational line of thought actually, because you can not produce evidence to the contrary. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The only statement that can be made about God that is based on fact and not faith is that we do not know if God exists or not.


 
It's a fact that you can not prove his existance any more than I can prove he does not. But I don't have to prove his existance; however, you do if you expect me to believe in him. I don't care if you believe or not until "you" try to impact my life with your belief... like lobbying to have creationism taught in school. Then, you do have to produce evidence and you can not. Anything I expected to be taught in schools (not Universities or Colleges) is easily backed up by proof. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Pascal's Wager. It's basic philosophy. Has holes in it.


 
Sarcasm doesn't convey well in the writeen word does it? LOL 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Personally, I don't know what the probability is that God exists or does not exist. I would accept as axiomatic that if God exists, He is not as I had pictured Him or as the Catholic Church holds Him to be.


 
Perhaps we're closing the gap now. I was under the impression you were endorsing the existance of the Christian God only because... well... you're a Christian! I did not realize you were speaking of a general supreme being... 

My bad. I apologize. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Side one: Prove
> Side two: Disprove
> Side three: Cannot prove or disprove
> 
> Three sides.


 
Side one: Prove (either can or can't)
Side two: Disprove (either can or can't)

Two sides. 

LOL...admittedly, I am jerking your chain a little here. It really doesn't matter to me. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Subject to debate, but that's not the debate we were having. If you want to have that debate, it's OK with me. Doctor Stephen Unwin used Bayes Theory to calculate a 67% chance that an omnipotent being exists. That says nothing about 'my Christian God' of course, it merely posits that the chances are higher that a God exists than that a God does not. I don't think I believe that statistic, but it's interesting.


 
Men with larger craniums than mine who's lives revovle around sciences like Physics have stated that there is too much order to the universe for there not to be some kind of supreme intelligence behind it. I'm not arguing that there's not...I was arguing that it's likely not what Christians, or any other religion for that matter, have claimed it to be. 

Every religion is based on the philosophies and/or writings of men. Man is flawed in many ways and subject to the whims of his ego and desire for power and influence. That alone tells me it's more likely "you're" all wrong than it is likely any of "you" are right. 

I guess I'm one of those meely mouthed agnostics (if I must be labeled). lol



Archangel M said:


> Has evolution become a "law" while I wasn't looking?


 
What? You didn't get the memo? 



Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Celtic, if I show you my degree will you become my lackey and do my evil bidding?


 
Of course! What is thy bidding my master? :jediduel:

I don't claim to have all the answers or to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I only ask that if you expect to sway my thinking that you should provide something other than just an opinion. Back it up! I'm not going to take what anyone says to heart based solely on a "gut feeling" or opinion. 



blindsage said:


> There are so many assumptions about other people's opinions and ideas on here that it seems like quiet the a** convention.


 
ROFL. True and guilty as charged. :uhohh:



Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I should add that even species with DNA repair mechanisms (like mammals) often perpetuate mistakes.


 
No doubt...just look at the US Congress. :lol:



Archangel M said:


> There are a LOT of things in human life that make it worth living. Love, hope, honor, faith. Some people prefer to think of them as mere chemical reactions in the brain. I prefer to believe otherwise.


 
Rock on brother! :headbangin: There's nothing wrong with that. Those are all positive things. 




Xinglu said:


> Chris, you just put together one heck of an argument.
> 
> You are correct that faith is belief without proof "Now faith is the substance of things choped for, the evidence* of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 KVJ) and not belief without understanding.
> 
> Thanks Chris for taking the time to bring that up
> 
> *It should also be noted that evidence and proof are synonyms, whereas evidence and understanding are not.


 
I could have swore I have been screaming that from the beginning. :idunno:

I'm glad Chris was able to convey it mo' betta'. 



yorkshirelad said:


> Of course atheists have something in common, their lack of belief in God is probably the main one. Name me one atheist who wants creationism even mentioned in schools. There are even churches of atheism right now. More and more atheists are becoming involved in discussions such as this. It is becoming a movement. If you feel lonely, do a Google search and join an atheist group. Dawkins is getting a larger and larger following, he has become the 'high priest' of atheism. Fear not Arnisador, you are not alone.


 
I think a few Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindu's, etc. probably would prefer you didn't teach creationism in schools as well. 

An "atheist church" seems like an oxymoron to me...lol


----------



## arnisador

Omar B said:


> You know, if god was proven to exist that doesn't make me any more inclined to be a worshiper.



Yup. I'd prefer not to stand on the side of the entity that tortures people for the thought crime of disagreeing with it.


----------



## Ken Morgan

arnisador said:


> Yup. I'd prefer not to stand on the side of the entity that tortures people for the thought crime of disagreeing with it.


 
There has to be something seriously wrong with an omnipotent being that demands worship from his minions.


----------



## Omar B

Ken Morgan said:


> There has to be something seriously wrong with an omnipotent being that demands worship from his minions.



Low self esteem, mommy issues, uncle touched him down there?  Who knows, but he seems to need more reassurance than a fat chick.

As for the whole "Atheist Church" thing, yes it is absurd.  As I said before, atheist doesnt say a thign abotu a person, just their thought on 1 issue.  I don't see anti-Santa churches popping up.  But it does scare organized religion a bit, after all, us not in their churches is bad for business.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Omar B said:


> Low self esteem, mommy issues, uncle touched him down there? Who knows, but he seems to need more reassurance than a fat chick.
> 
> As for the whole "Atheist Church" thing, yes it is absurd. As I said before, atheist doesnt say a thign abotu a person, just their thought on 1 issue. I don't see anti-Santa churches popping up. But it does scare organized religion a bit, after all, us not in their churches is bad for business.


 
One of my all-time favorite songs... 



 
I've long held (and it's backed up by plenty of history and evidence) that religion is used as a tool to exerpt power over the masses; in other words as a political tool. One that uses fear, of all things, to keep folks in line. 

But I do think it's important to differentiate between that and a persons spirituality. Two different animals.


----------



## Makalakumu

After years of debating evolution with people and after years of watching people just continue doing what they would normally do anyway...ie believe or doubt...I'm not sure how much of an effect little crusades like this will have.  I think the population of atheists will naturally grow as more and more people come out of the closet, but then will get a certain point and level off.  I never believed, even when I was kid.  At religion, my parents always got calls because I was asking too many questions.  Other kids weren't like this, or they were just more polite then I was.  

The point is that people are just kind of set where they are based on how their brain works...but that is another discussion altogether.

What I see here is a budding inquisition.  It only took a small minority of Christians to seize power and turn the Christian World into a living hell for heathens and heretics.  When Dawkins starts blaming world problems on religion, I think it's a simplistic generalization and it expresses a lot of hatred in a way that IS analogous to ways that hatred was expressed by religious people.  It's ironic, for sure.

I would be much more comfortable with a message of respecting other people's beliefs.  Even when it comes to the people who don't believe in evolution.  As long as they don't shove it down other people's throat, the only thing they do is wreck for themselves a career in biology...and maybe science in general.  

If we (atheists) expressed a message of tolerance equivalent to the intent behind the US Constitution, I think we would be giving the world a gift that would be valuable beyond belief.  Debating evolution is fine.  Seeking out religious people to hector for believing in something "stupid" is the first step on a well traveled road.


----------



## Omar B

What gave it away?  Divine right?  Selling of indulgences?  The church's role within many governments/kingdoms since like forever?  Of course it's abotu control, every Sunday people file into cathedrals to be in the thrall of men who seem to know the word of god, they tell them what to do, who's war/cause is just, how to punish those who don't follow along with the program.

Hmm, I think I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem now.  Funny image.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> What gave it away?  Divine right?  Selling of indulgences?  The church's role within many governments/kingdoms since like forever?  Of course it's abotu control, every Sunday people file into cathedrals to be in the thrall of men who seem to know the word of god, they tell them what to do, who's war/cause is just, how to punish those who don't follow along with the program.
> 
> Hmm, I think I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem now.  Funny image.



Your hostility and insulting behavior isn't very logical for an atheist who merely chooses not to believe in a Creator.  It sounds rather like someone who feels hurt by religion and who wants to attack religion in return.


----------



## Omar B

You would say that wouldn't you.  Seems like every christian no matter what an atheist says will interpret it as being hostile towards religion, the truth is not hostile.  Well, doesn't change the fact that those things happened and I find the belief system absurd.

And we are all hurt by the church and it's atrocities in the old world and new for in the name of god.


----------



## celtic_crippler

After so much drift I had to go back and view the segment again. LOL

The nice, polite lady asserts that there is evidence against evolution. 

Would anyone happen to know what evidence she may be referring to? Not what she was talking about in regards to the "pigs tooth", but actual evidence.

I respect her right to believe in...whatever... but she really does come across as ignorant. She continues to say "the evidence" but really does't have any...or did I miss it? BTW, for clarification I don't consider opinion as evidence. 

From my POV, she's basing her thought processes on emotion and not logic or rational thought. She goes back to talking about treating people with dignity and respect several times... So it occurs to me that she thinks that by accepting evolution it would somehow prevent that? That by accepting evolution we would somehow spiral downward into rude, crude animals? I don't get it... Should we lie about facts if we feel that by revealing them it will somehow make our world a worse place?


----------



## celtic_crippler

Ugh...about half way through part 2 I had to shut it down..she was grating on my last nerve.

I've come to the conclusion that this woman is incapable of rational thought and absolutely has no ability to understand the concept of time. 

She obviously expects evolution to manifest overnight and that there would be single points in time where all of a sudden a monkey stopped existing because it magically transformed into a man. She can not grasp the fluidity of the process. 

She was also obviously incapable of debating the issue on Dawkin's level. If you're going to put somebody up to refute his points it should be someone that at least can grasp the concepts of evolution and the evidence supporting it. She obviously went into this "unarmed."


----------



## Xinglu

The problem is, as you said she proffered ideals, not evidence as to why she objects to evolution.  I'm sorry, but I don't need God to exist to tell me that I should treat others with respect.  If her entire moral and ethical compass is dependent upon God existing, what does that say about her?  I just have a problem with her entire argument. As CC said, it was an emotional argument, not a logical one.  And I personally have no use for emotional arguments.

I'm sorry to admit that Dawkins was nicer to her than I would have been.  Then again, I would not have sought someone like her out to debate.  I would have chosen someone more capable of arguing the science.  However, she is a public figure in charge of a international organization opposing evolution, so it is her fault for accepting Dawkins invitation to debate and walking in unarmed.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your hostility and insulting behavior isn't very logical for an atheist who merely chooses not to believe in a Creator. It sounds rather like someone who feels hurt by religion and who wants to attack religion in return.


 
Blasphemy!!  Off with his head!! And Im not kidding; many places in the world, many loving religious people would do so.
Religion, just because it is religion does not get a bi; it can be criticized and mocked as well as anything else, thats what free speech is about. Just because it hurts your feelings is of no concern to anyone but yourself.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> You would say that wouldn't you.  Seems like every christian no matter what an atheist says will interpret it as being hostile towards religion, the truth is not hostile.



I would hope that I would feel the same way even if I were not a Christian, because it is the words you use that are offensive (as you intended), not their truth or falseness.  In fact, I was a non-Christian for a significant part of my life, and I can say I would have found your choice of words offensive back then too.

It is true that 'the truth' is not hostile.

However, you presume that your truth is 'the' truth.  It may be.  It may not be.  There is no way to prove it one way or the other.

And you were not stating 'the truth', you were using words calculated to invoke an emotional response.

_"I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem..."_



> Well, doesn't change the fact that those things happened and I find the belief system absurd.



These things did happen, and you are entirely within your rights to find religious belief absurd.  I find much that is absurd about it myself.



> And we are all hurt by the church and it's atrocities in the old world and new for in the name of god.



This is both true and false.  The practices of religion and believers in various religions both harms and enriches us, in a variety of ways.  One could debate such things for hours, but there is no doubt that organized religion has both harmed and helped humanity.

But that's not my point.  My point wasn't that religion hasn't harmed humanity.  My point was that you're not a passive atheist, who chooses not to believe in God and lets others go their own way.  You're anti-religion, and you seem determined to be as rude as possible in describing your revulsion.  The intent is not to inform, the intent is to cause pain and distress.

Please do not be disingenuous; the _"I'm just speaking the truth"_ innocent face doesn't play well with this audience.

I get it.  I just don't care for it.

With respect, this reminds me a great deal of your response towards fat people.  You made it clear in the past that you do not just dislike them, you enjoy saying rude and insulting things about them.  It appears to me that you get your kicks hurting people who are or believe things you don't like.  I thought you had pretty much stopped doing things like that on MA, but here we are again.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Xinglu said:


> The problem is, as you said she proffered ideals, not evidence as to why she objects to evolution.



My recollection of the interview is that she quibbles with the way evidence is presented -- she seemed oddly preoccupied with the use of drawings, as if evolutions should produce photographs of animals evolving. Presumably she has a Polaroid illustrating her positions.


----------



## Xinglu

Gordon Nore said:


> My recollection of the interview is that she quibbles with the way evidence is presented...



And offers no counter-evidence or evidence to support her quibbles or assertion that evolution doesn't exist.


----------



## arnisador

Omar B said:


> Seems like every christian no matter what an atheist says will interpret it as being hostile towards religion, the truth is not hostile.



As scientists, there's no more hostility to religion than to flat-earthers, astrologers, or the like. They're all simply wrong.



> And we are all hurt by the church and it's atrocities in the old world and new for in the name of god.



Yes, as members of society, there's the evil done by and in the name of religion, which is well worth opposing. A Richard Dawkins quote was given up-thread:
*"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors [...] urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."*


----------



## blindsage

Ken Morgan said:


> The atheist movement is about 20% of the US population and growing. Higher in other western countries. That&#8217;s a huge demographic, bigger than the Muslims and the Jews. I&#8217;m surprised some politicians haven&#8217;t made overtures towards them. Political suicide?
> Its funny in a very sad way, the most distrusted minority in the US are atheists. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
> Glad to know bigotry and prejudice are alive and well. So much for religious people being loving, tolerant and understanding.


I would hazard to guess the most distrusted minority in the US are pedophiles....but maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would hope that I would feel the same way even if I were not a Christian, because it is the words you use that are offensive (as you intended), not their truth or falseness.  In fact, I was a non-Christian for a significant part of my life, and I can say I would have found your choice of words offensive back then too.
> It is true that 'the truth' is not hostile.
> However, you presume that your truth is 'the' truth.  It may be.  It may not be.  There is no way to prove it one way or the other.
> And you were not stating 'the truth', you were using words calculated to invoke an emotional response.
> _"I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem..."_
> These things did happen, and you are entirely within your rights to find religious belief absurd.  I find much that is absurd about it myself.
> This is both true and false.  The practices of religion and believers in various religions both harms and enriches us, in a variety of ways.  One could debate such things for hours, but there is no doubt that organized religion has both harmed and helped humanity.
> But that's not my point.  My point wasn't that religion hasn't harmed humanity.  My point was that you're not a passive atheist, who chooses not to believe in God and lets others go their own way.  You're anti-religion, and you seem determined to be as rude as possible in describing your revulsion.  The intent is not to inform, the intent is to cause pain and distress.
> Please do not be disingenuous; the _"I'm just speaking the truth"_ innocent face doesn't play well with this audience.
> I get it.  I just don't care for it.
> With respect, this reminds me a great deal of your response towards fat people.  You made it clear in the past that you do not just dislike them, you enjoy saying rude and insulting things about them.  It appears to me that you get your kicks hurting people who are or believe things you don't like.  I thought you had pretty much stopped doing things like that on MA, but here we are again.



Poor thing, my thoughts on religion make you sad.    You seem to taker personal offense like I'm addressing you, unless you speak for all religion.

I still have yet to see how religion enriches anything as you say.  Except for the the heads of the church themselves.

Send your money to Jesus Christ
Mail order your eternal life
Bend your mind, make you turn around
Don't believe it when they tell you
That even god needs money
God needs money from you


----------



## blindsage

arnisador said:


> Yup. I'd prefer not to stand on the side of the entity that tortures people for the thought crime of disagreeing with it.


If, of course, your assumption that if there is a God then it must be the one that fire and brimstone Christians claim is true.


----------



## arnisador

celtic_crippler said:


> The nice, polite lady asserts that there is evidence against evolution.
> 
> Would anyone happen to know what evidence she may be referring to?



It wouldn't matter. There's evidence against relativity and against quantum theory--namely, one another. Evidence against one theory doesn't provide support for any other theory--that's a false alternative ("If you're wrong then I must be right."). _Certainly_ one can criticise evolutionary theory...but if people knew how little is known about what really makes gravity work I doubt they'd ever fly again.

Criticism and response is a normal part of all sciences (even mathematics; witness Isaac Newton vs. everyone else over the calculus). If imperfection were enough to rule out a theory from being applicable, we'd be treating arterial bleeding by applying leaches to let more blood out. Would you really want to know how little is understood about _why_ most medicines work? This is the hypocrisy of the creationist--any creationist who flies in a plane or takes an antibiotic is a hypocrit w.r.t. science.


----------



## yorkshirelad

The woman in the interview is uninformed, period. This does not excuse the fact that Dawkins cherry picked the interview to make the majority of believers appear stupid. Again, the existance of the deity is not provable in the negative or the affirmative. It is an argument that will never end because no one knows. The most logical position for a scientist would be agnostic because, as stated before, why would any scientist discount the possible. When it comes to unicorns, vampires, purple people eaters ect, some people believe in all the above. I have a friend who believes in the teachings of David Icke. He thinks that the world is ruled by a select group of powerful families who are, in fact reptiles who appear human to the populace. I don't agree with him, but I don't mock his beliefs, because I have no way of knowing if what he tells me is in fact reality.

Conclusion,

Yes, evolution is fact.
We have no way of knowing if the deity exists or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

arnisador said:


> As scientists, there's no more hostility to religion than to flat-earthers, astrologers, or the like. They're all simply wrong.



Science makes no statements about the validity of religion, because it is unfalsifiable.

But beyond that, it should be clear by a simple reading of recent posts in this thread that some choose to respond to religion not simply to state their disbelief, but to make hostile, rude, insulting statements.  They do not make similar statements about flat-earthers or etc, do they?  This is anti-religion, which is certainly not science, even if science could disprove religion.

And again - the inability to prove the non-existence of religion does not make religion true; I am quite aware of that.  But the failure to disprove it also does not make it false.  It makes it 'unknown'.



> Yes, as members of society, there's the evil done by and in the name of religion, which is well worth opposing.



What is the scientific description of evil?  I thought good and evil were moral concepts, which cannot be measured by science.  I know how red an apple is, I know how sour a lemon is, but how evil is it?  Let me know how that is measured, and in what units.

However, let us assume that religion has done evil to mankind.  That may justify antipathy towards religion; that's a personal judgment.

Antipathy towards religion is not simple atheism.  It is a declaration of hostility towards those who do have a religious belief.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Poor thing, my thoughts on religion make you sad.  You seem to taker personal offense like I'm addressing you, unless you speak for all religion.
> 
> I still have yet to see how religion enriches anything as you say. Except for the the heads of the church themselves.


You have this annoyingly purile passive aggressive thing going on Omar. First you say you mean no offense as you offend, then offend once more when you're responded to.

examples of religious enrichment; Mother Theresa's order in Calcutta, St. Vincent de Paul's outreach, The Salvation Army. That's just three examples off the top of my head. I could probably find a hundred more in an hour with a simple Google search. These are examples of religious organizational enrichment. There are countless people all over the world who have had their personal lives enriched by religion personally.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

yorkshirelad said:


> The woman in the interview is uninformed, period. This does not excuse the fact that Dawkins cherry picked the interview to make the majority of believers appear stupid.



Remember Sinn Féin?  They were the legal arm of the IRA.  It was difficult for them to claim that they were not engaging in terrorist attacks against the UK when the IRA kept blowing things up.  They said it with a more-or-less straight face, but no one believed them.

Some self-professed atheists in this thread insist that atheists have nothing against religion, they just don't personally believe in it, while other self-professed atheists claim a personal antipathy against religion and cheer Dawkins on.  

I realize not all atheists are not the same, but when the first group claims that Dawkins was NOT engaging in the behavior you describe, it doesn't really hold water when other atheists in the same thread insist that yes, he is, and he's right to do so.


----------



## Xinglu

Bill - +1 for handling that well.  I'm not religious in the slightest and while I enjoy poking some fun at religion, I do not enjoy going out of my way to say inflammatory things designed only to hurt people and get a negative reaction from the religious so that I can point out their hypocrisy when they respond in kind.  It is poor argumentation and I think you handled that well. 

Omar - this is the second time on this thread that you have attempted to get an explosion out of people.  The first time when presented with a logical counter argument (presumably not the reaction you wanted) you moved on to easier targets and never responded.  This is just like the bully on the playground looking for easy targets, where you can get the reaction you want unchallenged by those not afraid of your inflammatory words and who can see through the very transparent facade.

Of course, there is the real possibility that you just are a poor at formulating and defending arguments.  And if that is the case, then there is a lot you can do to improve, and I'm sure many members here would be willing to teach you.   

Peace be with you.


----------



## Marginal

yorkshirelad said:


> The woman in the interview is uninformed, period. This does not excuse the fact that Dawkins cherry picked the interview to make the majority of believers appear stupid.


Biblical literalists are stupid no matter how the debate is framed.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> You have this annoyingly purile passive aggressive thing going on Omar. First you say you mean no offense as you offend, then offend once more when you're responded to.
> 
> examples of religious enrichment; Mother Theresa's order in Calcutta, St. Vincent de Paul's outreach, The Salvation Army. That's just three examples off the top of my head. I could probably find a hundred more in an hour with a simple Google search. These are examples of religious organizational enrichment. There are countless people all over the world who have had their personal lives enriched by religion personally.



Ok, those are a couple examples.  But me, passive aggressive?  Sounds more like you don't like what I'm saying about the business of religion.  As stated before, I'm just saying my part, I'm sure you are a fine person, it's the organizations and what they've done in the name of god.


----------



## Omar B

Xinglu said:


> Omar - this is the second time on this thread that you have attempted to get an explosion out of people.  The first time when presented with a logical counter argument (presumably not the reaction you wanted) you moved on to easier targets and never responded.  This is just like the bully on the playground looking for easy targets, where you can get the reaction you want unchallenged by those not afraid of your inflammatory words and who can see through the very transparent facade.
> 
> Of course, there is the real possibility that you just are a poor at formulating and defending arguments.  And if that is the case, then there is a lot you can do to improve, and I'm sure many members here would be willing to teach you.



Wait, I missed something?  What didn't I respond to?  Was it the agnostic thing?  I made two posts about my point on that, was there more?

I do just fine formulating and defending arguments, since it's my job ... unfortunately, this forum isn't my job, it's entertainment while I sit at my desk when I look away from my work for a bit.


----------



## Sukerkin

{Delete}

I had produced a fairly comprehensive counter-argument with regard to the moral 'balance sheet' of religion but then remembered why I wasn't going to get involved in this in the first place.

You'd think that thirty odd years would have genned me up sufficiently on the futility of trying to use logic, reason, history and unbiased observation to convince the religiously oriented of the insufficiency of their position.

To all of rational mind and scientific bent who have made comment here, it really doesn't matter what you say, how well you argue or what evidence is presented - the faithful will always be so until they change their own minds.

And, to be honest, that is fine. Just as long as they keep it to themselves, speachify only with like minded individuals and don't construct a global institution whose sole purpose is to maintain a degree of social manipulation that fills the coffers of that organisation ... and then seek to eliminate all who don't believe in the same unprovable 'truth' ... oops.

That is the only problem I have with all organised religions.  The individual low-level members of any church are more than likely to be pretty good hearted people.  When aggregated into a hierarchy of faith, however, an awful inversion occurs.

Anyhow.  We're a long way from where this thread started and altho my intentions were good (we know what that road leads!) I'm not helping.  So a big "Shush!" to me and off I go.


----------



## Xinglu

Omar B said:


> But me, passive aggressive?  Sounds more like you don't like what I'm saying about the business of religion.



It has nothing to do with the ideas behind what you say, rather with *how* you say them.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Ok, those are a couple examples. But me, passive aggressive? Sounds more like you don't like what I'm saying about the business of religion. As stated before, I'm just saying my part, I'm sure you are a fine person, it's the organizations and what they've done in the name of god.


By passive aggressive I mean tht in one instance you appear passive in the sense that you don't want to offend and then you go and give the analogy of the christian God beng akin to the fat girl. Then when you are called on your behaviour your response is 3rd grade mockery.


----------



## Omar B

You yourself said you like to have fun with religion, so do I.  My humor too harsh?


----------



## Xinglu

Omar B said:


> I do just fine formulating and defending arguments, since it's my job ...



Then it is intentional.  Thanks for that clarification.  I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now I know otherwise.


----------



## celtic_crippler

blindsage said:


> I would hazard to guess the most distrusted minority in the US are pedophiles....but maybe I'm wrong?


 
I don't think pedophiles represent any threat to politicians as once you commit a felony you can no longer vote. 



arnisador said:


> It wouldn't matter. There's evidence against relativity and against quantum theory--namely, one another. Evidence against one theory doesn't provide support for any other theory--that's a false alternative ("If you're wrong then I must be right."). _Certainly_ one can criticise evolutionary theory...but if people knew how little is known about what really makes gravity work I doubt they'd ever fly again.
> 
> Criticism and response is a normal part of all sciences (even mathematics; witness Isaac Newton vs. everyone else over the calculus). If imperfection were enough to rule out a theory from being applicable, we'd be treating arterial bleeding by applying leaches to let more blood out. Would you really want to know how little is understood about _why_ most medicines work? This is the hypocrisy of the creationist--any creationist who flies in a plane or takes an antibiotic is a hypocrit w.r.t. science.


 
But at least there's evidence that can actually be debated. The lady in the clip had nothing... 

She kept laughing nervously almost as if she perhaps had some doubt regarding her own position. Dawkins came off as being more comfortable with his than she did with hers. Makes you wonder...

But your post reminds me of a guy I knew that's a Jehova's Witness. He was just as sure of his religion even though after I pointed out that his belief system was based on the end of the world and that his denomination had inacurately predicted the end so many times that they finally gave up trying was proof enough that perhaps the rest of what they were filling his head with was probably just as inacurate. He still believes...

Anyway, we were talking about why he wouldn't study martial arts. Because it's so violent and about hurting people (yeah...He's extrememly misinformed on numerous things) and that it went against his beliefs to harm another. 

So I asked him if he was so adamant about not doing violence to another no matter what, what he would do if someone broke in his home, began raping his wife, and slitting his toddler's throat if he would simply stand there and not try to stop it... I don't think he ever gave me an answer. 

He also never would address my question regarding if his wife and kid were sick and the only thing that would save them was a blood transfusion if he'd actually stand in the way of them recieving one. 

....haven't heard from him in quite some time...LOL 



Bill Mattocks said:


> What is the scientific description of evil? I thought good and evil were moral concepts, which cannot be measured by science. I know how red an apple is, I know how sour a lemon is, but how evil is it? Let me know how that is measured, and in what units.


 
No problem. Dr. Michael Stone has done just that for you! There is a scale of evil and descriptions of what consitutes each level. 

I watch the show "Most Evil" all the time...great stuff. You'd love it!

Check it out. http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/most-evil/most-evil.html



Bill Mattocks said:


> However, *let us* *assume that religion has done evil to mankind*. That may justify antipathy towards religion; that's a personal judgment.


 
Um...there's nothing to assume there. Christian Reformation & the Inquisition... 9/11 and homicide bombers... Female castration and mutilation.... unchecked child molestation...

Not saying it's not done some good...but it's responsible for some pretty F'ed up stuff, man!


----------



## Xinglu

Omar B said:


> You yourself said you like to have fun with religion, so do I.  My humor too harsh?



Considering the nature of this discussion, yes.  There is such a thing as appropriate use of humor and IMO it went to far here.  Between you and I at a pub, that probably would have been funny.  But in the middle of a serious conversation/debate with religious folks, it goes from being funny to just outright cruel and inflammatory.  It serve no purpose at that point than to escalate things and eventually get this thread locked down. 

I for one don't want that, I am enjoying the debate!


----------



## Omar B

Xinglu said:


> Considering the nature of this discussion, yes.  There is such a thing as appropriate use of humor and IMO it went to far here.  Between you and I at a pub, that probably would have been funny.  But in the middle of a serious conversation/debate with religious folks, it goes from being funny to just outright cruel and inflammatory.  It serve no purpose at that point than to escalate things and eventually get this thread locked down.
> 
> I for one don't want that, I am enjoying the debate!



You and CC have full run of the place, I'm due in a meeting at 4:00.  You can insert what you think I would have said.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bill Mattocks said:


> Remember Sinn Féin? They were the legal arm of the IRA. It was difficult for them to claim that they were not engaging in terrorist attacks against the UK when the IRA kept blowing things up. They said it with a more-or-less straight face, but no one believed them.
> 
> Some self-professed atheists in this thread insist that atheists have nothing against religion, they just don't personally believe in it, while other self-professed atheists claim a personal antipathy against religion and cheer Dawkins on.
> 
> I realize not all atheists are not the same, but when the first group claims that Dawkins was NOT engaging in the behavior you describe, it doesn't really hold water when other atheists in the same thread insist that yes, he is, and he's right to do so.


As my 'Thanks' is still not working. I'll give this a QFT.


----------



## Xinglu

celtic_crippler said:


> Um...there's nothing to assume there. Christian Reformation & the Inquisition... 9/11 and homicide bombers... Female castration and mutilation.... unchecked child molestation...
> 
> Not saying it's not done some good...but it's responsible for some pretty F'ed up stuff, man!



Let's not forget the nine, count em' NINE crusades!

Or the Genocide as outlined in the Bible that started with Joshua invading the "holy land"... :wink:


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Marginal said:


> Biblical literalists are stupid no matter how the debate is framed.



I used to work with a person who was quite intelligent, had a phd, worked as a software engineer, and believed in a literal interpretation of creation and did not believe in evolution.

I did not agree with him that the earth was only 4,000 years old, or that dinosaur bones had been placed in the earth by the devil to fool mankind into erroneous thinking, but he was not stupid, he was very good at his work, which required high intelligence.

One could perhaps say that a belief itself is 'stupid', but generally that can only be done if the belief can be proven false.  Even though I completely disagree with this man I used to work with, I cannot disprove his belief.  So I'm not sure I could call either him or his belief 'stupid'.  I could only conclude that I did not agree with him, and that I firmly believe his belief is wrong.


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> I used to work with a person who was quite intelligent, had a phd, worked as a software engineer, and believed in a literal interpretation of creation and did not believe in evolution.
> 
> I did not agree with him that the earth was only 4,000 years old, or that dinosaur bones had been placed in the earth by the devil to fool mankind into erroneous thinking, but he was not stupid, he was very good at his work, which required high intelligence.
> 
> One could perhaps say that a belief itself is 'stupid', but generally that can only be done if the belief can be proven false.  Even though I completely disagree with this man I used to work with, I cannot disprove his belief.  So I'm not sure I could call either him or his belief 'stupid'.  I could only conclude that I did not agree with him, and that I firmly believe his belief is wrong.



Wait a minute.  The number's 4000 years?  I always thought it was 6000?  Got a source on that one Bill.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> Wait a minute.  The number's 4000 years?  I always thought it was 6000?  Got a source on that one Bill.



I'm quite clear in my memory.  His personal belief was 4,000 years, not the 6,000 years sometimes quoted by Creationists.  I don't know where he got it, and I did not follow his logic when he tried to explain it.

For what it's worth, he told me that his church taught that Catholics like me 'worshiped Mary' (we don't), believed that the Pope is infallible (he isn't and we don't believe he is), and that we believed that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, but that Mary was born of a virgin too (I had to ask a priest.  Turns out he was right, we do believe that.   Color me surprised).

I've also lived in NC, where I've been informed by all manner of Christians that Catholics are going to Hell because the Pope is the anti-Christ.  I will admit I had some fun asking them after Pope John Paul II died how that could have happened.  How does the anti-Christ die?

Anyway, the point being that the man was not stupid.  I just did not believe what he believed.


----------



## arnisador

Omar B said:


> Wait a minute.  The number's 4000 years?  I always thought it was 6000?



"And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped."


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bill Mattocks said:


> Jesus born of a virgin, but that Mary was born of a virgin too (I had to ask a priest. Turns out he was right, we do believe that. Color me surprised).
> 
> .


 Yes, as a child I had to try to wrap my head around Mary as 'The immaculate Conception'. I always asked too many questions (according to Fr McSweeney) and got the cane for it a few times.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

yorkshirelad said:


> Yes, as a child I had to try to wrap my head around Mary as 'The immaculate Conception'. I always asked too many questions (according to Fr McSweeney) and got the cane for it a few times.



I did not get hit, but I did get expelled from Catechism.  I had to wait on the front steps of the school for my dad to come pick me up.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm quite clear in my memory. His personal belief was 4,000 years, not the 6,000 years sometimes quoted by Creationists. I don't know where he got it, and I did not follow his logic when he tried to explain it.
> 
> For what it's worth, he told me that his church taught that Catholics like me 'worshiped Mary' (we don't), believed that the Pope is infallible (he isn't and we don't believe he is), and that we believed that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, but that Mary was born of a virgin too (I had to ask a priest. Turns out he was right, we do believe that. Color me surprised).
> 
> I've also lived in NC, where I've been informed by all manner of Christians that Catholics are going to Hell because the Pope is the anti-Christ. I will admit I had some fun asking them after Pope John Paul II died how that could have happened. How does the anti-Christ die?
> 
> Anyway, the point being that the man was not stupid. I just did not believe what he believed.


 
Gotta love Southern Baptists.  Hell-fire and brimstone and all. 

Reminds me of a joke...Know what the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Methodist is? The Methodist won't try to hide from you when you see them at the liquer store. :lol: 

Anyway, I don't think beliefs are necessarily always tied to one's intelligence. 

Shoot, my sister has a genius IQ but not a lick of common sense. LOL 

In all seriousness though, religion fills a void in a lot of people's lives. They need the emotional comfort they get from it for individual reasons. When things go bad and/or they feel they can't deal they can put all their woes on the shoulder's of their diety and there's nothing wrong with that. 

Some people need that and some people don't. My stress relief is working out at the gym and doing kenpo, other's is going to mass or church on Wedensday nights. 

Whatever floats yer boat.


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> The woman in the interview is uninformed, period. This does not excuse the fact that Dawkins cherry picked the interview to make the majority of believers appear stupid.



You keep coming back to that but once again, this documentary was not about atheism, it was about evolution.  Who else was he supposed to pick and do you think any other creationist would have fared any better?

 Does he debate Kenneth Miller a biologist who is religious?  No because Miller believes in evolution like he does , they ever agree intelligent design is a crock.

 Even the Discovery Institute , the champions of ID don't dispute evolution, so why would he debate them?

 As a matter of fact on atheism he has debated religious scientists.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Yes, as a child I had to try to wrap my head around Mary as 'The immaculate Conception'. I always asked too many questions (according to Fr McSweeney) and got the cane for it a few times.



I once heard a speaker say "Is it most obvious that it was as stated or that a girl may lie."  I always thought that was a bit funny.  Who knows, was she engaged to Joseph yet, coulda been him.


----------



## Omar B

arnisador said:


> "And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped."


*
Banana Science Fail!*


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> You keep coming back to that but once again, this documentary was not about atheism, it was about evolution. Who else was he supposed to pick and do you think any other creationist would have fared any better?
> 
> Does he debate Kenneth Miller a biologist who is religious? No because Miller believes in evolution like he does , they ever agree intelligent design is a crock.
> 
> Even the Discovery Institute , the champions of ID don't dispute evolution, so why would he debate them?
> 
> As a matter of fact on atheism he has debated religious scientists.


He doesn't debate Miller because there would be no debate. The conclusion would be, evolution is real and neither would be able to prove the existance/non existance of the deity.  

Dawkins MO is to try to convince the public at large that God doesn't exist. His most famous work is 'The God delusion'. He cannot prove the non existance of God, so instead goes about cherry picking examples of how stupid believers are. This interview was an example of that. Ramirez, you posted the interview initially with the same intention and to say you didn't would be disingenuous.


----------



## blindsage

celtic_crippler said:


> Female castration and mutilation....


I'm curious as to which religion promotes this practice?


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> Dawkins MO is to try to convince the public at large that God doesn't exist. His most famous work is 'The God delusion'. He cannot prove the non existance of God, so instead goes about cherry picking examples of how stupid believers are. This interview was an example of that. Ramirez, you posted the interview initially with the same intention and to say you didn't would be disingenuous.



Just wondering when you became clairvoyant to know the motivations of Dawkins so well?  Or me for that matter. You keep ignoring the evidence much like that woman.

  He voluntarily brings forth that the Catholic Church, the Church of England and many evolutionary scientists are also believers....sounds like someone trying to make the "believers" look foolish? IIRC  he  even told her to read Kenneth Miller's book.

 And actually my intention was to show how creationists will stick to their ideology in the face of over whelming evidence.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Chris Parker said:


> You know Bill, I'm going to disagree again. A bit.
> 
> I am not saying, and I don't think it is correct, that mutations and evolution are conscious decisions the same way that surgeries are (to alter appearance or function, remove dangerous aspects, implant beneficial ones). That would be choice, from a conscious point of view. But to say that it is completely random is a bit out as well. From that perspective, you could argue that the wolf-like ancestors of modern whales centuries and millenia after entering the oceans randomly evolved flippers instead of legs and feet/hands. Mutation is random, and typically leads nowhere. But evolution is not quite so random. It is the effects of the random interchange of differing genetic groupings, which may or may not lead to repeated traits being found in subsequent generations, often but not always related to the survivability of the species or individuals in question
> 
> But it is geared to specific circumstances. Those may include environment (the isolation of the Galapogos Islands, as well as Madagascar and other places), available food sources (more food often equals bigger animals, as well as resulting in specialised feeding methods), spread of available mates (big, showy displays when competition is fierce, loud calls when distance needs to be overcome), and more. Often, evolution can be a way to take a niche position in an ecosystem.
> 
> I would be very hesitant to say that "evolution does not have an intent", then follow that by stating that it favours the survival of the species. That could be taken as being contradictory. But I see evolution as a process, so assigning it intent, I agree, is wrong. However, to state that it is simply random chance is denying the purpose evolution plays. While not necessarily a directed action (a creature doesn't just wake up in the morning, and think "you know what, I think I'd like to have thumbs!"), it is a guided process, by the methods and influences listed above.
> 
> Oh, and while not consciously being aware of it, on a species level, I think the staph bacteria were aware they were being targeted, and the mutation is part of their survival strategy. It's the same as animals in cold environments developing (evolving) thick coats.


 
Chris, I am pretty sure that Bill is not arguing that the process of adaptation is entirely random. What he is saying (and what evolutionary biologists say) is that mutation is random. Most mutations are deleterious. Those that confer an advantage increase the lifetime reproductive success of an individual. Depending on the strength of selection, the trait will either invade the population quickly or slowly (1 generation vs hundreds of generations). If the strength of selection is not that great, the trait will not confer enough of an advantage to overcome stochastic processes; the trait won't spread through the population fast enough to counter the random effects of genetic drift (statistical sampling error). If the trait is highly advantagous, the likelihood of it spreading over time (before it is lost through genetic drift) is much greater. So it appears that the  evolutionary process is guided, because the end result is better adapted to the environment than it's predecessor. But that is akin to a teleogical argument. Really, it is simply statistics coupled with the strength of selection on any particular trait.

Jen


----------



## Gordon Nore

Bill Mattocks said:


> I did not get hit, but I did get expelled from Catechism.  I had to wait on the front steps of the school for my dad to come pick me up.



Though baptized in the United Church and raised with minimal religion, I spent seven years in a Catholic boys school. My grade eight home room and Catechism teacher was Brother Arthur, whom I remember with much fondness. I'd ask questions during religion out of genuine curiosity -- it wasn't until high school that I became openly rebellious. He'd look at me and say, "Gordon, you're not a Catholic boy, are you?"

I kinda' knew that brother had me earmarked for limbo.


----------



## Tez3

blindsage said:


> I'm curious as to which religion promotes this practice?


 
Not castration but female circumcision is practised widely still.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Tez3 said:


> Not castration but female circumcision is practised widely still.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm


 
This thread tangent led me to read up on this practice. I knew it existed, but I didn't know it was linked to religious practices. 

Every day I realize how very, very lucky I am.


----------



## Tez3

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> This thread tangent led me to read up on this practice. I knew it existed, but I didn't know it was linked to religious practices.
> 
> Every day I realize how very, very lucky I am.


 

Religion gets blamed for so much but frankly that's only an excuse for people to do what they were going to do anyway. Humans will always find an excuse to be barbaric. Look at all the so called religious wars and crusades and there will actually be greed, land lust, power lust and politics at the heart of it, all very human things dressed up in the name of religion. Take away religion and nothing will change, we'll just find other excuses.


----------



## blindsage

Tez3 said:


> Not castration but female circumcision is practised widely still.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm


Oh yes Tez, I'm acutely aware of the practice and how widespread it still is. I was just trying to figure out which religion CC was saying is to blame for creating and promoting it.


----------



## Tez3

blindsage said:


> Oh yes Tez, I'm acutely aware of the practice and how widespread it still is. I was just trying to figure out which religion CC was saying is to blame for creating and promoting it.


 
It is largely a Muslim practice.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Just wondering when you became clairvoyant to know the motivations of Dawkins so well? Or me for that matter. You keep ignoring the evidence much like that woman.
> 
> He voluntarily brings forth that the Catholic Church, the Church of England and many evolutionary scientists are also believers....sounds like someone trying to make the "believers" look foolish? IIRC he even told her to read Kenneth Miller's book.
> 
> And actually my intention was to show how creationists will stick to their ideology in the face of over whelming evidence.


I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.



oooooh...   We are just going to have to call you Sherlock.  I bow before your fantastic powers of deduction.

Yeah he writes a books, he expects to sell some,  good call Sherlock!


----------



## Tez3

Ramirez said:


> oooooh... We are just going to have to call you Sherlock. I bow before your fantastic powers of deduction.
> 
> Yeah he writes a books, he expects to sell some, good call Sherlock!


 
Some people publish purely as an academic exercise to give their research or thoughts a wider airing or to circulate among fellow academics. Others however follow a commerical path and will hype their books to enable them to make their fortunes so a sarcastic answer wasn't needed here.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Hitchens at his best. It's funny no matter what you believe.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/06/2706358.htm


----------



## Sukerkin

yorkshirelad said:


> I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.


 
And all Catholics/Protestants/C-of-E cry "No! YL, do not throw stones in our glass houses".

The problem with pointless debates like this is enshrined in statements that seek to undermine the rightness of a point of view by assigning unproveable, self-serving, motivations to the indivduals front-lining the scientific opposition.

The churches of various faiths have been prosyletising and extorting their worshippers and the public at large for more than two millenia - give the other side time to catch up eh?


And now you got me to break my self-imposes prohibition not to get involved in this nonsense ... {takes self by scruff of neck to bed as it's 3:30}


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tez3 said:


> It is largely a Muslim practice.



I don't think that it is.  As I recall, it's practiced by Muslims, but specifically by Africans specific to an area in Africa that I can't recall now, which includes animists.  So the fact that some Muslims practice it is coincidental.  Local Muslim leaders where it happens and Sharia is the lawful government permit the practice but do not condone it or mandate it.  It's like saying mowing your lawn is a Christian practice.  Yes, lots of Christians do it, and there's nothing against it in the Bible, but that's not the same as saying it is a Christian practice.

For whatever reason it might be practiced, female genital mutilation is a horrible thing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ken Morgan said:


> Hitchens at his best. It's funny no matter what you believe.
> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/06/2706358.htm



I don't find it funny.  So how is it _"funny no matter what you believe?"_


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Chris, I am pretty sure that Bill is not arguing that the process of adaptation is entirely random. What he is saying (and what evolutionary biologists say) is that mutation is random.



Yes, thank you.  And the way it is said is subtle and important.

Organisms do not mutate to meet changes in environment.  They mutate anyway.  If a mutation happens to be better adapted to survive and reproduce than the original organism, it will tend to supplant that original organism.

Thus, organisms do not adapt to changing environments, even though one often hears that on television nature shows.

Environments change, and organisms that are adapted to the change tend to survive.  The adaptation is not because of the change, but the survival of the newly-mutated organism may be as a result of that environmental change.

Put more simply, if you take ordinary fish and put them in a cave with no light, they will not suddenly begin to create mutations that have no eyes.  They would create those mutations anyway.  The difference is that outside of the dark cave, the eyeless mutations would die quickly, because that mutation is not advantageous to survival when light is available.  Inside the cave, the same mutation would do very well, or at least suffer no ill effects from being blind.  Same mutation - different outcome.  But the mutation did not happen because of the dark cave.

So we end up with blind cave fish that have no eyes.  The nature channel will say they _'adapted to their environment'_, but that is incorrect.  They *are* adapted to their environment.  The single word _'are'_ makes the difference between a correct statement and an incorrect one here.  Subtle but important.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't find it funny. So how is it _"funny no matter what you believe?"_


 
Bill, I enjoy your posts on other threads, (you have good logic and wit), but man you get your feelings hurt in the religious ones way to easily. 

I hate it when I get condescending attitude from religious people acting like I&#8217;m a child and there&#8217;s something wrong with me for not believing in the invisible man in the sky. If only I would really listen to them, I could be where they are, and feel the light and goodness flowing through christ. They criticize and argue against atheism. So what? My feelings are intact. We each think the other to be naïve children. We each think that if we provide all the &#8220;facts&#8221; the other person will understand. Doesn&#8217;t work that way. To move from one side to another, you have to have an epiphany. I had mine the same time I stopped believing in Santa, the Tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and The Great Pumpkin.

I have religious friends who have seen the video and appricated the humor in it all. They&#8217;re still religious and not offended. What&#8217;s not funny about it? Do you not laugh at your religion at all? Do you not see the insane stories in both the NT and the OT? Do you not see the inconsistencies? I doubt very much Bill that you believe in *everything* the RC religion and the pope say.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> Dawkins MO is to try to convince the public at large that God doesn't exist. His most famous work is 'The God delusion'.



Perhaps, but _The Selfish Gene_ is likely his most influential book (along with _The Extended Phenotype_, a sequel of sorts).



Tez3 said:


> Religion gets blamed for so much but frankly that's only an excuse for people to do what they were going to do anyway.



There's a lot of truth to that, but I think there's more to it too--religious fervor is a special state of mind, and while control of the masses is one application of religion by those who may be merely greedy, there are plenty who wer motivated by concerns about the supernatural.



yorkshirelad said:


> I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.



You're not buying the whole 'scientist' thing?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ken Morgan said:


> Bill, I enjoy your posts on other threads, (you have good logic and wit), but man you get your feelings hurt in the religious ones way to easily.



I think you may be misunderstanding me if you think my feelings are hurt.  I was raised Catholic, and I am one now, but I tend to make my religious brethren nervous when I freely admit I have no personal proof that God exists or that Jesus was the Son of God, heaven, hell, any of it.  I have doubt, and I don't mind saying it.  For me, religious belief is a choice I make, not an imprint of truth on my mind.

I also find religion very funny.  I love Monty Python skits on religion, etc.

What I do not like is cruelty-for-entertainment disguised as enlightenment.  Sadism sickens me.  The fact that this particular instance involves religion is, to me, not the point.  And that is what this particular video was all about, I believe.

One has merely to observe the responses from the crowd who gather to hoot and howl and catcall at this video and others like it - they're not gathered to watch a debate, they're gathered to enjoy a one-sided asskicking, delivered with lots of rope-a-dope.



> I hate it when I get condescending attitude from religious people acting like Im a child and theres something wrong with me for not believing in the invisible man in the sky. If only I would really listen to them, I could be where they are, and feel the light and goodness flowing through christ. They criticize and argue against atheism. So what? My feelings are intact. We each think the other to be naïve children. We each think that if we provide all the facts the other person will understand. Doesnt work that way. To move from one side to another, you have to have an epiphany. I had mine the same time I stopped believing in Santa, the Tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and The Great Pumpkin.



I'm with you.  I have zero interest in proselytizing, and I have no idea if atheists, agnostics, or Zoro-Astrians are on the right track and I'm not.  Don't much care, either!  I am as likely to be wrong in my beliefs as they are in theirs.



> I have religious friends who have seen the video and appricated the humor in it all. Theyre still religious and not offended. Whats not funny about it? Do you not laugh at your religion at all? Do you not see the insane stories in both the NT and the OT? Do you not see the inconsistencies? I doubt very much Bill that you believe in *everything* the RC religion and the pope say.



I do laugh at my religion all the time.  In fact:

http://www.growlery.com/wigwam/2005/04/my-god-they-killed-santa-claus.html

Too bad the photo I originally linked to in my blog didn't survive, but it showed the Holy Father being carted out of the Vatican in a red outfit, looked to me like Santa Claus on a stretcher; hence my irreverent comment about 'they killed Santa Claus'.

I also think that there is no way to take the Bible literally, because it contains too many contradictions.  It also shows evidence of an insanely jealous, angry, and vindictive God, if the descriptions in the Old Testament are to be believed.  A somewhat childish Supreme Being who throws temper tantrums when things don't go His way.

And somehow I remain a Catholic, but believe me, lots of Catholics shake their heads and me and wonder how I manage that bit of illogic.  Perhaps, like the Red Queen, I can believe impossible things.

Now, getting back to why I take offense at Hitchens.  Nothing to do with religion, my friend.  Nothing to do with evolution.  I've already said I beleive in evolution and I have no problem poking fun at my own religion (and others too).  I have a problem with cruel sadistic bastards who get their jollies by publicly taking people not their equal down a couple pegs in public.  Not the taking down a few pegs part, the doing it for enjoyment part.  People who debate deserve what they get, win or lose.  Wear your big boy panties or go home.

I've been saying that, but all anyone seems to be thinking I'm doing is being offended that my precious religion is being berated.  Berate away.  But humiliate a religious person (or any person) for sadistic joy and you'll earn my enmity.  I don't like sadists.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Sukerkin said:


> And all Catholics/Protestants/C-of-E cry "No! YL, do not throw stones in our glass houses".
> 
> The problem with pointless debates like this is enshrined in statements that seek to undermine the rightness of a point of view by assigning unproveable, self-serving, motivations to the indivduals front-lining the scientific opposition.
> 
> The churches of various faiths have been prosyletising and extorting their worshippers and the public at large for more than two millenia - give the other side time to catch up eh?
> 
> 
> And now you got me to break my self-imposes prohibition not to get involved in this nonsense ... {takes self by scruff of neck to bed as it's 3:30}


You seem to think by the above post that I am somehow sympathetic to organized religion. I am not. I agree that religious institutions have made billions off of the vunerable. I believe that Dawkins is in the same camp and has created a religious following along with all the trappings, the need to make **** load of money.

I have said before, I don't like to be preached to by religious folks including Christians and atheists. It's interesting to note that of the atheists, jews, christians and muslims I know, the jews preach to me the least, if at all. If only they all could just leave us to our beliefs.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ken Morgan said:


> Bill, I enjoy your posts on other threads, (you have good logic and wit), but man you get your feelings hurt in the religious ones way to easily. .


That's because some on this threadtake potshots at other's religious beliefs in order to demean, but Bill has not taken the same attitude with them. Reread the whole thread and you will understand.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Perhaps, but _The Selfish Gene_ is likely his most influential book (along with _The Extended Phenotype_, a sequel of sorts)
> 
> 
> You're not buying the whole 'scientist' thing?


_The Selfish Gene_ maybe  influential, but his most famous book is _The God Delusion_.

I believe that Dawkins books are based on scientific research, but i believe him to be more of a controversial author and salesman. Did Einstein Have E=MC2 all over the side of buses? He has also denied the existance of God, a being that is still in the realm of possibility, which is a very unscientific thing to do. It seems that he has reached a conclusion about the existance of God without the necessary proof.


----------



## Andrew Green

yorkshirelad said:


> I have said before, I don't like to be preached to *by religious folks including* Christians and *atheists*.



I don't think you really understand what it means for a person to be an atheist....


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> oooooh... We are just going to have to call you Sherlock. I bow before your fantastic powers of deduction.
> 
> Yeah he writes a books, he expects to sell some, good call Sherlock!


 I shall take that as a compliment. Holmes was rather intelligent and a master of 'Bartitsu' if I remember correctly. He was also very artistic as his grandparentage included the painter Vernet. 

I shall refer to you as either Cheech or Chong.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think you really understand what it means for a person to be an atheist....


......Um to not believe in God...am I right Andrew, please tell me I'm right!!

There are some pretty outspoken atheists out there, some have posted on this thread. There is also an atheist movement taking hold. The movement insists on 'reeducating' the faithful and explaining how mistaken (stupid) they are.

I think that you don't really understand what it means to be one of the faithful. I belong to no church and do not preach fire and brimstone to anyone. In the same vein, I don't like it done to me. I believe in both evolution and God. i have yet to find an atheist who could prove the non-existance of God and I am unable to provide evidence for the existance of God*. STALEMATE *


----------



## Andrew Green

yorkshirelad said:


> I think that you don't really understand what it means to be one of the faithful.



Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence.  Science is the complete opposite.  



> I belong to no church and do not preach fire and brimstone to anyone. In the same vein, I don't like it done to me. I believe in both evolution and God. i have yet to find an atheist who could prove the non-existance of God and I am unable to provide evidence for the existance of God*. STALEMATE  *



True, however the burden of proof is not on the non-believer.  There are all sorts of things that you do not believe and have no supporting evidence for their non-existence, however that does not mean we should accept that they exist.

Do you believe in Ghosts? Vampires? Werewolves? Alien Abductions? Zeus? Thor? Elves? Leprechauns? Lizard men? Teapots orbiting the sun?

Why not?  You can't provide any proof that they don't exist, at least no more so then a person can disprove the existence of God.  I also can't prove that they exist, any more so then I can prove the Christian God (one of many that have been believed in) exists.

However if you believed every idea that was presented to you that could not be disproved you would have a very interesting and inconsistent set of beliefs.


----------



## Ken Morgan

yorkshirelad said:


> That's because some on this threadtake potshots at other's religious beliefs in order to demean, but Bill has not taken the same attitude with them. Reread the whole thread and you will understand.


 
Bill's latest post explained his view to me quite nicely. I had misunderstood part of his position, but now I understand. In fcat we have a great deal in common. 

No, there is still a difference between making fun of religion and making fun of religious people. Some religious people can not or are unwilling to see the difference. Because I think your religion is a joke, doesn't mean I believe you to be.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Andrew Green said:


> Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence. Science is the complete opposite.
> 
> .


Exactly, Dawkins has faith that God does not exist. There is nothing scientific about his lack of belief in God.

I disgree with the burden of proof. I don't need proof. I have no interest in converting others to believe in God. The burden of proof lies with the one who insists on recruiting others to his way of thinking, which in this case is Dawkins.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ken Morgan said:


> Bill's latest post explained his view to me quite nicely. I had misunderstood part of his position, but now I understand. In fcat we have a great deal in common.
> 
> No, there is still a difference between making fun of religion and making fun of religious people. Some religious people can not or are unwilling to see the difference. Because I think your religion is a joke, doesn't mean I believe you to be.


I agree that it is good to inject humour into the discussion, but some posts were intended to cause offense. I don't for a second think that you have been in any way offensive. Omar on the other hand has. The offense taken by Bill and myself for that matter was directed at Omar.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Andrew Green said:


> Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence.  Science is the complete opposite.



Let me try this one more time.

If I believe in XYZ and there is no proof of it, that's faith.

It is faith whether or not XYZ happens to exist.

This can be demonstrated.

If I believe in XYZ and I go to live in a cave, and during that time, XYZ is proven to exist, what is my faith now?  It is justified because you on the outside world know it is true, but me, in my cave, do not know of this proof.  My faith is still faith.  It did not transform into something else.

This demonstrates that faith is internal to the person.  It is decoupled from the actual fact of truth or untruth.  My faith while I am in the cave is still faith - even if the proof becomes known to all (except me) because even though my faith is now justified by being true, I don't know that.

Furthermore, if XYZ is proven while I am in the cave, not only is XYZ now a truth, but it always was.  So my faith ten years ago was justified too, I just didn't know it.  But it was still faith.  It is entirely without relevance to the actual truth or untruth of XYZ.

As I said before in this thread, if the (Christian for example) God is suddenly proved to exist, such that everyone accepts it and agrees, then God always existed, and faith in God was always justified by truth, even though generations lived and died without reason to back it up.

Faith is not belief without factual basis.  Faith is belief without understanding.  The actual facts don't matter to faith, what matters to faith is our internal understanding.

People who believed in evolution before Darwin, where they practicing faith?  Yes, they were.  But evolution existed even before Darwin, he just discovered it, he didn't invent it.  So evolution always was true, but the people (if there were any) who believed in descent with modification before Darwin did not know that to be a fact.  Their belief was faith.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Andrew Green said:


> Do you believe in Ghosts? Vampires? Werewolves? Alien Abductions? Zeus? Thor? Elves? Leprechauns? Lizard men? Teapots orbiting the sun?
> 
> Why not?


You have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in such things. I know a very intelligent person, who believe in lizard men, I wrote about him in an earlier post. The same guy believes in alien abductions. I have a Hungarian friend who believes in werewolves and vampires. I believe in Ghosts. When visiting my great aunt in Tyrone in the North of Ireland, she was convinced that a banshee was living in a field that she owned. believing in such things is akin to believing in Leprachauns.

I've never mocked these people for their beliefs, and have never tried to disprove them because I don't know if such things exist or not. What's more, there is no way of knowing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ken Morgan said:


> No, there is still a difference between making fun of religion and making fun of religious people. Some religious people can not or are unwilling to see the difference. Because I think your religion is a joke, doesn't mean I believe you to be.



Not to pick nits, but that's not exactly what I meant.  I do not have a problem with making fun of religion or religious people.  I don't think religious people should be given special protection from having their beliefs hauled out and criticized, even by very intelligent people who greatly outmatch them.

My objection is not to what was made fun of, it was the reason fun was being made.  Not to prove a point, but to gain sadistic entertainment.

Did you see the video posted here not long ago of that allegedly mentally-challenged man being beaten to a pulp by the black belt student whose sensei ordered it?  That's what I mean.  I have no problems with a fight, even a mismatched one.  What I had a problem with was that the sensei was using his position and his greater intellect to be cruel and sadistic for his own and his student's enjoyment.  I object to cruelty for the sake of pleasure.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not to pick nits, but that's not exactly what I meant. I do not have a problem with making fun of religion or religious people. I don't think religious people should be given special protection from having their beliefs hauled out and criticized, even by very intelligent people who greatly outmatch them.
> 
> My objection is not to what was made fun of, it was the reason fun was being made. Not to prove a point, but to gain sadistic entertainment.
> 
> Did you see the video posted here not long ago of that allegedly mentally-challenged man being beaten to a pulp by the black belt student whose sensei ordered it? That's what I mean. I have no problems with a fight, even a mismatched one. What I had a problem with was that the sensei was using his position and his greater intellect to be cruel and sadistic for his own and his student's enjoyment. I object to cruelty for the sake of pleasure.


 
I don't disagree with you, I just don't believe taht was Dawkins intent.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ken Morgan said:


> I don't disagree with you, I just don't believe taht was Dawkins intent.



OK, I understand.  I only take my cue from the joy those who post his videos show in it.  The subject line of this thread is one such example.  If Dawkins did not do it intentionally, then he is surely intelligent enough to realize that's what many people watch his videos to see anyway.  I suppose it could be accidental on his part, but I do credit Dawkins with great intelligence.


----------



## Ken Morgan

yorkshirelad said:


> Exactly, Dawkins has faith that God does not exist. There is nothing scientific about his lack of belief in God.
> 
> I disgree with the burden of proof. I don't need proof. I have no interest in converting others to believe in God. The burden of proof lies with the one who insists on recruiting others to his way of thinking, which in this case is Dawkins.


 
If you don&#8217;t like Dawkins don&#8217;t buy his book, turn off the Radio when he comes on, ignore his ads. It&#8217;s not hard. 

Atheists don&#8217;t go door to door to try and convert people, they don&#8217;t harass you on street corners, they don&#8217;t post signs on their property, they don&#8217;t wear little Darwin necklaces proclaiming their beliefs, they don&#8217;t kill people for not believing the same way they do, they don&#8217;t shun you when you decide you want to believe in something else, they don&#8217;t disown their own children for loving someone with different beliefs, atheists and agnostics don&#8217;t blow each other up over semantics, they don&#8217;t use their power to rape little children, they don&#8217;t need the fear of some omnipotent being in order to be good. 

I&#8217;ve never seen an atheist in public jump all over someone for being religious, but I have seen it, many times when religious people will jump all over an atheist.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ken Morgan said:


> If you don&#8217;t like Dawkins don&#8217;t buy his book, turn off the Radio when he comes on, ignore his ads. It&#8217;s not hard.
> 
> Atheists don&#8217;t go door to door to try and convert people, they don&#8217;t harass you on street corners, they don&#8217;t post signs on their property, they don&#8217;t wear little Darwin necklaces proclaiming their beliefs, they don&#8217;t kill people for not believing the same way they do, they don&#8217;t shun you when you decide you want to believe in something else, they don&#8217;t disown their own children for loving someone with different beliefs, atheists and agnostics don&#8217;t blow each other up over semantics, they don&#8217;t use their power to rape little children, they don&#8217;t need the fear of some omnipotent being in order to be good.
> 
> I&#8217;ve never seen an atheist in public jump all over someone for being religious, but I have seen it, many times when religious people will jump all over an atheist.


I know atheists who have fish stickers on the back of their cars with Darwin written in them to mock christians. I have an aquaintance who married his wife because she was attractive and then sprung his atheism on her and for years abused her by calling her 'stupid' for her beliefs.

How do you know that atheists haven't at some time raped little children? I think atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler have killed and tortured many. It was because of the illusion of their own omnipotence that the did what they did. Maybe their lack of belief contributed to their accountability to themselves alone.

I've said before that I have no time for organized religion and I believe in evolution. Most of the time I do ignore Dawkins and have rarely read his works. I actually enjoyed the God delusion, even though I didn't agree with it. It is hard to ignore him however when his views are written all over buses.

I don't like jehovah's witnesses coming to my door either. that's something we have in common.

Btw, if you don't like the signs people put on their property, you too can look the other way. "It's not hard".


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> How do you know that atheists haven't at some time raped little children? I think atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler have killed and tortured many..



 And you think Hitler growing up in a  Christian dominated society had nothing to do with his anti semitism?   Holmes, your deductive powers need a tune up.


----------



## Jenna

Ken Morgan said:


> Atheists dont go door to door to try and convert people, they dont harass you on street corners, they dont post signs on their property ...


That is just the problem.  Dawkins is wholly committed to exactly this kind of evangelism you mentioned.  He is often impossible to escape.  For a while here we could not go anywhere without the "There's Probably No God" propaganda.  It was all over the papers [double-page spreads] it was on billboards, it was on buses all over town..

Again, let me just state, I have no problem with anybody's position.  What galls me is those having a position, such as that of Dawkins, Polly Toynbee and all the others here who would shove it down my throat, and do exactly all those aforementioned things you posted.

Atheists can be [and often are] as indoctrinated and evangelistic and proselytising as supporters of religion.. ref. this bloody thread right here!  WAKE UP AND HEAR YOURSELVES!!!


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, I've read through the last 6 or so pages since I was last here, and there are a few things I wouldn't mind adding.

Some minor ones first.

The two theories in physics that "disagree" with each other, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, yes that is a problem. In essence, General Relativity works wonderfully for large objects (larger than an atom), and Quantum Mechanics has very different rules and laws to govern the behaviour of small objects (sub-atomic particles). The problem is when you get an incredibly small object with incredible mass, such as a black hole singularity. Which laws do you use? General Relativity because it has a huge mass, or Quantum mechanics because it is very small? Problem... 

This lead to the search for a Grand Unifying Theory of Physics. The best candidate at present is String Theory, as mentioned previously. I know we have danced around describing it, as it's quite complex, but a simple (?) explanation is this: String Theory proposes that, smaller than the known subatomic particles (electrons, photons etc), there are the smaller particles which make up the known ones. These particles are refered to as "strings", as that is the shape they take.

These strings "vibrate" at different frequencies, giving rise to particular properties. They are sometimes closed loops, and sometimes open-ended, resulting in the variety of particles we know and don't know, including predicted Gravitons, sparticles, and potentially dark matter.

String theory goes on to predict up to 11 dimensions, and the possibility that our Universe is located on a plane travelling through the spacial element, with other planes moving through as well (leading to a possible explanation for the Big Bang, amongst other things, such as the reason for gravities extreme weakness). Fun stuff.

Okay, string theory down. That was very basic, but I'm sure no-one wants to get too far into this here.

Mary as the Immaculate Conception. Yep, very true. Although it is not as emphasised in most Christian churches as much (mostly in Catholicism, for the record) as it is in Islam. In fact, the Koran has far more references to Mary the Holy Mother than the Christian canonical Bible does.

While I'm on that, it is probably best to remember that religion is really the human control on spirituality. That can be a very good thing, giving boundaries, and a defined sense of belonging, as well as giving a constructto the form of worship taking place (set practices for prayer and ritual, for example). But it is also a dangerous thing, when such boundaries are enforced upon the followers, and is used to control, or justify behaviours. I'm sure most here can see that, and it's actually not my point here.

My point is that what is thought of as the true Bible (for example) is just what has been chosen to be presented by a group of people, and the reasons are not always spiritual in nature. Basically, what is in the Bible is only part of the story. There have been many alternative religious and spiritual writings that were denied canonization by the Council of Carthage, and the reasons ranged from not having enough evidence of the particular writings validity (such as not being written in the right timeframe), through to emphasising the wrong things (to a Christian viewpoint), supporting the wrong political ideals, through to giving tacet permission to completely unacceptable acts (for this, there are examples of a longer version of Genesis... I'll talk about that if people ask, but if not, I won't. It's about the gaps in the canonical text, and I don't want to offend anyone).

With regard to Mary, it is believed that the reasons the stories about her were kept out of the canonical Bible were simply that they took the emphasis away from Jesus (taking the narrative off tack, as it were). Within the Islamic faith, Jesus, although important, is a secondary figure to Muhammad, so taking emphasis off him to talk about the miracle of his mother is fine. Other texts to give a greater feel for the comptemporary writings are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Ethiopian Bible, which is based on an earlier (pre-Council of Carthage) version. Again, fun stuff.

Now Dawkins and his agenda. I don't think it's hard to see that his take on religion in general is pretty negative, and he makes no attempt to hide it. And I agree with Jenna that his approach is quite ironic, with his very evangelical attempts to convert those around him and beyond. That said, I disagree wholeheartedly with everyone here who has said that his purpose in this interview is to make believers look stupid, ill-informed, or bad in any way. As I mentioned before, he has other shows about that, this one was purely about Darwin. What he was doing was making people who refuse to accept established scientific fact, even when presented with the evidence, even when it can be shown to be congruent with their faith, even when every argument they have is defeated, these people who insist on speaking to children, claiming to be protectors of childrens educations when refusing to be educated themselves, that is what he is showing up here. Yes, her belief has helped shape her views here, but her faith is not why she was being interviewed. She was a very vocal proponent of a highly flawed educational standpoint, requesting theological concepts dictate scientific classes. That is simply wrong, and she is one of many who ask for such a thing to occur. So the point it not "she believe's in God, what an idiot", it is more "she has no ability to think critically, no ability to differentiate between theological and scientific concepts, and wants to thrust such igonrance on our young, what an idiot". Her believing in God is not an issue, her lack of understanding of the concepts she is fighting for and against is.

I think that's it for now...


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> I think atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler have killed and tortured many. It was because of the illusion of their own omnipotence that the did what they did. Maybe their lack of belief contributed to their accountability to themselves alone..



Two can play that game Holmes,  I don't recall anyone screaming "No God is great" as they flew airplanes into buildings.


----------



## Tez3

A marriage dispute came before a rabbi, he heard the wife patiently. "You are right" he said. The husband intervened and the rabbi listened to him and considered carefully. "You are right too" he said. A bystander shouted out "If she's right how can he be right?" The rabbi pondered "And you're right too" he exclaimed.   


Without mystery what is left?

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious... He who never had this experience seems to me , if not dead then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that out mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In _this_ sense I am religious."   *Albert Einstein* 


In the end it really doesn't matter how the earth was formed or whether we evolved from apes or not, the important thing is that we look at this world and see it's wonder and don't destroy it. It's no good either side being right if there's nothing left to be right about because we've destroyed each other and the planet.
People need to take a step back and think why do I need to be right about this? Perhaps G-d exists for those who believe and doesn't for those who don't. 
Albert Einstein also said " Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas"   

From AJ Hershel, an American Conservative Rabbi.

"It is tragically true that we are often wrong about G-d, believing in that which is not G-d, in a counterfeit ideal, in a dream, in a cosmic force, in our own father, in own own selves. We must never cease to question our own faith and ask what G-d means to us. Is He an alibi for ignorance? The white flag of surrender to the the unknown? Is He a pretext for confort and unwarrented cheer? A device to cheat despondancy, fear or despair?
From who should we seek support for our faith if even religion can be a fraud, if by self-sacrifice we may hallow murder? From our minds which have so often betrayed us? From our conscience which easily fumbles and fails? From the heart? From our good intentions? "He that trusts in his own heart is a fool" (Proverbs 28:26) The heart is decietful above al things, it is exceedingly weak - who can know it" (Jeremiah 17:19) 



In the end it comes down to one thing, being true to ones self and not to mind what others believe. As the rabbi said, we are all right.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Tez3 said:


> In the end it comes down to one thing, being true to ones self and not to mind what others believe. As the rabbi said, we are all right.


 
I've never disagreed with that TEZ, (BTW, where have you been??? a vacation I hope?) it's only online on these forums when the line gets drawn or if someone asks me specifiacally than I will talk about my beliefs. 

Many of the people I love are religious, I will attend church on special days just for them. 

I think we all agree that its the ignorant people who try to shove their beliefs down others throats that are the problem.

I disagree with religion, but I will defend your right to it.


----------



## Tez3

Ken Morgan said:


> I've never disagreed with that TEZ, (BTW, where have you been??? a vacation I hope?) it's only online on these forums when the line gets drawn or if someone asks me specifiacally than I will talk about my beliefs.
> 
> Many of the people I love are religious, I will attend church on special days just for them.
> 
> I think we all agree that its the ignorant people who try to shove their beliefs down others throats that are the problem.
> 
> I disagree with religion, but I will defend your right to it.


 
I've been off to sunny Cornwall! Lovely place,calming for the spirit. 
http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/The-Lizard/

I think it's the spirit in us that's important, the indefinable thing that makes us human, I think it's important too to question everything, perhaps my religion is bigger on that than most, we also don't believe our religion is for anyone else, they can join if they wish, not many do but to go out activiely looking for converts would be a very odd thing to do. One rabbi said that we must treat athiests as if there is no G-d and instead of telling them to seek help from Him, we must help them ourselves.
I don't agree or disagree with either religion or lack of it, as long as there's a let and let live attitude I don't see how anyones beliefs are really of any concern to anyone else. Of interest yes because one should always be curious (okay nosy lol) but concern no. 

The problem with arguments like the one on the video clip is that it's down to the personality of the people involved how the discussion goes, the same subject between two different people could have engendered a far more lively and intellectual discussion. If the woman had had more wits about her she could have made a far better case for her side. I wouldn't have believed her but it would have been more interesting as I enjoy good debates with erudite combatants! A well presented argument even when you disagree with it is a pleasure to listen to and argue against.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tez3 said:


> Religion gets blamed for so much but frankly that's only an excuse for people to do what they were going to do anyway. Humans will always find an excuse to be barbaric. Look at all the so called religious wars and crusades and there will actually be greed, land lust, power lust and politics at the heart of it, all very human things dressed up in the name of religion. Take away religion and nothing will change, we'll just find other excuses.


 
But by using religion, those responsible for these barbaric acts can do so on a much larger scale and with much less resistance. 

Those that may have resisted or even stopped such acts will not act against them because they are led to believe what they do is justified because "God said so." 



Andrew Green said:


> Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence. Science is the complete opposite.
> 
> True, however the burden of proof is not on the non-believer. There are all sorts of things that you do not believe and have no supporting evidence for their non-existence, however that does not mean we should accept that they exist.
> 
> Do you believe in Ghosts? Vampires? Werewolves? Alien Abductions? Zeus? Thor? Elves? Leprechauns? Lizard men? Teapots orbiting the sun?
> 
> Why not? You can't provide any proof that they don't exist, at least no more so then a person can disprove the existence of God. I also can't prove that they exist, any more so then I can prove the Christian God (one of many that have been believed in) exists.
> 
> However if you believed every idea that was presented to you that could not be disproved you would have a very interesting and inconsistent set of beliefs.


 
Bingo. 



Jenna said:


> That is just the problem. Dawkins is wholly committed to exactly this kind of evangelism you mentioned. He is often impossible to escape. For a while here we could not go anywhere without the "There's Probably No God" propaganda. It was all over the papers [double-page spreads] it was on billboards, it was on buses all over town..
> 
> Again, let me just state, I have no problem with anybody's position. What galls me is those having a position, such as that of Dawkins, Polly Toynbee and all the others here who would shove it down my throat, and do exactly all those aforementioned things you posted.
> 
> Atheists can be [and often are] as indoctrinated and evangelistic and proselytising as supporters of religion.. ref. this bloody thread right here! WAKE UP AND HEAR YOURSELVES!!!


 
True, it's distasteful having any ideology forced down your throat regardless of where it's coming from. 



Ken Morgan said:


> I've never disagreed with that TEZ, (BTW, where have you been??? a vacation I hope?) it's only online on these forums when the line gets drawn or if someone asks me specifiacally than I will talk about my beliefs.
> 
> Many of the people I love are religious, I will attend church on special days just for them.
> 
> I think we all agree that its the ignorant people who try to shove their beliefs down others throats that are the problem.
> 
> I disagree with religion, but I will defend your right to it.


 
Well said.


----------



## Tez3

celtic_crippler said:


> But by using religion, those responsible for these barbaric acts can do so on a much larger scale and with much less resistance.
> 
> Those that may have resisted or even stopped such acts will not act against them because they are led to believe what they do is justified because "God said so."
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.
> 
> 
> 
> True, it's distasteful having any ideology forced down your throat regardless of where it's coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.


 

The magic word there is _'using' _religion though isn't it ? People use religion, if they can't, they will use something else.. communism for instance, that as a system isn't inherently evil but used by people it's as evil as any Inquisition. People with the intent to do evil will use whatever and yes they will persuade themselves it is the right thing to do often quite easily. this is why you don't trust your heart, you should question everything but of course most like to take the easy way out and have others thinking for them whatever the religion or political system. No one should believe blindly in anything. 

 '"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.'' Bertrand Russell.

I agree heartily though that having anything rammed down your throat is extremely annoying and causes me to have outbreaks of extreme sarcasm!


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tez3 said:


> The magic word there is _'using' _religion though isn't it ? People use religion, if they can't, they will use something else.. communism for instance, that as a system isn't inherently evil but used by people it's as evil as any Inquisition. People with the intent to do evil will use whatever and yes they will persuade themselves it is the right thing to do often quite easily. this is why you don't trust your heart, you should question everything but of course most like to take the easy way out and have others thinking for them whatever the religion or political system. No one should believe blindly in anything.
> 
> '"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.'' Bertrand Russell.
> 
> I agree heartily though that having anything rammed down your throat is extremely annoying and causes me to have outbreaks of extreme sarcasm!


 
Nationalism can be just as bad (Hitler, Stalin, etc...) but even those singular cases are not as far reaching or have they had the extreme impact that religion has by comparison. 

I believe Emperor Constantine was probably the first to really recognize the power of using religion to obtain his militaristic goals when nationalism wasn't enough. 

Historically, the era of the Christian Reformation alone resulted in more bloodshed than any other time prior to WWII. The only reason WWII compares is because we found a better way to kill the masses quickly... the nuclear bomb. Can you imagine what the Reformation would have been like if they could have traded in their hot pokers and iron maidens for a nuke? 

I agree that sheeple are at the root though. It's much easier to have somebody else do your thinking for you. LOL


----------



## Chris Parker

Constantine the first to use religiou to obtain military goals? Maybe the first military/governmental leader to use a form of Christianity, but not the first to use religion.

The full legend of the War of Troy has Agamemnon going to the Delphic Oracle to obtain a good omen for his war, and being denied unless he makes a supreme sacrifice. He then lures his daughter up there, and kills her quite violently in front of all his men, in order to prove the religious backing he had for going to Troy. He did pay for it when he returned, though, with his wife killing him for it (he didn't go home after sacrificing his daughter, surprisingly, just headed off with all his ships...).

Now, this is a legend, but the beliefs behind it (Oracles, Gods blessings etc) did govern many decisions military and governmental, and I think it would be quite naive to think that those beliefs would not be manipulated for personal gain (power, conquest, etc). Remember that the Spartans were highly observant of their religious ceremonies and holidays (the original use of that word, holy days). One of the main reasons there were only 300 of them at Thermopolae was because at the last major battle they had not attended (it fell at the same time as a religious festival, and they did not want to offend the Gods), so Athens had gotten all the glory for, frankly, an incredible victory (the first time the Persians tried to invade, led by Xerxes' son). When the Persians returned, it was again at festival time, and the Oracles warned against any Spartans going. But Sparta was a dual-King society, and one of the Kings (Leonides) could not accept Athens taking more glory again, so he took a small number, specifically chosen (only those with sons to carry on their lines), with the idea that the other King would come with back up soon. Unfortunately, they didn't arrive in time, but were in time to stop the Persian fleet closer to Athens.

The point here is not a history lesson, but that religion has been used as long as religion has been. Both to help, and to hurt.

But if you mean that Constantine was the first to use Christianity, well, there had been uprisings, so you could argue that the religion was used by early Christians, but not to Constantine's scale. They certainly never used the iconography and relics the way that Constantine did_, in hoc signo vinces_.


----------



## Omar B

All these dictators mentioned who were atheists, so what, they saw a good business plan and ran with it.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao have pretty much placed themselves at the head requiring full servitude and obedience.  The talk about them versus us, they stress brother love among their own while spreading their facisim or whatever "ism" they might be about.  They start early making usre the kids are good and indoctrinated, much of those dictators MO follow pretty closely to how a religious organization run, just replacing the god with the leader.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> But if you mean that Constantine was the first to use Christianity, well, there had been uprisings, so you could argue that the religion was used by early Christians, but not to Constantine's scale. They certainly never used the iconography and relics the way that Constantine did_, in hoc signo vinces_.



I agree.  However, I trace it back further.

In many ways, we cannot really play comparison games, simply because the 'what if' turns on Saul (Paul) of Tarsus.

Without Paul, there arguably would be no Christianity.  Jesus-worshiping Jews would be a distinct minority, if they survived at all (other Jewish offshoots did not).  Without Christianity, everything since that time changes in radical ways that cannot be reliably modeled.

Paul is the lynchpin to all Western history since his time, and all history of the world as it relates to and interfaced with Christianity.

Just a side-note...


----------



## celtic_crippler

Chris Parker said:


> Constantine the first to use religiou to obtain military goals? Maybe the first military/governmental leader to use a form of Christianity, but not the first to use religion.
> 
> The full legend of the War of Troy has Agamemnon going to the Delphic Oracle to obtain a good omen for his war, and being denied unless he makes a supreme sacrifice. He then lures his daughter up there, and kills her quite violently in front of all his men, in order to prove the religious backing he had for going to Troy. He did pay for it when he returned, though, with his wife killing him for it (he didn't go home after sacrificing his daughter, surprisingly, just headed off with all his ships...).
> 
> Now, this is a legend, but the beliefs behind it (Oracles, Gods blessings etc) did govern many decisions military and governmental, and I think it would be quite naive to think that those beliefs would not be manipulated for personal gain (power, conquest, etc). Remember that the Spartans were highly observant of their religious ceremonies and holidays (the original use of that word, holy days). One of the main reasons there were only 300 of them at Thermopolae was because at the last major battle they had not attended (it fell at the same time as a religious festival, and they did not want to offend the Gods), so Athens had gotten all the glory for, frankly, an incredible victory (the first time the Persians tried to invade, led by Xerxes' son). When the Persians returned, it was again at festival time, and the Oracles warned against any Spartans going. But Sparta was a dual-King society, and one of the Kings (Leonides) could not accept Athens taking more glory again, so he took a small number, specifically chosen (only those with sons to carry on their lines), with the idea that the other King would come with back up soon. Unfortunately, they didn't arrive in time, but were in time to stop the Persian fleet closer to Athens.
> 
> The point here is not a history lesson, but that religion has been used as long as religion has been. Both to help, and to hurt.
> 
> But if you mean that Constantine was the first to use Christianity, well, there had been uprisings, so you could argue that the religion was used by early Christians, but not to Constantine's scale. They certainly never used the iconography and relics the way that Constantine did_, in hoc signo vinces_.



_...where nationalism failed..._

But thanks for elaborating.


----------



## Xinglu

First war waged in the name of religion... Joshua used religion to invade the "holy land" and wage a genocidal war.  Let's see, that is late bronze age... 1400 BCE-ish  The trojan wars where 1330 BCE at the earliest with most historians thinking it was closer to 1200 BCE.


----------



## celtic_crippler

...so...should _religion_ be considered a cause of death? LOL


----------



## elder999

Omar B said:


> There are no shades of truth, nor are there different flavors like religion. Facts stand as immutable, not to be interpreted one way or another by different churches. A=A


 
As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "_truth_," and *"facts"*. In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.

For example, (again!), the _68 degree_ rule :

Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*

I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.

My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.


----------



## Xinglu

celtic_crippler said:


> ...so...should _religion_ be considered a cause of death? LOL



LOL niiiice. Well, when religion is used as a tool to carry out death, perhaps so.  For a stabbing victim's cause of death may be exsanguination, but the cause of that exsanguination was a knife.  A knife was the tool used to carry out the will.  So yes, religion can be, has been, and is currently used as a tool and a weapon. Many people died on 9/11, yes, the direct cause was fire, or building collapse, or aircraft impact.  But what caused that?  Religion.

So while you can accurately claim that religion cannot directly kill, you cannot say with any cogency that it is not used to kill people.


----------



## Xinglu

elder999 said:


> As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "_truth_," and *"facts"*. In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.
> 
> For example, (again!), the _68 degree_ rule :
> 
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> 
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> 
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> 
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.



Perhaps a vin diagram might help you illustrate this point :wink:


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

As I've mentioned before, I'm a scientist and an agnostic. I'm agnostic rather than atheist because this position is more congruent with the requirements for evidence in science that we've been discussing. Frankly, I have no interest in religion or metaphysics or what will happen to me after I'm dead.

I have loved ones (my mom and best friend) who are devout Christians. They are cool with my beliefs and I am cool with theirs. When my best friend tells me that she prays for me, it makes me feel warm and loved, not offended. When I see religious people contributing toward society or helping someone out, I think "That is awesome". When I hear of atrocities or inequities being perpetrated in the name of religion, I think "That sucks". 

In other words, I try to evaluate each behavior outside the context of religion or secularity. Just because I am agnostic, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that religion is the source of most of human suffering. We can discuss the historical influence of religion til Hell freezes over (isn't that a clever allusion?) but there is no metric for human suffering or human happiness. Since we cannot measure the influence of religion, it boils down to who can shout the loudest or post the most. Seems to me that the best way to combat ignorance and cruelty (no matter what you perceive the source to be) is to perform acts of generosity and tolerance in your own life, as often as possible.


----------



## Omar B

elder999 said:


> As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "_truth_," and *"facts"*. In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.
> For example, (again!), the _68 degree_ rule :
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.



Elder, good shot man!  Brought me back to a freshman year English lecture.  Great point, yet another reason why we need to choose our words carefully, precision of language, love it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.



In your example, the subjective evaluations of 'cold' and 'hot' are void for vagueness.  Language is too imprecise to contain the values that make the words 'hot' and 'cold' unique to the individual who utters them.

In addition, we have to consider the language of metaphysics.  Something can be true, false, or meaningless.

The statement, _"the universe was created by an intelligent being"_ cannot be true, because it cannot be proven.

It also cannot be false, because it cannot be proven false (as you know, the inability to prove something true does not make it false).

The proposition cannot be falsified, so it does not fall within the purview of science at all (at least, not until such time as it can be falsified).

But it does fall into the domain of (Common Western) metaphysics, which promptly classifies it as meaningless.  The map is not the territory.

That does not mean that the universe was not created by an intelligent being.  There clearly is an objective reality; since the universe exists, it either was or it was not created by an intelligent being.  It is meaningless because we cannot establish an answer at this time.

This also avoids the trap of a priori factual flip-flops.  If an intelligent being did create the universe, then that statement was always true, it was never false.  If an intelligent being did not create the universe, then the statement was always false.  By assigning a value of true or false to a meaningless statement at this time, we would have (at some X time in the future when the fact becomes known) reverse our (supposedly) objective 'true' to be 'false' or 'false' to be 'true'.  

I recommend Peter Von Inwagen's book, "Metaphysics," or anything by Robert Anton Wilson (when in doubt, consult your pineal gland).


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> I believe that Dawkins books are based on scientific research, but i believe him to be more of a controversial author and salesman. Did Einstein Have E=MC2 all over the side of buses?



Were people arguing that physics shouldn't be taught in school, or that alternative theories should be given equal weight even in the absence of evidence for them?



> He has also denied the existance of God, a being that is still in the realm of possibility, which is a very unscientific thing to do.



Philosophically, perhaps; practically, no. If I do a study intended to demonstrate the link between smoking and cancer, I don't want the conclusion to be that any of the following are equally likely to be true:

a.) Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of various cancers;
b.) Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of God giving you various cancers;
c.) Smoking cigarettes does not increase the risk of various cancers, but space aliens give smokers cancer as a practical joke on scientists;
d.) Certainty is impossible so I decline to draw a conclusion.

As a practical matter, we need to rule out things for which there is no evidence or we will get nowhere. We can revise our opinions when evidence is presented for things, as science is process and method, not a body of facts. But if you take the attitude that God might exist to be a scientific fact to be factored into scientific discussions, despite the total lack of evidence in that regard, you'll accomplish nothing. If every time I drop a rock I say "It's either gravity or the will of god", how can I do science?


----------



## elder999

Chris Parker said:


> The two theories in physics that "disagree" with each other, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, yes that is a problem. In essence, General Relativity works wonderfully for large objects (larger than an atom), and Quantum Mechanics has very different rules and laws to govern the behaviour of small objects (sub-atomic particles). The problem is when you get an incredibly small object with incredible mass, such as a black hole singularity. Which laws do you use? General Relativity because it has a huge mass, or Quantum mechanics because it is very small? Problem...


 
That is, of course, _one _of the problems with quantum mechanics, among others.The ever-amusing Dr. N. David Mermin wrote a deligthful paper 24 years ago in which he used quantum mechanics to show that _it is demonstrably provable that when no is looking at it, *the moon does not exist.*_ :lfao:


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:


> In your example, the subjective evaluations of 'cold' and 'hot' are void for vagueness. Language is too imprecise to contain the values that make the words 'hot' and 'cold' unique to the individual who utters them.


 
_Language is also too imrpecise to contain the values that make the words "*true"* and "*false*" unique to the individual who utters them._


----------



## Xinglu

Bill - Your logic is flawed. Just because something has not been proven does not make it any less true.  Before the earth was proven to be "round", it was still "round."  

Before DNA was discovered, it still existed, and was still true.

If something is true, it will be true regardless of weather or not is has been empirically proven.


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "_truth_," and *"facts"*. In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.
> 
> For example, (again!), the _68 degree_ rule :
> 
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> 
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> 
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> 
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.


 
and that's why the rabbi said all were right lol!


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> ......Um to not believe in God...am I right



Not exactly, which is one reason I usually say I'm "not religious" rather than an theist. An atheist doesn't just not believe in _your_ god, he doesn't believe in any of them. The God of Abraham and Thor the god of thunder are of the same epistemological nature (though the latter is much cooler). In my experience, the religious take atheism as a rejection of their image of god. I just am not a superstitious person who believes in supernatural creatures.



> I think that you don't really understand what it means to be one of the faithful.



I'm sure that's true. On the other hand, someone with a foot in both worlds may not understand what it's like to be truly a rationalist, viewing the world through reason and science.



> i have yet to find an atheist who could prove the non-existance of God and I am unable to provide evidence for the existance of God*. STALEMATE *



Equipossibility is not equiprobability (well, tehre's some argument about that), but more to the point, this is a Principle of Impotence stating that it's impossible to ever know anything about anything; it's the brains in vats argument. This is _not_ a stalemate, even though I could just be a brain in one of the Martians' vats. A person who makes a claim without providing evidence or argument for it has said nothing, we say in science and philosophy.



Andrew Green said:


> Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence.  Science is the complete opposite.



Yup.



> however the burden of proof is not on the non-believer. [...] if you believed every idea that was presented to you that could not be disproved you would have a very interesting and inconsistent set of beliefs.



Yup.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> believing in such things is akin to believing in Leprachauns.
> 
> I've never mocked these people for their beliefs, and have never tried to disprove them because I don't know if such things exist or not. What's more, there is no way of knowing.



Is there any way of knowing whether surgery is a better treatment for acute appendicitis than prayer?



Ken Morgan said:


> Atheists dont go door to door to try and convert people, they dont harass you on street corners, they dont post signs on their property, they dont wear little Darwin necklaces proclaiming their beliefs, they dont kill people for not believing the same way they do, they dont shun you when you decide you want to believe in something else, they dont disown their own children for loving someone with different beliefs, atheists and agnostics dont blow each other up over semantics, they dont use their power to rape little children, they dont need the fear of some omnipotent being in order to be good.


 
Has an atheist ever hijacked an airplane? Been a suicide bomber? Certainly not in proportion to their numbers, and not for atheism if they did--but these things are done by the religious and in the name of religion all the time.



> Ive never seen an atheist in public jump all over someone for being religious, but I have seen it, many times when religious people will jump all over an atheist.



Yup. Because the religious "know" they're right, which justifies it. I've said it many times: It's now what you don't know that'll get you, it's what you _do_ know that just ain't so.


----------



## Omar B

elder999 said:


> _Language is to imrpecise to contain the values that make the words "*true"* and "*false*" unique to the individual who utters them._



I do believe that language is precise enough to make our intentions quite clear.  Some people just don't have the vocabulary to fully express themselves in a cogent manner.  Ever watch interviews on TV and hear how many times "you know what I mean," "it's like," "whatever," etc are used.  It comes down to effective communication, sadly, most modern kids/teens don't read nearly enough to have a vocabulary wide enough to do that.

Effective communication comes down to the author or speaker being clear as to what they wish to say and choosing the word or series of words to express that.  But that's my take on the language thing, I studies English Lit and Journalism so I'm always of the mind that we can always communicate ideas more clearly.

Also the cold Vs. hot thing in a room comes down to individual perception, not a language thing.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> And you think Hitler growing up in a Christian dominated society had nothing to do with his anti semitism? Holmes, your deductive powers need a tune up.


I know many atheists who grew up as Christians Cheech.


----------



## Omar B

I think Hitler's an interesting case.  After all, he effectively replaced religion with state, with himself being the highest authority, not god, not your own values, but the state.  Plus he was very interested in the occult so dismissing religion while embracing something else wholly unfounded does set up a contradiction.  Also, wasn't the Nazi swastika (did I spell that right?) a version of the christian crucifix?


----------



## elder999

Omar B said:


> Also the cold Vs. hot thing in a room comes down to *individual perception*, not a language thing.


 
_What is "*truth?"*_


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Two can play that game Holmes, I don't recall anyone screaming "No God is great" as they flew airplanes into buildings.


I agree Cheech, people have done terrible things in the name of religion. I've said it before and i'll say it again. Good job I'm not religious. The truth is however that the faithless have done terrible things also. Think of how many people took a bullet by the agents of Stalin of Hitler because they put their faith in the deity over the ruling party.


----------



## elder999

Omar B said:


> Also, wasn't the Nazi swastika (did I spell that right?) a version of the christian crucifix?


 
No. THe very word comes from sanskrit, and it's a symbol that is almos universal min its use in antiquity. You can find it here in New Mexico among petroglyphs, and its used in Hindu and Buddhist societies.In Tibetan Buddhism it's called a _yung drung_, and represents eternity. From a martial arts/Buddhist perspective, the _manji_, as it's called in Japanese, is, AFAIK, still used by Shorinji Kenpo...


----------



## Tez3

The Nazis however turned the swastika around so the 'points' turned the other way.


----------



## Omar B

elder999 said:


> _What is "*truth?"*_



I always separated them by thinking fact is an axiom while truth may change form based on integrating new knowledge, like the earth being flat was the truth for a long time but eventually this was disproved.  So I guess you could say that truth is fluid and is verifiable with all knowledge available at the time, while a fact is axiomatic.

So a room may be cold in my perception because that's what I feel.  The fact would be the actual temperature on the thermometer which is what it is.

There's my stab at it.


----------



## blindsage

arnisador said:


> I'm sure that's true. On the other hand, someone with a foot in both worlds may not understand what it's like to be truly a rationalist, viewing the world through reason and science.


So how do you define rationalist?


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> All these dictators mentioned who were atheists, so what, they saw a good business plan and ran with it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao have pretty much placed themselves at the head requiring full servitude and obedience. The talk about them versus us, they stress brother love among their own while spreading their facisim or whatever "ism" they might be about. They start early making usre the kids are good and indoctrinated, much of those dictators MO follow pretty closely to how a religious organization run, just replacing the god with the leader.


Exactly my point, both the religious and non religious have committed atrocities to further their agenda. It's not a belief in the deity that is the problem. The problem lies in the flaws of man.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> I'm sure that's true. On the other hand, someone with a foot in both worlds may not understand what it's like to be truly a rationalist, viewing the world through reason and science..


 
As I've said before, that's one of my names: _Walks in both worlds. _...at least, that's what I've been told it means..:lfao:

In any case, the two, for me, are completely separate. My experience of God is individual, subjective, and all the "evidence"  I need. I can't prove it scientifically-in some ways, because it's not my field. By that, I mean that there is work being done in that regard, and there are religious "technologies" that produce the same results in different individuals. Of course, these may be a function of the brain......

As far as I can tell, though, it is, for the present , not science's place to prove or disprove "God," given that it can't be, though there are attempts to do so. Nor is it (most) religion's place to try to fit itself into any scientific framework, though there are attempts to do so....


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Exactly my point, both the religious and non religious have committed atrocities to further their agenda. It's not a belief in the deity that is the problem. The problem lies in the flaws of man.



Oh, I didn't say the deity was the problem man.  But he did use a model pretty close to religion, after all, a good idea is a good idea.  Single man as the highest arbiter (rather than your own self interest), indoctrination, turning it into an us versus them, asserting that you and your way is superior to all others (so join or die).

Either way, crazy is crazy, he's just one of the few who didn't do it for god.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> If every time I drop a rock I say "It's either gravity or the will of god", how can I do science?


Then Dawkins should take God out of the equation all together, not mention the deity. 

Dawkins' ad campaign tells me a few things about him, he's got a great publicist, he's in the business of selling books, one of his primary goals is to convert the believers in the deity to not believe. His lack of belief in the deity is his personal faith, there is nothing scientific about it.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Not exactly, which is one reason I usually say I'm "not religious" rather than an theist. An atheist doesn't just not believe in _your_ god, he doesn't believe in any of them. The God of Abraham and Thor the god of thunder are of the same epistemological nature (though the latter is much cooler). In my experience, the religious take atheism as a rejection of their image of god. I just am not a superstitious person who believes in supernatural creatures.
> 
> .


Semantics. the word God could easily be used by nordic pagans to represent Odin or Thor. It could also be used to represnet Zeus. The word's uses are limitless.


----------



## elder999

yorkshirelad said:


> Semantics. the word God could easily be used by nordic pagans to represent Odin or Thor. It could also be used to represnet Zeus. The word's uses are limitless.


 

Or _atman_, and, in a parallel reference, *human beings.*

_Tat tuam varsi_, and all that....:lfao:


----------



## yorkshirelad

.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Is there any way of knowing whether surgery is a better treatment for acute appendicitis than prayer?
> 
> Has an atheist ever hijacked an airplane? Been a suicide bomber? Certainly not in proportion to their numbers, and not for atheism if they did--but these things are done by the religious and in the name of religion all the time.
> 
> 
> quote]
> I would much prefer sugery and I thank God to be living in a time of such technological avncement.
> 
> I can think of 2 Godless dictators who killed millions of their own people. Again, the religious don't have the monopoly on carnage.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> I know atheists who have fish stickers on the back of their cars with Darwin written in them to mock christians. I have an aquaintance who married his wife because she was attractive and then sprung his atheism on her



I don't think the fish mock Christians--they mock creationists. Of course, creationists are almost all (American) Christians. As to the anecdote--shouldn't they have discussed religion before marriage if it was important to either of them?



> atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler have killed and tortured many. It was because of the illusion of their own omnipotence that the did what they did. Maybe their lack of belief contributed to their accountability to themselves alone.



Hitler was absolutely Christian, and his intolerance of others' beliefs (and their right to same) is exactly a Christian virtue. He's 100% one of yours.


----------



## arnisador

Jenna said:


> That is just the problem.  Dawkins is wholly committed to exactly this kind of evangelism you mentioned.  He is often impossible to escape.  For a while here we could not go anywhere without the "There's Probably No God" propaganda.  It was all over the papers [double-page spreads] it was on billboards, it was on buses all over town..
> 
> Again, let me just state, I have no problem with anybody's position.  What galls me is those having a position, such as that of Dawkins, Polly Toynbee and all the others here who would shove it down my throat, and do exactly all those aforementioned things you posted.



Can you imagine how religion-filled the world appears to the rational? Prayers given at the start of major events, crosses on public property (being litigated before the Supreme Court now), "In God We Trust" on the very money we use...you're complaining about a very tiny amount of anti-religiosity and it seems quite tame compared to all the religion shoved down our throats.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> Can you imagine how religion-filled the world appears to the rational? Prayers given at the start of major events, crosses on public property (being litigated before the Supreme Court now), "In God We Trust" on the very money we use...you're complaining about a very tiny amount of anti-religiosity and it seems quite tame compared to all the religion shoved down our throats.


 
In fairness, these things are largely American-one doesn't see much of them where Jenna is from. Some of those things are somewhat ridiculous form _either_ side: an atheist sued to have the crosses removed from the city seal of the city _Las Cruces_, ("the *crosses*") New Mexico. I also think the whole _descanso_ thing constitutes a bit of "nonya."

That's me, though-I still try to follow that 11th commandment...:lfao:



arnisador said:


> Hitler was absolutely Christian, and his intolerance of others' beliefs (and their right to same) is exactly a Christian virtue. He's 100% one of yours.


 
It's debatable just how much of Christian he actually was, given his involvement (dare I say, _obsession_?) with the occult. In any case, the real horror was not Hitler, but what so many did in his name-and they were mostly, unquestionably calling themselves "Christians."


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> For example, (again!), the _68 degree_ rule :
> 
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> 
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> 
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> 
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.



I've found that if my wife says It's cold in here, that's actually a fact.



Xinglu said:


> So while you can accurately claim that religion cannot directly kill, you cannot say with any cogency that it is not used to kill people.



My daughter has a T-shirt that says "Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people."


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Oh, I didn't say the deity was the problem man. But he did use a model pretty close to religion, after all, a good idea is a good idea. Single man as the highest arbiter (rather than your own self interest), indoctrination, turning it into an us versus them, asserting that you and your way is superior to all others (so join or die).
> 
> Either way, crazy is crazy, he's just one of the few who didn't do it for god.


Spot on! Religion has been used as a means of supernatural cohersion since the dawn of civilization. The non religious have used similar tactics to coherse the populace into towing the line also. The bottom line is that the deity (whether you believe or not) has nothing to do with the crimes committed by those who profess to speak for it.

I don't understand why the debate in question is still in session.

Again, evolution is real-everyone here agrees.

There is no way of knowing if the deity exists or not-everyone agrees.

Both the faithful and nonfaithful have committed atrocities-everyone agrees.

Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## celtic_crippler

If he's Cheech can I be Chong? :supcool:


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Hitler was absolutely Christian, and his intolerance of others' beliefs (and their right to same) is exactly a Christian virtue. He's 100% one of yours.


You're a lunatic. Hitler is one of mine :rofl:

In that case, Stalin and PolPot and both yours.


----------



## arnisador

blindsage said:


> So how do you define rationalist?



Reason, evidence...using one's powers of logic and deduction, as opposed to faith and guesswork.


----------



## celtic_crippler

yorkshirelad said:


> You're a lunatic. Hitler is one of mine :rofl:
> 
> In that case, Stalin and PolPot and both yours.


 
Only if he's a Communist.


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> It's debatable just how much of Christian he actually was, given his involvement (dare I say, _obsession_?) with the occult. In any case, the real horror was not Hitler, but what so many did in his name-and they were mostly, unquestionably calling themselves "Christians."


Did Hitler require belief in Christ from his people or belief in him and his state? Hmmmm....let me think.


----------



## Tez3

arnisador said:


> I've found that if my wife says It's cold in here, that's actually a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter has a T-shirt that says "Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people."


 

I have a t shirt that says 'I have the body of a god, shame it's Buddha'

Elder is correct, Jenna and I don't see much of public religion here, over here G-d is an Englishman and therefore not in your face, He's a diffident sort of guy who people only mention with embarassment the same way we talk about how much we earn. We do all like singing 'Jerusalem' at the rugger though and 'Abide with me' will bring tears to most eyes, both are more to do with patriotism rather than religion though. I think the most 'religious' thing we have here in public is Remembrance Sunday.


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> Only if he's a Communist.


So, in that case, if Hitler is one of mine, as staed by Arnisador, he's equating me to a nazi? Classy!!


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> In that case, Stalin and PolPot and both yours.



Those who choose to join the Christian church have something in common. Those who don't really don't. I'm no more lumped in with other non-Christians than in the default way I am lumped in with other non-soccer players. I haven't joined a group those two are associated with--I've not joined a large number of groups they didn't join. Incidentally, Stalin's atheism was secondary to his communism.

Not having a property is its own sort of property, but not generally an interesting one. But electing to join an org. is an _affirmative_ statement. Atheists don't sign a statement of disbelief, but Catholics (say) all have a pretty coherent set of specific beliefs, or at least profess to.


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> So, in that case, if Hitler is one of mine, as staed by Arnisador, he's equating me to a nazi?



You claimed that Hitler was an atheist. This is false; he was a Roman Catholic. The Nazis also had their own "Positive Christianity" that was meant to mesh well with Nazism.

So, in claiming that you have been dubbed a Nazi you seem to be trying to misuse Godwin's Law to get out of admitting that you were wrong.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Spot on! Religion has been used as a means of supernatural cohersion since the dawn of civilization. The non religious have used similar tactics to coherse the populace into towing the line also. The bottom line is that the deity (whether you believe or not) has nothing to do with the crimes committed by those who profess to speak for it.
> I don't understand why the debate in question is still in session.
> Again, evolution is real-everyone here agrees.
> There is no way of knowing if the deity exists or not-everyone agrees.
> Both the faithful and nonfaithful have committed atrocities-everyone agrees.
> Is there something I'm missing?



Dammit!  You know we like to bicker, beat a topic to death and then keep driving at it for a couple weeks more!  We have covered all the angles, both religious and atheist, but like most threads on here this one's gonna live on for a while.

But yeah, crazy is crazy, but a working model is just that too ... it's where the two meet that we have a problem.  Sadly these two have come together far too many times in history and the lions share of those times were religiously motivated.

Oh, and I've decided, I'm no longer an atheist, I've chosen a new god and his name is Superman.  Common, who's a better example to live by than that?


----------



## CanuckMA

arnisador said:


> I've found that if my wife says It's cold in here, that's actually a fact.


 

QFT


You're siting in the living room atching TV. Wife walks in, says "it's cold in here", turns up the thermostat and leaves. - Bill Cosby


----------



## celtic_crippler

...so anyway...

This Dawkins fellow interviews this dumb blonde....


----------



## Omar B

celtic_crippler said:


> ...so anyway...
> This Dawkins fellow interviews this dumb blonde....



Wait, who shot who in the what now?


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Those who choose to join the Christian church have something in common. Those who don't really don't. I'm no more lumped in with other non-Christians than in the default way I am lumped in with other non-soccer players. I haven't joined a group those two are associated with--I've not joined a large number of groups they didn't join. Incidentally, Stalin's atheism was secondary to his communism.
> 
> Not having a property is its own sort of property, but not generally an interesting one. But electing to join an org. is an _affirmative_ statement. Atheists don't sign a statement of disbelief, but Catholics (say) all have a pretty coherent set of specific beliefs, or at least profess to.


I didn't choose Catholicism, Catholicism was chosen for me, at birth. I have rejected it and belong to no religious organization. I happen to believe in God. You have managed to somehow lump me in with religious organizations and those that have committed atrocities on belhalf of religion. I then choose to lump you in with other non believers, even the one's who have committed atrocities.

I still don't know how this is supposed to convince me that God doesn't exists. I don't have a problem with your non belief. Why do you have a problem with my belief?


----------



## celtic_crippler

I'm going to worship the sun... But I'm gonna pray to Joe Pesci


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> You claimed that Hitler was an atheist. This is false; he was a Roman Catholic. The Nazis also had their own "Positive Christianity" that was meant to mesh well with Nazism.
> 
> .


In the same way that Anton La Vey was a Satanist. Did he believe in Satan as a being?


----------



## arnisador

I don't know.


----------



## Tez3

yorkshirelad said:


> In the same way that Anton La Vey was a Satanist. Did he believe in Satan as a being?


 
Jimmy Saville? C'mon, no ones that sad!!! lol!


----------



## Jenna

Tez3 said:


> Jimmy Saville? C'mon, no ones that sad!!! lol!


Jim fixed it for me!


----------



## Omar B

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm going to worship the sun... But I'm gonna pray to Joe Pesci



Dammit!  Your god (the sun) fuels my god's (Superman) powers!  Should I trade up a level, or stay.  Dammit, the sun never battled Doomsday or Darksied!


----------



## Jenna

You people are sabotaging this thread!! Quick, everybody out.. the FEDS are coming!


----------



## yorkshirelad

Jenna said:


> Jim fixed it for me!


I don't have a Jim'll Fix it badge, but I do have a soap on a rope somewhere. My 'thanks' is still not working so just take it as read Jenna and Tez.
LOL:rofl:


----------



## celtic_crippler

I'm a might thirsty...anybody got some good ole' Jim Jones Kool-Aid?


----------



## celtic_crippler

Back on topic...the real one...or at least the original one that started the thread. 

From TIME 11/5/06. The article "God VS Science" is a good read and pertains to the topic of the thread. 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html



> Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus.


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm a might thirsty...anybody got some good ole' Jim Jones Kool-Aid?


If it's the Jim Jones kind, I'd be interested in seeing you drink it. :rofl:


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> Back on topic...the real one...or at least the original one that started the thread.
> 
> From TIME 11/5/06. The article "God VS Science" is a good read and pertains to the topic of the thread.
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html


 Again, it's amazing that you continually want to prove to the faithful that the deity does not exist. There is no way of knowing. You don't believe, I do. Why do you find that so offensive.


----------



## celtic_crippler

yorkshirelad said:


> If it's the Jim Jones kind, I'd be interested in seeing you drink it. :rofl:


 
So Mr. Christian wishes me to die? Perhaps you should char my skin with hot pokers until I confess first? 



yorkshirelad said:


> Again, it's amazing that you continually want to prove to the faithful that the deity does not exist. There is no way of knowing. You don't believe, I do. Why do you find that so offensive.


 
What are you talking about? 

This article in TIME pits Dawkins against another well-known scientst, Collins, in a debate over creation. Isn't that what a lot of you wanted instead of the dumb blonde? 

Why don't you read the article before making more assumptions. 



> TIME: Could the answer be God?
> 
> DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
> 
> COLLINS: That's God.
> 
> DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.


----------



## Andrew Green

yorkshirelad said:


> I didn't choose Catholicism, Catholicism was chosen for me, at birth. I have rejected it and belong to no religious organization. I happen to believe in God. You have managed to somehow lump me in with religious organizations and those that have committed atrocities on belhalf of religion. I then choose to lump you in with other non believers, even the one's who have committed atrocities.
> 
> I still don't know how this is supposed to convince me that God doesn't exists. I don't have a problem with your non belief. Why do you have a problem with my belief?




This is a bit of a logic flaw.

There are all sorts of instances of people using religion to justify atrocities.  No one ever commits atrocities using atheism as a justification.  People commit atrocities for all sorts of reasons, sometimes they are religion motivated, other times not.  A leader can use religion as justification, or motivation to commit a action.  You cannot use a lack of belief, it simply makes no sense.

I have no problem with your belief in God, you are welcome to believe in whatever God(s) you choose.  However, I do have a problem with your poor logic and attempts to call a lack of faith in religious ideas, a religious idea.  I have problems when people try and push faith based ideas into science.  I have a problem when people try and push faith based ideas into public policy.


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> So Mr. Christian wishes me to die? Perhaps you should char my skin with hot pokers until I confess first?
> .


 I don't wish you to die. It was an attempt at humour, hence the laughing icon. As for the article being about the argument for evolution, I know. I agree with evolution. I believe it is fact. You are preaching to the choir. iThe article is interesting, but it ads nothing to the debate. That is why the debate is mute. As I've said before I believe in both God and evolution.


----------



## Omar B

Andrew Green said:


> logic and attempts to call a lack of faith in religious ideas, a religious idea



I always thought of it as referring to bald as a hair color.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Andrew Green said:


> This is a bit of a logic flaw.
> I have no problem with your belief in God, you are welcome to believe in whatever God(s) you choose. However, I do have a problem with your poor logic and attempts to call a lack of faith in religious ideas, a religious idea. I have problems when people try and push faith based ideas into science. I have a problem when people try and push faith based ideas into public policy.


Thanks for not having a problem with my belief in God. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





My point is that some people have committed atrocities because they have considered themselves the Alpha and the Omega. Their belief in themselves over the deity has resulted in treating people as their own will dictates. To place all believers in the category as those who have committed atrocities in the name of their god is ridiculous.


----------



## celtic_crippler

yorkshirelad said:


> I don't wish you to die. It was an attempt at humour, hence the laughing icon. As for the article being about the argument for evolution, I know. I agree with evolution. I believe it is fact. You are preaching to the choir. iThe article is interesting, but it ads nothing to the debate. That is why the debate is mute. As I've said before I believe in both God and evolution.


 
Uh-huh...

And I know you didn't read the article based on that post. It's about a lot more than that...

So much for my attempt to get the thread back on track. :shrug:

Anyway...I did find this Dawkins quote interesting...



> If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.


 
I find that is more in line with my way of thinking. 

I simply don't think "man" has what it takes to comprehend such a thing. I don't oppose the idea of a "GOD" so much as I oppose those that are absolutely certain that theirs is the one and only.


----------



## blindsage

arnisador said:


> Reason, evidence...using one's powers of logic and deduction, as opposed to faith and guesswork.


What do you base that logic and deduction on?


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> Uh-huh...
> 
> And I know you didn't read the article based on that post. It's about a lot more than that...
> 
> So much for my attempt to get the thread back on track. :shrug:
> 
> Anyway...I did find this Dawkins quote interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> I find that is more in line with my way of thinking.
> 
> I simply don't think "man" has what it takes to comprehend such a thing. I don't oppose the idea of a "GOD" so much as I oppose those that are absolutely certain that theirs is the one and only.


Fair comment!!


----------



## celtic_crippler

I'm starting to feel like Ben Stein from "Ferris Buehller"...

Anyone? Anyone?


----------



## Ramirez

elder999 said:


> It's debatable just how much of Christian he actually was, given his involvement (dare I say, _obsession_?) with the occult. In any case, the real horror was not Hitler, but what so many did in his name-and they were mostly, unquestionably calling themselves "Christians."



 Exactly,  I doubt all of Germany during the 40s and 50s were atheists.   Indoctrinated to follow one leader mindlessly the follow another just as easily.

And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.


----------



## Tez3

Ramirez said:


> Exactly, I doubt all of Germany during the 40s and 50s were atheists. Indoctrinated to follow one leader mindlessly the follow another just as easily.
> 
> And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.


 
Are you sure you mean the 40s and 50s? 1920's, 30s and 40s would be correct.

CC I hear you! the damn thread has a life of it's own!


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tez3 said:


> Are you sure you mean the 40s and 50s? 1920's, 30s and 40s would be correct.
> 
> CC I hear you! the damn thread has a life of it's own!


 
I promise, the article is worth reading and most likely would add to the original discussion...I swear! LOL


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Exactly, I doubt all of Germany during the 40s and 50s were atheists. Indoctrinated to follow one leader mindlessly the follow another just as easily.
> 
> And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.


40s and 50s? I think that your historical reference is a little off kilter Cheech.


----------



## Ramirez

Tez3 said:


> Are you sure you mean the 40s and 50s? 1920's, 30s and 40s would be correct.
> 
> CC I hear you! the damn thread has a life of it's own!



Yep, meant 20s, 30s, and 40s.


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> 40s and 50s? I think that herb you're smoking has skewed your historical reference Cheech.



Bring your Kool-Aid Holmes and we can have a real party.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Bring your Kool-Aid Holmes and we can have a real party.


As long as you drink up first:rofl:....I promise to drink mine right after you.


----------



## Tez3

celtic_crippler said:


> I promise, the article is worth reading and most likely would add to the original discussion...I swear! LOL


 

I'm printing it off (have trouble reading more than a few lines on the screen) and will take it up to bed with me to read, it's nearly 2330h here.


Guys read it and get back to the subject? For the squabbling I'd stick to the kids black belt threads lol!


Just glanced at first page before closing down, 'caged death match" cool, us MMAers get everywhere!!
Religion v Science v MMA.

there now you have to read it!!


----------



## yorkshirelad

Tez3 said:


> Guys read it and get back to the subject? For the squabbling I'd stick to the kids black belt threads lol!


I would, but I always get told off for picking on a particular one of the less able kids.


----------



## arnisador

blindsage said:


> What do you base that logic and deduction on?



Fair point. At some point one must choose a method of comprehending the world. There's a method that has put men on the moon, smallpox out of existence, and a TiVo here in my den. I elect to use the method of reasoned inquiry and evaluation of evidence, based on the concrete and measurable results it brings me. As a being that evolution has selected to want to survive, things that increase my lifespan and comfort rank high by the most natural of criteria--the will to live.



Ramirez said:


> And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.



You say potato, I say irrational...


----------



## Xinglu

> If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.



I like it.  If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature.  Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God.  By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.

So yes, this quote holds wisdom.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Xinglu said:


> I like it. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature. Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God. By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.
> 
> So yes, this quote holds wisdom.


Seconded


----------



## blindsage

arnisador said:


> Fair point. At some point one must choose a method of comprehending the world. There's a method that has put men on the moon, smallpox out of existence, and a TiVo here in my den. I elect to use the method of reasoned inquiry and evaluation of evidence, based on the concrete and measurable results it brings me. As a being that evolution has selected to want to survive, things that increase my lifespan and comfort rank high by the most natural of criteria--the will to live.


I'm all for that, but you haven't really answered the question.  What do you base your reasoned inquiry on and what evidence are you using?


----------



## Sukerkin

I think you might need to refine your question, *Sage*, if you are seeking a meaningful response.  Or at least take on board what logic and deduction mean in the balance in comparison to doctrine and faith.

Unrelated to that comment, I really should stop reading this thread.  Next weekend, when I attend my parents wedding anniversary celebration, I'm going to have to put up with, yet again, , from my father, untold hours of religious brick-bats and the wilful refusal to perceive that the very concept of a creator deity is merely an early attempt to make the universe less scary; absorbing more of the same afore time counts as masochism I fear :lol:.


----------



## blindsage

Xinglu said:


> I like it. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature. Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God. By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.
> 
> So yes, this quote holds wisdom.


I think many people who are religious claim something like this, but very few of the actual teachings of religions claim this.  They generally claim that God is unknowable (except for some Christians who claim a 'personal' relationship with God, and Mormons who claim God was once like us and we can be like him eventually).  What they do claim is that God, in His eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent wisdom has decided to give us some guidance for understanding the world around us and the spiritual realities of our existence.  *If* we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent God, there is no reason to assume he wouldn't try to give us guidance (or that he would). But claiming that he does, in and of itself, does not mean God is being put in a box.  Now there are those who then take that to mean an exclusive knowledge of God, that's on them.


----------



## arnisador

blindsage said:


> What do you base your reasoned inquiry on and what evidence are you using?



History of Western Philosophy


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tez3 said:


> I'm printing it off (have trouble reading more than a few lines on the screen) and will take it up to bed with me to read, it's nearly 2330h here.
> 
> 
> Guys read it and get back to the subject? For the squabbling I'd stick to the kids black belt threads lol!
> 
> 
> Just glanced at first page before closing down, 'caged death match" cool, us MMAers get everywhere!!
> Religion v Science v MMA.
> 
> there now you have to read it!!


 
The acadmics wouldn't stand a chance...they spend their time in the library and not the gym. LOL 



arnisador said:


> Fair point. At some point one must choose a method of comprehending the world. There's a method that has put men on the moon, smallpox out of existence, and a TiVo here in my den. I elect to use the method of reasoned inquiry and evaluation of evidence, based on the concrete and measurable results it brings me. As a being that evolution has selected to want to survive, things that increase my lifespan and comfort rank high by the most natural of criteria--the will to live.
> 
> 
> 
> You say potato, I say irrational...


 


Xinglu said:


> I like it. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature. Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God. By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.
> 
> So yes, this quote holds wisdom.


 
Collins (you know...in the TIME article I posted a link to...lol) holds that "God" exists outside of the realm of nature and therefore is not subject to the same laws... that's part of his argument for "his" existance.


----------



## Xinglu

blindsage said:


> I think many people who are religious claim something like this, but very few of the actual teachings of religions claim this.  They generally claim that God is unknowable (except for some Christians who claim a 'personal' relationship with God, and Mormons who claim God was once like us and we can be like him eventually).  What they do claim is that God, in His eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent wisdom has decided to give us some guidance for understanding the world around us and the spiritual realities of our existence.  *If* we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent God, there is no reason to assume he wouldn't try to give us guidance (or that he would). But claiming that he does, in and of itself, does not mean God is being put in a box.  Now there are those who then take that to mean an exclusive knowledge of God, that's on them.



Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims.  Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.


----------



## Carol

Xinglu said:


> Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims.  Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.



It is.  They simply change His name to Satan or make reference to Satan's Power when said God is evil.   

If Satan is a different entity than God, then Christianity is not a monotheistic faith.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Xinglu said:


> Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims. Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.


 
Again..."man" can't wrap his head around it. It's beyond our capabilities at present. 

We like to think we're great and all, but in the grand scheme of the universe we're not even gnats...though we are quite arrogant aren't we. LOL

We continue to try and relate things to what we know and what's familiar to us... but those things are quite trivial and tiny compared to what we don't know and what we aren't familiar with. We just don't want to admit it. 

That's why we see human attributes given to our dieties, regardless of the religion. That in itself kind of disproves every religion, though not necessarily the existance of a supreme intelligence. 

And if one accepts that, then what's to say what to us is a supreme intelligence doesn't have a supreme intelligence of it's own? Where's the ceiling? Is there one? We don't know...and our pea brains at this time in history can't comprehend it. 

Perhaps we'll "evolve" to the point where we can someday... if we don't destroy ourselves first. LOL


----------



## Xinglu

celtic_crippler said:


> Collins (you know...in the TIME article I posted a link to...lol) holds that "God" exists outside of the realm of nature and therefore is not subject to the same laws... that's part of his argument for "his" existance.



This of course, begs the question.


----------



## Xinglu

Carol Kaur said:


> It is.  They simply change His name to Satan or make reference to Satan's Power when said God is evil.
> 
> If Satan is a different entity than God, then Christianity is not a monotheistic faith.



It's really not.  The God of the bible proclaims to be a jealous god, demanding humans worship "him" and no other God. Not that he is the only god in existence.

Furthermore in the book of Job when Satan comes to the heavenly council to challenge God to a bet, God asks where he has been, Satan responds by saying he's been traveling the earth.  Unless God suffers from multiple personality disorder, they are two separate entities.


----------



## Xinglu

celtic_crippler said:


> Again..."man" can't wrap his head around it. It's beyond our capabilities at present.
> 
> We like to think we're great and all, but in the grand scheme of the universe we're not even gnats...though we are quite arrogant aren't we. LOL
> 
> We continue to try and relate things to what we know and what's familiar to us... but those things are quite trivial and tiny compared to what we don't know and what we aren't familiar with. We just don't want to admit it.
> 
> That's why we see human attributes given to our dieties, regardless of the religion. That in itself kind of disproves every religion, though not necessarily the existance of a supreme intelligence.
> 
> And if one accepts that, then what's to say what to us is a supreme intelligence doesn't have a supreme intelligence of it's own? Where's the ceiling? Is there one? We don't know...and our pea brains at this time in history can't comprehend it.
> 
> Perhaps we'll "evolve" to the point where we can someday... if we don't destroy ourselves first. LOL



Actually plenty religions give no human qualities to the gods or completely noble and good gods.  It seems more prevalent in the monotheistic religions to have an all good god.


----------



## Archangel M

I dunno where some of you all went to Church, but every Sunday I go I listen to sermons from the priest about forgiveness, tolerance, loving ones neighbor and helping the poor. Messages I think more of us should hear.

Im Catholic so sure, some sermons talk about the value of human life so the Churches stance on that issue is expressed, but thats probably the most controversial thing I have experienced in my Catholic upbringing.

I haven't heard one word from any of my Priests expressing violence, suggesting starting another Crusade or Inqusition. I think Stalin and Pol Pot show that political belief as easily as religion can be used to perpetrate evil, but thats the fault of the persons using religion and not the religion itself.

Human evil in the name of religion is "mans failure" not religions IMO.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Xinglu said:


> It's really not. The God of the bible proclaims to be a jealous god, demanding humans worship "him" and no other God. Not that he is the only god in existence.
> 
> Furthermore in the book of Job when Satan comes to the heavenly council to challenge God to a bet, God asks where he has been, Satan responds by saying he's been traveling the earth. Unless God suffers from multiple personality disorder, they are two separate entities.


 
I dunno... what about the "trinity"? I mean, if he can be 3 things why not add a fourth? LOL 



Archangel M said:


> I dunno where some of you all went to Church, but every Sunday I go I listen to sermons from the priest about forgiveness, tolerance, loving ones neighbor and helping the poor. Messages I think more of us should hear.
> 
> Im Catholic so sure, some sermons talk about the value of human life so the Churches stance on that issue is expressed, but thats probably the most controversial thing I have experienced in my Catholic upbringing.
> 
> I haven't heard one word from any of my Priests expressing violence, suggesting starting another Crusade or Inqusition. I think Stalin and Pol Pot show that political belief as easily as religion can be used to perpetrate evil, but thats the fault of the persons using religion and not the religion itself.
> 
> *Human evil in the name of religion is "mans failure" not religions IMO*.


 
Perhaps...but then..who created religion?


----------



## Chris Parker

This is still going? Okay!

I'm going to touch on a particular thought that has appeared in the last few posts here, the concept of Good and Evil within a monotheistic Judeo-Christian faith structure, as it certainly gives rise to a number of issues if unresolved (spiritually speaking, you understand).

Within the Jewish faith (Tez, please correct anything I get wrong here!), there is no Satan as he appears within Chrstian doctrine, there is also no Hell. Instead, there is a concept of an afterlife, with an afterlife begining in "The World of Truth", and moving onto a connection with God after beign brought to terms with their mortal life, both as it was, and as it could have been. Of course, some people are simply too evil to be allowed to be in God's presence, so they are removed to Gehenna, a place of punishment, although not strictly speaking Hell.

Instead of having Satan as Christians know him, he here is one of the most powerful of the Archangels. The name Satan refers to "the Adversary", not really meaning the enemy, but an individual in place to debate with God. This is the set-up for the story of Job in the Torah and the Old Testament, Satan is not "the Devil" here, he is there to debate God and his way's of guiding the people's of the Earth. As said, in the story Satan is asked where he has been, and his answer is that he has been "wandering the Earth". He has been getting to know the lands, and the humans (alternate versions of Genesis include these trips to Earth, where Satan took other Angels down with him, and they fell in love with the beautiful women there, resulting in Giants, the children of the Angels and the human women; if you read the story of the Flood there are a very few references to the things to be wiped from the face of the Earth, and those include these "Heroes of ancient times"), and that begins the conversation which leads to Job's testing. But it is important to remember that this story, even when told in the Old Testament (Christian doctrine), comes from the Jewish faith, and in that, Satan is not necessarilly evil.

God, on the other hand, does all manner of not-particularly nice things, from wiping his Creations from the face of the Earth (Eddy Izzard once described this as "the etch-a-sketch end of the world!"), to "testing" Job by killing his livestock, destroying his family, ruining his financial and social standings, afflicting him with boils, and all to see what it took to have him turn against Him, telling his most loyal follower to sacrifice his son, only to change his mind at the last minute (although I must say that from a metaphorical and mythical point of interpretation, that is quite a brilliant story), to the complete destruction of two cities he wasn't happy with (Soddom and Gammorah), and the transformation into a pillar of salt a woman who dared to look back at the destroyed towns, and more. Not particularly nice, really.

Within Christian doctrine, Satan became the Great Enemy gradually, in fact, the name Satan (the Adversary) is used exclusively in the Old Testament, whereas it is used along with Beelzebub (Lord Of The Flies) and the Devil, as well as the Beast and the Antichrist (as emissaries of Satan in Revelations) within the New Testament. And the role of Devil, or Enemy, is built upon as you go through the Gospels, Matthew and Mark talk about the temptation in the Desert, with Mark focusing less on the temptation itself, and more on exorcisms of Demons, but then Luke misses it completely. Instead, he gives an exorcism story in which Jesus is pitted against "Beelzebub, the Chief of the Demons", raising his placement in the Demonic heirarchy. John, however, ignores any comment about Satan at all (although it should be stated that a main reason for the order of the Gospels is the focus on the death and resurrection, with that being increasingly emphasised as you go on. But that does show that Satan is not considered a main threat at this time).

By the time we get to Revelations, that is where Satan is promoted to Devil, the Fallen One, and the Great Enemy of the Earth. Again, it is important to remember when such writings were first penned, and the political climate surrounding them. When John wrote the book, it was not as a book, but as a collection of letters to the leaders of various Churches at a time when Christians were being persecuted and killed en masse, and was designed to give hope to them, that the oppresive (Roman) forces over them would be overthrown, and the book is full of symbology that shows that.

So really, the idea of Satan as being the epitomy of evil is actually rather artificial, with it being an introduced idea rather than core doctrine. And God is plenty good and bad by Himself. But they are definately seperate entities, Satan being created by God. He has served as a rallying point, but that was not his true role, at least not originally.

Now how did we get to this again? Oh yeah, Dawkins. Good article, by the way Crippler.


----------



## Carol

Xinglu said:


> It's really not.  The God of the bible proclaims to be a jealous god, demanding humans worship "him" and no other God. Not that he is the only god in existence.
> 
> Furthermore in the book of Job when Satan comes to the heavenly council to challenge God to a bet, God asks where he has been, Satan responds by saying he's been traveling the earth.  Unless God suffers from multiple personality disorder, they are two separate entities.



Unless the passage is an allegory for the differing natures of God.  That cycles back to the fundamental issue of this debate....


----------



## cdunn

Carol Kaur said:


> Unless the passage is an allegory for the differing natures of God. That cycles back to the fundamental issue of this debate....


 
At what point do we put the book down, and go 'What do you want the book to say?'


----------



## Carol

cdunn said:


> At what point do we put the book down, and go 'What do you want the book to say?'



Immediately, if the book is being used to control my life or my community's education against my will.


----------



## Chris Parker

cdunn said:


> At what point do we put the book down, and go 'What do you want the book to say?'


 
Now here was I thinking it was that you pick the book UP and say "What do I want it to say?". And in that is the great strength and weakness of it's writings, they can be taken in so many differing levels of meaning.


----------



## CanuckMA

Chris, you've pretty much nailed it.


----------



## Chris Parker

I'm doing okay for rotten non-believer then? Cool.


----------



## cdunn

Chris Parker said:


> Now here was I thinking it was that you pick the book UP and say "What do I want it to say?". And in that is the great strength and weakness of it's writings, they can be taken in so many differing levels of meaning.


 
Well, if you're going to use it to get power, you have to be able to make the first parts of it music to your audiences ears.


----------



## Omar B

Great post Chris, gotta love that Satan.


----------



## Ken Morgan

This thread still has life?
Watch this video....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVZobzVJrSo&feature=related


----------



## blindsage

arnisador said:


> History of Western Philosophy


Ok, so Sukerkin's right, I'm obviously not asking the question correctly.  I'm asking on a very personal basic level, where does the information you use to make rational decisions come from?  How do you gather your evidence?


----------



## blindsage

Xinglu said:


> Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims. Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.


_If_ you assume a (modern) Christian interpretation as the sole definition of what good and evil are and what God may be. You can't argue against the existence of God and then take a single group's definitions and references as your sole reference points for the argument. 

But in this case you are making assumptions for the argument from your own philosophy as well. There are your own definitions of good and evil that you are imposing on the discussion and then claiming the only 'rational' conclusion is x. But you aren't taking your own assumptions into account.


----------



## Xinglu

blindsage said:


> _If_ you assume a (modern) Christian interpretation as the sole definition of what good and evil are and what God may be. You can't argue against the existence of God and then take a single group's definitions and references as your sole reference points for the argument.
> 
> But in this case you are making assumptions for the argument from your own philosophy as well. There are your own definitions of good and evil that you are imposing on the discussion and then claiming the only 'rational' conclusion is x. But you aren't taking your own assumptions into account.



Actually I am Taking my own into account.  In order to talk about God, one must assume (even if it is for argument's sake) that a God exists or does not.  First, we must come to an agreed upon definition of "good" and "evil" secondly, the argument must include the definition that the "believers" agree on as well as it is their God and their dogma.  Words must mean what they mean or communication cannot be had.  When talking about religion, one must use the religion in questions definitions in order communicate effectively with the believer.  Which means for arguments sake, we must use their definition of good and evil.

I did not conclude "only x." I pointed out that using the believer's definitions leads to a non-cogent assertion.

Modern Christianity exists today and is relevant.  So of course I use it's assertions. Why wouldn't I? The context of the conversation is predominately Christianity and it's views on good and evil, creation, and evolution.  I don't see Muslims putting forth their views, Although some Jews have chimed in, they have not presented any official Jewish positions.  I have only put forth what is relevant for the conversation.  Which has already made a ton of assumptions just in it's very existence and continuation.

Furthermore, infinite by definition is limitless.  Which means it includes and even transcends what we call good and evil.  To label something as all good and yet call it to be infinite is a absurdity.  And that was my point, nothing more, nothing less.

So please, you seem to imply that you know my philosophy: what is my philosophy then?  Tell me what it is *I* believe.


----------



## elder999

Xinglu said:


> Furthermore, infinite by definition is limitless. Which means it includes and even transcends what we call good and evil. To label something as all good and yet call it to be infinite is a absurdity. And that was my point, nothing more, nothing less.


 
More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, _before time_-must, by implication,_ be outside of the universe and time-outside of *our *space-time._ This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.

Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually *ALL.*


----------



## Jenna

I cannot say how impressed I am with some of the posts on here.  There are some obvious GLARING logical faux pas and but there are some PHENOMENAL pieces of lucidity, wisdom and coherent argument.  Thank you.. I am enjoying this very much. Sorry.. do not mean to interrupt the flow.. Jenna over and out..


----------



## celtic_crippler

This was discussed in the Dawkins-Collins debate.


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:


> This was discussed in the Dawkins-Collins debate.


 

Making it on-topic, and a point that Dawkins concedes himself. Don't think his issue is with "God," as much as it is the _need_ for "God," and *religion,* which is, after all, _man-made. _He readily misapplies the notion of Ockham's Razor to God, and determines that God is superfluous, which, for science, God is-for the time being, anyway.....


----------



## Xinglu

Carol Kaur said:


> Unless the passage is an allegory for the differing natures of God.  That cycles back to the fundamental issue of this debate....



Which makes the biblical literalists insane :wink:

What is allegorical what is not, and how do we determine what is and isn't?  The Church? Are they agenda free and therefore trust worthy in their neutrality towards interpretation?

Ourself?  Are we truly neutral or are we just reading it the way we want it to be read.  

Looking at the evidence I believe that evolution is viable.  If I assumed the existence of God then I would also have to assume the creation story is allegorical. 

The problem arises when a church holds that the Bible is the literal word of God.  That means the creation story is assumed to be literal and true, therefore all other things despite the evidence is a lie (probably created by the Devil).

However the literalists run into the problem of Divinity and Evil. How can satan have any power is God doesn't permit it?  If he permits the power, how could he be all Good?  If he does not, how could he be all powerful?  Then that opens up the question what is a god?   Could Satan with all of his powers and abilities be considered a God?  Dogmatically, any monotheist will say unequivocally no, but why?

What is allegorical what is not? That is a real problem in Christianity (religion in general IMHO) today. Is Hell an allegory? if so for what? Purgatory? Is God an allegory?


----------



## blindsage

Xinglu said:


> Actually I am Taking my own into account. In order to talk about God, one must assume (even if it is for argument's sake) that a God exists or does not. First, we must come to an agreed upon definition of "good" and "evil" secondly, the argument must include the definition that the "believers" agree on as well as it is their God and their dogma. Words must mean what they mean or communication cannot be had. When talking about religion, one must use the religion in questions definitions in order communicate effectively with the believer. Which means for arguments sake, we must use their definition of good and evil.
> 
> I did not conclude "only x." I pointed out that using the believer's definitions leads to a non-cogent assertion.
> 
> Modern Christianity exists today and is relevant. So of course I use it's assertions. Why wouldn't I? The context of the conversation is predominately Christianity and it's views on good and evil, creation, and evolution. I don't see Muslims putting forth their views, Although some Jews have chimed in, they have not presented any official Jewish positions. I have only put forth what is relevant for the conversation. Which has already made a ton of assumptions just in it's very existence and continuation.
> 
> Furthermore, infinite by definition is limitless. Which means it includes and even transcends what we call good and evil. To label something as all good and yet call it to be infinite is a absurdity. And that was my point, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> So please, you seem to imply that you know my philosophy: what is my philosophy then? Tell me what it is *I* believe.


If you are talking about God and for the sake of argument presuming the possibility of His existence, then you cannot _only_ take into account the beliefs and arguments of a single group's proposition. You _must _look at what would be logical based on that initial assumption, not just what one group's arguments are. That is a logical fallacy. You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up _based_ on the initial assumption, but you cannot then argue that those flawed arguments then prove the initial assumption wrong. Again, bad logic.

You've already demonstrated your assumptions. Infinity transcends good and evil. All good = infinity is an absurdity. Those are definitional assumptions. A theist could easily argue back that good and evil are subjectively defined and if God is making the definition that what is infinite = what is good then that is God's definition not man's. You _assume_ all definitions come from man. Theists don't. This is a difference of _assumptions. _Your assumptions are not any more rational than the next person's, they are just assumptions.


----------



## blindsage

elder999 said:


> More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, _before time_-must, by implication,_ be outside of the universe and time-outside of *our *space-time._ This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.
> 
> Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually *ALL.*


So does this disprove the existence of God, or just certain believers rationale's about God's nature and relationship to man.


----------



## Xinglu

elder999 said:


> More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, _before time_-must, by implication,_ be outside of the universe and time-outside of *our *space-time._ This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.
> 
> Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually *ALL.*



Bingo!


----------



## elder999

blindsage said:


> So does this disprove the existence of God, or just certain believers rationale's about God's nature and relationship to man.


 
Well.....*neither*!


----------



## Xinglu

elder999 said:


> More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, _before time_-must, by implication,_ be outside of the universe and time-outside of *our *space-time._ This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.
> 
> Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually *ALL.*





blindsage said:


> So does this disprove the existence of God, or just certain believers rationale's about God's nature and relationship to man.



The point is not to disprove God, it just shows the absurdity of certain believers which doesn't disprove their beliefs, but does show the inconsistency in what is put forth as it is.


----------



## elder999

Xinglu said:


> The point is not to disprove God, it just shows the absurdity of certain believers.


 
And the absurdity of certain disbelievers as well, I'm afraid. If such a being exists, and can neither be proven or disproven (objectively, anyway), then what's the point of constantly saying,_Where's the proof? Where's the proof??_ :lfao:


----------



## blindsage

Xinglu said:


> The point is not to disprove God, it just shows the absurdity of certain believers which doesn't disprove their beliefs, but does show the inconsistency in what is put forth as it is.


I'm comfortable with that.  Challenge away! :duel:


----------



## Xinglu

blindsage said:


> If you are talking about God and for the sake of argument presuming the possibility of His existence, then you cannot _only_ take into account the beliefs and arguments of a single group's proposition. You _must _look at what would be logical based on that initial assumption, not just what one group's arguments are. That is a logical fallacy. You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up _based_ on the initial assumption, but you cannot then argue that those flawed arguments then prove the initial assumption wrong. Again, bad logic.
> 
> You've already demonstrated your assumptions. Infinity transcends good and evil. All good = infinity is an absurdity. Those are definitional assumptions. A theist could easily argue back that good and evil are subjectively defined and if God is making the definition that what is infinite = what is good then that is God's definition not man's. You _assume_ all definitions come from man. Theists don't. This is a difference of _assumptions. _Your assumptions are not any more rational than the next person's, they are just assumptions.



You are missing the point.  In a conversation with a Christian - discussing concepts of other gods is a failing practice as it is summarily rejected on it's head.  You must then debate them using their terms and their scriptures to illustrate whether their assertions may or may not be cogent with their scriptures or dogma.  The same would be true for any religion.

"You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up _based_ on the initial assumption..."  That is all I am doing here.  You are making it out to be far more than it really is.

If God Transcends Good and evil, then it doesn't matter what they define Good and Evil to be.  It wouldn't even matter that it is an ever changing definition.  Because it would always be transcended. 

And if we use the God defined definitions then we need look no further then the theists scriptures to determine good and evil as outlined by their God.  Then use those to see if their is consistency in their beliefs with their scriptures.


----------



## blindsage

I get where you're coming from now.  Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## celtic_crippler

elder999 said:


> And the absurdity of certain disbelievers as well, I'm afraid. If such a being exists, and can neither be proven or disproven (objectively, anyway), then what's the point of constantly saying,_Where's the proof? Where's the proof??_ :lfao:


 
Because the believers are constantly in your face with it, shoving it down your throat, trying to get you to believe it as well. Some people just want proof before they'll believe something...

If you're not one of those people, fine. I have some quality real estate down in Florida to sell you. :shrug: 

The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer. 

...just sayin'...


----------



## Xinglu

blindsage said:


> I get where you're coming from now.  Thanks for clarifying.



Thanks for asking :asian:


----------



## Xinglu

celtic_crippler said:


> Because the believers are constantly in your face with it, shoving it down your throat, trying to get you to believe it as well. Some people just want proof before they'll believe something...
> 
> If you're not one of those people, fine. I have some quality real estate down in Florida to sell you. :shrug:
> 
> The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer.
> 
> ...just sayin'...



So long as we can say that Believer includes Atheists and Theists I would agree.  Both believe things on opposite ends of the spectrum, Both have concluded something about God.  So, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.


----------



## Omar B

Xinglu said:


> You are missing the point.  In a conversation with a Christian - discussing concepts of other gods is a failing practice as it is summarily rejected on it's head.  You must then debate them using their terms and their scriptures to illustrate whether their assertions may or may not be cogent with their scriptures or dogma.  The same would be true for any religion.
> 
> "You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up _based_ on the initial assumption..."  That is all I am doing here.  You are making it out to be far more than it really is.
> 
> If God Transcends Good and evil, then it doesn't matter what they define Good and Evil to be.  It wouldn't even matter that it is an ever changing definition.  Because it would always be transcended.
> 
> And if we use the God defined definitions then we need look no further then the theists scriptures to determine good and evil as outlined by their God.  Then use those to see if their is consistency in their beliefs with their scriptures.



Yeah, every other god but theirs is as ridiculous as the Easter Bunny.

To me, they are all the Easter Bunny though.


----------



## arnisador

blindsage said:


> Ok, so Sukerkin's right, I'm obviously not asking the question correctly.  I'm asking on a very personal basic level, where does the information you use to make rational decisions come from?  How do you gather your evidence?



Through the senses? I'm not sure what you want here. If we can't trust our senses--if we might just be brains in vats--we cannot hope to draw interesting conclusions. Ruling that out both for lack of evidence and for the logical impossibility of proving it false, we gather sense-data and act on that information, in part via logic and in part by trial-and-error (experiment). I'm in line with the thoughts in the beginning of Bertrand Russell's _The Problems of Philosophy_ on this one.


----------



## Andrew Green

Omar B said:


> Yeah, every other god but theirs is as ridiculous as the Easter Bunny.
> 
> To me, they are all the Easter Bunny though.



Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist?  That seems to be the direction a few people are going here...  If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer.



The burden of proof is on the the person attempting to prove it.

If a believer is attempting to prove that God exists, the burden of proof is on the believer.

If a non-believer is attempting to prove that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on the non-believer.

Since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, attempting to do either will end in failure.

One can make arguments for and against the existence of God; most of these are logical arguments, rather than arguments based on testable scientific theory; but none of them can result in a proof.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> And the absurdity of certain disbelievers as well, I'm afraid. If such a being exists, and can neither be proven or disproven (objectively, anyway), then what's the point of constantly saying,_Where's the proof? Where's the proof??_



Well, I think the point is a reminder that the man who makes an unsupported statement has said nothing that merits a response. If I say "The moon is made of green cheese" then there's no need to lecture me about the origins of the solar system, observations from telescopes, the moon missions, etc.; you'd be denying things until your dying day. Asking where the proof is isn't quite the same as asking _for_ the proof--it's a rhetorical device expressing that you must supply an argument or evidence for your position if you wish to be treated as more than merely an opinion (in the weak sense of personal preference).

In other words, when I ask a deist where the proof is, it's not because I'm expecting a usable response. It's because I want to indicate that if they're trying to convince me of the rightness of their position they must make more than a simple statement of belief. Put another way, I think I'm beautiful...but don't be looking for me to post pictures so that you can express your opinion on the matter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Andrew Green said:


> Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist?  That seems to be the direction a few people are going here...  If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.



Let's talk about the Easter Bunny for a moment, in the context of proof.

The Easter Bunny is often used because it is commonly assumed to be imaginary.  One cannot imagine this being actually existing.

A person who wishes to argue against the existence of a deity, but who recognizes that some concepts are not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven, use this to show that although a deity cannot be proven, neither can the Easter Bunny, and therefore, since the Easter Bunny would be illogical to believe in, so too is the existence of a deity.

It is a reasonable argument on the surface, but it is flawed because it assumes that everything which cannot be proved is equally likely (or in this case, unlikely) to exist.

It is also commonly used as a derogatory argument, belittling the opponent by making a belief in a deity seem as silly as most adults would view a serious belief in the Easter Bunny.


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:


> Because the believers are constantly in your face with it, shoving it down your throat, trying to get you to believe it as well. Some people just want proof before they'll believe something...
> 
> If you're not one of those people, fine. I have some quality real estate down in Florida to sell you. :shrug:


 


Well, even though I enjoy these discussions, I'm not "in _anyone's_ face with it," though I certainly don't make any secret of it (my beliefs). Fact is, as far as my own religious activities go, I've done more to _discourage_ people from them than actually prostletyze. It also doesn't matter to me what anyone believes or doesn't believe-what kind of person they are is what matters most to me-and that's what my family has taught us for more than 100 years. If you believe in the giant spaghetti monster, and take good care of your kids and don't hurt other people, well, that's fine with me. If you don't believe in anything, and take good care of your kids, and don't hurt other people-that's also fine with me. Truth is, I've known quite a few atheists who _love their neighbors as themselves,_ and quite a few "Christians" *who don't*

I managed to sell most of my Orlando real estate some time ago, Crippler-the kids are grown, and can pay for their own hotel rooms at Disneyworld, now, and I really don't care much for Florida. What use do I have for Florida real estate....except making money? Unless you mean Disneyworld itself...:lfao:



celtic_crippler said:


> The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer.
> 
> ...just sayin'...


 
Proof, and the burden of it, are personal, and subjective, just as any personal experience of God is: *my* proof is, well, _mine_, and of no use to anyone else whatsoever. Most people-believers, that is-probably lack that, to one degree or another, and that's why it's called _faith_. In fact, one could call my calling my personal experience "prrof" an act of _faith. _No matter. I have no interest in proving anything, and I especially have no interest in converting anyone.

......just sayin'....:lfao:


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> Through the senses? I'm not sure what you want here. If we can't trust our senses--if we might just be brains in vats--we cannot hope to draw interesting conclusions. Ruling that out both for lack of evidence and for the logical impossibility of proving it false, we gather sense-data and act on that information, in part via logic and in part by trial-and-error (experiment). I'm in line with the thoughts in the beginning of Bertrand Russell's _The Problems of Philosophy_ on this one.


 

And what then, of personal experience-if my senses tell me that God exists, through personal, real and _extraordinary_ if not "supernatural" (hate that word. What's "natural?" :lol experience, then should I not trust it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> And what then, of personal experience-if my senses tell me that God exists, through personal, real and _extraordinary_ if not "supernatural" (hate that word. What's "natural?" :lol experience, then should I not trust it?



That's key to the argument, thanks.

Clarke wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  A light switch and its effect would be serious magic for a person who had been born and raised in a remote area of the planet, as some few still are.

If such a person saw a light switch and demonstrated its effect by operating the switch themselves, should they believe it is real, or should they believe it is not real?

A person in such a situation might argue from the standpoint of apparent reality - what appears to be real is real.  They might also argue from the standpoint of the laws of nature as they understand them - in their universe, that does not happen, so it is not real.

In 19th century England, the Academy of Science stated categorically that rocks do not fall from the sky.   People who reported such things were either disbelieved or locked away in bedlam.  It would not be wise for an uneducated person of that era to have believed what their own eyes told them happened.  Both their understanding of the world as well as the most learned minds of the time told them such things did not happen.


----------



## Omar B

Andrew Green said:


> Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist?  That seems to be the direction a few people are going here...  If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.



No, I don't have to prove the Bunny exists, nor do I have to prove anything else.  It's the ones who worship the Bunny and see the Bunny as everyone's only hope is the one who has something to prove.  I don't need to prove a negative, if it really existed it would be as obvious as oxygen to anyone.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> If you believe in the giant spaghetti monster, and take good care of your kids and don't hurt other people, well, that's fine with me.



Please, that's the FLYING Spaghetti Monster.  Some of us take our Pastafarian beliefs seriously.

http://www.venganza.org/


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> No, I don't have to prove the Bunny exists, nor do I have to prove anything else.



I agree that you do not have to prove the Bunny exists.



> It's the ones who worship the Bunny and see the Bunny as everyone's only hope is the one who has something to prove.



The Bunny's believers do not have to prove it exists to themselves.  They also do not have to prove it exists to non-believers.  However, some few of them may believe that they *can* prove the Bunny exists, and if they do, then yes, the burden of proof is upon them.



> I don't need to prove a negative, if it really existed it would be as obvious as oxygen to anyone.



You only have to prove a negative if you intend to argue that the Bunny does not exist.  The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, for proof or disproof.

I've never actually seen oxygen, have you?  I presume that's in the air I breathe, the scientists tell me so.  Frankly, I've never bothered to check it out myself.  I won't demand proof, I'm OK with things the way they are.  It sure seems real, even if it isn't obvious.

But in any case, the absence of proof is not disproof.  That concept seems very difficult to pass along for some reason.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> In other words, when I ask a deist where the proof is, it's not because I'm expecting a usable response. It's because I want to indicate that if they're trying to convince me of the rightness of their position they must make more than a simple statement of belief. Put another way, I think I'm beautiful...but don't be looking for me to post pictures so that you can express your opinion on the matter.


 
Inasmuch as I try to convince anyone of the "rightness of my position," it's the _"rightness of my position *for me*_." Put another way, if you think you're beautiful, but you look like a French Bulldog, I don't have a problem with that....:lfao:


----------



## Archangel M

celtic_crippler said:


> Perhaps...but then..who created religion?



I dont see the point of the question. We created law and many people fail to obey those too. However I doubt we would want to live in a lawless society.


----------



## elder999

Archangel M said:


> I dont see the point of the question. We created law and many people fail to obey those too. However *I doubt we would want to live in a lawless society*.


 

And where is Thesemindz?? :lol:


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've never actually seen oxygen, have you?  I presume that's in the air I breathe, the scientists tell me so.  Frankly, I've never bothered to check it out myself.



Skipped Chem class in high school huh?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> Skipped Chem class in high school huh?



Yes, I did skip it.

I don't doubt it exists, but you said it was 'obvious'.  I can't see it, and I've never personally proven it, so although I accept it, I can't say it is 'obvious'.

Which I guess is the point.  What's obvious to you might not be obvious to me - and vice versa.  There might be one or two classes I took in high school that you didn't.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Xinglu said:


> So long as we can say that Believer includes Atheists and Theists I would agree. Both believe things on opposite ends of the spectrum, Both have concluded something about God. So, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.


 
No argument from me. I said the burdon of proof is on the _believer_. Perhaps I should have elaborated more but I thought the context was clear if reading my entire post.... If you are attempting to force me to accept your beliefs, then I require proof. Whether it's the Easter Bunny or proof of aliens. This is not an alien concept, no pun intended. It's the logical process accepted by most rational people with most things. 



Andrew Green said:


> Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist? That seems to be the direction a few people are going here... If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.


 
After you grew up and left home did you still recieve an Easter basket each April? Well...there ya go. 

Those that assert the Christian bible is literal are just as wrong. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's talk about the Easter Bunny for a moment, in the context of proof.
> 
> The Easter Bunny is often used because it is commonly assumed to be imaginary. One cannot imagine this being actually existing.
> 
> A person who wishes to argue against the existence of a deity, but who recognizes that some concepts are not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven, use this to show that although a deity cannot be proven, neither can the Easter Bunny, and therefore, since the Easter Bunny would be illogical to believe in, so too is the existence of a deity.
> 
> It is a reasonable argument on the surface, but it is flawed because it assumes that everything which cannot be proved is equally likely (or in this case, unlikely) to exist.
> 
> It is also commonly used as a derogatory argument, belittling the opponent by making a belief in a deity seem as silly as most adults would view a serious belief in the Easter Bunny.


 
Clarify: are you asserting the existance of the Christian god or simply a supreme being? 

If it's the Christian god then one can produce evidence in support of "his" non-existance. 



elder999 said:


> Inasmuch as I try to convince anyone of the "rightness of my position," it's the _"rightness of my position *for me*_." Put another way, if you think you're beautiful, but you look like a French Bulldog, I don't have a problem with that....:lfao:


 
That's awesome. LOL ...and true. 

I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, I did skip it.
> I don't doubt it exists, but you said it was 'obvious'.  I can't see it, and I've never personally proven it, so although I accept it, I can't say it is 'obvious'.



I should have used "provable" or "verifiable" then.  But either way, the proof is there to be seen if one wishes to look.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, I did skip it.
> 
> I don't doubt it exists, but you said it was 'obvious'. I can't see it, and I've never personally proven it, so although I accept it, I can't say it is 'obvious'.
> 
> Which I guess is the point. What's obvious to you might not be obvious to me - and vice versa. There might be one or two classes I took in high school that you didn't.


 
Bill...you can do better than that...

Oxygen is a very poor example. You can freeze it for crying out loud. And it's obvious because you're not suffocating at the moment. 

BTW, I wish I could've skipped Chemistry...I hated it! 

You must be gettin' gassed. Take a break and come back. LOL


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> No argument from me. I said the burdon of proof is on the _believer_. Perhaps I should have elaborated more but I thought the context was clear if reading my entire post.... If you are attempting to force me to accept your beliefs, then I require proof. Whether it's the Easter Bunny or proof of aliens. This is not an alien concept, no pun intended. It's the logical process accepted by most rational people with most things.



The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

 What a person believes requires no proof.  If they wish others to believe it, others may require proof.  Of the existence *or non-existence* of whatever it is they believe.



> After you grew up and left home did you still recieve an Easter basket each April? Well...there ya go.



Evidence is not proof.  Are you asserting that you can prove the Easter Bunny does not exist?



> Those that assert the Christian bible is literal are just as wrong.



That is a faith.  Much like religion.  It's a personal belief that you cannot substantiate.

To be fair, anyone who says that the Christian bible is literal and anyone who doesn't believe it is just plain wrong is also engaging in an act of faith, because they cannot substantiate their belief, either.



> Clarify: are you asserting the existance of the Christian god or simply a supreme being?



First, I am not asserting the existence of any deity at all.  I know full well that such an assertion could never be proven, and if I assert it, the burden is on me to prove it.

Second, it doesn't matter which deity I am referring to.  Any theory of the literal existence of a deity is unfalsifiable.  It can neither be proven nor disproven.  As such, it is beyond the realm of science.  This does not make it real, nor does it make it unreal.  It makes it unknown.



> If it's the Christian god then one can produce evidence in support of "his" non-existance.



I'm listening.



> I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.



I agree with that statement.  You seem to often see it as _'forcing others to accept their beliefs'_ when they point out that their beliefs cannot be disproven, however.  I don't really see it that way.


----------



## blindsage

arnisador said:


> Through the senses? I'm not sure what you want here. If we can't trust our senses--if we might just be brains in vats--we cannot hope to draw interesting conclusions. Ruling that out both for lack of evidence and for the logical impossibility of proving it false, we gather sense-data and act on that information, in part via logic and in part by trial-and-error (experiment). I'm in line with the thoughts in the beginning of Bertrand Russell's _The Problems of Philosophy_ on this one.


Well firstly, science has shown pretty clearly that we can't always trust our senses, but that's really besides my point.

So, if I understand you correctly we gain our information for logical analysis and experiment through personal experience.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> Bill...you can do better than that...
> 
> Oxygen is a very poor example. You can freeze it for crying out loud. And it's obvious because you're not suffocating at the moment.
> 
> BTW, I wish I could've skipped Chemistry...I hated it!
> 
> You must be gettin' gassed. Take a break and come back. LOL



It goes to the basis of knowledge and faith.

What is a fact?  In absolute terms, it is what YOU can prove.  One might suspect that it is what can be proven by others, but then I could 'prove' something and tell you I proved it.  Would you believe me?  What if I were a scientist?  What if I were 100 scientists?  1,000?

So the 'fact' of facts is that at some level we take the work of others to be true, even if we have not performed the work to create the proof ourselves.  I call that faith, of a certain kind.

You and I (and probably everyone here) believes that oxygen exists and we need it to survive and it can be frozen and so on and so forth.

Please note that I do not dispute that oxygen exists.

However, with the exception of some scientists here, what do we personally know and can prove about oxygen?

I can read about it.  So many protons, neutrons and electrons.  A certain atomic weight.  It has certain properties.

But how do I know that's what I breathe?  I read that somewhere else.  I believe it.  But I've never tested the air, I've never done the analysis.  All of my knowledge about oxygen is second-hand.

I am not suggesting that oxygen does not exist.  I'm not suggesting that there is a giant conspiracy to lie to everyone about what oxygen is.  I'm pointing out that what we personally 'know' about oxygen is second-hand and limited, based on trust in our system of information, the statements of others, and our ability to draw general conclusions about these things.

That is not the same as having done the work ourselves.  We accept the 'obviousness' of oxygen, but in reality, we are basing our belief in a trust in our systems of information.  In reality, you cannot see it, touch it, weigh it, measure it, it has no odor, and we cannot sequester it on our own.  We have to trust in what we are told.

Knowledge is a very sticky word.  The main difference between knowledge and faith is that knowledge is justified *true* belief, whereas faith is simply belief, whether justified or unjustified, true or false.  However, we only know that oxygen is real because we believe the many information systems that surround us that tell us it is - for those of us who have not done the actual experiments ourselves, that is.

If knowledge often relies upon what we presume to be real - like oxygen - then it is not that far removed from what some people presume to be real - like their religion.  These are points on a line, not sides of a coin.


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.


it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!

As a believer, I don't think that I have ever tried to convince others of the existance of God. I also find it annoying when people of different faiths and denominations of Christianity try to evangelize to me. Now that the atheists are in the evangelism business, it seems I have nowhere to hide.


----------



## celtic_crippler

yorkshirelad said:


> it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!
> 
> As a believer, I don't think that I have ever tried to convince others of the existance of God. I also find it annoying when people of different faiths and denominations of Christianity try to evangelize to me. Now that the atheists are in the evangelism business, it seems I have nowhere to hide.


 
I've been guilty of using the "Easter Bunny analogy" as well... 

It wasn't my intent to belittle or insult, but to make a point. I can understand how that could be offensive; however, and I apologize. 

This is a passionate topic and it can get pretty heated. But I want to be clear that I'm not trying to intentially insult anyone. 

Point taken. :asian:


----------



## yorkshirelad

celtic_crippler said:


> I've been guilty of using the "Easter Bunny analogy" as well...
> 
> It wasn't my intent to belittle or insult, but to make a point. I can understand how that could be offensive; however, and I apologize.
> 
> This is a passionate topic and it can get pretty heated. But I want to be clear that I'm not trying to intentially insult anyone.
> 
> Point taken. :asian:


Again, for the umpteenth time my Thanks isn't working, so i'll say it here...........Thanks mate


----------



## Andrew Green

yorkshirelad said:


> it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position.



All those atheist campaigns say basically the same thing "God *probably* does not exist"

At no point has any atheist ever told a believer they will burn in hell for their beliefs, most Christians don't either.  But if you look at who is trying to force a belief on any given God, it's not the people that don't believe in any of them.

I would argue that there is more basis for claiming that religious people have tried to force out belief in God(s) then atheists.  Just not the one they believe in.  But heresy as a crime is a religious thing.  

There are many Gods out there too choose from, if you don't believe in any of them they are all on equal ground, if you believe in only one of them the other Gods are seen in a different way.

Now, if you have a look at the things that have lead to this "atheist uprising" it's really not got a lot to do with belief in God.  It has more to do with religion being taught as science (Intelligent design), science being rejected or ignored because it conflicts with religious ideals (stem cell research, global warming, etc.).  It has to do with wars that have been framed by many as religious, people putting faith in "faith healing" and not allowing their children to have proper medical treatment in favour of prayer.

Belief in God is really not the core issue for most, it is the rejection of science, reason and common sense in favour of faith.


----------



## elder999

yorkshirelad said:


> Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!


 
Works _*really*_ well on me... :lfao:


----------



## Ramirez

yorkshirelad said:


> it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!
> 
> As a believer, I don't think that I have ever tried to convince others of the existance of God. I also find it annoying when people of different faiths and denominations of Christianity try to evangelize to me. Now that the atheists are in the evangelism business, it seems I have nowhere to hide.



I really don't care what you believe Holmes,  I really only care when the believers start trying to force their beliefs on others, as in say teaching creationism in the science class.

 Actually I am a strong believer in religious freedom , which is why I support a secular state, it is the only way to guarantee religious freedom.


----------



## elder999

Andrew Green said:


> All those atheist campaigns say basically the same thing "God *probably* does not exist".


 
_"And *'religion'* is a waste of time, at best, and the cause of the world's ills at worst," _in the case of R. Dawkins, anyway.....


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!



It was not my intent man.  I used the Bunny because people get mad when I use god.  It's simply there as an analogy rather than using a god or gods from any given religion.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bill Mattocks said:


> The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.


 
Sometimes I feel like I must be posting in a foreign language. Is that not what I said? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Evidence is not proof. Are you asserting that you can prove the Easter Bunny does not exist?


 
Ev-i-dence {noun} something that gives a sign or *proof *of the existence or truth of something, or that *helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion *

The fact that when mommy and daddy stop providing you with an Easter Basket should be enough, but I suppose you could hide out and wait for a giant rabbit to come hopping down the bunny trail the night before could do the trick. 

If you do not accept that as evidence then so be it.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> That is a faith. Much like religion. It's a personal belief that you cannot substantiate.


 
I can't stop you from believing that the world started with just two people and that they were kicked out of a magic garden because they listened to a talking snake. But I can prove that snakes don't talk and I think science and history back up the fact that the world didn't just appear after 6 days with a single man... However... the fact that God supposedly created Eve out of Adam's rib may support that he endorses cloning and stem cell research. 

As long as you're  not trying to convince me of that there's no issue though. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> To be fair, anyone who says that the Christian bible is literal and anyone who doesn't believe it is just plain wrong is also engaging in an act of faith, because they cannot substantiate their belief, either.


 
I'd call that "faith" because it can be. See above. Believing in something even when all the evidence points to something different is "faith."  



Bill Mattocks said:


> First, I am not asserting the existence of any deity at all. I know full well that such an assertion could never be proven, and if I assert it, the burden is on me to prove it.


 
Exactly. But I could have sworn you were endorsing the existance of "God". My bad. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Second, it doesn't matter which deity I am referring to. Any theory of the literal existence of a deity is unfalsifiable. It can neither be proven nor disproven. As such, it is beyond the realm of science. This does not make it real, nor does it make it unreal. It makes it unknown.


 
Yeah it does. Because examples from religeous texts can be falsified and provide evidence against that particular diety's existance.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm listening.


 
Are you? See above. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with that statement. You seem to often see it as _'forcing others to accept their beliefs'_ when they point out that their beliefs cannot be disproven, however. I don't really see it that way.


 
Perception is reality, but that's not how I see it. As I recall, earlier in this thread you were the one that started pointing fingers and telling people you disagreed with they were *wrong.* Even when they, unlike you, provided sources and evidence for their opinions. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> It goes to the basis of knowledge and faith.
> 
> What is a fact? In absolute terms, it is what YOU can prove. One might suspect that it is what can be proven by others, but then I could 'prove' something and tell you I proved it. Would you believe me? What if I were a scientist? What if I were 100 scientists? 1,000?
> 
> So the 'fact' of facts is that at some level we take the work of others to be true, even if we have not performed the work to create the proof ourselves. I call that faith, of a certain kind.
> 
> You and I (and probably everyone here) believes that oxygen exists and we need it to survive and it can be frozen and so on and so forth.
> 
> Please note that I do not dispute that oxygen exists.
> 
> However, with the exception of some scientists here, what do we personally know and can prove about oxygen?
> 
> I can read about it. So many protons, neutrons and electrons. A certain atomic weight. It has certain properties.
> 
> But how do I know that's what I breathe? I read that somewhere else. I believe it. But I've never tested the air, I've never done the analysis. All of my knowledge about oxygen is second-hand.
> 
> I am not suggesting that oxygen does not exist. I'm not suggesting that there is a giant conspiracy to lie to everyone about what oxygen is. I'm pointing out that what we personally 'know' about oxygen is second-hand and limited, based on trust in our system of information, the statements of others, and our ability to draw general conclusions about these things.
> 
> That is not the same as having done the work ourselves. We accept the 'obviousness' of oxygen, but in reality, we are basing our belief in a trust in our systems of information. In reality, you cannot see it, touch it, weigh it, measure it, it has no odor, and we cannot sequester it on our own. We have to trust in what we are told.
> 
> Knowledge is a very sticky word. The main difference between knowledge and faith is that knowledge is justified *true* belief, whereas faith is simply belief, whether justified or unjustified, true or false. However, we only know that oxygen is real because we believe the many information systems that surround us that tell us it is - for those of us who have not done the actual experiments ourselves, that is.
> 
> If knowledge often relies upon what we presume to be real - like oxygen - then it is not that far removed from what some people presume to be real - like their religion. These are points on a line, not sides of a coin.


 
That's a stretch...

If you want to put forth the effort, you can find out for yourself that oxygen exists. No amount of effort will prove your Christian God, *or any other of man's invention*, is real. Whereas I can point to parts of religious text and disprove what it says with both science and history. 

For example: It's not only improbable, but practically impossible for one man to gather every species of animal on the planet and shuffle them into a boat to ensure their survival. How did he get the polar bears? The penquins? The American wild-cat? They didn't even know America existed at that time... 

If you want to believe that, fine. But if you expect me too you have to produce some proof.


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:


> No amount of effort will prove your Christian God, *or any other of man's invention*, is real.


 
Prove to _*whom*_?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

celtic_crippler said:


> Sometimes I feel like I must be posting in a foreign language. Is that not what I said?



I get the same feeling sometimes.  Perhaps it is what you said - if so, forgive me.  But what I seemed to be reading is that a person who believes (in or against a deity) has the burden of proof.  My point is a bit more subtle - that they do not have the burden of proof *unless* they intend to prove it to others, not to believe it themselves.  One can believe in whatever they wish with no proof whatsoever.  If they tell me that what they believe is true (there is a God, there isn't a God) and they want me to believe it too, then they have engaged the requirement to provide proof.



> Ev-i-dence {noun} something that gives a sign or *proof *of the existence or truth of something, or that *helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion *



Evidence helps establish proof, but it is not proof.  All proof contains evidence, not all evidence is proof.



> The fact that when mommy and daddy stop providing you with an Easter Basket should be enough, but I suppose you could hide out and wait for a giant rabbit to come hopping down the bunny trail the night before could do the trick.



That would prove the existence of the Easter Bunny, but if he never shows, that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.  That's why the concept is unfalsifiable.  One simply cannot prove the Easter Bunny does not exist.



> If you do not accept that as evidence then so be it.



It would be evidence if I waited and he did not show up, yes.  It would not be proof.



> I can't stop you from believing that the world started with just two people and that they were kicked out of a magic garden because they listened to a talking snake. But I can prove that snakes don't talk and I think science and history back up the fact that the world didn't just appear after 6 days with a single man... However... the fact that God supposedly created Eve out of Adam's rib may support that he endorses cloning and stem cell research.



You can indeed prove that snakes cannot talk.  You can indeed prove that the world was not created in six days, and etc.  One minor quibble - many geneticists seem to think that there was a literal 'Eve' if only in the sense that our DNA seems to show we're all descended from a single female at some point in the past.  Genetic evidence seems to also support a 'choke point' in history in which humanity was reduced to at most a few thousand individuals, and we're all descended from them.

That does not disprove the literal truth of the Bible.  A person intent on countering your arguments would say that you did not prove THAT snake could not talk.  You did not prove that a 'day' that the Bible talks about during the creation was a 'day' now.

I'm not arguing those points, however.  I happen to agree with you that the Bible is not literally true.  However, I do not think anyone can prove that the Bible is or is not literally true.  One has to make their own decisions - and evidence does indeed play a significant role in it, just as you say.



> I'd call that "faith" because it can be. See above. Believing in something even when all the evidence points to something different is "faith."



Earlier I pointed out that at one time, the British Academy of Science stated categorically that rocks do not fall from the sky.  All evidence said they did not.  All learned men said they did not.

Now, rocks either fall from the sky or they do not.  Right?  And you and I would say that rocks do fall from the sky.

So, if a lay-person back then saw a rock falling from the sky and believed their own eyes, were they engaging in faith?  The learned men of that time would say YES.  We would say NO.  But the belief of the man who saw the rock fall from the sky cannot be both YES and NO.  It has to be one or the other.  So did they engage in faith or did they not engage in faith?

That is why I say that faith has nothing to do with the literal facts.  Faith is internal to the person.  I say that the person who saw rocks fall from the sky when all science said it was not possible was engaging in faith, because they were acting in accordance with their own beliefs.  I cannot not go back and revise history and say they were not engaging in faith because now we know they were right.   They did not know they were right, and what they believed is dead and buried with them.  I can't change their beliefs now any more than I can change how tall they were.



> Exactly. But I could have sworn you were endorsing the existance of "God". My bad.



I believe in the existence of God as part of my Catholic religious beliefs.  I know that God can be neither proven nor disproven to exist.



> Yeah it does. Because examples from religeous texts can be falsified and provide evidence against that particular diety's existance.



Even if you can falsify a text, that does not falsify the existence of the deity in question.  Evidence against?  OK, you said you could provide evidence against, and I accept that.



> If you want to put forth the effort, you can find out for yourself that oxygen exists. No amount of effort will prove your Christian God, *or any other of man's invention*, is real. Whereas I can point to parts of religious text and disprove what it says with both science and history.



That much is true, to some extent.  There are also parts of the Bible that have been proven true - historically - after initially being declared untrue.  Cities that were said not to exist turn out to have actually been there, etc.

I agree that I can, with effort, prove that oxygen exists.  The statement was that oxygen was 'obvious'.  Obvious means patently true, true upon initial examination, true without need of further explanation, etc.  I said oxygen is not obvious, and I think I've shown that.



> For example: It's not only improbable, but practically impossible for one man to gather every species of animal on the planet and shuffle them into a boat to ensure their survival. How did he get the polar bears? The penquins? The American wild-cat? They didn't even know America existed at that time...



It is probably not possible.  That is not the same as proving it did not happen.



> If you want to believe that, fine. But if you expect me too you have to produce some proof.



I agree that if I wanted you to believe that, the onus would be on me to provide some proof.  I have not attempted to do so.  Likewise, when you say that anyone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible is wrong, (which you have done) you also have to provide proof.  Neither of us can, so attempts to convince the other of historical veracity would be futile.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> And what then, of personal experience-if my senses tell me that God exists, through personal, real and _extraordinary_ if not "supernatural" (hate that word. What's "natural?" :lol experience, then should I not trust it?



As a practical matter, if you wouldn't trust a surgeon who accepted proof via self-revelation, the question answers itself--you're willing to accept a lower standard of 'proof' in matters of less practical (i.e. physical) import. But I also wonder if you have direct personal evidence of god--parting of the clouds, a burning bush, etc.--or if you're drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence. If it's the latter, aren't having more minds on the matter, and discussion of various theories, a surer way to the truth?

As a personal matter, I surely don't begrudge you your individual beliefs--I personally believe that my two children are the most intelligent products of evolution, and that "Enter the Dragon" is the most important piece of art mankind has ever produced. The freedom to believe what you want to believe, to think what you want to think, is surely among the most fundamental of all rights. But I have to say, it's 2009 and I'm surprised that people still cling to millennia-old myths intended to explain why it rains.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> It was not my intent man. I used the Bunny because people get mad when I use god. It's simply there as an analogy rather than using a god or gods from any given religion.


So I guess I'm speaking to the passive Omar now?


----------



## elder999

yorkshirelad said:


> So I guess I'm speaking to the passive Omar now?


 
Please let it go-there's no reason for this to not be the civil conversation it mostly has been.....

....*looove* the new avatar, btw!



arnisador said:


> As a practical matter, if you wouldn't trust a surgeon who accepted proof via self-revelation, the question answers itself--you're willing to accept a lower standard of 'proof' in matters of less practical (i.e. physical) import. But I also wonder if you have direct personal evidence of god--parting of the clouds, a burning bush, etc.--or if you're drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence. If it's the latter, aren't having more minds on the matter, and discussion of various theories, a surer way to the truth?.


 
I don't see it as a lower standard of 'proof', as much as it being an apples and oranges thing. I wouldn't trust such a surgeon, if there were such an animal, nor would I look to a "surgeon" for "spiritual guidance." And yes, I have direct, _personal _*evidence*. In keeping with your surgical metaphor, I should point out that _in my experience, _the medical definition for "_miracle"_ is *misdiagnosis.* :lol:


----------



## arnisador

Omar B said:


> No, I don't have to prove the Bunny exists, nor do I have to prove anything else.  It's the ones who worship the Bunny and see the Bunny as everyone's only hope is the one who has something to prove.



Or as Nicholas Cage said, _Put... the bunny... back... in the box_. 



celtic_crippler said:


> I said the burdon of proof is on the _believer_.


 
The burden is on the person making the claim. The theist makes an affirmative claim; the atheist (of scientific mind) simply declines to accept the claim without evidence. Like the Easter Bunny, it is unsupported and hence doesn't merit a reasoned response.

In fact, it's unfortunate a word such as atheist exists, because it's no different than being abunnyiest, aunicornist, abigfootist, avampirist, etc.



> I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.



Atheists aren't as well known for forcing their position on the religious as are the religious for forcing theirs on the irreligious and those of different religious beliefs.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Ramirez said:


> Actually I am a strong believer in religious freedom , which is why I support a secular state, it is the only way to guarantee religious freedom.


I too support a secular state Cheech. I was fumbling around my collection of books for a copy of 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' last night, as I remembered a quote that seemed rather apt to this discussion. 

_"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth_."
(The adventure of the Beryl Coronet).


----------



## arnisador

blindsage said:


> Well firstly, science has shown pretty clearly that we can't always trust our senses



You seems to be taking two sides here--if science is based on the analysis of sensory data, and science has shown that sensory data is untrustworthy, science must be untrustworthy too, mustn't it? I don't share that opinion, but it seems inherent in what you're saying here.



> So, if I understand you correctly we gain our information for logical analysis and experiment through personal experience.



This experience is shared and common, unlike religious revelation. If we accept that what appear to be other humans are indeed separate, intelligent, autonomous individuals, capable of communicating with us, then we have the check of multiple reports of the data. If we reject that and believe that we are the sole intelligence in the universe...well, that might lead to different conclusions. Hence, while each person's experience of the world is by definition personal to them, the data of science is subject to open review and criticism, and is subject to refinement as more data is obtained.


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> Please let it go-there's no reason for this to not be the civil conversation it mostly has been.....
> 
> ....*looove* the new avatar, btw!


The civility comes and goes in waves Jeff. I would like the thread to remain civil on both ends.


----------



## yorkshirelad

arnisador said:


> Atheists aren't as well known for forcing their position on the religious as are the religious for forcing theirs on the irreligious and those of different religious beliefs.


They are on MT :rofl:


----------



## arnisador

yorkshirelad said:


> The civility comes and goes in waves Jeff. I would like the thread to remain civil on both ends.



One problem that's fundamental to the civility issue is that from my side I feel I'm using academically correct anthropological language when I say things like creation myth, primitive explanations of natural phenomena, fictional creatures, etc., or when I compare one god to another of a different pantheon or to another mythical creature. To those who believe in their notion of god that can be quite offensive, while to me it's scientifically accurate language that is intended to describe, not offend.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> So I guess I'm speaking to the passive Omar now?



I could say anything about religion and you get all up in arms, even if I removed the gods from it and used a Bunny.  I'm not passive, you're just high strung.  I'm totally willing to discuss my stand on the issue, but anything said about the christian god offends.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> I could say anything about religion and you get all up in arms, even if I removed the gods from it and used a Bunny. I'm not passive, you're just high strung.


I'll remember that the next time I get you crying! From now on whenever you get offended, the next post shall include, "Oh Omar, you're just highly strung." :rofl:


----------



## Omar B

Well the pattern of this thread thus far has been making my point or saying "sorry" for offending your gentle sensibilities when it comes to religion.  Not everyone's gonna have the same reverence for your god that you do, or any for that matter.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Well the pattern of this thread thus far has been making my point or saying "sorry" for offending your gentle sensibilities when it comes to religion. Not everyone's gonna have the same reverence for your god that you do, or any for that matter.


Then don't apologise. Say what you mean. The annoying thing about you is that you make comments intended to cause offense, then you apologise when you are called on it, then you do the same thing over again.

There are others here who have used similar analogies to express their opinions on worshipping the deity on this thread but have been unapologetic. That's fine with me, they feel that their analogies are justified and therefore I conclude that their analogies are not intended to cause offense. You, Omar have apologised and then gone about doing the thing you apologised for in the first place. This tells me a couple of things about you; that your apologies are insincere, that you understand your analogies are offensive and that you intend to cause offense.

Am I wrong mate?


----------



## Omar B

Dude, I don't know what's gonna offend your delicate sensibilities.  As you yourself pointed out I have apologized when I you found what I said offensive, but when others make similar analogies you are fine with it.  Maybe it's my unyielding stance against religion you don't like so everything I say offends you.  After all, you see religion as a sacred issue while I don't so I guess it's tough for you to talk about it with a non believer.

Either way, I've got no quarrel with you, you can always block yourself from seeing my posts.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Dude, I don't know what's gonna offend your delicate sensibilities. As you yourself pointed out I have apologized when I you found what I said offensive, but when others make similar analogies you are fine with it. Maybe it's my unyielding stance against religion you don't like so everything I say offends you. After all, you see religion as a sacred issue while I don't so I guess it's tough for you to talk about it with a non believer.
> 
> Either way, I've got no quarrel with you, you can always block yourself from seeing my posts.


Refer to my last post. You obviously refuse to accept what I'm saying. Oh and BTW, I'm not religious!!


----------



## Carol

arnisador said:


> As a personal matter, I surely don't begrudge you your individual beliefs--I personally believe that my two children are the most intelligent products of evolution, and that "Enter the Dragon" is the most important piece of art mankind has ever produced. The freedom to believe what you want to believe, to think what you want to think, is surely among the most fundamental of all rights. But I have to say, it's 2009 and I'm surprised that people still cling to millennia-old myths intended to explain why it rains.



Unfortunately I think it has become an issue of power, not faith. 


My parents are of the WWII generation, my dad was a vet.  They had me later in life so my folks are older than the parents of most people my age.  They were also much stricter and more conservative (by conservative, I mean in terms of social standards, not politics.)   Being active in the church was always a big part of their life. But if a creationist were to approach my 75 year old mom, a devout Protestant, she would likely shake her head in a polite way and say "We don't believe the Bible is a science textbook."

So why has this become an issue now? I don't recall, in my memory, the question of evolution being asked of presidential candidates in prior debates.  I don't recall it being such a prominent debate when I was younger.  Why was it not such a big deal when we were in times of strong leaders such as President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II?

From what I can tell, it is borne out of concern of some churches, especially Protestant churches, losing their membership and finding that the people in their community are becoming more and more apathetic.  They want the schools and the politicians to do what they have been unable to do, which is enforce the literal interpretation of the Bible to a captive audience.  

There are many religious folks, including Christians like my mother, that find this practice to be abhorrent.

But philisophically, it seems to be very difficult for faithful to embrace this common ground with some atheists, when faithful people are smugly denigrated in a pandemic fashion -- and vice-versa.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Refer to my last post. You obviously refuse to accept what I'm saying. Oh and BTW, I'm not religious!!



So my apologizing for hurting your feelings but sticking to my guns is what hurts then?

I thought you said you believed in god?  I call that being religious, if there are shades of religious piety then I didn't know.


----------



## Xinglu

Omar B said:


> So my apologizing for hurting your feelings but sticking to my guns is what hurts then?
> 
> I thought you said you believed in god?  I call that being religious, if there are shades of religious piety then I didn't know.



There is a difference between a spiritualist and a religionist, one is emphasizing the spiritual teachings the other the religious organization and it's dogmas.

There are also varying degree's in between those two as well.


----------



## arnisador

Xinglu said:


> There is a difference between a spiritualist and a religionist



Truly, distinguishing between the varieties of the superstitious is an endeavor of dubious utility...though they're certainly more dangerous when organized. But if you believe in supernatural entities, whether you band together with others of that ilk or not, your reasoning is, in my opinion, flawed.

We hope to hear R.D. speak on Monday at Indiana U. This story seems to address the matter under discussion here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...dawkins-strident-do-they-mean-me-1796244.html


----------



## Xinglu

I think it is an important distinction - the spiritualist is not knocking on your door to convert you, the religionist is.  The Spiritualist is more interested in their spiritual path than yours, the religionist is more interested in making sure you're beliefs fall in line.

While I agree that both's reasoning are flawed in regards to asserting a God exists, I can at least respect the spiritualist approach to it all.  For them, it is a personal journey and they are not looking for other people to justify or convert.  Heck, not all spiritualist believe in God or make any assertions about God.  Look at Buddhists, they don't even address the God issue and yet they are very spiritual people.


----------



## yorkshirelad

xinglu said:


> there is a difference between a spiritualist and a religionist, one is emphasizing the spiritual teachings the other the religious organization and it's dogmas.
> 
> There are also varying degree's in between those two as well.


qtf!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

arnisador said:


> But if you believe in supernatural entities, whether you band together with others of that ilk or not, your reasoning is, in my opinion, flawed.



In my opinion, nearly all reasoning is flawed, including my own.

I am not therefore certain that the reasoning of all people of religious faith is any more flawed than that of people who do not profess a religious belief.

Alister Crowley said some time ago, _"We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon; our method is science, our aim is religion."
_
Not many people seem to have figured out what the old Beast was on about, but I think I've got him sussed out pretty well.

We place our faith (yes, faith) in science, and it treats us pretty well, on the surface.  It has laws and they work, mostly.  We certainly have come to depend upon them continuing to work as we believe they should for our modern lives, and they do.  But that is for the layperson.  What goes on behind the scenes for the scientist is a roiling, bubbling, never-ending series of upheavals and arguments and dust-ups and brouhahas and donnybrooks of Brobdingnagian proportions, over all manner of things, great and small, and from time to time, we laypersons may even hear of one or two of them.  E=MC2 and String Theory and Grand Unified Theory and so on, as it pops up on the Discovery Channel or for the bluebloods, Nova.

We still have no idea whatsoever of the answers to any of the really big questions (except for Douglas Adams, of course, blessed be His Name).  

We do not know what the original cause for The Singularity was.  We do not know what existed before it brought all space-time, energy, and matter into being.  We do not know if the universe has boundaries.  We do not know if it will continue to fly apart forever, or if it will one day collapse upon itself.  We do not know where most of the mass of the universe has gotten itself off to, which based on our best theories, ought to be there and doesn't appear to be.

We do not know what the purpose of our type of intelligence is from an evolutionary standpoint.

We do not know what the smallest unit of matter is, or what causes gravity.

We do not know what constitutes life, or if a virus is a living creature.

We do not know how life began.

And, importantly, in the _'Age of Reason'_, we have placed science as it was understood at that time upon the mantle of correct thinking, and worshiped (yes, worshiped) it as if it were unchanging truth.  We have ridiculed and terrorized, tortured and imprisoned people for daring to challenge science - exactly as an earlier age of religion did to men of science.

Ironically, we have at each step of our knowledge proclaimed our knowledge to be complete, and we have taken special pains to root out those who disagreed that we had reached the pinnacle and had anything left to learn, even minority-viewpoint scientists, from crackpots to those whose theories have fallen out of favor in the scientific community.

In the 1300's, we *knew* that the sun revolved around the earth, in the 1700's, we *knew* that rocks did not fall from the sky, and now we know...what?  Everything, apparently.   And those of us who profess that science does indeed have every answer or can go fetch it like a good dog, and that therefore it is *not* a faith like unto religion to trust in it without understanding - those people will _quietly refuse comment_ when, in five minutes or five years, one or more of their cherished truths becomes invalidated by newer scientific proofs.

At every moment in the days, months, and years to come, those who place their, um, _'not faith but belief rooted in fact'_ will continue to scoff at those who place their faith in religion (or supernatural if you prefer), but as scientific knowledge continues to advance, and change, and be refined and redefined, most of those who claim to believe in it won't even know about the big-ticket items being debated around them, won't be aware that the scientific bedrock upon which they stand is prone to earthquakes and mudslides.  They're smug, they're content - why, they're just like smug, content, believers in the supernatural.

Yes, the supernatural is, by definition, beyond the ken of man, and thus cannot be defined as true or false, which gives those who believe in science the willies, since science cannot grasp it.

Yes, science is a good and loyal friend, and even when we do not understand gravity, we know that it works, since we do not simply float away off the face of the earth.  We can observe the effects of gravity in a way that we cannot observe the effects of a deity.

And yet, each set of assumptions - for those who dislike the term 'faith' applied to what it is that they choose to believe - has parts in it that are self-evident, and parts in it which are subject to change and which defy understanding to date.  Each is very much like the other when defined as a set of things we know versus a set of things we do not know.  Each is very much like the other when defined as a set of operating principles that seems to have valid application to our everyday lives and how we interact with each other.

And each is often utterly at each other's throat, as if the one somehow threatened the existence of the other.  Believers in science claiming they never attack, only defend, as they hurl blow after blow, believers in religion saying the same thing.  Each pointing out the worst flaws in the opposite camp, whilst proclaiming that the flaws attributed to their own camp apply only to a shabby minority of fringe thinkers, not the mainstream.

And yet, some of us can see both sides of the river, and do not think it impossible to travel from one side to the other and back again.

Science says, with reference to The Singularity, the moment before (if the word 'moment' has meaning here) all space-time, matter, and energy came into being, that there was nothing, a void.



> In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.



And then, there was an explosion.  In a fraction of a fraction of a second, all energy, all matter, all space-time, came bursting into being and exploded.  From the energy there was light and heat, from the matter there was shadow wherever light did not strike.



> And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



And as the mass congealed, drawn together inexorably together by gravity, planets and stars were formed, and galaxies, and everything began to spin and hurtle away from each other.  Planets formed and began to cool.



> And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.



Well, it goes on like that for awhile.  I see no great disparity there.  It seems to me that there isn't much difference, philosophically, from saying _"the universe was created and we don't know how,"_ and _"the universe was created and God did it on purpose."_  Even supposing that science someday does think it knows how the universe was created, experience has shown that it will eventually change its mind, and what was once settled fact will again be in a state of flux.

I believe in God.  I can't prove the existence of God, and I have some serious doubts that any of my beliefs are _'the right ones'_ concerning any particular creator.  I don't really care.  It does not keep me up at nights, although it can make for some fascinating debates and late-night coffee conversations.

I also believe in science.  I think that science has done a wonderful and amazing job of explaining and understanding the universe we find ourselves in, and I trust that scientists will continue to explore, discover, refine, and otherwise learn about our reality and to share that information in meaningful and useful ways with the rest of us.

I do not suspect that there will someday be any great harmonic convergence of religion and science.  They operate on different principles and their language of description is completely different.  They're also too much alike to ever get along.

But for those of my friends who believe that science is not based in a belief system, and that religion is necessarily based on falsehoods because it cannot be proven...we'll find out, one day.  Pity none of us will be able to share our 'ah-ha' moment with the others.

Until then, shalom.  I think that's all I've got.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> This experience is shared and common, unlike religious revelation. If we accept that what appear to be other humans are indeed separate, intelligent, autonomous individuals, capable of communicating with us, then we have the check of multiple reports of the data. If we reject that and believe that we are the sole intelligence in the universe...well, that might lead to different conclusions. Hence, while each person's experience of the world is by definition personal to them, the data of science is subject to open review and criticism, and is subject to refinement as more data is obtained.


 
First, let&#8217;s consider a rather clumsy metaphor:

Jose, Steve and I were driving down highway 64, between Dulce and Chama, New Mexico. It was about 3 in the morning, and there was virtually no one else on that long, isolated stretch of road through marvelously remote country. In a field to the south, we saw a spacecraft land! We pulled over to the side of the road, taking in the details, when three rather tall alien beings emerged, and began gathering grass from the field! One of them approached the fence where we were on the side of the road, and said, &#8220;_What&#8217;s up dudes? Don&#8217;t be afraid; we&#8217;re just here for the grass!&#8221;_ With that, he turned around, filled a container with grass, and the three of them got in their craft and shot-silently-into the sky. Jose, Steve and I talked a little about what we&#8217;d seen, got in the car, drove off, and talked some more&#8230;..of course, we had no _evidence_ of what had happened: no artifacts, no photographs, no measurements-no evidence_, other than that of our senses_. We had seen, smelled, and spoken with an alien, who we saw get out of and into his spacecraft, which we had seen land and later rise into the sky. When we told people, they&#8217;d come up with a number of rationalizations: insanity, mass hypnosis, we&#8217;d had a hoax played on us, drug use, we were liars, etc., etc., etc., but we were not to be believed. Of course, that didn&#8217;t alter the fact that we *knew*-knew what we had seen and experienced for ourselves. At best, we might all be at a gathering where others might say words to the effect that &#8220;man is alone in the universe,&#8221; and look knowingly at each other, with the secret knowledge that they were wrong. We might decide to keep our knowledge secret-that way, no one might accuse of insanity, drug use or lying&#8230;&#8230;such knowledge might be considered a revelation-equivalent to, say, any number of other metaphors, like _a bush that does not burn _(everyone always calls it a &#8220;burning bush,&#8221; they&#8217;re *wrong! *The &#8220;bush was on fire but *did not* burn.&#8221; Bit more curious&#8230

Of course, you might _believ_e us-based on what we _said_ we&#8217;d seen. That&#8217;s called _taking it on faith._





Bill Mattocks said:


> We place our faith (yes, faith) in science&#8230;...


 
Well, Bill, we do and we don&#8217;t. We have to remember a couple of things: firstly, that like us, science evolves. Secondly, that science&#8217;s job isn&#8217;t to provide &#8220;answers.&#8221; What science does is provide _models_ (seems I&#8217;ve said all this somewhere before.. :lol While, as you&#8217;ve pointed out, in the remote past we have had *certain* knowledge that proved to be wrong, there&#8217;s usually room in the way 21st century science operates for that to occur without that absolute certainty you speak of- most scientist recognize that they&#8217;re operating from models, and that the models are flawed. Our job is to improve the models with more data and theorizing. 


Getting back to your &#8220;oxygen analogy,&#8221; when I was at LANSCE (the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center) I spent a chunk of my time &#8220;counting neutrons.&#8221; Of course, I couldn&#8217;t see them, couldn&#8217;t touch them, couldn&#8217;t sense them in any way-I had to rely upon _instrumentation_ to do this. 


Knowing, of course, how the instrumentation worked (I made it!) means that I wasn&#8217;t taking it on faith-my counter provided me with reliable numbers which I could use, and correlate with other data. As physics evolves, though, perhaps the very term for what I was counting, _neutron_, may well become obsolete-the understanding that current science has may well be (_will probably be_) supplanted with a more detailed model-and it might be one that doesn&#8217;t include &#8220;neutrons,&#8221; though I doubt it&#8230;&#8230;in any case, belief in the models of science is not in any way based on &#8220;faith&#8221;: it is based on data and theory-generally, it can be repeated, duplicated and proven or disproven. 


In the case of &#8220;God,&#8221; what _data_ there may be is _generally_ unrepeatable, unduplicable, unprovable, and incapable of being disproven. It&#8217;s like my UFO story, though-*I/we* experienced *this*, even if no one _believes_ it. I&#8217;m certainly not going to waste my time-as a spiritual being *or* as a scientist-trying to convince anyone who chooses *not* to believe, that they must. Nor am I going to waste that time trying to provide them with &#8220;proof.&#8221; As far as what *is* repeatable, duplicable, and, if not provable or unprovable, at least capable of providing evidence in the form of _data_, the experience *is* out there for those that truly seek it.
(Yes, if you like, someone can take you and show you "the UFO," and you can decide what the experience is for yourself. :lfao: )


Your conflation of the Genesis creation myth and the Big Bang theory is clumsier than even my UFO metaphor, and well, it's been done many times before. Numerous apparent parallels can be drawn between modern physics and various scriptures and mythologies, but this completely sidesteps the fact that they are generally meant as allegories, pointing to deeper _human_ truths, rather than physics and history.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> Well, Bill, we do and we don&#8217;t.




I specifically excluded the 'scientists' here on MT.  You can build a machine that count neutrons.  I cannot.  I'm betting not many people here can besides you.  You count the neutrons, and you have a completely different understanding of what it is you're doing than I do by your description.  I don't doubt you do it - I believe you do it - but I still have to take it on faith that you do it.



> While, as you&#8217;ve pointed out, in the remote past we have had *certain* knowledge that proved to be wrong, there&#8217;s usually room in the way 21st century science operates for that to occur without that absolute certainty you speak of- most scientist recognize that they&#8217;re operating from models, and that the models are flawed. Our job is to improve the models with more data and theorizing.


First, it wasn't that remote in the past.  We're not talking about an epoch, we're talking about a century and a half or so.

I take your point about models, but consider that 99% of everybody is *not* a scientist and they* do* look to science for answers - and they take the consensus agreement as fact.  Science may have decided that rocks do in fact fall from the sky, but although science has merely adjusted their atrological model, the public has utterly had the rug pulled out from under their feet.  They once believed rocks did not fall from the sky as a matter of fact - even to the extent of incarcerating people as insane who insisted on having seen a rock fall from the sky.  Someone, it seems, did indeed take the 'hypothosis' that rocks did not fall from the sky as fact, to the extent that people who believed it did not think they were operating on faith.

Of course, I take as proven my statement that no matter how 'wrong' science was in the past, current science refuses to accept that what they know as fact now could likewise be wrong in the future.  It's a very smug and overconfident point of view, one utterly unsupported by history.  Models?  Still subject to being completely wrong based on what we have yet to learn.  Don't get me wrong, I'm great with the fact that scientific understanding keeps advancing - I just find many scientists, as well as their sycophants, a tad smug; and for no good reason.  They always see their forebears as primitives, and themselves as the apex.  They're not.

And again, you can't have it both ways.  If a person of that time believed rocks did fall from the sky, a belief which is now justified by fact but which was not at the time, one cannot say they did have faith that rocks fell from the sky, then it retroactively wasn't faith because now we know it is true.  Either they had 'faith' at that time or they did not.  If they did, their faith cannot be retroactively waved away.  So faith is based on personal understanding and not upon objective facts.  Q.E.D.



> In the case of &#8220;God,&#8221; what _data_ there may be is _generally_ unrepeatable, unduplicable, unprovable, and incapable of being disproven. It&#8217;s like my UFO story, though-*I/we* experienced *this*, even if no one _believes_ it. I&#8217;m certainly not going to waste my time-as a spiritual being *or* as a scientist-trying to convince anyone who chooses *not* to believe, that they must.




I agree entirely.  What I do not understand is why people keep responding to me to insist that I cannot prove the existence of God.  I know that, and I not only do not think I can prove God, I also do not even assert God.  Why do you keep 'correcting me' and think I am doing so?  What am I saying that gives you that notion?




> Your conflation of the Genesis creation myth and the Big Bang theory is clumsier than even my UFO metaphor, and well, it's been done many times before. Numerous apparent parallels can be drawn between modern physics and various scriptures and mythologies, but this completely sidesteps the fact that they are generally meant as allegories, pointing to deeper _human_ truths, rather than physics and history.


It has been done before, but I still like it.  And regardless of what the Creation Myth of Christianity was intended to do, I like the way it fits when held up against the current understanding of the moment of The Singularity.  It comforts me and gives me pleasure.  That's my deeper human truth, and it is meaningful to me.

Like faith - in science or in religion - it's personal and not dependent upon objective reality.


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree entirely. What I do not understand is why people keep responding to me to insist that I cannot prove the existence of God. I know that, and I not only do not think I can prove God, I also do not even assert God. Why do you keep 'correcting me' and think I am doing so? What am I saying that gives you that notion?.


 
I'm not correcting you-at least, not about your _intent_-I'd never do that.And, for the record: _*I assert God.*_


----------



## Archangel M

I don't for a minute believe that the "religion haters" are doing so out of a quest "for truth". Say what they will, the name calling, belittling and "snark" tell me that they need to hold onto their definition of "reality" just as firmly as the religious do. Deny it all they want, it's as much (or more) about placing themselves above the ignorant idol worshiping savages as it is any "quest for truth".


----------



## elder999

Archangel M said:


> I don't for a minute believe that the "religion haters" are doing so out of a quest "for truth". Say what they will, the name calling, belittling and "snark" tell me that they need to hold onto their definition of "reality" just as firmly as the religious do. Deny it all they want, it's as much (or more) about placing themselves above the ignorant idol worshiping savages as it is any "quest for truth".


 
Oh, I believe them. At least, I'm willing to take what they say _on faith..._ :lol:


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> Of course, you might _believ_e us-based on what we _said_ we&#8217;d seen. That&#8217;s called _taking it on faith._


 
 You can't always get full and complete evidence, but it doesn't always matter. Not everything is worth the effort. If my dept. head says I'm teaching 4th hour next term, I don't ask for a group of people to check it then analyze the data. On the other hand, if my dept. head says gravity won't be in effect 4th hour next term, I'd want more evidence than one person saying he saw a rock falling up.



> We have to remember a couple of things: firstly, that like us, science evolves. Secondly, that science&#8217;s job isn&#8217;t to provide &#8220;answers.&#8221; What science does is provide _models_


The nature of what we call science has changed considerably over the years, and esp. since the 1500s. The usual point of view now is that "All models are wrong; some are useful" (statistician George Box). Science is self-correcting and is not a body of facts but a method of assessing data and claims.



> In the case of &#8220;God,&#8221; what _data_ there may be is _generally_ unrepeatable, unduplicable, unprovable, and incapable of being disproven. It&#8217;s like my UFO story


Well, it's quite easy to make up statements and hypotheses incapable of being disproved. How do you know you're in The Matrix until Keanu Reeves wakes you up? How do you know that all dogs have four legs until you inspect them all? Although the idea of falsifiability has taken some lumps (e.g., from Paul Feyerabend), it's still an important idea. If something can't be established to be true or false, one can still have an opinion on it, but can hardly claim it's more than just that.



Archangel M said:


> I don't for a minute believe that the "religion haters" are doing so out of a quest "for truth". Say what they will, the name calling, belittling and "snark" tell me that they need to hold onto their definition of "reality" just as firmly as the religious do. Deny it all they want, it's as much (or more) about placing themselves above the ignorant idol worshiping savages as it is any "quest for truth".



Religion and science are not two sides of the same coin. And while science may not be precisely a quest for truth...what's closer?

In unrelated news, it looks like Richard Dawkins' talk is expected to be so full that we probably can't expect to get there in time after I leave work. We'll miss it.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> You can't always get full and complete evidence, but it doesn't always matter. Not everything is worth the effort. If my dept. head says I'm teaching 4th hour next term, I don't ask for a group of people to check it then analyze the data. On the other hand, if my dept. head says gravity won't be in effect 4th hour next term, I'd want more evidence than one person saying he saw a rock falling up..


 

What if your department head invited you, and you could see the rocks falling up for yourself? Would you go, or simply dismiss him out of hand?

_What if he told you "God" was going to make it happen, and you saw it for yourself?_


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Bill Mattocks said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm great with the fact that scientific understanding keeps advancing - I just find many scientists, as well as their sycophants, a tad smug; and for no good reason. They always see their forebears as primitives, and themselves as the apex. They're not.


 
That has certainly not been my experience. For example, my PhD advisor is the most humble and kind man I have ever had the privelege of knowing. I've been surrounded by scientists every day for 18 years and most of us are in awe of the scientists and thinkers who laid the foundation for our particular discipline. 

I also hear again and again from colleagues how frustrating it is to be presented with evidence that one doesn't understand, or how helpless we feel because there is so much about the natural world that we want to know and never will, because of the limitations of our present technology or simply because we won't live long enough to see new evidence accumulate.

However, your experience of scientists may be different. I am in academia, rather than industry or medicine or the public sector, and perhaps the sociological makeup of the practitioners you know is more self-congratulatory.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> That has certainly not been my experience.



I may not have phrased it correctly.  I was not referring to scientists belief that they have (or do not have) all the answers.  Here's my Straw Man for what I was thinking:

_Trust us, we're scientists.  Of course this is the truth.
_
But you were wrong in the past.

_That was the past, dear boy!  We've got things all sussed out now, you can trust us._

But scientists in the past said that too.

_Well, of course, but they were clearly wrong, and our methods are much better now.  Won't happen again, you can trust us._

But scientists in the future will say the same thing about your mistakes of today, which you will insist are trustworthy today.  How about some chance of error here?

_Oh, no, that won't happen again.  We're 100% right.  This time.   Really._

Think it doesn't happen?  Let's see what science says about human-caused global warming in oh, say 100 years.

Today, if you don't believe that the earth is screwed and man caused it, you're a primitive screwhead, because science INSISTS that it is right.

Like it was right about the coming Ice Age?

_Oh, that's different.  Science was wrong then, but it's right now.
_
Pardon me whilst I gag on the hypocrisy.  No, I do not blame individual scientists, nor do I blame the general public for putting their trust in science - I do it too.

But science does not like to admit it is wrong, and that historically, it is wrong a lot.  Even when science will admit that it gets things pretty amazingly wrong from time to time, they still refuse to believe they could be wrong THIS TIME, and the best example I can think of is Human-Caused Global Warming.  I frankly don't know if humans caused global warming or not, but I don't think it's a dead cert that science is insisting upon, and which all the non-scientists who think science has every answer insist you must believe or you're a dangerous lunatic right-wing freak.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> What if your department head invited you, and you could see the rocks falling up for yourself? Would you go, or simply dismiss him out of hand?



_My _dept. head? Er...let me interpret the question more generally, then. Sure, I'd check it out myself. If I saw them, I wouldn't dismiss gravity out-of-hand...I'd want other minds on the problem too. Helium-filled balloons fall up, after all.



> _What if he told you "God" was going to make it happen, and you saw it for yourself?_



It's one thing to see something, but interpreting it as 'God' is surely an inference. Or as Capt. Kirk put it, "What does God need with a starship?"


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi Bill,

Not to disparage your take on all things scientific, but when you say The Singularity, are you refering to the Big Bang? I haven't come across the term Singularity for it before, but have for other things (Black Holes, Human Singularity [evolving past biology, hmm, possibly too far to take this thread's already heady topic], and a couple of others).

But, just so we're clear, science is working on what came before the Big Bang. I've mentioned String Theory a couple of times, and it's expansion, M-Theory, proposed by Ed Witten. String Theory (and M-Theory) predict that there are at least 11 dimensions, the 4 most are familiar with (length, breadth, width, time), convex, concave, parallel, and so on. Most don't have names, refered to as the 9th Dimension, or the 11th, and so on. In this model, strings are on membranes, or branes, which are really nothing more than hugely stretched strings themselves. This allows for the "regular" strings (relating to electro-magnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces, matter, and others) to be attached to this brane, whereas the predicted gravitons (particles of gravity) are possibly disconnected, allowing them to move freely between dimensions, leaving the ones we are familiar with, and going into others, offering an explanation as to the ridiculously weak strength of gravity (as compared to the other forces).

But this theory goes further, proposing that the branes are actually rather frequent, and float through the multiverse, occasionally colliding with each other. And those collisions are what the Big Bang was, a collision of immense forces, releasing a fantastic amount of energy and matter.

But, of course, there are problems. For one thing, there is no way to test or prove any of this other than by mathematical equations to test whether or not it would stand up to known and established laws. Then you get the issue of not actually knowing what would happen if these branes did collide... it may result in a "Big Bang", it may not. If it does, then Big Bangs may be going on all the time, resulting in many Universes being created all around us, just out of our perception. And, of course, you will always have the question "yes, but what came before that?". But I thought you may like to know that science is certainly delving into what came before.

As for your oxygen example, you can test and see the results for yourself. You don't need to be a scientist. But in order for you to do that, you need to understand that "oxygen" is just a name used to describe a particular gaseous element with specific properties. Those include a certain number of protons, electrons (8 each) and neutrons (16), a certain atomic weight (16), and a place on the Periodic Table (8). But that is all very "science-y", and as you say, most won't see the elctrons and protons themselves. But what we can see is displays of it's properties that have an effect on the surroundings. 

For example, one property of oxygen is that it burns, and burns quite nicely, thank you. To test yourself, try this http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/burning_splint/burning_splint.htm. It also allows us to breathe, by providing sustenance through our blood stream to the various parts of our bodies. Try not breathing (only for a short while, don't want to lose you!), and see the reaction of a lack of oxygen. Or check out the oxygen masks in a hospital, and see what happens when you remove them, or stop the flow... actually, probably best we don't do that one.

(Please note the above testing methods are by no means exhaustive, or entirely scientific [with removing oxygen masks etc], but are merely an indication to what can be done).

But, as you can see, even if you can't "see" oxygen itself, you can test for it's presence. I'll defer to Elder's statements about the operation of science here, as to improving existing models and providing new ones as evidence warrants, but realise that the Flat Earth Model was science until new evidence demonstrated a need for a new Model. And that is the way science continues today, constantly re-evaluating and re-testing, not leaving anything to faith, as it were.

Did you see NASA crash a rocket into the Lunar Pole? That was done to discover what it was made of. Now, there have been numerous missions to the moon before, and they have brought back Lunar materials, so you may say we already know. It's dry and dusty, and rather barren. But there is a theory that the poles may contain frozen water, so instead of just saying "No, we're scientists, we've been there and done that, and there isn't any", they re-tested and re-examined in a new way to possibly add to the model we have of the Lunar construction.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Not to disparage your take on all things scientific, but when you say The Singularity, are you refering to the Big Bang? I haven't come across the term Singularity for it before, but have for other things (Black Holes, Human Singularity [evolving past biology, hmm, possibly too far to take this thread's already heady topic], and a couple of others).



Yes, I am referring to the singularity that existed in the instant before everything we know of came into being in a massive explosion.



> But, just so we're clear, science is working on what came before the Big Bang.



I am aware of that, and believe me, I love reading about it.  It is way, way, beyond my ken, but it's very cool.

However, it feeds my point.  I can, just barely, wrap my mind around concepts (not 'understanding', just grasping the rawest concept) of the 'Big Bang'.  I find myself utterly at sea when it comes to having a reasonable layman's understanding of the latest string or superstring theories.

And yet, I believe that the scientists are not lying to me.  I believe what they say to be fact.  I even believe it knowing that tomorrow's theories may be different than today's theories.

I take it on faith.  Like most laypersons.

And that is my point.  Many laypersons who are hostile to religion refuse to accept the notion that their 'faith' is similar to the 'faith' of the religious, because they feel their beliefs are rooted in facts, while those of religious people are unprovable and therefore suspect.

But as you say - nth dimension dimensions may well turn out to be unprovable; they're certainly unprovable at this time.  There is evidence for them, but that isn't proof.  The scientists know this, they understand the difference.  The laypeople do not, and take it on faith.  They just refuse to see it as faith. I LOL.

I believe that many non-religious refuse to accept the similarities between the faith-based nature of their beliefs and those of the religious because at the core, they see one fundamental difference between them; they are 'right' and religious are 'wrong'.  They're just grasping for the correct metaphor to differentiate themselves without seeming to come right out and say they're right because they're right and so there, nyah.  So they nuance and derive and divide the meaning of a simple word, 'faith' so that what they do does not have be called that horrid word.



> As for your oxygen example, you can test and see the results for yourself.



Yes, you are quite correct.  But again, my point was not that oxygen does not exist, or that no one can understand it.  My point was that at the core, all knowledge is either direct or indirect.  I know fire is hot, I can and have burned myself, as have most other people.  I do not know that all molecular activity ceases at 'absolute zero', because I have not observed that for myself, nor am I likely to.  Same for oxygen.  I am not likely to gather the equipment or perform the tests needed to prove oxygen exists or what its properties are.  I am quite willing to take the word of others for it.  But that makes my knowledge indirect.

Indirect knowledge is not bad, wrong, or evil.  We need it or we'd go nuts trying to personally prove or disprove every thesis.  However, in order to accept it, we are required to place our faith in others who do understand it.  Most of the time, that faith is completely justified.  Sometimes it is not.  But it is part of what we have to do to get by in the world.

All part of my thesis, which is that faith is *personal*.  Having faith in oxygen is required of me, a layman who cannot or does not want to do the science to prove it exists.  A scientist may not have to make that leap, they can prove it themselves.  Their belief in the exact same thing is not faith, it is based on direct knowledge.  Faith is internal to the person, not an objective yardstick that is the same for all people depending on the objective reality.

 And again, getting back to my original statement about oxygen, I was responding to an assertion that oxygen is 'obvious'.  It is not obvious.  Even you have pointed out that a number of things must be done if one wishes to prove it exists.  That's not 'obvious'. Obvious is self-evident.  Oxygen is not self-evident.


----------



## elder999

Chris Parker said:


> For example, one property of oxygen is that it burns, and burns quite nicely, thank you. To test yourself, try this http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/burning_splint/burning_splint.htm. .


 

Sorry-_oxygen_ doesn't burn, especially in the example you've provided._Oxygen promotes combustion._ Some would say it's necessary for combustion, but this isn't strictly true: hydrogen will burn in a chlorine atmosphere. 

The only place oxygen "burns" is in the fusion reaction of stars. Oxygen itself is _nonflammable._


----------



## Chris Parker

Not to stir up the whole "what is the definition of faith" thing again, but...

Within science, for it to be accepted, there must be evidence, or at the very least a supportable theorem or hypothesis. Without that it is not science, it is philosophy at best, and guess-work at worst. So to say that you take science "on faith" as you have no direct understanding of the workings of certain aspects is not quite right. For it to be science there must be evidence to support it, whether you know of it and have personally examined it yourself or not. Religious faith, on the other hand, does not.

And having faith in oxygen is not required of you at all, that is another wonderful thing about the sciences. You can have no faith in oxygen at all, and you will continue to breathe it in. You don't even need to have knowledge that such a thing as oxygen exists. God, on the other hand, requires faith and knowledge of Him, if you are to be saved. Oh, and oxygen is obvious. If you breathe, it is obvious that oxygen is present. If you start to suffocate, it is obvious that it is absent.

Oh, Elder, yeah, poor choice of words on my part. Thanks.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> Not to stir up the whole "what is the definition of faith" thing again, but...
> 
> Within science, for it to be accepted, there must be evidence, or at the very least a supportable theorem or hypothesis. Without that it is not science, it is philosophy at best, and guess-work at worst. So to say that you take science "on faith" as you have no direct understanding of the workings of certain aspects is not quite right. For it to be science there must be evidence to support it, whether you know of it and have personally examined it yourself or not. Religious faith, on the other hand, does not.



Again, that's the core of my argument.  You state it correctly, but then ignore the implications.

We know that science is based mostly on provable fact.  So we say that belief in scientific theories is not faith, but just a rational belief.

Yet, we know that scientific facts change.  What was once 'true' beyond dispute is now false - rocks *do* fall from the sky.

Since people once believed that rocks did not fall from the sky - because science said so - by your statements, what they believed, which was not faith at the time but rational belief, is now magically transformed into faith, because as it turns out, the facts were wrong.

My point is that what a person believes is what they believe.  Regardless of what it is based on.  Faith is decoupled from the veracity of that belief.

It cannot be otherwise.  If it were, the poor man, dead centuries now, who believed rocks do not fall from the sky would be spinning in his grave as his beliefs were written as 'rational belief' and then 'faith' and then 'rational belief' and so on as new facts emerge and new scientific theories become popular.

I say what the person believed is what they believed.  True or false, they had faith then and faith it remains.

Faith is utterly decoupled from objective reality.

If it were otherwise, as I've said before, if someone somehow proved that a particular religion was true, you'd have to go back and rewrite history - all the people who believed in it in the past would now no longer be 'faithful' but rather 'rational believers in the truth'.  Well, they're dead and gone.  Their belief cannot change now.  Neither does what we call it.  Faith.



> Oh, and oxygen is obvious. If you breathe, it is obvious that oxygen is present. If you start to suffocate, it is obvious that it is absent.



That is indirect based on what we're told about human physiology.  We do not see, touch, smell, or otherwise sense oxygen directly.  It is non-obvious.  The effect of the lack of it is obvious, I will give you that.


----------



## Chris Parker

No, I'm not ignoring any implications here, I'm just not retro-actively applying them. For one thing, science is rarely (if ever) "true beyond dispute", it is more realistically "true until something better comes along to replace and improve our understanding and knowledge of it". My point is more that for you to accept something as science is to accept that there is evidence to support it. Science requires evidence, faith does not. That's all.

Your hypothetical man of rational belief was a man of science in his day, and most likely a man of faith as well. Changing scientific understandings do not invaildate his rational beliefs nor his faith, the Church itself is just as much a changing and altering entity as science is. Do we need to go down the path of the changing views of Satan/Lucifer the Bringer of Light, Mary of Magdalene again? How about the very early Church led by Jesus' brother James in which there were no miracles, and no resurrection, and the teachings were simply a different slant on Judaism, until Peter started his own take on things (for the record, this Peter had no contact with Jesus during Jesus' life, but rather was a persecutor of the followers of James' group, who then said he had a vision in which Jesus appeared to him, and instructed him to lead people in the "true" way. Through a propaganda campaign Peter's Church won out, and James' Church was destroyed. That is the direct origin of the Catholic Church). Interesting that the very early followers of Jesus had such a different view and understanding of Him, and would openly call those who claimed miracles and resurrection blasphemers and heretics... how times change.

As to requiring history to be rewritten, again, that happens all the time. But evidence would move God into the realm of science, and out of that of religion.

Oh, and you know that tangy smell in the air surrounding a storm? That would be ozone, a compound made up of three oxygen molecules, given the formula O3. And that smell would be oxygen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> No, I'm not ignoring any implications here, I'm just not retro-actively applying them. For one thing, science is rarely (if ever) "true beyond dispute", it is more realistically "true until something better comes along to replace and improve our understanding and knowledge of it". My point is more that for you to accept something as science is to accept that there is evidence to support it. Science requires evidence, faith does not. That's all.



Science requires evidence, yes.  A layperson's belief in the theories science produces does not require evidence.  It is faith.



> Your hypothetical man of rational belief was a man of science in his day, and most likely a man of faith as well. Changing scientific understandings do not invaildate his rational beliefs nor his faith, the Church itself is just as much a changing and altering entity as science is. Do we need to go down the path of the changing views of Satan/Lucifer the Bringer of Light, Mary of Magdalene again?



No, and for the reasons I stated.  Faith then is faith now.  Faith is decoupled from objective reality, it is a personal belief.

And the rational man of olden times is no different from the rational man of today - believing what science holds to be true, and finding later that it might not be so.  Again, the fallacy of thinking that science of the past was often wrong, but science of today cannot be.  Every age thinks this.  Every age is mistaken.



> How about the very early Church led by Jesus' brother James in which there were no miracles, and no resurrection, and the teachings were simply a different slant on Judaism, until Peter started his own take on things (for the record, this Peter had no contact with Jesus during Jesus' life, but rather was a persecutor of the followers of James' group, who then said he had a vision in which Jesus appeared to him, and instructed him to lead people in the "true" way. Through a propaganda campaign Peter's Church won out, and James' Church was destroyed. That is the direct origin of the Catholic Church). Interesting that the very early followers of Jesus had such a different view and understanding of Him, and would openly call those who claimed miracles and resurrection blasphemers and heretics... how times change.


But faith remains faith, as I said.  Faith is personal, and is utterly decoupled from objective reality - or even changing religious ideology.



> As to requiring history to be rewritten, again, that happens all the time. But evidence would move God into the realm of science, and out of that of religion.


I didn't say rewriting history.  I said rewriting what the nature of an individual's belief was.  We say a person had faith in something, and it turns out to be true.  We cannot retroactively change how he felt, he's dead.  If it was faith then, it's faith now.  If faith were coupled to objective reality, we'd be required to change his former faith to rational belief anytime the facts changed.  We can't change what he believed, too late.



> Oh, and you know that tangy smell in the air surrounding a storm? That would be ozone, a compound made up of three oxygen molecules, given the formula O3. And that smell would be oxygen.


That's evidence, but it is not direct.  As far as I can prove personally, it could be cow farts.  Oxygen is not obvious.


----------



## Chris Parker

You know, I don't really see any way to say this other than this: For it to be science, there must be evidence. For you to accept it as science, you must therefore accept that there is evidence. For a layperson to accept it as science, they must accept that there is evidence. Otherwise it cannot and should not be labelled as science. That is not faith, then, or it is not science. One or the other.

Now, Bill, as I said, science does not believe that it is definatively correct, and will never be corrected. In fact, science is best described as the best working knowledge at present until disproved. That is very different to what you are saying about "the fallacy of science".

And yes, faith remains faith, uncoupled from objectivity. That is exactly what I have been saying. But recognition of science is not faith free from objectivity, it is recognising that evidence exists to support a claim.

As to re-writing history, this is the quote I was refering to:

*(Originally posted by Bill Mattocks) *_If it were otherwise, as I've said before, if someone somehow proved that a particular religion was true, you'd have to go back and rewrite history..._

And again, there would be no need to change anything. Either he had a faith at the time that God would send the rain for his crops, or he had a rational belief that the birds flying low meant a storm was on it's way. One is faith, the other science (of sorts).

Now really, Bill, with that last line, you are just running away. To accept that the smell you smell is ozone, you accept it as science. If you want to argue with it, I could say that I have no personal experience being shot through the chest, so for all I know it feels like kittens licking my toes... but we're having a rather silly argument then. Your argument is basically saying that for anything to be absolutely true, in a scientific way, for you then you must personally do the experiments yourself, see the atoms dancing under your equipment, know the true taste of methane and sulphor by tasting it yourself. A big part of the advancement of science is that past knowledge is used to move onto bigger discoveries, so every scientist doesn't need to rediscover gravity, inertia, and friction again and again. And that would simply waste time when the knowledge is there, if you need to you can see the evidence and experiments yourself. But to just say that "I've never seen an oxygen molecule, so I have to have faith that it is there" is honestly just a cop-out. Scientifically speaking, you know it is there, and that is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of knowledge.


----------



## elder999

Chris Parker said:


> How about the very early Church led by Jesus' brother James in which there were no miracles, and no resurrection, and the teachings were simply a different slant on Judaism, until Peter started his own take on things (*for the record, this Peter had no contact with Jesus during Jesus' life, but rather was a persecutor of the followers of James' group, who then said he had a vision in which Jesus appeared to him, and instructed him to lead people in the "true" way*. Through a propaganda campaign Peter's Church won out, and James' Church was destroyed. That is the direct origin of the Catholic Church)


 
That'd be _Paul_, formerly Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee. His and Peter's supposed interactions were...._interesting_: Peter was sort of a bridge between Paul and James, who (according to the "Gospels") had a vision that "resolved" some of those conflicts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Chris Parker said:


> And yes, faith remains faith, uncoupled from objectivity. That is exactly what I have been saying. But recognition of science is not faith free from objectivity, it is recognising that evidence exists to support a claim.



Religious people recognize 'evidence' to support their claims.  You might not accept it, but they do.

Faith is uncoupled.  You agree with me.  That means faith is uncoupled.  Period.  If one holds a belief that they do not have personal understanding of, it is faith.  Whether in science or religion.



> As to re-writing history, this is the quote I was refering to:
> 
> *(Originally posted by Bill Mattocks) *_If it were otherwise, as I've said before, if someone somehow proved that a particular religion was true, you'd have to go back and rewrite history..._


You caught me, I mispoke. Forgive me.



> And again, there would be no need to change anything. Either he had a faith at the time that God would send the rain for his crops, or he had a rational belief that the birds flying low meant a storm was on it's way. One is faith, the other science (of sorts).


Both are faith.  One may be substantiated by objective reality and the other may not.  But as you agreed, faith is decoupled from objective reality.



> Now really, Bill, with that last line, you are just running away. To accept that the smell you smell is ozone, you accept it as science.


No, I am pointing out a basic philosophical concept, which is the reality of knowledge.  Knowledge is either direct or indirect.  Explaining a non-obvious concept like oxygen by using another non-obvious concept like Ozone is still indirect.



> If you want to argue with it, I could say that I have no personal experience being shot through the chest, so for all I know it feels like kittens licking my toes... but we're having a rather silly argument then.


I know that impacts hurt, and I can surmise that severe impacts hurt a lot.  On the other hand, I have injured myself seriously, and discovered that it did not hurt at all at the time (later it hurt like hell).  So although my knowledge of being shot through the chest might be indirect, it is certainly based on direct knowledge.



> Your argument is basically saying that for anything to be absolutely true, in a scientific way, for you then you must personally do the experiments yourself, see the atoms dancing under your equipment, know the true taste of methane and sulphor by tasting it yourself.


Not at all.  What I believe to be true has no relationship to what is objectively true.  Oxygen exists whether or not I have the ability to prove it does.  What I am saying is that for my belief in it not to be a form of faith FOR ME, I have to have direct knowledge of it.  My belief does not affect the objective reality.



> A big part of the advancement of science is that past knowledge is used to move onto bigger discoveries, so every scientist doesn't need to rediscover gravity, inertia, and friction again and again. And that would simply waste time when the knowledge is there, if you need to you can see the evidence and experiments yourself. But to just say that "I've never seen an oxygen molecule, so I have to have faith that it is there" is honestly just a cop-out. Scientifically speaking, you know it is there, and that is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of knowledge.


Objectively speaking, oxygen is a reality.  My lack of direct knowledge of that makes my belief in it faith.  I do not require anything more than that of it, and neither do most people.  As I said before, I am not going around demanding that people prove everything to me before I'll believe it.

And that is true of most of us.  Most of us (not all) believe that man walked on the moon.  But we did not personally experience that, we were not in Mission Control or in the capsule itself (I'm sure Elder was, he's done everything :rofl.

My belief that man walked on the moon is faith, because I have no direct evidence it is true.  There **is** direct evidence of it, I am not arguing that.  I am arguing that **I** am not in receipt of it.  My belief is based upon what I am told, what the majority holds to be true, and finally - faith.

If, in the years to come, it were to be shown that the moon landings never happened...then what?  The objective reality changes, but the beliefs people had cannot change retroactively.  Reality changes, and how people feel about that going forward changes, but you cannot change what people felt once those feelings are in the past.  Their belief is faith, and it remains faith even if it turns out not to be objectively true.

Oh, but the objective facts!  We have moon rocks!  Yes, like the one the Netherlands has.  Turned out to be petrified wood.  And yet, they all believed they had been given a moon rock.  They believed it was a moon rock because apparently the US government told them it was when we gave it to them.  They put their faith in our statements.  Ah, faith again.

Sigh.  I know that I should never have walked down this path.  I'm out of ways to keep saying the same thing.  Now someone will say I'm a crack pot because I don't believe the moon landings happened.  I do not know why I am so unable to explain the simple concept that I'm talking about faith as it pertains to belief, not the objective reality of oxygen, moon landings, etc.  Faith is how we feel about it, not whether or not it is true.


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:


> And that is true of most of us. Most of us (not all) believe that man walked on the moon. But we did not personally experience that, we were not in Mission Control or in the capsule itself (I'm sure Elder was, he's done everything :rofl.


 
Nah.* I watched on TV*, probably the same as everyone else my age...:lfao: (Mom got me up-she was _thrilled_-I was somewhat blase, as I recall.....)



Bill Mattocks said:


> Oh, but the objective facts! We have moon rocks! Yes, like the one the Netherlands has. Turned out to be petrified wood. And yet, they all believed they had been given a moon rock. They believed it was a moon rock because apparently the US government told them it was when we gave it to them. They put their faith in our statements. Ah, faith again.


 
Actually, we really have no way of ever knowing for sure what happened there-the rock was a gift to the museum from one of the Netherlands' former prime ministers in his will-it's entirely possible that he *did* have a moon rock, but a relative swiped it, rather than let it go to the museum, and passed on petrified wood instead-or, it could be that the U.S. ambassador who made the gift put one over on the former prime minister, which seems more likely......

In any case, the many of us who watched Apollo 11 take off, followed it in the papers and on television, and saw men walking on the moon, have a little in the way of evidence-though some might say we're taking it on faith that it wasn't done on a soundstage somewhere......:lfao:



Bill Mattocks said:


> Sigh. I know that I should never have walked down this path. I'm out of ways to keep saying the same thing. Now someone will say I'm a crack pot because I don't believe the moon landings happened. I do not know why I am so unable to explain the simple concept that I'm talking about faith as it pertains to belief, not the objective reality of oxygen, moon landings, etc. Faith is how we feel about it, not whether or not it is true.


 
I think what you've been trying to express is a matter of semantics-one sort of "faith" is not at all the same thing as the other.


----------



## Omar B

The thing is, with science contradictions do not exist.  If something is discovered that proved a previous idea wrong, it's thrown out (like the flat earth).  Science much like math builds upon and evolves from previous knowledge and the more we learn the more cohesive the whole hangs together, like Einstein's relativity suddenly provided answers and clarified much that was misunderstood before.  One's inability to recreate an experiment, or unwillingness to try, or even to learn enough on the process to understand does not change the fact that these are the conclusions arrived at upon this date.  The earth did not change shape when they discovered it was a sphere, people carry on, some at the time didn't accept it.

Religion's dogmatic, in that it is what it is and that's all what it is ... Kinda like Popeye.  I never got how some can call a belife in science "faith."  If anything it's the complete opposite of faith, it's fact (till disproven, if ever).  

I always think of it as Pythagoras's theorem which is so damn usefull.  But for me it's usefull because it's what we use to intonate and temper musical instuments because it's the best way to divide the 12 tones on a sliding scale.  Though it is the best, the more you play with it the more of a remainder you get left over and the further down the neck of the guitar/bass/cello/violin you go the more dissonance is produced.  So it's the best theory we have for dividing the scale, but it's still a tiny bit of a fudge because though most can't hear the remainder, I can.  Most people don't have perfect pitch and can't tell an E from an F, how are they gonna hear the 5th in a major chord is ringing a little dissonant?  It still does though, the fact remains.

Ok, football time for Omar.


----------



## elder999

Omar B said:


> *Some* Religion's dogmatic, in that it is what it is and that's all what it is ... .


 

I said I'd never do this , but: _fixed that for ya!_ :lfao:


----------



## arnisador

Chris Parker said:


> No, I'm not ignoring any implications here, I'm just not retro-actively applying them. For one thing, science is rarely (if ever) "true beyond dispute", it is more realistically "true until something better comes along to replace and improve our understanding and knowledge of it".



This review of Richard Dawkins' latest book appropriately takes him to task for not adequately drawing this distinction--the over-stated claims of the creationists have led him to over-state the strength of a scientific theory.

Modern Science really stems from the 1500s onward, with the experimental method and the coming rebirth of philosophy. The science of the Greeks was done in a different way.



Chris Parker said:


> science does not believe that it is definatively correct, and will never be corrected. In fact, science is best described as the best working knowledge at present until disproved.



Yes, agreed!

By the way, on string theory, there are lots of reasons to be skeptical about it. It's not unreasonable to pursue it but there's a lot of work yet to be done there, esp. in terms of testing its predictions.


----------



## Xinglu

There is also a difference between the term theory as used by a scientist and how it is used by the average person.

In fact, the average person considers gravity a law, but this is incorrect, there are some laws found in gravitational theory, but gravity is still a theory.  Yet, it is accepted as fact by everyone I've met.  Evolutionary theory like gravitational theory has laws in it that govern it, it is a theory.

The average person seems to not understand this and misuses the term theory.  For example, the number one objection I hear from creationists is that evolution is a theory and theories should not be taught in school.  Yet they ignore the fact that by definition Creationism is a theory, better yet, Music is a theory (ever heard the term music theory?), music undeniably exists, I've never seen anyone deny that, yet it is a theory!  Laws govern it, but it's still a theory.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> Yes, agreed!
> 
> By the way, on string theory, there are lots of reasons to be skeptical about it. It's not unreasonable to pursue it but there's a lot of work yet to be done there, esp. in terms of testing its predictions.


 
Following along with the whole "theory" thing, string theory (and M theory) almost qualifies as _*not* a theory_, in that the only way we have of testing and disproving it (for now) are mathematical models-it's also gotten rather,......._crowded_ for my taste. The same applies to the theory of "global warming/climate change"-the only way we have of testing or disproving it are some rather diverse computer models. General relativity has been tested in a variety of ways, as has Newton's Universal Gravity-while there circumstances that are anomalous to each of these-thereby keeping them in the realm of "theory" -as in, _we need a *new *theory to help explain the rest of this (anomalous) stuff.._ :lfao:

For the record, the definition of "scientific theory," as put forth by the  National Academy of Sciences, is as follows:



> A scientific theory is *a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment*. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


 
Thus, when the Apollo 11 astronauts (Bill!) dropped a hammer and a feather on the moon at the same time, and they landed at the same time, they further "proved" the "theory of gravity" in that they had removed an element from the situation (atmospheric drag) for experimentation and received a result that followed predictions and supported the theory based on the known facts.More complicated experiments have been done for the theory of relativity.The same sort of thing has been done with evolution-there are experiments with bacteria, DNA and insects that provide experimental support for the theory of evolution. *No such experiment has been conceived for "creationism." *Doesn't make it wrong or right, merely, until such time as an experiment that can prove or disprove it is conceived, *not* a theory.It's a fair _postulate_, which is a better word for a ""scientific guess," but it's not a theory. Doesn't mean that they conflict, or that they don't-just that one is a genuine theory supported by experimentation, observation and results, and the other is an educated guess that has none of these things to support it.


----------



## arnisador

Xinglu said:


> In fact, the average person considers gravity a law, but this is incorrect, there are some laws found in gravitational theory, but gravity is still a theory.  Yet, it is accepted as fact by everyone I've met.



I'll say it again--if the average person knew how much is _not _understood about how gravity works, they'd never get on an airplane. We can predict very well what will happen, but the reasons why are much less clear. It's a field? What's a _field _made of? Space is curved? What is 'space' that it _can_ be curved? It's carried by particles? Can you _show _me an actual graviton? There are theories with great explanatory power within their realms--small, medium, and large--but now way yet to stitch them together coherently. I believe it'll be done satisfactorily at some point. But I know a tenured prof. of mechanical engineering who teaches aerodynamics and plane design who believes on scientific grounds (he says) that the earth is 6000 years old and was intelligently designed. I think the biologists, who have had only about 150 years to improve on Darwin's work, can claim at least as much success as the physicists, who have had 300 years to improve on Newton's work.



elder999 said:


> Following along with the whole "theory" thing, string theory (and M theory) almost qualifies as _*not* a theory_, in that the only way we have of testing and disproving it (for now) are mathematical models-it's also gotten rather,......._crowded_ for my taste.



Yeah, the state of string theory is indeed more that of a hypothesis--a set of mathematical models in search of an application. I've read the arguments that it's sucking some of physics' best minds into a dead end and that that's a waste, but as a mathematician I know that history teaches us that many of these abstract structures end up being useful eventually in one way or another (non-Euclidean geometry in relativity, algebraic groups in particle physics, etc.).


----------



## Xinglu

elder999 said:


> *No such experiment has been conceived for "creationism." *Doesn't make it wrong or right, merely, until such time as an experiment that can prove or disprove it is conceived, *not* a theory.It's a fair _postulate_, which is a better word for a ""scientific guess," but it's not a theory. Doesn't mean that they conflict, or that they don't-just that one is a genuine theory supported by experimentation, observation and results, and the other is an educated guess that has none of these things to support it.



Touché! I concede this point 

Of course this is more damning to the creationist objections then what I put forth :wink:


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> t. But I know a tenured prof. of mechanical engineering who teaches aerodynamics and plane design who believes on scientific grounds (he says) that the earth is 6000 years old and was intelligently designed.


 

Yeah, we've had a few really high-powered ones in Los Alamos-when I first moved out (1993-94) there was an ongoing, protracted and rancorous public debate about teaching _intelligent design_ in the schools. 

One of them is a _biologist_, of all things... :lfao:


----------



## elder999

Xinglu said:


> Touché! I concede this point
> 
> Of course this is more damning to the creationist objections then what I put forth :wink:


 

Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....:lfao:


----------



## Xinglu

elder999 said:


> Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....:lfao:



True, furthermore it doesn't mean there is one there to begin with.

Furthermore, assuming a God exists, there is no reason to assume he created us or "intelligently designed" us either. :enguard:


----------



## elder999

elder999 said:


> Yeah, we've had a few really high-powered ones in Los Alamos-when I first moved out (1993-94) there was an ongoing, protracted and rancorous public debate about teaching _intelligent design_ in the schools.
> 
> One of them is a _biologist_, of all things... :lfao:


 
Another was a rather embarassingly well educated geophysicist-he's a nut-a "young earth" advocate, who wrote this kind of drivel:



> This understanding readily explains why Darwinian intermediate types are systematically absent from the geological record -- *the fossil record documents a brief and intense global destruction of life and not a long evolutionary history*! The types of plants and animals preserved as fossils were the forms of life that existed on the earth prior to the catastrophe. The long span of time and the intermediate forms of life that the evolutionist imagines in his mind are simply illusions. And the strong observational evidence for this catastrophe absolutely demands a radically revised time scale relative to that assumed by evolutionists


 

John Baumgatner, B.S.E.E., Texas Tech, M.S.E.E., Princeton, PhD. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA.



It's people like this that give Dawkins a good name....:lfao: He's also the one who came up with the "message from God in our DNA" thingy...:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: Think he had a coupla drinks and watched "_Mission to Mars_" :lfao:

(And, he's an example of how belief in science is *not* an act of faith: he's done "*bad* science" in order to _fit_ it to his faith. Dumbass.  )


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> Science requires evidence, yes.  A layperson's belief in the theories science produces does not require evidence.  It is faith.



I have to disagree Bill, anyone with the talent and the ability can acquire the knowledge to understand the evidence of any scientific theory as in say achieving a doctorate in physics if they want to fully understand the current cosmological models and the evidence that supports them.

Your assertion is akin to saying an computers run on faith because 99% if the population are not electrical engineers.

 Even the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury rely on faith just like any non-clergy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> Your assertion is akin to saying an computers run on faith because 99% if the population are not electrical engineers.



Computers do not run on faith, but people have faith in the accuracy of computers.

And computers generally do not let them down.  When they do, it generally takes some effort to convince people that the result their computer is giving them is incorrect.

It isn't about what is literally right or wrong, it's about the belief people place in those things.



> Even the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury rely on faith just like any non-clergy.



I assume that's a jab at religion, but to be honest, I don't get it.  I'm sure it's funny, but I guess you'll have to explain it to me.


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> I assume that's a jab at religion, but to be honest, I don't get it.  I'm sure it's funny, but I guess you'll have to explain it to me.



I am saying anyone  can learn the computer language behind Excel to find out for themselves if the program is accurate, they no longer need to rely on faith.

 On the other hand you can attend seminary school , learn everything there is to know about a religion go through the ranks become the Pope and you still have to rely on faith for its tenets, beliefs etc.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> I am saying anyone  can learn the computer language behind Excel to find out for themselves if the program is accurate, they no longer need to rely on faith.



I agree that they do not need to - but most people do.  I can't imagine any of my managers who could be arsed to figure out how to write Perl code, for example.  They have faith in the accuracy of my code, though.



> On the other hand you can attend seminary school , learn everything there is to know about a religion go through the ranks become the Pope and you still have to rely on faith for its tenets, beliefs etc.



Yes, I agree.  Religion, no matter how you parse it, must always rely upon faith, and technology (or science, etc) need not rely upon faith.  But faith is what most people have in it, despite their ability to prove such things to themselves if they wish.  Your point is well-taken, but in reality, faith in science is still what most people have, even if they have other options - in my opinion.


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your point is well-taken, but in reality, faith in science is still what most people have, even if they have other options - in my opinion.



Yeah but it is not faith that you get in your car and a combination of newtonian physics,  electrical theory and chemistry makes it go, on the other hand you can pray all day with faith that water will run uphill and it won't work.


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that they do not need to - but most people do.  I can't imagine any of my managers who could be arsed to figure out how to write Perl code, for example.  They have faith in the accuracy of my code, though.



Really?  I have never seen IT work done where the results were not checked by some process before having faith in the work.

I don't think science is done without a peer review process either.

The difference between science and religion imo is verification of results.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> Really?  I have never seen IT work done where the results were not checked by some process before having faith in the work.



That is not direct knowledge.  If they put faith in some other process before they put faith in the computer, that's still faith.  In any case...

Most of the world that uses computers are not IT people and do not have their 'work' peer-reviewed.  They are simply end-users of computers.

I work in IT.  I presume you do too.  Most of the world does not, and yet computers are pervasive.



> I don't think science is done without a peer review process either.



Neither do I.  Again, you're presuming I am saying that science is not accurate.  I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that most people don't bother doing the experiments themselves (nor should they), but they put their trust in the concept that science is often right.  That's faith.



> The difference between science and religion imo is verification of results.



That is the difference between the two, yes.  The difference between the average layperson's belief in the two is less clear.

I am not comparing religion and science.  They are clearly different, and as you say, much of science can be proven - none of religion can be proven.  I am comparing Joe Sixpack's belief in, say, the moon landing, and his belief in a particular religion.  Both may be justified by being true - or they may be unjustified by being false.  One could be true and the other false.  

That's not important to his belief.  His belief is faith because he has no direct knowledge of either one.  That he *could* have direct knowledge of the moon landings is beside the point - he doesn't and isn't going to bother with it.


----------



## celtic_crippler

elder999 said:


> Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....:lfao:


 
That would make a great movie. 

BTW, is it really necessary to set up and perform an experiement to disprove creationism? I mean, it's already proven the world is older than 6000 years so right off the bat...you know...just sayin'.


----------



## Ramirez

celtic_crippler said:


> That would make a great movie.
> 
> BTW, is it really necessary to set up and perform an experiement to disprove creationism? I mean, it's already proven the world is older than 6000 years so right off the bat...you know...just sayin'.



You know I often see creationists at odds with Big Bang cosmology, not realizing that the competing theory was a steady state universe (Aaron can correct me here, I am going by what I read in Simon Singh's Big Bang),  a steady state universe is one that has always existed, it requires no creator.

In fact I think the Catholic Church embraced the Big Bang concept as it proved the universe had a beginning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> In fact I think the Catholic Church embraced the Big Bang concept as it proved the universe had a beginning.



I don't know what caused the Church to embrace evolution, but you might find this interesting:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/03/04/vatican_signals_its_embrace_of_science/


> Francisco Ayala, a former priest and professor of biological sciences and philosophy at University of California, Irvine, called intelligent design and creationism "blasphemous" to science and to the Christian faith.
> "It is not only not compatible with Christian faith, it is just blasphemous because it predicates from the creator attributes that we don't want to have from the creator," he said.
> He cited as an example the fact that the human jaw is too small for all its teeth, requiring wisdom teeth to be extracted. "An engineer who designed the human jaw would be fired the next day. Are we going to blame God for that?"


----------



## celtic_crippler

elder999 said:


> Prove to _*whom*_?


 
To me. I don't care what you believe as long as it has no negative impact on me and mine. 

Otherwise, believe what you want. 



elder999 said:


> What if your department head invited you, and you could see the rocks falling up for yourself? Would you go, or simply dismiss him out of hand?
> 
> _What if he told you "God" was going to make it happen, and you saw it for yourself?_


 
What if spacemen landed in your front yard and and said, "_It's time to get back in the pet carrier...come on....come on....it's okay....come on snuckums...."._ 

From my POV, teaching creationism in the classroom is a step back towards a time where superstitions ruled. Where innocent women were burned for witches and the free thinking drawn and quartered. I'd rather not live in that world. 

Bottom line: Science makes an assertion and provides evidence for it. Faith makes an assertion and simply expects you to believe it without evidence. 

I'm an evidence kinda' guy, so ...I'll go with science. You go with what works for you.


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know what caused the Church to embrace evolution, but you might find this interesting:
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/03/04/vatican_signals_its_embrace_of_science/



I like that Bill, thanks!


----------



## Andrew Green

Bill Mattocks said:


> Science requires evidence, yes.  A layperson's belief in the theories science produces does not require evidence.  It is faith.



The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.

You can look at a tv and believe it is possessed by demons that use images to enchant and confuse us if you like, but the evidence is there to show you how they really do work if you choose to look for it.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Andrew Green said:


> The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.
> 
> You can look at a tv and believe it is possessed by demons that use images to enchant and confuse us if you like, but the evidence is there to show you how they really do work if you choose to look for it.


 
When I was ...like...four years old I used to think there were little people inside the radio playing the music. I also used to hide beside the toilet in hopes of surprising and capturing the Tidy Bowl Man... and sometimes I'd hide in the cabinets trying to catch the Chuck Wagon... TMI? LOL


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Andrew Green said:


> The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.



That the evidence is there does not impact how the person who believes in it does so.



> You can look at a tv and believe it is possessed by demons that use images to enchant and confuse us if you like, but the evidence is there to show you how they really do work if you choose to look for it.



First, as I've mentioned, most people will never choose to prove every scientific principle which impacts their lives.  They take it on faith that it does work and move on.  It's a good model in general - we haven't the time (and some of us haven't the education or even the intellect) to prove everything is true before believing in it.

What you're talking about is a relationship between belief and objective reality that may not exist - and it certainly does not have to exist.

A person who has never seen a television before may well think it is full of small people, but they choose to believe the evidence of their own eyes that it works.

A person from a more modern society may believe that there are scientific principles that govern how a television works but not understand them.

Another person may have an engineering background and understand very well how a television works, right down to the basic theory.

Each of these persons has a different personal understanding, and a different personal belief.  But the television works regardless of how they feel about it.  Their belief is completely decoupled from the objective reality.

If I use your logic, the person who had never seen a television before and believed that there were small people in it would *not* be engaging in an act of faith, because even though their belief was wrong, there was an objective reality - that television works - which vindicates his belief that it does indeed work.  In other words, if the technology works, regardless of how you think it works, then it is not faith.

If that is the case, then a person who believes in a particular religion is *NOT* engaging in faith if it turns out somehow that his particular religion is true.  But since he does not know that today - nor do any of us -  I submit that he *is* engaging in an act of faith.  It will stop being faith if his God pops up and shows us all the  incontrovertible fact of His existence.  He does not engage in faith because there is no proof of his God's existence, he engages in faith because he personally has no such proof.  Whether his God exists or not is beside the point of his belief.

I say the primitive man is engaging in faith because he does not understand how the television works, regardless of the fact that it does work (but due to a different principle than little people inside the box).

Likewise, the person who understands that televisions are based on scientific principles but does not know how, is also engaging in faith.  His understanding may well be faulty, although it is probably not as off-based as believing in little people inside the box.

It is not the objective reality which makes a person's belief 'faith'.  It is how they understand it.


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:


> To me. I don't care what you believe as long as it has no negative impact on me and mine.
> 
> Otherwise, believe what you want.


 
And I'm saying that the proof is there, _for those that seek it._

Of course, the Creator's much bandied indifference to His creation, could have as much to do with _mankind's indifference to Him/Her/It/Foot, _appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.



celtic_crippler said:


> From my POV, teaching creationism in the classroom is a step back towards a time where superstitions ruled. Where innocent women were burned for witches and the free thinking drawn and quartered. I'd rather not live in that world.


 
Me too. 



celtic_crippler said:


> Bottom line: Science makes an assertion and provides evidence for it. Faith makes an assertion and simply expects you to believe it without evidence.


 
Depends upon wchich "faith" you're talking about, I guess-like I said, the evidence is there for those that seek it.




celtic_crippler said:


> I'm an evidence kinda' guy, so ...I'll go with science. You go with what works for you.


 

I'm a scientist, and I do.


----------



## Andrew Green

Bill Mattocks said:


> That the evidence is there does not impact how the person who believes in it does so.



It most certainly does when the person is aware that the evidence does exist, even if they have not taken the time to study it in depth.


----------



## celtic_crippler

elder999 said:


> And I'm saying that the proof is there, _for those that seek it._
> 
> Of course, the Creator's much bandied indifference to His creation, could have as much to do with _mankind's indifference to Him/Her/It/Foot, _appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon wchich "faith" you're talking about, I guess-like I said, the evidence is there for those that seek it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a scientist, and I do.


 
Proof of a supreme intelligence or proof of a specific religious based diety? 

I don't hold the same opinion for both.


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:


> Proof of a supreme intelligence


 
.


----------



## arnisador

Ramirez said:


> anyone with the talent and the ability can acquire the knowledge to understand the evidence of any scientific theory



I believe in the saying that any scientist who cannot explain his work to an 11 year old is a fraud.



Ramirez said:


> The difference between science and religion imo is verification of results.



That's certainly a big part of it--or, expecting that verification could and should be done, more fundamentally.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:
			
		

> Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....





celtic_crippler said:


> That would make a great movie.



Well, it's certainly made for several bad ones already, hasn't it?



Andrew Green said:


> The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.



Yup. Verifiability, as the Wikipedians would say.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> And I'm saying that the proof is there, _for those that seek it._



How does this differ from the proof for scientific theories? One has to do the experiments, after all...would I only find theological proof if I chose in advance to believe it existed? Quantum physics is always an unexpected surprise...I don't have to wish for it.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> How does this differ from the proof for scientific theories? One has to do the experiments, after all...would I only find theological proof if I chose in advance to believe it existed?


 
Well, I really couldn't _tell _you. I'd have to *show you*

_Do you want me to* show you*?\_




arnisador said:


> *.*Quantum physics is always an unexpected surprise...I don't have to wish for it.


 
"God"-just like the quanta-is surprising. No need for wishing, just _looking_.


----------



## arnisador

Hmmmm...still sounds to me like one must be pre-disposed to the theory!


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> Hmmmm...still sounds to me like one must be pre-disposed to the theory!


 

Nah. You wouldn't be the first to walk away saying it was something else. And you wouldn't be the first to walk away convinced it was God. It's pretty much up to the individual-in line with "God's indifference," and all that-we can be just as indifferent to Him/Her/It/Foot, as He/She/It/IT/ appears to be to us. :lol:


----------



## celtic_crippler

elder999 said:


> Nah. You wouldn't be the first to walk away saying it was something else. And you wouldn't be the first to walk away convinced it was God. It's pretty much up to the individual-in line with "God's indifference," and all that-we can be just as indifferent to Him/Her/It/Foot, as He/She/It/IT/ appears to be to us. :lol:


 
Why would one think something like a supreme being would feel indifference, or any other human related emotion or suffer from _any_ human flaws for that matter?


----------



## Xinglu

celtic_crippler said:


> Why would one think something like a supreme being would feel indifference, or any other human related emotion or suffer from _any_ human flaws for that matter?



Because of the assumption that we are like God in some way or shape.


----------



## Sukerkin

The difference being that humans actually exist.  

Apologies to those who have devout beliefs but, honestly, if someone were to propose such a thing as a Creator Deity afresh today how far do you think they would get before the nice men with the white van and the jacket that buttons up the back came along?

I don't mock peoples sincerity of faith but 'religion' is a dangerous thing to allow to persist unchallenged in a world that is a long way from the primative roots where it was a necessary comfort in a hostile and inexplicable world.

And when Holy Scripture becomes a linchpin of the support for war or a cause of war in and of itself, then it is time to rethink the parameters that bound an otherwise commendable philosophy of 'be excellent to each other'.


----------



## arnisador

Sukerkin said:


> Apologies to those who have devout beliefs but, honestly, if someone were to propose such a thing as a Creator Deity afresh today how far do you think they would get before the nice men with the white van and the jacket that buttons up the back came along?



Ask the Scientologists, or even the Mormons (who take a fair amount of mockery). 

As an aside, a colleague went to the talk yesterday and said that Richard Dawkins gave a half-hour reading, and was blunt in responding to questions during the hour-long Q&A session.


----------



## celtic_crippler

> *"If you want to get rich, you start a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard founder and creator of Scientology *




also interestingly....



> *"The only way to control people is to lie to them." - L. Ron Hubbard founder and creator of Scientology *




...this isn't hieroglyphics on an ancient tablet whose translation is debatable, it was said in plain english. Yet, even though this is all a  matter of public record people still follow  Scientology as their religion.


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:


> Why would one think something like a supreme being would feel indifference, or any other human related emotion or suffer from _any_ human flaws for that matter?


 
Richard Dawkins himself has spoken of the "indifference of the Universe," in a similar vein, as being more atractive in its disorder:



> *I* believe that an orderly universe*, one indifferent to human preoccupations,* in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic*.*
> [SIZE=-1]-- *Richard Dawkins*, _Unweaving the Rainbow_ (contributed by Ray Franz)[/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=+1]Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. _Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent.
> _[SIZE=-1]-- *Richard Dawkins*, on describing how one need only look upon nature where the wasp lays her eggs inside the body of a living caterpillar in order to dispense with the idea that the Universe is supervised by a benevolent deity, in _The Devil's Chaplain_ (2004)[/SIZE][/SIZE]


 
Now, while he's certainly not offering it as proof of God, or belief in God-he also hasn't , as you put it, has ascribed a human emotion and motive to _Nature_ in describing it as "indifferent"-in that he's describing a lack of such emotion of motive.


It does seem to be, though, one of the arguments put forward a geat deal by some atheists as to why there isn't a "God,"-or, at the very least, that if there *is* one, which can "neither be proven nor disproven," then worshiping him is a waste fo time and human energy.

 Austin Cline,, the Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism, calls this the "argument from evil."



> One of the most popular and perhaps most effective arguments against both the existence of gods and believing in gods is known as the "Argument from Evil." It's a popular argument because it's not one which requires a great deal of sophistication or philosophical education to understand. It's effective because even the weakest forms of the argument make a strong case that gods, or at least any beings that look very much like the gods people tend to believe in, probably don't exist. Many people who end up as atheists are inspired to take a much harder look at their religion and their theism after being forced to face the problem of evil and suffering in the world. Thus, even if the argument doesn't disprove gods, it starts people down the road of questioning and skepticism.
> 
> *Logical and Deductive Arguments from Evil*
> 
> 
> The earliest formulation of the Argument from Evil comes from the Greek philosopher Epicurus, writing in the early 3rd century BCE: Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot,
> or he can but does not want to,
> or he cannot and does not want to,
> or lastly he can and wants to.
> 
> If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
> he is not omnipotent;
> If he can, but does not want to,
> he is not benevolent;
> If he neither can nor wants to,
> he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;
> But if God can abolish evil and wants to,
> how does evil exist?​This is a logical or deductive Argument from Evil because it attempts to show that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. There are many variations on this but there is also another category called the evidential or inductive Argument from Evil. Arguments of this type merely try to demonstrate that the existence of God is highly unlikely given the existence of amount of evil in the world.
> 
> Logical or deductive forms of the Argument from Evil are both the strongest and the weakest, depending on how you look at them. They are the strongest because they can decisively disprove the existence of God; they are the weakest because God has to be defined very narrowly and specifically in order for the argument to get anywhere. These forms of the argument disprove a particular sort of god, but not many others. Obviously the existence of a malevolent or weak god wouldn't be disproved here. The existence of the ancient Norse or Egyptian gods also wouldn't be disproved by this argument.
> *Evidential and Inductive Arguments from Evil*
> 
> 
> Evidential or inductive forms of the Argument from Evil don't try to show that the existence of gods is impossible, just improbable. This means that even if you accept the argument, you aren't forced to reject the existence of any gods; you are, however, forced to regard the existence of gods as highly unlikely, and therefore probably not worth believing in.
> Such an argument might, for example, argue that a sufficiently benevolent and powerful being that warrants the label "god" would be able to at least _reduce_ the amount of suffering in world  not eliminate it entirely, just reduce it. Therefore, the existence of any unjustified and unnecessary suffering indicates that such a being probably doesn't exist. Such forms of the Argument from Evil don't generally justify denying the existence of gods, but it does justify rejecting belief in the existence of gods and being an atheist.


 
Of course, "God's indifference" is an argument put forth by various scriptures, that *do* ascribe human emotions and motives to a supreme being-but that wasn't at all what I was talking about. In fact, I'd probably argue that any direct experience of "God" usually   takes  place independent of creed or scripture-without traipsing too far down the road of what "God *is*," and what "meaning" there is in scripture, anyway.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> Of course, "God's indifference" is an argument put forth by various scriptures, that *do* ascribe human emotions and motives to a supreme being-but that wasn't at all what I was talking about. In fact, I'd probably argue that any direct experience of "God" usually   takes  place independent of creed or scripture-without traipsing too far down the road of what "God *is*," and what "meaning" there is in scripture, anyway.



Two comments here - not really an argument, but just comments.

First, Dawkins assumes that either the universe obeys natural laws and is without a creator, or it has a creator and it therefore subject to magic and hocus-pocus.

There is no reason to presume these are the only two operating conditions.  There is no logical reason that there cannot be a creator which conforms to natural laws.  Like the orderly rules he presumes will someday be discovered.

Second, with regard to the argument against god from the problem of evil, the religionists would reply that the entire argument presumes that our understanding of evil is God's understanding of evil.  This would allow another logical construct:

That God is able to remove evil, but chooses not to, not because He is not benevolent, but for benevolent reasons we cannot discern.  If we attribute God with omniscience as well as omnipotence, we must acknowledge that God's understanding of evil may be different (and presumably superior) to our own.

There is also the argument of the greater good, which overcomes evil.  One often chooses small evils when there is a greater good to be served, even when that greater good has yet to come to pass.  What we humans perceive as evil may be a small and tolerable situation to an omnipotent being who is using it to achieve a greater good.

And finally, the problem of Free Will.  Presuming God granted his creations with Free Will, one cannot presume that God put evil in the world.  Evil may be a creation of man's Free Will that God abhors but chooses not to remove not because He is not omnipotent or benevolent, but because He gave us the power to choose good or evil and honors that gift.

Certainly it does not solve the equation, but it does defeat the argument from the problem of evil.  As far as I know, there is a failure condition for every logical proposition for or against the existence of God.  I have not see an irrefutable argument yet, pro or con.


----------



## Ramirez

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is no reason to presume these are the only two operating conditions.  There is no logical reason that there cannot be a creator which conforms to natural laws.  Like the orderly rules he presumes will someday be discovered.



If that is the case then he is subject to natural laws thus science is supreme over this "god",  or there as Dawkins points out there must be another God who set up the physical laws and we are back to the endless question ....if everything requires a creator then who create God?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ramirez said:


> If that is the case then he is subject to natural laws thus science is supreme over this "god",  or there as Dawkins points out there must be another God who set up the physical laws and we are back to the endless question ....if everything requires a creator then who create God?



As he himself pointed out, we don't yet know what all the natural laws are.  We do not know that there is not a law consistent with a self-creating creator.  I agree that it's a bit of an endless loop, but then again, so are lots of things in the quantum world.  Being self-referential does not seem to be an exclusionary attribute for reality.

As I recall reading in Robert Anton Wilson's book _"Prometheus Rising,"_ he was once approached by a woman who told him she believed the universe was balanced on the back of a gigantic turtle.  When he asked her on what the turtle stood, she said it stood on the back of an even larger turtle.  And on what did that turtle stand?  The woman thought a moment, brightened, and announced that it was _"Turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down."_ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


----------



## Omar B

Ramirez said:


> If that is the case then he is subject to natural laws thus science is supreme over this "god",  or there as Dawkins points out there must be another God who set up the physical laws and we are back to the endless question ....if everything requires a creator then who create God?



Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?



http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox


----------



## arnisador

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox



Yeah, thanks for explaining my own point to me.  :lfao:


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp


 

Chick tracts _*****ing* crack me up! _:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

For the sweet love of _Jesus,_ and by the blessed beard of _Buddha_, how can so much stupid fit into one body? God, I'd have loved to sat down and had a few beers with Jack Chick nback in the day....oh, wait a minute......._never mind._ :lfao:

_A Demon's Nightmare_? Classic! Killed me-Jesus what a laugh!


_Dark Dungeons?_ I read this one the day my sister died-twice! Always makes me laugh-*hard*.....

_Jesus!_ *Jack Chick!*. What a maroon.....of course, I'm going to *hell!*.....

....but at least Jack Chick won't be there! :lfao:


----------



## celtic_crippler

I guess we're all going to hell then. Oh well... I'll bring the beer if somebody else brings the chips. You think Lucifer has NFL Network?


----------



## Omar B

He f-ing better, I miss a Giants game and nobody's gonna have a good eternity!


----------

