DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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!