The Darwin Day Lecture 2019, with Richard Dawkins

  
Via:  dignitatem-societatis  •  5 months ago  •  559 comments

The Darwin Day Lecture 2019, with Richard Dawkins

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


See also...

Richard Dawkins awarded inaugural Humanists UK Darwin Day medal


To celebrate Darwin Day on 12 February 2019, Humanists UK hosted its largest annual Darwin Day Lecture to date, given by evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins and chaired by evolutionary anthropologist Professor Alice Roberts, the President of Humanists UK.

Close to 2,000 people turned out for the sold-out show at London’s Troxy concert hall. Richard delivered a tour de force lecture covering his interests in science, the ‘humility’ of the scientific frame of mind – encouraging of doubts and sceptical of certainties – and the need, in challenging times, to speak out against ‘the hubris of faith’, where religion insists on false answers to questions that are the proper domain of the sciences. He also spoke of his fundamental optimism for the human species, celebrating our history and propensity for scientific achievement, as well as the long-term trend of improving human welfare worldwide.

In recognition of his lifetime of achievements in science and recognising his sterling work for 15 years as the regular chair of the Darwin Day Lecture, Richard Dawkins was awarded Humanists UK’s inaugural Darwin Day Medal.

The award will henceforth be presented each Darwin Day to Humanists UK’s appointed Darwin Day Lecturer, recognising outstanding contributions to furthering Darwin’s legacy and public understanding of science.

more


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis    5 months ago

This is the first long talk I've seen Dawkins give since his stroke, and he is as sharp-minded and sharp-tongued as ever. It's great to see.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    5 months ago

Thanks for posting this link...will file it away for later viewing. Dawkins makes it easy to understand. Another person whose lectures I enjoyed was Joseph Campbell, who taught about the creation of myths and how they are all so similar, by different cultures and eras in our past.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2  Heartland American  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    4 months ago

He’s as uninformed and misguided in his pseudoscience as ever.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2    4 months ago
He’s as uninformed and misguided in his pseudoscience as ever.  

That's hilarious coming from you, especially since your understanding of science is abysmal at best and you never offer anything scientific or credible to support any of your meaningless assertions and platitudes! 

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.2.2  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Heartland American @1.2    4 months ago
He’s as uninformed and misguided in his pseudoscience as ever.  

I just posted a seed on the most recent Christmas Lectures from the Royal Institution. They're about biology and evolution. If anyone needs to watch them, it's you. They're aimed at children, too, so even you should be able to follow along.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2  TᵢG    5 months ago

An excellent speech!  Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Dig.

While listening I wondered how far a non-atheist would get in this presentation before shutting down.

  • How many would dismiss this simply because Dawkins is an 'atheist' (a pejorative)?
  • For those who can get past the label, how many minutes before the cognitive dissonance forces them to leave?
  • How many would listen to the entire speech?
  • How many would objectively consider what Professor Dawkins has observed?

I think the answers to these questions will be disappointing for the critical thinking future of our nation.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
2.1  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 months ago
I think the answers to these questions will be disappointing for the critical thinking future of our nation.

On the bright side, recent advances in genomic sequencing, combined with the internet, are making vast quantities of new and very specific data readily available for future generations, and DNA is a treasure trove of information about evolutionary history.

So at least there's that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @2.1    4 months ago

True.   But it is difficult for me to overlook the inexplicable numbers of people who simply will not even try to objectively consider contemporary findings of science.   We have overwhelming evidence (in effect, the closest we can get to proof) that biochemical evolution is the mechanism for speciation and that cosmological evolution is the mechanism for creating celestial bodies (such as our solar system).   Yet evolution itself is still under debate??    Largely because it does not square with an ancient book which, based on extensive scholarship, is demonstrably errant, contradictory and devoid of supporting evidence.

The fact that (albeit a tiny minority) we have individuals who actually believe the Earth is flat shows the disappointing capability of the human mind to literally believe anything.

 
 
 
CB
3  CB     5 months ago

Mr. Dawkins is not yet two minutes or so into his lecture and he has already launched into 'put downs' of God, religion, and faith. All while moderately remarking on his own hubris that science will (one day) by faith (in science?) solve the 'gap' problem for everything man can hope to ask! I take for granted Dawkins means solving for our natural order. Surely, no Christian believer has ever suggested God dwells in Dawkin's 'order' or evolved alongside natural men. I digress, nevertheless!

I had expectations of Professor Dawkins opening with many positives for naturalistic-materialism, or if not this, the positive benefits of science, not this. Afterall, it is a bit arbitrary of Dawkins to decide it proper to alienate religious believers' in this multimedia platform event first and utterly. In one sense, this "day" while maybe special is not unique; seems we have a great many "day" events as we have award shows in this country. All commonplace, indeed.

Unfortunately for me, it is late and I am only eight (or so) minutes into the lecturing and am forced to retire. I will try to listen and share again in the early A.M. I am scheduled to be away on Saturday for a good while from my computer.

It all may have to wait for my return.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3    5 months ago
Mr. Dawkins is not yet two minutes or so into his lecture and he has already launched into 'put downs' of God, religion, and faith.

His opening point is that religions declare truth whereas science is perpetually discovering the mysteries of existence.    The hubris of religion is twofold:

  • declaring certain truths that clearly religions cannot possibly know (speaking for the grandest possible entity)
  • claiming that, in effect, the universe is all but a backdrop and that Earth and, indeed, human beings is the centerpiece
All while moderately remarking on his own hubris that science will (one day) by faith (in science?) solve the 'gap' problem for everything man can hope to ask! 

Professor Dawkins is noting that, historically, we started out with almost exclusively religious explanations for phenomena that we could not explain and that scientific progress has demonstrably discovered explanations for most of these.   The 'God did it' explanation used to apply to volcanoes, diseases, thunderstorms, floods, seizures, etc. and we all now know the natural forces at play here.   In particular to Darwin, we also now know how the many, varied species of life form.   There is no need for a presumptive designer God explanation.   The discovery of biochemical evolution was a staggering blow to the religious practice of presuming to know - the hubris of religion (as Dawkins has described).

 
 
 
CB
3.1.1  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1    4 months ago

Why does Professor Dawkins think the bulk of believers are not 'proud' of science and its discoveries?

Religion, far and beyond dwells into the immaterial and not the material order. Science deals solely with the material. How can an atheist-materialist expertly speak to religious points of view?

Note: Surely, anyone of us can point to the 'foibles,' weaker parts of other people thinking—in religion and science. Yes, science moves to clear up many of the discrepancy/ies using critical thinking, logic, and peer-pressure of one sort or the other. We can see how this could occur, when it does occur, because we live in a naturalistic order. However, the "religionistic" or spiritual order is not so easily examined, is it? Thus, religion is home to many "mental" and mind points of view.

Professor Dawkins, atheist-materialist, can be asked one closing question as well:

From the atheist-materialist point of view, if life is simply matter and motion - WHY leave life better than you find it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.1    4 months ago
How can an atheist-materialist expertly speak to religious points of view?

Because lack of belief in a religion does not equate to lack of knowledge about a religion.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.3  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.2    4 months ago

Religion, far and beyond dwells into the immaterial order and not the material order. Science deals solely with the material. The distinction speaks for itself, no?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.1    4 months ago
Why does Professor Dawkins think the bulk of believers are not 'proud' of science and its discoveries?

Does he think that?

Religion, far and beyond dwells into the immaterial and not the material order. Science deals solely with the material. How can an atheist-materialist expertly speak to religious points of view?

Dawkins is dealing with the natural world.  If there is a 'supernatural' then it is undetectable by human beings.   Accordingly, it is not of interest to science or to Professor Dawkins.

Why would anyone believe something is true if it cannot be third party verified?   

However, the "religionistic" or spiritual order is not so easily examined, is it?

One could posit any number of things that are not so easily examined.  Indeed, many have done just that for at least all of recorded history.   Offering something that is falsifiable as truth is very convenient — it is also wholly unconvincing.

Thus, religion is home to many "mental" and mind points of view.

And the religious views contradict each other.   That hints at the problem of truth by declaration rather than truth (at least approximation) based on evidence.

From the atheist-materialist point of view, if life is simply matter and motion - WHY leave life better than you find it?

Human decency.   Adult responsibility.   Basic compassion.   Why would one not care about the next generation of our species?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.3    4 months ago
Religion, far and beyond dwells into the immaterial order and not the material order. Science deals solely with the material. The distinction speaks for itself, no?

Trouble is, actions are taken in the material world based on beliefs of the immaterial.   

Just to be quite clear, people engage in suicide bombings based, in part, on the belief that they will be martyrs and will be treated with distinction by Allah.   In the material world, people are murdered.   Too bad these religious views are not verified but rather are considered truth simply because another human being said so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.3    4 months ago

Religion offers explanations with no evidence of veracity for an immaterial world (multiple worlds, really - at least one for each religion) with no evidence of its existence.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.7  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    4 months ago

One can care, not saying many can not care. Alone, an atheistic worldview does not establish any of this. Humanity at its basic level operates as the beast of the field do. It is only when humanity begins to dress itself in 'constructs' that mankind should ask where are these coming from.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.8  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    4 months ago
If there is a 'supernatural' then it is undetectable by human beings.   Accordingly, it is not of interest to science or to Professor Dawkins.

This assertion has not been proven, has it? After all, we have people who report to have had encounters with God, and other beings—even high-ranking members in the scientific community. That Professor Dawkins does not recognize or accept the reasoning of other highly educated and logically trained professionals—well, someone would have to ask Professor Dawkins why not!

The supernatural  order is not of interest to science because science strictly deals in natural phenomenon. There is no way around this conclusion.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.9  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    4 months ago

Moralistically, correct for the perceived error in belief using "approved" methods. Do not dismiss or condemn the good alongside the bad.

On the other-hand, in an atheist-naturalists matter and motion world anything goes. Who can say what is right and what is wrong for another individual or group of individuals? Whose idea of a "morality" is superior?

 
 
 
CB
3.1.10  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.6    4 months ago

Mathematics material or immaterial?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.7    4 months ago
Alone, an atheistic worldview does not establish any of this.

Atheism is simply the condition of not being convinced a god exists.  Human beings have worldviews and those few who are atheists will include lack of a belief in a god as a mere part of their worldview.

Do you think that an atheist prefixes his/her thoughts with:  'Well, as an atheist I believe ....'?   That is not how it works.   There is no 'as an atheist I believe' baseline to correlate with the 'as a Christian I believe' baseline (or 'as a Muslim I believe' or ...).   There are no rules for atheism or beliefs of atheism.   Atheism is simply a condition - one that occurs when an individual is not convinced a god exists.

Humanity at its basic level operates as the beast of the field do.

While I partially agree, human beings do have the ability to reason through life and some of us can do a decent job of distinguishing right from wrong.   Personally, I do not need anyone to command me to not murder, rape, steal, etc.   This I understand all on my own.   Now, would you say the same about yourself or would you state that you do not murder, steal, etc. ONLY because your faith informs you that such acts are wrong?

It is only when humanity begins to dress itself in 'constructs' that mankind should ask where are these coming from.

Good question to ask.   Best to not presume it comes from a supernatural source.   Reason it out.   Follow the evidence.   Professor Dawkins would most definitely encourage you to apply reason and evidence to answer questions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.8    4 months ago
This assertion has not been proven, has it?

Have you evidence that a supernatural exists — that it has been detected??   Until someone provides evidence of the supernatural it has no more validity than the claim of intelligent life on Mars.

After all, we have people who report to have had encounters with God, and other beings—even high-ranking members in the scientific community.

Personal testimony.  We have people reporting alien abductions, Bigfoot (and Elvis) sightings, etc.    Evidence, Cal.

That Professor Dawkins does not recognize or accept the reasoning of other highly educated and logically trained professionals—well, someone would have to ask Professor Dawkins why not!

Professor Dawkins (and most everyone else who find the scientific method to be an excellent means for approximating truth) would tell you that the conclusion / opinion of a person is irrelevant.   It does not matter what Einstein believed — it mattered what Einstein could evidence.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.10    4 months ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.9    4 months ago
Do not dismiss or condemn the good alongside the bad.

Too general a comment given what I posted.   Yes, in general one should not toss out the baby with the bathwater.   How that applies to what I wrote is not at all clear.   I was talking about unverified beliefs.   The idea of taking as true that which has simply been told to you by another human being.   What another human professes as truth is irrelevant.   What is relevant is the human being's ability to make a good case that what s/he claims is likely true.

On the other-hand, in an atheist-naturalists matter and motion world anything goes.

You clearly are entirely confused about atheism.

Who can say what is right and what is wrong for another individual or group of individuals? Whose idea of a "morality" is superior?

Best I can tell, all morality is relative.   Thus no morality is objectively superior.   We all think our own relative morality is correct.   Same basic idea with religion.   Everyone thinks their religion is THE correct religion, but there is no way to tell if that is true or (really) if any religion is correct.  All religions may very well be nonsense.

Muslims who consider it a moral obligation to murder a daughter who has slept with a non Muslim no doubt believe their morality is correct and that the morality of others who would categorically condemn such an act are simply wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.10    4 months ago
Mathematics material or immaterial?

Mathematics is part of the natural world.   It exists as information.   Same with engineering.   Human beings discover rules and relationships and pass them on to the next generation which generally improves upon this work and passes it on again.   Mathematics evolved from primitive counting and basic logic to the (awesome) means to represent the most abstract of ideas and to formally compute (derive) based upon the abstractions.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.16  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.15    4 months ago

Material (concrete existence) or immaterial (abstract)?

Without a doubt, there are many real word usages for mathematics; there are many immaterial abstracts which operate in and throughout our world on a daily basis. For example:  Laws of logic.

Spirituality is example of another.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.17  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.11    4 months ago
Atheism is simply the condition of not being convinced a god exists.  Human beings have worldviews and those few who are atheists will include lack of a belief in a god as a mere part of their worldview.

I know this about atheism. It is Professor Dawkins, an atheist, naturalist, materialist, humanist, anti-theist, who is weaving these several worldviews together into a "Darwin Day Lecture 2019"! —Not me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.16    4 months ago
Material (concrete existence) or immaterial (abstract)?

So what are you getting at?   Are you suggesting that mathematics is supernatural?   If not, then where is this going?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.17    4 months ago
I know this about atheism. It is Professor Dawkins, an atheist, naturalist, materialist, humanist, anti-theist, who is weaving these several worldviews together into a "Darwin Day Lecture 2019"! —Not me.

Take responsibility for what you write.   Don't just deflect to Dawkins.  You made the statement:

CB @3.1.7 - Alone, an atheistic worldview does not establish any of this.

I responded to your statement.    The notion of an 'atheistic worldview' shows confusion about atheism.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.20  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.11    4 months ago
While I partially agree, human beings do have the ability to reason through life and some of us can do a decent job of distinguishing right from wrong.   Personally, I do not need anyone to command me to not murder, rape, steal, etc.   This I understand all on my own.   Now, would you say the same about yourself or would you state that you do not murder, steal, etc. ONLY because your faith informs you that such acts are wrong?

One can establish rules for himself or herself. Others can establish rules for themselves. None of these rules matters universally in a world where we live and die and there is no afterlife or God.

In the naturalistic order  group choice of rules do not have to agree, or interact with each other. In which case, naturally neither set of rules are superior to the other! They are simply rules for different groups.

Professor Dawkins appears to me to be making an assertion that atheism coupled with materialism should be superior to theism. Foundationally, this makes no sense since atheism is a basically a lack of belief in God, gods and materialism is matter in motion neither forming a basis for a discussion of morality.

Professor Dawkins departs from both atheism and materialism when he incorporates a moral component to this lecture.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.21  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.18    4 months ago

Did I introduce the word "supernatural" in this question, TiG? I did not. The question is self-explanatory.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.20    4 months ago
Professor Dawkins appears to me to be making an assertion that atheism coupled with materialism should be superior to theism.

Professor Dawkins is, ultimately, making a very obvious point:  follow the evidence to wherever it leads.   He appropriately notes that religion is the exact opposite of this approach.   Religions declare truth by authority and encourage believers to trust them on faith.   Religions seek to prop up their declarations (to keep the facade alive) whereas irreligious methods discover what is true (or seemingly true) by objective reasoning grounded in evidence.

Religions know truth (because they say so).   Irreligious methods such as the scientific method never declare truth and readily admit 'I do not know'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.21    4 months ago
The question is self-explanatory.

I asked where you were going.   It was not unreasonable to ask that.   Not going to waste my time asking 20 questions.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.24  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.19    4 months ago

I am confused that you are suggesting confusion: Professor Dawkins introduces the phrase, "atheistic worldview"  in this lecture above. 

 
 
 
CB
3.1.25  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.23    4 months ago

Self-explanatory.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.26  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.22    4 months ago

I applaud thinking which follows the evidence to wherever it leads in nature. Now then, where is evidence this materialistic professor will present to establish he is qualified to make probability assertions about an immaterial order of life? Has Professor Dawkins searched all quarters of the universe and beyond to return with something of a "high probability" that the immaterial order of life does not exist? Of course not. This sounds rather arbitrary, in my opinion.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.27  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    4 months ago

If you think all morality is relative, then there can be no superior rights or wrongs.

We are simple (or complex) animals which live and die and there is no afterlife or higher level to ascend. What we do here is of no consequence, for this world we inhabit is simply a grand construct of man-made 'smoke and mirrors.' There are no certain rights or wrongs for people to hold to.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.26    4 months ago

This goes back to the burden of proof (or evidence).  Professor Dawkins does not need to do an exhaustive and fruitless search for the supernatural in order to conclude that it does not exist.

Have you searched the universe for Thor?  If not, why do you conclude that he does not exist?

 
 
 
CB
3.1.29  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.12    4 months ago

Professor Dawkins and Einstein are seekers of evidence in the natural order.  So what is your point? I do not look to either of these men to discuss the spiritual order. Who would expect them to?

As to other questionable natural phenomena or whatever, why bring that into this discussion? 

Or, perhaps, we have an indicator of a prejudicial bias by materialist against an immaterial order.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.30  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.28    4 months ago

Did you listen to Professor Dawkin's closing in the video above. I did. I am addressing is statements. You, in turn, are attempting to address mine. That is pointless, since I am addressing Dawkin's statements.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.30    4 months ago

That's how discussions work.

You are holding Dawkins' dismissal of the existence of your God to a different standard than your presumed dismissal of the existence of other gods.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.24    4 months ago
Professor Dawkins introduces the phrase, "atheistic worldview" 

He used the term in passing and that, no doubt, will be enough to shut down any semblance of objectivity on your part.  His meaning was (by context) 'non-theistic' worldview: a worldview that is not predicated on the theistic beliefs of a particular religion.

A worldview is a complex fabric of wisdom gained through experience.   As I noted earlier, one's position on god is simply a part of one's worldview.  Dawkins distinguished worldviews that presume a sentient power imposing control from those that (simply) do not make that presumption.  In short, an 'atheist worldview' would then, in his usage, be a worldview that does not presume that a god exists.   

You, in contrast, use the term 'atheist worldview' as a special type of worldview - one that has predictable morality, logic, position.   This is evidenced by your presumption that an atheist has basis for determining the immorality of rape (for example).  My point is that you cannot look at one aspect of a worldview and impose a stereotype.   Worldviews are far more complex than that.

In short:  an 'atheist worldview' is nothing more than the worldview of a person who is not convinced a god exists.   Outside of that, the worldview has many degrees of freedom that defy a stereotype.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.25    4 months ago

Clearly not.  But now I do not care what you meant.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.26    4 months ago
I applaud thinking which follows the evidence to wherever it leads in nature. Now then, where is evidence this materialistic professor will present to establish he is qualified to make probability assertions about an immaterial order of life?

Dawkins has no evidence of the supernatural (assuming that is what you mean by immaterial).   Thus he is on quite firm ground to not be persuaded that it exists.  

Has Professor Dawkins searched all quarters of the universe and beyond to return with something of a "high probability" that the immaterial order of life does not exist? Of course not. This sounds rather arbitrary, in my opinion.

Have you any third party verifiable evidence of this 'immaterial order of life' (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean)?   If not, you might as well be talking about Leprechauns.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.27    4 months ago
If you think all morality is relative, then there can be no superior rights or wrongs.

That is what I wrote.   I have written that many times.   If there is no objective morality then we simply have relative morality as peer systems.

We are simple (or complex) animals which live and die and there is no afterlife or higher level to ascend. What we do here is of no consequence, for this world we inhabit is simply a grand construct of man-made 'smoke and mirrors.' There are no certain rights or wrongs for people to hold to.

Each group determines its own relative morality.   If there is no objective morality (or, equivalently, if there is no way to find THE objective morality) then we have many relative moral systems.   If you look around, that is what you will find.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.29    4 months ago
Professor Dawkins and Einstein are seekers of evidence in the natural order.  So what is your point? I do not look to either of these men to discuss the spiritual order. Who would expect them to?

My point is that no human being can serve as evidence.   What someone claims is irrelevant.  It only matters what they can demonstrate.   See?   I even stated that before, so my point really was self-evident but I took the time to answer your question anyway because I actually want my readers to have a clear understanding of my points.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.37  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.36    4 months ago

To sum up to all that I have not read yet: Good night.

Be back tomorrow. God willing

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.1.38  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @3.1.37    4 months ago
Be back tomorrow.

Why? You're wasting your time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.38    4 months ago

Does that not depend on CB's objective?   

Same with you, Drakk.   If my objective with you is to convince you to abandon your faith then I would be wasting my time.   On the other hand, if my objective with you (and anyone else) is to counter that which I consider to be wrong, then I would most definitely not be wasting my time.   I would be putting forth an argument for readers to consider.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.40  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.31    4 months ago

Dawkins dismisses all religions, all faiths, and all gods, in favor of humanism and materialism. I intend (hope) to stay focused on the reason we are "gathered" here: This video above.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.41  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.40    4 months ago
Dawkins dismisses all religions, all faiths, and all gods, in favor of humanism and materialism.

That's because there is no evidence for any god/s. So he is correct to dismiss them on that grounds. But he has also said he is willing to reconsider his position should evidence ever be forthcoming. As it stands, there is no such evidence. 

 
 
 
CB
3.1.42  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.38    4 months ago

Friend Drakkonis, why not? As it stands right now, I have a plain and beautiful group, Christian State of Mind, prepared with gorgeously rendered videos and discussion settings for Christians and other guests, and its visitors are unenthusiastic about attending or staying around.

What else is keeping me from visiting other groups and "mixing" it up?  After all, I am not kept occupied with faithful brethren.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.40    4 months ago
Dawkins dismisses all religions, all faiths, and all gods, in favor of humanism and materialism.

Dawkins dismisses religions, religious beliefs in gods, etc. because there is no supporting evidence for the beliefs AND because there is substantial evidence backing up the scientific explanations for phenomena which prompted humans to invent gods in the first place.

He is going with the explanation that is best evidenced and plausible.   Should a God-based scientific theory arrive with superior evidence to the scientific explanations, I suspect Dawkins would instantly become a theist.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.44  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.40    4 months ago

All I can do is to third Gordy and TiG's statements.  There is no evidence for the claims of religion.  On the contrary, many of the claims of religion have been debunked by science.  It is logically correct to dismiss the claims of religion on that basis.

Also, consider some of the claims made by some religions.  Do you really think that the overly vigilant requirements of modesty in Islam are overridden by a woman breastfeeding a work colleague 5 times (not 4, must be 5) so that they can be alone in an office together?  Or does that seem just a bit ridiculous to you?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.45  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.44    4 months ago
All I can do is to third Gordy and TiG's statements.

You are wise to do so. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

many of the claims of religion have been debunked by science. 

Or are just illogical to begin with.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.46  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.32    4 months ago

"Good morning 'America' how are you?"

In short:  an 'atheist worldview' is nothing more than the worldview of a person who is not convinced a god exists.   Outside of that, the worldview has many degrees of freedom that defy a stereotype.

It is not me that is applying a stereotype or even introducing the phrase," atheistic worldview" into this discussion. Professor Dawkins has done so thrice in the video above. Once intertwining the phrase with the words, "intellectual courage," twice, with Lawrence Krauss book, "Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing," and thrice, when discussing answers to a list, "What Are The Deep Problems" he discusses.

This is not simply passing as the discussion which follows each use of the phrase explains.

It is not me who brought this phrase into this. Look to Professor Dawkins.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.45    4 months ago
You are wise to do so.

No argument here ;)

 
 
 
CB
3.1.48  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.34    4 months ago

You dodged the question (last night). I do not ask Dawkins to present evidence for an immaterial world or be convinced of it existence (though it clearly does) without evidence sufficient to his satisfaction. The question asked is along the lines of why does he belabor that which has no merit or basis to his own understanding or acceptance of the world? Dawkins worldview is atheist-naturalism. Thus, he lives in a world logically where there are no expectations of others outside of himself.

The rest of your comment is nonsense. For we use immaterial (abstract) numbers, symbols, laws, laws of logic, and other representations every day. God being yet another even used by some highly respected scientists.

Some scientists and laypeople arbitrarily choose to ignore certain aspects of the immaterial order when it suits their worldview.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.49  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.48    4 months ago
The question asked why does protest that which has no merit or basis to his understanding or acceptance of the world.

Because of religious suicide bombers.

And simply because they claim to have the truth, but cannot support their claims with evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.46    4 months ago
It is not me that is applying a stereotype or even introducing the phrase," atheistic worldview" into this discussion.

Exactly as I predicted Cal, it is now impossible to discuss this with you since you will at every turn say 'But Dawkins said it'.   I explained what I think Dawkins meant.  That is as far as I will go with reference to Dawkins.

My comment, again, is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.   There are no rules, no methods, no rituals, no philosophies.   If you call something an atheist worldview then you are simply referencing a worldview that does not include a dimension of belief in a god.   The balance of the worldview should not be stereotyped.

It is not me who brought this phrase into this. Look to Professor Dawkins.

You are the one who is talking about it here (and elsewhere).  Don't blame Dawkins.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.48    4 months ago
You dodged the question (last night).

You could at least quote the question you claim I dodged.  Which question are you talking about?

I do not ask Dawkins to present evidence for the supernatural or be convinced of it without evidence sufficient to his mind. The question asked why does protest that which has no merit or basis to his understanding or acceptance of the world.

Dawkins is against believing as true that which is not evidenced.   It does not matter what the belief is, the method is the problem.   Believing something to be true because of 'feelings' or because someone told you it is true is a lousy method.

The rest of your comment is nonsense. 

Brilliant.

For we use immaterial (abstract) numbers, symbols, laws, laws of logic, and other representations every day.

Oh, so by 'immaterial' you mean 'abstract'?    Yes we use abstractions all the time.   How does that make my comment nonsense?   Be specific.

God being yet another even used by some highly respected scientists.

Darth Vader is also an abstraction.   What is your point?

Some scientists and laypeople arbitrarily choose to ignore certain aspects of the immaterial order when it suits their worldview.

Provide an example.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.52  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.35    4 months ago

And, atheist-naturalists can not by definition pass judgement on anyone else - for to this worldview states we are no better than other animals. We are just atoms in motion. Our brains the same (matter in motion). There is no moral code. When naturalists look for a moral system to live by they depart from naturalism into a different worldview.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.53  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.36    4 months ago

Well that is prejudicial arbitrariness coming from you to decide what qualifies as reasonable evidence for the other worldviews external to your own. That is all I have to say on that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.52    4 months ago
And, atheist-naturalists can not by definition pass judgement on anyone else - for to this worldview states we are no better than other animals.

'Better' in what way?   Smarter?  Yes, we are smarter than all other animals (best we can tell).   Powerful?   Yes, we are without a doubt the most powerful species on the planet.   More Spiritual?   Oh, for sure, human beings are more spiritual than animals?    Food chain?   Yup, we are at the top of the food chain.

What, specifically, is your complaint here?  

We are just atoms in motion.

We are (at a primitive level) just atoms in motion.   But form gives meaning.   A rock is atoms in motion.   A flower is also atoms in motion.  Do you not see the difference between those forms?    Do you think atheists do not see the difference?    You seem to be inventing nonsense and tossing it about as fact.

Our brains the same (matter in motion).

(see above)

There is no moral code.

Who said that?    You are not paying attention (at all).

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.55  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.52    4 months ago
And, atheist-naturalists can not by definition pass judgement on anyone else - for to this worldview states we are no better than other animals.

Who's passing judgement? And what makes theists any more qualified to pass judgement?

We are just atoms in motion. Our brains the same (matter in motion).

That's called reality.

There is no moral code. When naturalists look for a moral system to live by they depart from naturalism into a different worldview.

Morality is a social construct. It is not based or dependent on religious fealty or belief. 

Well that is prejudicial arbitrariness coming from you to decide what qualifies as reasonable evidence for the other worldviews external to your own.

Do you understand what constitutes or is considered valid evidence?

 
 
 
CB
3.1.56  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.41    4 months ago

I agree that is what he is doing. Did you or anyone need a paid speech for a 'non-hot' topic lecture? Having listened to Professor Dawkins before, a great amount of this lecture is platitudes and from his books and videos. And I am a loose listener to the man.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.53    4 months ago
Well that is prejudicial arbitrariness coming from you to decide what qualifies as reasonable evidence for the other worldviews external to your own.

In all of time, we have yet to have anyone make a persuasive case, based on evidence, that the Christian God (or any other god) exists.   It is not just me, Cal.

If you can make the case, do so.   I predict you will ultimately resort to personal feelings and experiences.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.58  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.44    4 months ago

i do not defend or discuss other faiths. It is not required for me to do so.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.59  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.56    4 months ago
Did you or anyone need a paid speech for a 'non-hot' topic lecture?

What difference does it make?

Having listened to Professor Dawkins before, a great amount of this lecture is platitudes and from his books and videos.

So? He is simply promoting himself and hopefully encourages others to questions things and think logically and critically. What's the problem?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.60  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.58    4 months ago

You do not hold your own to the same standards as those which you dismiss.  That is intellectually dishonest, especially when you expect nonbelievers to give your faith a pass on those same standards.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.61  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.49    4 months ago

As an atheist-materialist you consider that we are only matter in motion going nowhere anyway, no?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.58    4 months ago
i do not defend or discuss other faiths. It is not required for me to do so.

I think Sandy was trying to give you an example of unfounded belief.    

Now, which would be a wiser way to operate:

[A]  Accept as truth the fatwas of 'wise' old Islamic scholars that a woman should breast-feed a co-worker so as to morally work together?

or

[B]  Question the fatwa and try to approximate truth based on evidence?

That is:   accept what some human being claims is truth or follow the evidence to wherever it leads?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.61    4 months ago
As an atheist-materialist you consider that we are only matter in motion going nowhere anyway, no?

You do not listen.   Why ask questions if you are going to simply ignore the answers?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.61    4 months ago
As an atheist-materialist you consider that we are only matter in motion going nowhere anyway, no?

Relevance?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.65  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.62    4 months ago

Exactly so.  As much as Calbab believes that his god is real, so does somebody else.  And they think that god (Allah, they call him) has such a problem with men and women being along together (they might get up to some sexy stuff) that the solution, obviously, is for the man to feed from the woman's breasts 5 times.

And Calbab and this other person both believe it on the same basis - it's what somebody told them.

But each would claim that they are right and the other is wrong.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.66  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.50    4 months ago

Nonsense. And, you can defend and "explain away" Dawkins all you wish. That's predictable. Moreover, you can arbitrarily stop talking about the video above at anytime.

Professor Dawkins thrice demonstrated (that's completeness) his use and meaning of the phrase, "atheist-worldview" in the video. He studiously prepared his lecture notes and read from them and double-downed with the use of a projection screen for emphasis at key points! This was no extemporaneous speech.

It is prejudicial arbitrariness and presuppositional for you to think you speak for Professor Dawkins. What he is saying is plain to hear (although vague and interwoven broadly) and decide by all who care to listen.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.66    4 months ago

Exactly as I predicted.    

 
 
 
CB
3.1.68  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.51    4 months ago

Redundant. This is what can occur when you do not follow the discussion where it leads and parrying other outside matters, the comments move well 'up the chain' and become disconnected from a train of thought. Your "connection" to this comment begins higher up the list of comments. I do not feel like rereading those right now.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.69  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.54    4 months ago

Ask an atheist-naturalist on this thread if man has more value than other animals. Go ahead. Better yet, go through the history of Newstalkers  comments seeking each occasion where an atheist-naturalist (materialist) makes a point that humanity is simply a higher primate with a bigger brain and not an exceptional being.

Suggestion: A 'next step' for Newstalkers: Please, index the search feature on this site to locate specific phrases in comments. I have tried to use the search icon in the top left corner and the results are sub-standard. I mean that as constructive criticism so please understand that. I really would love for it to work.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.68    4 months ago

That is why it is best to quote.   Unless, of course, your intention is to simply make vague claims to avoid rebuttal.   But you would not do that.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.71  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.70    4 months ago

I won't waste time questioning your motivations.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.69    4 months ago
Ask an atheist-naturalist on this thread if man has more value than other animals. Go ahead. Better yet, go through the history of Newstalkers and see each occasion where an atheist-naturalist(materialist) makes the point that humanity is simply a higher ape and not an exceptional being.

You have several atheists engaged in this article.   I gave you my answer (which you ignored).   So if you think you will get the answer you desire from others then knock yourself out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.73  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.71    4 months ago

My motives for what?   Answering your questions?   Asking for clarity when you make vague comments?   Challenging bogus claims?

My motive is always the same — to challenge that which seems (to me) wrong.   To try to tease out an approximation to truth via the dialectic.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.74  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.73    4 months ago

Ditto.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.75  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.74    4 months ago

Being vague, posing straw-man arguments and simply declaring 'facts' accomplishes the opposite.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.76  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.55    4 months ago

This comment is redundant.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.77  Heartland American  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.38    4 months ago

Probably he is but it’s good to cause the so called self labeled pro science advocates see that things and science is not as settled as they’d demand we believe.  

 
 
 
CB
3.1.78  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.57    4 months ago

This is not about us, Tig.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.79  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.75    4 months ago

Retorts are not appropriate arguments, Tig.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.80  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.67    4 months ago

Ditto.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.81  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.78    4 months ago

Correct.   So playing vague games does not accomplish anything good.   If you have an issue then be specific.   If you think a question was not answered then deliver the question.   

And, of course, if a question is answered and you disagree then write a rebuttal rather than simply ask the question again.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.82  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.81    4 months ago
And, of course, if a question is answered and you disagree then write a rebuttal rather than simply ask the question again.

Or declare the answer "redundant".

Cal, repeating the same question over and over is redundant.  An answer with which you disagree is not.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.83  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.65    4 months ago

Where do you get your information, Sandy?  Your mind alone?

Why try to pretend that your worldview is a product of private investigative research? We all turn to authorities for answers and like you, have been doing so since birth.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.84  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.81    4 months ago

So predictable. Read the thread again. I do as often as I need to in order to keep up.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.85  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.83    4 months ago

Science shares its methods so that all can see.  Scientists do not expect to be believed just because they say so.  They're willing to back up their findings.

Does religion?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.86  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.83    4 months ago
Where do you get your information, Sandy?  Your mind alone?

Do you not see the difference between merely accepting what someone claims is true vs. being convinced, based on the evidence, that something is likely to be true?

We all turn to authorities for answers and like you, have been doing so since birth.

Major difference is this:

Nobody cares what an individual scientist claims to be true.   The only thing that matters is what can be demonstrated (evidenced).   

All sorts of people accept as true (without challenge) what 'holy men' declare as truth.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.87  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.60    4 months ago

How many times have you not defended posted comments from other atheists when it did not square with your "accepted" position, Sandy?

Does legendary atheist Antony Flew (Deceased) come to mind? I could be mistaken, but did you agree with his standard definition for the word atheism? How about the atheist host of the website Evilbible.com who stated:

It has come to my attention that some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods.  This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.

Do you approve of his statement?

I expect nonbeliever to give me nothing and case in point, they do not! I simply expect that as you defend Professor Dawkins' lecture you could give some consideration of defending some other atheists and other worldviews you assent to.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.88  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.86    4 months ago

Redundant. This is rehash.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.87    4 months ago

Trying to hijack Dig's article to go back to your incessant attempt to define atheism as you wish it to be defined?

Professor Dawkins described why it is important to draw conclusions from solid evidence rather than simply invent an answer, declare it truth and then play endless semantic games to prop it up.

His talk is not about other atheists or people who claim to be atheists and certainly not about an obscure editorial comment in the addendum to a website.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.90  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.77    4 months ago
Probably he is but it’s good to cause the so called self labeled pro science advocates see that things and science is not as settled as they’d demand we believe.  

You are misrepresenting your own claims.   You claim that evolution is pseudo-science.  Challenging a ridiculous claim such as yours is quite different from claiming that science is 100% settled (and I am unaware of anyone here who has made such a claim).

 
 
 
CB
3.1.91  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.89    4 months ago

So predictable. You do this all the time on articles. You're simply attempting to answer for too many people. I won't bother to question your motivations. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.92  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.88    4 months ago
Redundant. This is rehash.

It wouldn't be, if you weren't asking the same questions over and over, for some reason expecting a different answer.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.93  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.76    4 months ago
This comment is redundant.

And yet, it bears repeating. Not to mention you completely ignore it or fail to give any rebuttal. Gee, I wonder why?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.94  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    4 months ago
His opening point is that religions declare truth whereas science is perpetually discovering the mysteries of existence. 

Thats's the problem as far as I am concerned. Science doesnt solve mysteries, it discovers them. Yes science solves the how , but it doesn't solve the why.

In the end the why is all that matters, not the how. This is the reason that philosophy is much more useful when thinking about man's "place" in the universe than science is.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.95  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.94    4 months ago
the why.

Must there be a "why"?

 
 
 
CB
3.1.96  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.93    4 months ago

Predictable. Just look for an answer on the thread above, please. Time to conserve something for next time.Thank you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.97  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.94    4 months ago
Science doesnt solve mysteries, it discovers them.

I do not understand how you can come to such a position John.   Science discovers explanations for mysteries.

Yes science solves the how , but it doesn't solve the why.

Correct.   Science does not explain why (as in some underlying purpose for this particular mechanism), for example, speciation is so brutal.   It simply explains how speciation occurs via mutation, natural selection, etc.

In the end the why is all that matters, not the how.

I disagree.   How things work enables engineering and all these things we take for granted.   Without knowing basic principles of physics, the great pyramids could not have been built.  Without learning how viruses work we would all still be suffering the effects of black plague, polio, etc.    Knowing how something works has tremendous advantage.

This is the reason that philosophy is much more useful when thinking about man's "place" in the universe than science is.

Only if the process can approximate truth.   Some 'philosophy' is nothing more than speculation.   Entertaining, maybe even thought provoking, but of limited utility compared to knowledge of how things work.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.98  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.96    4 months ago

What's predictable are your games and deflections, and I'm not the only one to notice it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.99  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.95    4 months ago

There really is only one ultimate question and it is a philosophical one. I have seen science attempts to explain this (Lawrence Krauss) and I consider them of not much use at all.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

And a sub question of that would be. Where did this something come from? I saw a video of Professor Krauss talking about his book "A Universe From Nothing" . He has the same problem everyone who makes his argument does. He describes the energy that existed prior to the big bang as the "nothing" that the universe came from. The problem that arises is obvious, although not really addressed by Krauss -  the energy that existed before the Big Bang is NOT nothing.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.100  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.99    4 months ago

I don't think we can decide whether it's a philosophical or scientific question (or one addressed by both) without knowing the answer.  Frankly, if we don't know how the universe came into being, assigning a deity as the cause has no more merit than speculating that the cause was physical, or simply admitting that we don't know.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.101  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.99    4 months ago
He describes the energy that existed prior to the big bang as the "nothing" that the universe came from. The problem that arises is obvious, although not really addressed by Krauss -  the energy that existed before the Big Bang is NOT nothing.

Exactly.   Our universe evolved from something.  Best science can tell is that the something is a net zero state, but it was indeed something.   Krauss does a disservice by sensationalizing his books and talks with this 'A Universe from Nothing' slogan.

So where do we go to find out what that something really was?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.102  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.100    4 months ago
Frankly, if we don't know how the universe came into being, assigning a deity as the cause has no more merit than speculating that the cause was physical, or simply admitting that we don't know.

I agree with the popular scientific assessment of 'we do not (yet) know'.   Honesty, logic and following the evidence is IMO vastly superior to wishful thinking or wild speculation.   Nobody knows.   We should all be honest about that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.103  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.100    4 months ago

By definition God is a supernatural being or entity or force. As human beings in this existence (which we call nature) it is not possible for us to investigate anything outside or beyond this nature. Thus we will NEVER either prove or disprove the existence of God.

I have no problem with atheists other than they tend to try and claim the default, which is ultimately silly. The only proper default is "no one knows".

 
 
 
CB
3.1.104  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.98    4 months ago

Appeals to popularity fail, Gordy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.105  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.102    4 months ago
following the evidence

I would agree that your evidence does disprove a literal bible or other scriptures. I think that was accomplished millions of words ago though.

Human religions are cultural expressions that developed as a response to perpetual existential anxiety. Whether God itself does or has ever taken any "interest" in it we will likely never know.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.106  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.103    4 months ago

God could easily prove his existence, if he chose (and if he exists).  He either does not choose, or does not exist.

Do you give equal weight to the possibility of the existence and nonexistence of other deities?  By your own standards, you should.

If you're the one making the claim ("God exists"), the burden is on you to provide evidence.  Most atheists are not making a positive claim that God does not exist, so they have no burden to meet.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.107  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.103    4 months ago
The only proper default is "no one knows".

Exactly.  No one knows.   That means no one can make a certain claim there is a god and no one can make a certain claim there is no god.  That eliminates the gnostic extremes (gnostic theist and the gnostic atheist).   What is left are the agnostic positions.   The agnostic positions properly note that we do not know.

Agnostic atheists note that we do not know and due to the lack of evidence, agnostic atheists are not convinced a god exists.

Agnostic theists note that we do not know, but they still believe a god likely exists.

When we are born, are we agnostic theists in our first second of life or are we agnostic atheists?   I submit that we are all born agnostic atheists.   We do not know if there is a god and we certainly are not convinced there is a god.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.108  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.102    4 months ago

One thing we can be sure of, is science which deals in empirical data and repeatability won't answer the question of the universe beginning for us. Science is blind to our universe beginning, because it was a single event. Christianity addresses the question from a spiritual point of view.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.109  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.105    4 months ago
I would agree that your evidence does disprove a literal bible or other scriptures.

It is your evidence too John.  We share it.  

Human religions are cultural expressions that developed as a response to perpetual existential anxiety. Whether God itself does or has ever taken any "interest" in it we will likely never know.

I agree.   Assuming, of course, there is a god to even take an interest.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.110  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.106    4 months ago
Do you give equal weight to the possibility of the existence and nonexistence of other deities?  By your own standards, you should.

There is only one God, and it is not logically possible for there to be more than one God.  That is like saying there is more than one highest floor in a building. A floor is either the highest, or it's not. Multiple Gods is a contradiction in terms.

Belief in God is a matter of faith, so there is no burden on believers to prove it.

I don't know how you think God could "prove" it's existence.  Any manifestations could and would be explained as unknown natural phenomena or manifestations from other dimensions or other much more powerful intelligences from beyond earth.  None of these would be necessarily seen as "God".

 
 
 
CB
3.1.111  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.106    4 months ago

Now who is resorting to games? Three 'setups' in one comment. Got ahead of yourself there, Sandy! Why so impatient to get going on the well-worn (out) talking points?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.112  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.110    4 months ago
There is only one God, and it is not logically possible for there to be more than one God.

That's a declaration with no support.  There have been many polytheistic religions.  They are all just as likely to be true as your own.

If God chose, being God, he could easily do something magnificent while we watch.  Maybe build a planet from nothing and populate it inside of a week.  I mean, he did it once, right?  Why not again, but with witnesses this time?  That would be pretty convincing evidence for his existence.

Instead, he's disappeared for thousands of years, expecting us to believe on the basis of stories told orally by people thousands of years dead, if they ever existed at all, and containing obvious contradictions both internally and with that we can learn via our own faculties.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.113  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.107    4 months ago

Finally, "game time"? Soon good old Professor Dawkins will be but a faint trace memory of a video (above). Caution: Derail Ahead.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.114  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.112    4 months ago

You look out in the starry host and astronomers -the authorities-inform you of a great many wonders and questions. You look into the microscope and discover wonders; convinced of a Superior Being yet? Your problem is not intellectual, its a lack of belief. . .in the spiritual.

Fortunately for you, if God desires to make 'contact' with you: it will be easy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.115  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.112    4 months ago

With all due respect Sandy, you miss the point.

Atheists love to talk about Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as if they are making some sort of "aha" point.  They're wrong.

There is only one God because there can be only one God.

Christians , Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, pagans, Thor worshipers, Sun worshipers, etc, all worship the same God.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.116  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.115    4 months ago
there can be only one God.

This is still just a declaration, John.  There is neither empirical evidence nor logical support for it.  There is no evidence either for one god, or for only one god.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.117  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.110    4 months ago
There is only one God, and it is not logically possible for there to be more than one God. 

Depends on how you define 'God'.   I agree that there can only be one supreme entity, but history is replete with the polytheistic beliefs.   Who is to say that our universe was not created by a lesser god?   Nobody knows.

Belief in God is a matter of faith, so there is no burden on believers to prove it.

Agreed.   The burden of proof exists when someone makes the certain claim that their god exists, not simply because they state their personal belief.

I don't know how you think God could "prove" it's existence.  Any manifestations could and would be explained as unknown natural phenomena or manifestations from other dimensions or other much more powerful intelligences from beyond earth.  None of these would be necessarily seen as "God".

Proving God is a tough gig.   Maybe we should ask the gnostic theists who claim with certainty that their god exists.   If anyone has proof it would be them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.118  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.115    4 months ago
Christians , Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, pagans, Thor worshipers, Sun worshipers, etc, all worship the same God.

How, exactly, do you know this?   Especially with the Hindus (who are polytheistic) and of course the Roman, Greek and Norse god believers.   Buddhists, except for a minority, do not recognize a god (a sentient supreme entity).

How do you know?

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.119  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.115    4 months ago

Wash, rinse, repeat...

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.120  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.104    4 months ago

I don't think you understand what an appeal to popularity is.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.121  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.120    4 months ago

It is you getting the 'troop' (5) votes on a comment where you write to me something silly like: "I'm not the only one to notice it."

I am least concerned about hopping on a  "bandwagon," Gordy. Even less concerned about your opinion of what I understand and how I use it to get my point across. Too strong? Maybe. I  hope I am clear, nevertheless.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.122  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.102    4 months ago
 Nobody knows. We should all be honest about that.

How do you know, "nobody knows"? Are you sure "nobody knows?" This is an arbitrary and self-contradictory statement. You have not heard from "all." Or, have you in fact heard from all?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.123  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.122    4 months ago

Tell me who knows how the universe came into existence.

( of course you cannot deliver even one person; do you know why you cannot answer this question? )

A person who knows (certain knowledge) how the universe came into existence would be famous since s/he would be more advanced than science itself.

( are you going to now argue that someone knows and is keeping it a secret? )

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
3.1.124  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.123    4 months ago

No. I will argue that you can not speak for all. Which you attempted to do @ 

@3.1.102 Nobody knows.   We should all be honest about that.

Again, with the use of' sleigh of hand,' whereas  we know the universe had a beginning (science determined) but Sandy and John Russell were NOT just discussing the universe with you were they: God 'crept' in and you repeated, @3.1.107,

"no one knows."

That is a self-contradictory statement. The issue is not telling you or anybody else "who knows."

Better you tell this room how you know for sure, "no one knows."

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.125  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.124    4 months ago

I did not make a claim of certainty.  I made a comment that I am pretty sure everyone (including you) understood to mean:

'we know of nobody who knows how the universe came into existence'

And if by some chance you did not understand that, then now you do.

This nit-picking is pathetic.   Make an argument instead of playing lame gotcha games.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.126  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.125    4 months ago
Nobody knows. We should all be honest about that.

What is "pathetic" (your word) is this not taking ownership of what one writes, when one tries to clarifies it later. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Quoting you and responding to it, is not "nit-picking" Tig .jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.127  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.126    4 months ago

Here is how honest discourse works: 

  • X writes something
  • Y objects (based on interpretation)
  • X explains in more detail what he meant
  • Y either objects to the more detailed explanation or accepts it

What does not happen (unless Y is trolling) is for Y to pretend no explanation was given and instead continue with the original incorrect interpretation.

To be super clear, I explained to you twice that 'nobody knows' was meant as a conclusion, not a statement of certainty.    I did not imagine that someone would disagree with such an obvious statement much less try to cast it into a claim of certainty with petty reasoning.   But, having explained my intent twice (now three times), there is no benefit of the doubt if you continue to insist that my intent was to make a claim of certainty.

See?  


Now, do you think anyone knows (certain knowledge, truth) how the universe began?   If so then explain why we (worldwide) are unaware of this super intellect? 

 
 
 
CB
3.1.128  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.127    4 months ago
  • [Tig] writes something
  • [Tig] explains in more detail what he meant.

Okay, a 'trinket' of owning it has appeared. jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.129  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.128    4 months ago

When you next ask yourself:  “Why do people avoid me? ponder the phrase ‘dishonest juvenile tactics’.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.130  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.129    4 months ago
 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.131  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.130    4 months ago

One of my favorite Python bits.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.132  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.131    4 months ago

It was a toss up between that and a great rock song.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.133  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.132    4 months ago

LOL  jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.134  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.133    4 months ago

there's a second song with a Carl Palmer drum solo at the 4:23 mark too !

 
 
 
CB
3.1.135  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.129    4 months ago

And when you next start whooping it up about:

  1. Complains;
  2. Insults;
  3. Projections; and,
  4. People looking for approval online. . . .

Ponder this direction you are heading down. To thine own self be true.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.136  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.129    4 months ago

Ponder this (CLICK IMAGE FOR A TREAT!):

original

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.137  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @3.1.128    4 months ago

Haven't we seen this exact same argument between you two about 50 times already?

Both of you need some new material.

There are people here who have been having the exact same arguments about atheism and God for 10 years here and on Newsvine.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.138  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.137    4 months ago

JR, I have new material, but I can not get "the both of us" to discuss it.  Seriously, "opposites attract" I suppose. And, "both of us" are probably both old too!

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.139  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.137    4 months ago

God is a big subject.   It deals with THE existential question.   There are many variations to the debate.

The category of theism vs. atheism is full of potential topics.

I agree, however, that the same boring points continue to eventually arise. 

So let's see if you can steer the discussion into something interesting with your latest seed.    Good luck. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.140  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.139    4 months ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.141  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.121    4 months ago
It is you getting the 'troop' (5) votes on a comment

That just means people agree with me or my statement.

Even less concerned about your opinion of what I understand

Based on your posts thus far, that doesn't seem to be much, even after it's been spelled out to you multiple times now.

No. I will argue that you can not speak for all.

TiG can speak for me. I have no problem with that.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.142  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.141    4 months ago
TiG can speak for me. I have no problem with that

And I will keep speaking for me! Gordy. Let it go already and move on.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.143  Gordy327  replied to  CB @3.1.142    4 months ago
And I will keep speaking for me! Gordy.

You go right ahead. But your "argument" that TiG does not speak for all is at the very least, flawed.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.144  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.143    4 months ago

Okay Gordy wins! Let it go already and move on.

 
 
 
WallyW
4  WallyW    5 months ago

Another very clear distinction between science and religion is that science doesn't sentence you to eternal damnation in the firepits of Hell for simply for not believing or being human and missing the mark (sin) at times.

 
 
 
CB
4.1  CB   replied to  WallyW @4    4 months ago

Hi Wally,

Science, by definition, appears to not care that man exist or define itself as a being. After all atoms could have spun life into another "designation." Moreover, science has not confided in humanity all that is—yet. Has it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1    4 months ago

And?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.2  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.1    4 months ago

And what exactly?  His point was well made. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.2    4 months ago

His "point" was a platitude.  No, science does not care that we define ourselves as beings.  No, science has not revealed "all that is".

So?  Why would we expect it to?  Science is not a being, so it cannot care about anything.  It can perform no actions, including revelation, on its own.  It would be silly to expect otherwise.

His "point" was a statement of the obvious.  It added nothing to the discussion.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.4  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.3    4 months ago

Science is unconcerned about the rightness and wrongness of life.  My point is science is not a moral agent. It is impossible for science to judge humanity. It simply executes (and you know the rest). Humanity looks for morality in other ways.

Atheist-naturalists foundationally entails survival of the fittest. Neither is it able to be a moral agent.  Materialists look outside of their worldview (survival of the fittest) to establish a view to rights and wrongs.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1.4    4 months ago

Nobody expects science to make moral judgments.

Religion makes moral judgments like "a man and woman can morally be alone together if she breastfeeds him five times".

Science stays in its lane.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.6  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.5    4 months ago

Is this a version of an atheist-naturalists depending on an Islamic anecdote to carry the day? Do be derogatory?

Should we badger science with its myriad of dangerous product side-effects, warnings of birth defects, and cancer-causing agents, which all can and do lead to deaths somewhere on the planet everyday? Or, do we do simply 'salute' and adore science for the good it executes as Professor Dawkins does in 'trumpeting' humanity's use of science as a tool?

Better we accept that every human endeavor is under its existential stewardship. God has given us a world, a field, to grow and develop in.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.4    4 months ago
My point is science is not a moral agent

Correct.  Who suggested that it was?  Seriously, where do you find someone suggesting that science is where one turns to answer moral questions?   Hello?

Atheist-naturalists foundationally entails survival of the fittest. 

Do you not understand the difference between an atheist and an evolutionary scientist?   An atheist is one who is not convinced a god exists.  That is all.  That condition has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of biochemical evolution.

Materialists look outside of their worldview (survival of the fittest) to establish a view to rights and wrongs.

You are now presuming to define the worldview of those who consider themselves materialists?  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif  You do not think a materialist would have morality as part of his/her world view?   

Take Professor Dawkins' advice, don't just dream up your own 'truths' — follow the evidence and offer explanations that best meet observations.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.8  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.5    4 months ago
Science stays in its lane.

"stays in its lane." Ah memories! I remember back several years ago on NewsVine, I used this urban phrase in a discussion in one of my nations with an atheist (you may remember you were there one way or the other) and the individual female cried foul and lef in a huff to return to a different nation, opened up a separate discussion, and all her fellow atheists followed her there just to trash me for simply telling her to 'stay in her lane' for she did not comprehend spiritual matters. Tig, Gordy, Mocowgirl, and epistte, gasp you were all there with a "multitude" too!

Ah, memories. I was simply scandalized for use of this convenient phrase I hear everywhere now. Sigh. Mm-Mmm.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1.6    4 months ago

How does one "badger" a process?

I used the anecdote as Professor Dawkins did - to demonstrate how ridiculous it can be to let our lives be ruled by religions that can neither verify the truth of their doctrines, nor provide good reasons for why their rules should be obeyed.  The breastfeeding thing was accepted by some Muslims simply because somebody decided that that was a rule for Muslims to obey - a silly workaround to avoid a silly sin.

Sins like wearing mixed fabrics, or working on whichever Sabbath day one's religion requires, or planting beans where they'll be staked up by your corn (a reasonably common farming practice, but sinful according to the OT), or eating cheeseburgers.  They're not harmful, but some folks think they're sinful, because millennia ago declared them to be so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1.8    4 months ago

I recall a few times when you censored opposing views, including lack of belief in your religion, when you had the power to do so.  No CoH violation was committed, as I recall.

Note that nobody here is similarly deleting your dissenting comments.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.9    4 months ago
The breastfeeding thing was accepted by some Muslims simply because somebody decided that that was a rule for Muslims to obey

They are conditioned to believe the utterances of human 'authorities'.   No skepticism allowed.  No thinking allowed.   Just accept what this 'wise' 'holy' man as truth.

Key difference between religion and science:  in science, the individual scientists opinion is irrelevant; what matters is what the scientist can evidence.  In religion, any bozo who can get people to think of him/her as an authority can declare truth.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.11    4 months ago

Doubt is sin.  Expressing doubt is heresy.  Heresy can sometimes get you killed.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.13  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.7    4 months ago

Professor Dawkins is: An atheist-evolutionary scientist. So what is your point for mentioning it here? This is clear to all who knows the man's bio (or watched this video above).

Materialists believe in matter in motion and evolution in survival of the fittest; neither of these requires humanity to hold to a system of rights or wrongs. For that, materialists draw from outside their chosen worldview. Now then, since religion preceded (amoral) science, it may be materialists draw from world religions a basic sense of rights and wrongs.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1.13    4 months ago

What makes you think that atheism comprises the whole of an atheist's worldview?

It merely refers to their lack of belief in gods.

There are conservative atheists, liberal atheists, vegan atheists, atheists who love a good steak, atheists who believe in equality, atheists who are racial bigots, atheists who are misogynists, etc.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.15  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.10    4 months ago

'Radical.' Ah, memories. . . .  (Smile.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.13    4 months ago
Materialists believe ...

You and your presumptive stereotypes.   But worse, you repeat the same platitudes even those to which everyone agrees.   Yeah, Cal, science has nothing to do with morality. 

...  it may be materialists draw from world religions a basic sense of rights and wrongs.

Or maybe those who consider themselves materialists do not require a religious 'authority' to tell them that it is wrong to rape & murder or to tell them to feed from the breast of a co-worker (five times) so that it is then moral to work with her.

Those who get their morality from the Bible (for example) or the Qur'an (another example) are in bad shape unless they do some major league cherry-picking and equivocation.  And, in that case, they are just applying their own relative morality and pretending to follow the 'divine morality' of those ancient books.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.17  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.9    4 months ago

Some of those Old Testament "segregations" had spiritual meanings, but I can not expect modern naturalists to respect and understand that. So, carry on!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.13    4 months ago
Professor Dawkins is: An atheist-evolutionary scientist. So what is your point for mentioning it here? This is clear to all who knows the man's bio (or watched this video above).

Here is what I wrote:

TiG @4.1.7 - Take Professor Dawkins' advice, don't just dream up your own 'truths' — follow the evidence and offer explanations that best meet observations.

Not sure I can make that any clearer.   

 
 
 
CB
4.1.19  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.16    4 months ago

And this is the gist of it then: Nature has nothing to do with morality systems. Nature does not care about rights and wrongs; it operates on a model of survival of the fittest.

You may bristle at a mention that your own relative morality does not derive from a naturalistic worldview. It is improper for a materialist to attempt to pull morality from Darwinian philosophy, nevertheless.

Professor Richard Dawkins:

I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.

Source: Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox: The God Delusion Debate, University of Alabama at Birmingham, October 3, 2007

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.19    4 months ago
And this is the gist of it then: Nature has nothing to do with morality systems.

You are denying that morality is a function of our evolved biology shaped by distilled lessons of experience handed down to each generation and our individual reason applied to our own experiences.

What is your basis for such a denial?


( By the way, that is not what the Dawkins quote says.  You are reading what you want, not what he wrote. )

 
 
 
CB
4.1.21  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.18    4 months ago

See @4.1.19 below.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.22  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.14    4 months ago

And you are explaining the atheist(hyphen) why?

 
 
 
CB
4.1.23  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.20    4 months ago

That's nice, prove it!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.23    4 months ago
TiG @4.1.20 - What is your basis for such a denial?
CB @4.1.23 - That's nice, prove it!

 
 
 
CB
4.1.25  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.24    4 months ago
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  CB "The Member Formerly Known as Calbab." @4.1.4    3 hours ago
My point is science is not a moral agent Correct.  Who suggested that it was?  Seriously, where do you find someone suggesting that science is where one turns to answer moral questions?   

CB: Not to an atheist-naturalist worldview (survival of the fittest) or science. Humanity goes outside to a transcendent worldview—but naturalists do not permit themselves to argue or accept immaterial POVs.

By the way, that is not what the Dawkins quote says.  You are reading what you want, not what he wrote. )

That's nice, prove it!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1.22    4 months ago

To explain that a lack of belief in gods does not define a nonbeliever's morality.  You seem to think that an atheist's atheism defines his or her morality, and that that morality cannot acknowledge right or wrong.

Atheists have many different moral systems, probably nearly as many systems as there are atheists.  Those moral systems are independent of their atheism, as atheism itself does not address morality, merely belief.

My lack of belief is merely a portion of my worldview.  I do not take my morality from it, as there is none to take.  That does not mean I look "outside of my worldview" for morality.  It means that my worldview encompasses both atheism and a moral system.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.27  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.26    4 months ago

Redundant, and what are you talking about??

I repeat: "And you are explaining the atheist(hyphen) why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.25    4 months ago
That's nice, prove it!

You ignore my actual content and instead challenge an editorial comment at the end.    Run completely out of your Styrofoam bullets?


You need me to break down simple English, eh?   Then at least pay attention:

Dawkins:  I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life.

Survival of the fittest is a harsh mechanical process in which those best equipped to survive a changing environment will be most likely to pass their genes on to their progeny.   Not a pleasant system.   That is the net of this sentence.

Dawkins:  I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here.

Professor Dawkins is stating that biochemical evolution is the best explanation of speciation based on the evidence.  

Dawkins:  But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live.

But he notes that he does not like how it operates.   It is an unpleasant process and he is quite against applying that process to societal evolution.   If you know anything about the Nazis, you can probably imagine how they might have implemented their society.   They would likely have produced a nation of extraordinary human beings by brutally killing 'inferior' children and sterilizing 'inferior' adults.   See?

Dawkins:  It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.

(see above)   Here I think he is using Thatcherite to refer to highly conservative, statist policies.   Note he is implying that a directed process would be vastly superior to the undirected process of biochemical evolution.


Clear?   Professor Dawkins was not arguing that morality does not stem in any way from our biology.   You read what you wanted in spite of what he wrote.   I am confident Professor Dawkins would state that nature plays a critical role in the shaping of our morality.    Indeed, if you have done any research in the area of behavioral biology (see "Behave" by Professor Robert M. Sapolsky for an excellent treatment of the subject) you would have more than a clue as to what I am describing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.25    4 months ago
Humanity goes outside to a transcendent worldview—but naturalists do not permit themselves to argue or accept immaterial POVs.

Are you actually declaring that only religious people can possess the quality of humanity?   

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.30  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @4.1.27    4 months ago

I was answering your question, but it seems you are not interested in answers.  I have to wonder, why are you participating in this discussion, if your only response to the questions you pose are going to be insults and intentionally ignoring those answers.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.31  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    4 months ago

4.1.19  CB "The Member Formerly Known as Calbab."  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.16    47 minutes ago

And this is the gist of it then: Nature has nothing to do with morality systems. Nature does not care about rights and wrongs; it operates on a model of survival of the fittest.

You may bristle at a mention that your own relative morality does not derive from a naturalistic worldview. It is improper for a materialist to attempt to pull morality from Darwinian philosophy, nevertheless.

Professor Richard Dawkins:

I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.

Source: Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox: The God Delusion Debate, University of Alabama at Birmingham, October 3, 2007

******

4.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  CB "The Member Formerly Known as Calbab." @4.1.19    39 minutes ago

And this is the gist of it then: Nature has nothing to do with morality systems.

1. You are denying that morality is a function of our evolved biology shaped by distilled lessons of experience handed down to each generation and our individual reason applied to our own experiences.

What is your basis for such a denial?


( By the way, that is not what the Dawkins quote says.  You are reading what you want, not what he wrote. )

******

You failed to observe where I separated you comment properly into its two distinct parts?

1.

4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  CB "The Member Formerly Known as Calbab." @4.1.4    3 hours ago
My point is science is not a moral agent Correct.  Who suggested that it was?  Seriously, where do you find someone suggesting that science is where one turns to answer moral questions?   

CB: Not to an atheist-naturalist worldview (survival of the fittest) or science. Humanity goes outside to a transcendent worldview—but naturalists do not permit themselves to argue or accept immaterial POVs.

2. By the way, that is not what the Dawkins quote says.  You are reading what you want, not what he wrote. )

That's nice, prove it!

******

Now this use of 'sleight of hand' to slip a strawman argument in at the last instance won't work. You statements are sub-divided (See your poignant broad horizontal line). It is not whole. And I did not treat it so.
1. Moreover Tig, when exactly did you become the "Dawkins-whisperer"? And, why 'do it' at this juncture?
2. I have a proper video of what Dawkins said coming out of his own mouth if you wish to view it.
 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.31    4 months ago

Clearly you have no rebuttal, just E.A. style quote pasting and more derogatory labeling.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.33  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.30    4 months ago

This is not an argument, Sandy.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.34  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.29    4 months ago

My apologies, but you lost me with that one. Please elaborate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.34    4 months ago

Translation:  give a thoughtful, honest, adult response to @4.1.28 if you expect me to take you seriously.  

 
 
 
CB
4.1.36  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.35    4 months ago

Ditto.

And, that is not an argument, Tig.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.30    4 months ago

Let's touch on the Dawkins quote:

I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.

Professor Dawkins obviously finds the mechanics of biochemical evolution to be harsh and undesirable.   Who would not?   Evolution is a very messy business that involves harmful, harmless and helpful mutations filtered by a brutal process of death by disease, starvation, predators, etc.   It is a horribly ugly way to produce new species.   But science follows the evidence to where it leads and this is where it leads.

Who could blame Professor Dawkins for recommending that we NOT borrow the mechanism of biochemical evolution (and the filtering mechanism of survival of the fittest) in societal evolution?   That would be like a Nazi nightmare of shaping society to meet the criteria defined by the Reich by killing and sterilization.

But nowhere does this suggest that Professor Dawkins does not see morality stemming at least in part from our biology.   Indeed, being a biologist himself, it is well more than likely that he understands behavioral biology and the lessons we have learned by studying other life forms.   Even though the animals do not have a reasoning capacity like ours, they do form societies with rules and their offspring learn these rules.   And who would deny maternal 'instinct'?

I am always fascinated when I see confirmation bias in action.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.38  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.35    4 months ago
give a thoughtful, honest, adult response

That's some wishful thinking there TiG, Lol

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.38    4 months ago

Well you know I did not expect that to ever happen.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.40  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    4 months ago
I am confident Professor Dawkins would state that nature plays a critical role in the shaping of our morality.    Indeed, if you have done any research in the area of behavioral biology

Behavioral biology makes the case that populations develop moral behaviors that tend to benefit the population as a whole.  Such behaviors would include cooperation, altruism, shared offspring-rearing, collective defense and use of resources, etc., and would differ from one species to another, and from one population to another within a species.

Members of some species even sacrifice their own lives to protect their community - think drone bees protecting the hive's queen, even when it means their own death.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.41  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.39    4 months ago
Well you know I did not expect that to ever happen.

But at least you're optimistic. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.42  sandy-2021492  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.40    4 months ago

Some of our own moral behaviors are very obviously based on biology.  Take the rule of "women and children first" in rescue from a capsizing ship or other disaster.  Saving the lives of women and children tends to ensure that more of the population survives longer, and that the population is more likely to propagate.  Reproductively speaking, women are more valuable than men, as the numbers of children born are much more limited by the number of women than the number of men.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.40    4 months ago
Behavioral biology makes the case that populations develop moral behaviors that tend to benefit the population as a whole.

Indeed. Science can explain how & why people demonstrate particular behavior, including within populations. Morality is just an evolutionary behavioral condition to benefit the whole. We see the same patterns in other social species. There is nothing mystical or divine about it.

Some of our own moral behaviors are very obviously based on biology.

True. it's all very logical and objectively explained when one thinks about it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.40    4 months ago

Agreed.   And it certainly is no stretch to see that the social values developed in a troop of apes would also similarly develop in a communal society of primitive homo sapiens.   

After all, who could presume that human beings are born devoid of any moral biological wiring and that the information passed to the next generation through written records has no moral content?  We are all born with biological wiring so why would a basic moral conscience be omitted?   Imagine holding such a belief and then thinking that all morality comes from religion.   From the Bible, Qur'an, etc.?   You can beat your slave because he is your property, but ensure he does not die.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.42    4 months ago
"women and children first"

An example of wiring, reasoning and/or well internalized lessons passed from generation to generation in society.  But some think this can only come from holding religious views.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.46  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.44    4 months ago

https://www.livescience.com/26245-chimps-value-fairness.html

In the new study, the team trained the primates to dole out tokens that stood for bananas, with one token symbolizing an equal split, while the other was an unfair deal that benefitted the first chimp. [See a Video of Chimps' Ultimatum Game]

No chimp recipients rejected unfair offers, but they did occasionally hiss, spit or shout at unequal distributions. One recipient even spit a mouthful of water at its partner, Proctor said.

At first the chimps were stingy, but very quickly, they switched to offering equitable splits in the ultimatum game.

To test the method, the researchers had 3- to 5-year-old children participate in a similar experiment using stickers instead of bananas. The little ones started out greedy but quickly offered the tokens for fairer distributions of stickers. And those who got a raw deal complained.

"Their reactions struck me as very similar to the chimps," Proctor said. "They would say things like 'You got more stickers than me,' or 'I want more stickers.'"

The findings suggest chimp and human sense of fairness aren't so different, Milinski said.
 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.47  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.44    4 months ago
 Imagine holding such a belief and then thinking that all morality comes from religion.

Some people actually do believe that. It's both scary and sad.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.47    4 months ago

It's also disturbingly close to religious bigotry.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.46    4 months ago

What religious views did these chimps hold?

(I cannot access the videos for some reason.)

By the way, here is another (of many) reports from behavioral biologists:

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days. Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

The evidence of primitive morality is there.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.50  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.49    4 months ago
What religious views did these chimps hold?

Flying Banana Monster?

The link takes me to a LiveScience video, but not one about the Ultimatum Game.

The rhesus monkeys refusal to shock their companions despite suffering themselves is really quite touching.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.51  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.39    4 months ago

Wow. Just look at this 'display.' Disturbing.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.52  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.1.37    4 months ago

Just talk among yourselves, what was that about confirmation bias? Ahem.

I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives. — Professor Dawkins.

Yet, the materialistic worldview model is survival of the fittest. It does not mean only 'worse case scenarios' are the way of life. No, not that at all. For we can see in nature a type of order. What you will not see is nature caring about what occurs. That level of higher thinking requires materialists to step outside of their materialistic worldview to develop.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.53  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.3    4 months ago

Because you think that doesn’t make it so.  He felt it added to the conversation and so do I. And our opinion is just as valuable here as those of the opposing POV.  

 
 
 
CB
4.1.54  CB   replied to  Heartland American @4.1.53    4 months ago

I take those criticisms with an aspirin and a glass of water, when needed. What I have discovered is there is such a thing as, "atheist talking points." I have heard many, many, of 'em.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
4.2  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  WallyW @4    4 months ago
Another very clear distinction between science and religion is that science doesn't sentence you to eternal damnation in the firepits of Hell for simply for not believing

Yup. Science doesn't even want people to simply believe. No claim is scientific without accompanying evidence, and every claim is subject to revision based upon new evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @4.2    4 months ago

Agreed.   Science does not care how famous or brilliant a scientist is;  what matters is what the scientist can evidence.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.2  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.2.1    4 months ago

Science is not faith and faith is not science. Two distinct and separate facilities. Of course, religion is a great many things—especially nowadays.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.2.2    4 months ago
Science is not faith and faith is not science. Two distinct and separate facilities.

Would anyone disagree with that?

 
 
 
CB
4.2.4  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.2.3    4 months ago

Who would know what or why somebody disagrees with it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.2.4    4 months ago

Functioning adults likely agree on the most basic of concepts such as:

  • water is not oil
  • bread is not milk
  • trees are not animals
  • faith is not science
  • science is not faith
 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.2    4 months ago
Science is not faith and faith is not science.

That goes without saying. But I'll take science.

Two distinct and separate facilities.

More like polar opposites.

Of course, religion is a great many things—especially nowadays.

One of those things being delusion.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.7  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.2.5    4 months ago

And your point is?

 
 
 
CB
4.2.8  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.6    4 months ago

You are entitled to your personal opinions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.8    4 months ago
You are entitled to your personal opinions.

I offered no opinion. Only fact,

 
 
 
CB
4.2.10  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.9    4 months ago

Gordy declares himself 'winner' yet again!

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.10    4 months ago

Specify where I made any such declaration! [Removed]

 
 
 
CB
4.2.12  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.11    4 months ago

I simply moved to conclusion, because you "NEVER" lose in discussion. So why waste time with details? You win.

Hey, we're not supposed to accuse other members of lying or being liars. But, you never lose so. . . .   /s

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.12    4 months ago
I simply moved to conclusion,

Which is obviously flawed.

because you "NEVER" lose in discussion.

That says more about the merits of my argument than some non-existent declaration I never made.

So why waste time with details? You win.

Then why are you here wasting your time?

Hey, we're not supposed to accuse other members of lying or being liars.

You made an erroneous statement saying I declared something which i never did. So i called it out for what it is.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.14  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.13    4 months ago

Why do religious and faithful people, if you mean both, have to be delusional? Why can't they just have diverse points of view than your own, especially when it is inclusive of science and is not offensive?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.14    4 months ago
Why do religious and faithful people, if you mean both, have to be delusional?

I didn't say they have to be. That is merely one thing they can be. Religious delusion is a psychological condition.

Why can't they just have diverse points of view than your own,

I never said they couldn't. But not all views are valid either.

especially when it is inclusive of science and is not offensive?

Religion is only inclusive of science when it accepts established science and doesn't try to use "god did it" (or something similar) as a valid explanation to scientific inquiry.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.16  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.15    4 months ago

Of course we are not discussing religious delusions as a "psyche" issue on this thread. So why introduce it? (Can we ever find a 'middle ground' for discussion?)

Religion is only inclusive of science when it accepts established science and doesn't try to use "god did it" (or something similar) as a valid explanation to scientific inquiry.

This is such a broad statement that it could be taken in a number of ways. Thus, I have no idea what you mean.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.2.16    4 months ago
I have no idea what you mean.

His meaning seems clear to me.

When a religion agrees with the established findings of science it is 'inclusive' of science.   When a religion does not agree with the established findings of science it is 'exclusive' of science.

  • A religion which holds that the Earth is 6,000 years old is exclusive of science (on that point).
  • A religion which holds that species are the result of biochemical evolution is inclusive of science (on that point)

Each religion has its inclusive and exclusive elements.    Given science is based on well-founded evidence and reason governed by an adversarial process that is motivated to find flaws in scientific findings, the more a religion is exclusive of science (contradicts established findings of science) the more likely that religion is irrational.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.18  CB   replied to  TᵢG @4.2.17    4 months ago

Thank you, Tig. That makes sense to me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.16    4 months ago
Of course we are not discussing religious delusions as a "psyche" issue on this thread. So why introduce it?

You're the one who said "religion is a great many things...." I simply said delusion is one of those things.

This is such a broad statement that it could be taken in a number of ways.

Not really. It's quite straightforward.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.20  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.19    4 months ago

Religion is a great many things, with denominations, sects, cults, and all-around liberty in the United States for anyone to 'form up under a banner of.' That is what I meant.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.21  Gordy327  replied to  CB @4.2.20    4 months ago

And? That doesn't change anything I said.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5  Heartland American    4 months ago

Darwin is all wrong as is Dawkins. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @5    4 months ago

That's nice. Prove it! 

 
 
 
Heartland American
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.1    4 months ago

A link to a book isn't proof.  Can you tell us the contents without copying and pasting?

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.3  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.2    4 months ago

We already exhausted conversation on the actual content of that book on another seed a couple of weeks ago.  Behe is right and Dawkins wrong. It is that simple.  The site that reviewed the Behe book has some interesting perspectives on origins of their own.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.3    4 months ago

A declaration isn't evidence. 

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
5.1.5  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.3    4 months ago
Behe is right and Dawkins wrong. It is that simple.

Why? Because it "feels" that way to you? That's exactly the kind of hubris Dawkins is talking about.

By the way, Behe is currently getting his ass handed to him over that book. The following are from Richard Lenski alone (there's loads more from others out there), all within the last few weeks:

Michael Behe could be the poster child for tenured professors who have proven themselves to be unfit to teach and should therefore be returned to untenured status and promptly fired. His colleagues at Lehigh University think so little of him that they actually released a public statement calling him out by name:

Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Behe is a horrible, horrible scientist. He's basically a fraud. How he keeps that university job is beyond me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.1    4 months ago

As soon as I saw Michael Behe, I know this was BS! Behe is an ID proponent. So right off the bat, there is a bias and lack of credibility. Not surprising you would cite him. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.3    4 months ago
Behe is right and Dawkins wrong. It is that simple.  

Why? Because you say so? HA! 

The site that reviewed the Behe book has some interesting perspectives on origins of their own.  

Reader reviews means nothing! It's all about the evidence, which happens to support Prof. Dawkins.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5    4 months ago

Do you have anything to offer other than a platitude?

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    4 months ago

Never

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.2  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    4 months ago

How stupid can Darwine-drunk scientists get? Ask Cyrano de Bergerac if he had better success winning his love by roaring or by serenading. To evolutionists, they justify such absurdity because of their belief that humans are mere animals. If dogs howl and sea lions say “Ork! ork!” to each other, then humans must have gained this ability because of the Stuff Happens Law, too. This is the fallacy of extrapolation: thinking that humans are nothing but evolved pandas, and so animal behavior can be extrapolated into human behavior. The illustration above says it all. Roar at a woman, and you are not likely to gain love, regardless of your upper-body strength. You are likely to get charged for harassment.

You may now LOL.

Evolutionists continue to carry out their silly game of applying natural selection to everything, including human behavior, because nobody feels safe to laugh. That must change. Go ahead: roar at an evolutionist, and explain you are just trying to win their love. Then laugh hilariously. If they get huffy about it, then engage them in a little logic. Tell them, “If human culture is nothing but evolved fruit-fly behavior, then so is the behavior of writing scientific papers. Therefore, everything you say was predetermined in your genes, and signifies nothing.” https://crev.info/2019/03/the-extrapolation-fallacy-in-evolutionary-storytelling/

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.2    4 months ago

Fascinating.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.2    4 months ago

Why do you continue to deny scientific facts?

Why not just leave science alone and practice your faith in quiet?

Your arguments are invalid and devoid of evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.4    4 months ago

The 'arguments' are also simply cut & paste.   The mere parroting of other people's words rather than original thought.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.6  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    4 months ago

You calling our comments a “platitude” is irrelevant here to us.  

 
 
 
katrix
5.2.7  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.6    4 months ago

The royal "we"?  Hilarious.  I realize that facts are irrelevant to you.  I suppose that to a literalist, science is terrifying because if you accept that even one single word of the bible is wrong, there goes your faith.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.6    4 months ago
You calling our comments a “platitude” is irrelevant here to us.

We know actual facts is irrelevant to you. But calling your comments (or so called "arguments") a platitude is calling them for what they are. I just call them BS!

 
 
 
WallyW
6  WallyW    4 months ago

And the debate continues at a glacial pace as the eyes glaze over and the brain goes to sleep.

 
 
 
katrix
6.1  katrix  replied to  WallyW @6    4 months ago

Willful ignorance can't be fixed ... but can be rather amusing to read!  The funniest part is when literalists and non-logical people take points which have been used against them (validly) and then try to twist them around to pretend they actually apply to others, instead.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7  Nerm_L    4 months ago

Dawkins presents another God-shit lecture, how droll.  Everyone needs to understand that natural selection is a 'then a miracle occurs' argument.  The claim being made is that Evolution is God.  Richard Dawkins obviously believes in God and miracles.  Dawkins only engages in pedantic rhetoric because faith alone is not sufficient for his belief in God.  

The humanism espoused by Richard Dawkins doesn't avoid the ego trap:  I think therefore I AM; I AM the source of thought therefore I AM GOD.  Humanism is a circular argument no less reliant on miracles to 'fill the gaps' as Dawkins states it.  Humanists lack the intellectual courage to acknowledge their own faith.

Nature is the material universe.  Nature doesn't select anything.  Nature is governed by deterministic regulating principles.  So, how is the anomalous presence and behavior of life explained?  A miracle occurred; nature selected.  Who is this nature person anyway?  Is nature God?

Charles Darwin attempted to treat life as though it were stone; establishing a deterministic physics for life.  That would provide a compact QED explanation for the anomalous presence and behavior of life.    

Richard Dawkins speaks about the God of gaps.  Life, itself, exists in the gap.  Life should not be present in the universe; life is contrary to regulating principles of a material universe.  Charles Darwin's theory is a 'then a miracle occurred' explanation of life.  Richard Dawkins only argues that Darwin's intellectual cowardice must be accepted on faith.  Dawkins rejects a God of faith by advocating faith in the I AM GOD miracle.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @7    4 months ago
Everyone needs to understand that natural selection is a 'then a miracle occurs' argument.  The claim being made is that Evolution is God. 

That statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of evolution or natural selection. Neither does any scientist posit that claim as fact or as a reasonable explanation.

Richard Dawkins obviously believes in God and miracles. Dawkins only engages in pedantic rhetoric because faith alone is not sufficient for his belief in God.

Demonstrably false! Prof. Dawkins has explicitly stated in his books he is an atheist. But he is also willing to reconsider his position if evidence for a god was forthcoming.

Humanists lack the intellectual courage to acknowledge their own faith.

Quite the sweeping generalization. Once could also say theists lack the intellectual integrity to question or challenge their faith, especially when scientific discovery and knowledge contradicts it.

Nature doesn't select anything. Nature is governed by deterministic regulating principles. So, how is the anomalous presence and behavior of life explained?

See first statement!

Is nature God?

Some religions believe that.

Charles Darwin attempted to treat life as though it were stone; establishing a deterministic physics for life. That would provide a compact QED explanation for the anomalous presence and behavior of life.

Charles Darwin saw that life didn't appear as is spontaneously, as was a common belief at the time. He saw species evolved.

Life should not be present in the universe; life is contrary to regulating principles of a material universe.

What do you base that on?

Charles Darwin's theory is a 'then a miracle occurred' explanation of life.

See first statement again!

Dawkins rejects a God of faith by advocating faith in the I AM GOD miracle.

Wrong again. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1    4 months ago
Demonstrably false! Prof. Dawkins has explicitly stated in his books he is an atheist. But he is also willing to reconsider his position if evidence for a god was forthcoming.

Dawkins doesn't believe the Bible.  That's not the same thing as atheism.  Unfortunately Charles Darwin lived in a society dominated by Christianity and the Bible.  That conveniently limits the debate to the narrow confines of orthodox Christianity and greatly simplifies the philosophic chicanery of Biblical atheists.

What do you base that on?

The material universe destroys life.  Why do you think all living things die?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.1    4 months ago
Dawkins doesn't believe the Bible. 

So? How is that relevant to science or evolution?

That's not the same thing as atheism. 

Prof. Dawkins doesn't believe nor is convinced of any god/s either. That is atheism. He has even stated he is a "weak atheist."

Unfortunately Charles Darwin lived in a society dominated by Christianity and the Bible. 

Yep, Charles certainly challenged conventional wisdom and his own faith at the time. It seems such intellectual honesty and integrity is rather rare nowadays.

That conveniently limits the debate to the narrow confines of orthodox Christianity and greatly simplifies the philosophic chicanery of Biblical atheists.

No, that simply means there is more plausible and rational scientific based explanations than empty religious declarations or dogma.

The material universe destroys life.

It also led to the development of life.

Why do you think all living things die?  

Genetics, environment, any number of reasons. What's your point?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.1    4 months ago
The material universe destroys life.  Why do you think all living things die?  

Everything that exists is a form of existence.   A thing (living or not) comes into existence (the form emerges) and it eventually ceases to exist (the form degenerates).

This is true for life and is true for everything else (e.g. cosmological bodies like stars).

To wit, all things 'die', not just life forms.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.2    4 months ago
So? How is that relevant to science or evolution?

Richard Dawkins follows the liturgy of Biblical atheism by recitation of examples from orthodox Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).  The orthodox religions are a conglomeration of philosophy about God, politics, law, and historical drama.  Even Protestants declare the Pope a fraud; does that make Protestants atheists?

Gregor Mendel (the discoverer of genetics) was a Catholic Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Austria.  Charles Darwin's evolution is nonsense without Mendel's discovery of genetics.  It seems that genetic evolution does not justify atheism, after all.  So, why all the fuss over Darwin while ignoring Mendel?  Darwin promoted himself, Mendel chose humility.  Hubris, it seems, is not a secular humanist characteristic.

Yep, Charles certainly challenged conventional wisdom and his own faith at the time. It seems such intellectual honesty and integrity is rather rare nowadays.

Since when has Biblical atheism become the conventional wisdom?  Richard Dawkins presents the cosmology of the material universe based upon deterministic regulating principles (what are generically called scientific laws) and then has the audacity to claim hubris to avoid confronting the contradictions involved in transforming inert matter and energy into life.  The simplistic claim of 'we don't know' while declaring profound faith that science will answer the questions is a 'then a miracle occurred' argument. 

Vociferous pride in the miraculous I AM is not hubris.  Richard Dawkins does not provide answers or enlightenment.  Dawkins only presents the liturgy and deeply held faith of the humanist belief that man is God.  The answers cannot be found in the material universe; science is out of its league.

There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.4    4 months ago
The simplistic claim of 'we don't know' while declaring profound faith that science will answer the questions is a 'then a miracle occurred' argument. 

Dawkins notes that when science does not have a bona fide explanation the answer is 'we do not know'.   That is the honest answer.   Would you prefer that science made up answers like religions?

Dawkins noted his personal confidence in the scientific method.   Based on its track record, he is rather confident that (given time) human beings will (via science) continue to unlock mysteries that seem impossible to solve.   That is his viewpoint. 

How does the honesty of science coupled with the confidence of an individual scientist translate into 'then a miracle occurred'?    Non sequitur.

There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

Explain why.   Define what you mean by 'God' and present your argument for necessity.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    4 months ago
Everything that exists is a form of existence.

The future does not exist.  The future is not a form of existence; the future is non-existent.  In fact, the future never exists.  We experience the universe on the razor edge of the present and all our knowledge is of the past.

To wit, all things 'die', not just life forms.

We observe energy and light from the beginning of the universe.  Energy from the Big Bang is still present in the universe.  Particles of matter that condensed following the Big Bang are still present in the universe.  That is only possible due to the intrinsic stability of the material universe.  Matter and energy cannot change how it behaves.

The atoms that make up living tissue do not die.  Life binds everything together and death allows inert matter to revert to the deterministic behavior of the material universe.  If life was not contrary to the deterministic regulating principles of the material universe then all living things would not die.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.6    4 months ago
The future  ...

... has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Life binds everything together and death allows inert matter to revert to the deterministic behavior of the material universe. 

Need to check here.   Did you or did you not comprehend my point that reality is hostile to both life and non-life?   So life is treated no different than any other form.

The atoms that make up living tissue do not die. 

Although irrelevant to what we are discussing, this is also merely a claim by you.   Consider reading up on radioactive decay, particle decay and even an hypothesized proton decay.   Bottom line, we cannot claim that anything we know today in physics is immune from decay.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.4    4 months ago
Richard Dawkins follows the liturgy of Biblical atheism by recitation of examples from orthodox Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). 

he cites the flawed reasoning and assumptions associated with the Abrahamistic religions.

Charles Darwin's evolution is nonsense without Mendel's discovery of genetics. It seems that genetic evolution does not justify atheism, after all. So, why all the fuss over Darwin while ignoring Mendel?

That makes no sense. Evolution is sound, based on observations and evidence, even if one does not take genetics into account. but genetics only reinforces evolutionary theory. It certainly doesn't advocate or support religious based assertions. And what does evolution have to do with atheism? You seem fond of non-sequiturs.

Since when has Biblical atheism

An oxymoron.

then has the audacity to claim hubris to avoid confronting the contradictions involved in transforming inert matter and energy into life.

What contradictions?

The simplistic claim of 'we don't know' while declaring profound faith that science will answer the questions is a 'then a miracle occurred' argument.

"We don't know" is an honest answer. Science is the best means to finding an answer. But there is no science that declares a "miracle' as a rational or credible explanation.

Richard Dawkins does not provide answers or enlightenment.

He provides education and critical thinking.

Dawkins only presents the liturgy and deeply held faith of the humanist belief that man is God.

You apparently do not understand humanism.

There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

Why?

The future does not exist.

That is not what we are discussing.

We observe energy and light from the beginning of the universe. Energy from the Big Bang is still present in the universe

What's your point?

If life was not contrary to the deterministic regulating principles of the material universe then all living things would not die.

The universe is the universe. it doesn't care if things are alive or not.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7    4 months ago
Everyone needs to understand that natural selection is a 'then a miracle occurs' argument.

Identify the miracle.   Note that natural selection is part of evolution.   Evolution describes the process of mutation (ultimately observed as changes in gene frequency) that naturally occur during reproduction.  Natural selection describes the process of life surviving within its changing environment long enough to reproduce and pass its genes to progeny.    Evolution does not speak about the origin of life; only the origin of species.

Where is the 'miracle'?

I think therefore I AM; I AM the source of thought therefore I AM GOD.  

This claim is unsupported;  Dawkins made no such comment.   Seems like you just infused it as a strawman.

Nature is the material universe.  Nature doesn't select anything. 

If the food source for a species begins to disappear, the members of the species that survive are those who can adapt to alternative food sources.    If no member of the species can adapt to the changing environment, the species goes extinct.   This is one of many examples of what is meant by 'natural selection'.   Basically, living entities best suited for survival in their environment are the ones who most likely reproduce and pass their genes to subsequent generations.   Light colored bears in snowy environments are more likely to catch prey due to camouflage and thus the population will trend towards lighter (whiter) fur by natural selection.

Nature is governed by deterministic regulating principles.  So, how is the anomalous presence and behavior of life explained? 

Evolution is not about the origin of life;  it is about speciation.

Is nature God?

Might be.   'God' might be existence itself.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2    4 months ago
Identify the miracle.   Note that natural selection is part of evolution.   Evolution describes the process of mutation (ultimately observed as changes in gene frequency) that naturally occur during reproduction.  Natural selection describes the process of life surviving within its changing environment long enough to reproduce and pass its genes to progeny.    Evolution does not speak about the origin of life; only the origin of species.

The argument is that a change in environment miraculously causes spontaneous mutations that are adaptable to that new environment.  A flower that requires an insect with a long proboscis for pollination requires two sets of highly specific mutations to occur simultaneously among living things that have no genetic connection.  Natural selection is a miraculous occurrence that fills the gap.

Evolution does not explain why highly specialized synergistic mutations occur between biological kingdoms that are not directly related genetically.  Does the flower cause the insect to mutate?  Or does the insect cause the flower to mutate?  The interdependence of the two dissimilar life forms would suggest both would become extinct before evolution could fill the gap.  Since both are present and the interdependence can be observed then obviously the miracle of natural selection is the only answer.  God, God, everywhere; let's argue about the Bible to avoid the contradiction.  That's a very Darwinian thing to do.

This claim is unsupported;  Dawkins made no such comment.   Seems like you just infused it as a strawman.

Richard Dawkins is a humanist and does not hide that belief.  Man can explain all things by rational observation and clever obfuscation of miracles.  I think therefore I AM.  I AM the source of all thought therefore I AM GOD.

Evolution is not about the origin of life;  it is about speciation.

How is the origin of species different than the origin of life?  There still needs to be a God in the beginning.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.1    4 months ago
How is the origin of species different than the origin of life?  There still needs to be a God in the beginning.  

Origin of life = how life itself came to be; the origin of the cell.    Origin of species = how a new species comes to be.    Origin of life does not need a 'God' (as in sentient creator);  'God' is simply an hypothesis (which then opens the even larger question of its origin).

The argument is that a change in environment miraculously causes spontaneous mutations that are adaptable to that new environment. 

No, you have it backwards.   Mutations are a natural occurrence.    The changing environment selects (if you will) mutations.   In other words (as I described in my prior post) mutations that make it easier for an organism to survive to the point of reproduction are passed to its progeny.   That is how species evolve over time.

Evolution does not explain why highly specialized synergistic mutations occur between biological kingdoms that are not directly related genetically.  Does the flower cause the insect to mutate?  Or does the insect cause the flower to mutate? 

You need to think about this stuff before you cavalierly dismiss.   You seem to assume that the insect and the flower are not themselves the results of evolution.   Consider the more primal flower which pollinated by wind.   That is not as efficient as insect pollination.   Those flowers whose pollination mechanisms attached to insects were more likely to reproduce.   Those whose pollen provided value to the insects were even more likely to reproduce.  Insects who found value in the pollen (e.g. a better food source) increasingly gravitated to the pollen vs. other food sources.   There is no magic here.

God, God, everywhere; let's argue about the Bible to avoid the contradiction.  That's a very Darwinian thing to do.

You are the only one talking about the Bible here.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.2    4 months ago
'God' is simply an hypothesis (which then opens the even larger question of its origin).

The idea of spontaneous or random mutation can also explain the origin of God.  Every supposition about the origin of life or the origin of species are just as applicable to God.  Life and God reside in the gaps.

No, you have it backwards.   Mutations are a natural occurrence.    The changing environment selects (if you will) mutations.   In other words (as I described in my prior post) mutations that make it easier for an organism to survive to the point of reproduction are passed to its progeny.   That is how species evolve over time.

Nature selects; a miracle occurs.  That avoids confronting the necessity of highly specialized synergistic mutations in species without a genetic relationship.  Without the bacteria in the termites' gut both species go extinct.  So, life is responsible for the presence of life.  There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

You are the only one talking about the Bible here.

And Richard Dawkins.  Otherwise, Dawkins' lecture would not provide affirmation for atheists.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.4  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.1    4 months ago
The argument is that a change in environment miraculously causes spontaneous mutations that are adaptable to that new environment.

That most certainly is not the argument. Environmental changes do not 'miraculously' cause specific mutations allowing a specific species to adapt and survive. Think about it. If that were true then no species would ever go extinct.

Copy error mutations occur all the time, and at a measurable and statistically-predictable rate in different genomes (some are more error-prone than others due to things like varying chromosomal structure). You actually have some DNA in your cells right this minute that is slightly different than it was when you were born, because it was copied every time new cells were made and the replication process is not 100% error-proof. Environmental changes having to do with chemical or radiation exposure can increase the mutation rate, but there's nothing magical about it.

There's another cause of mutation that is less predictable but every bit as non-miraculous. Viruses survive by hijacking DNA and can cut genes and insert new material. Much of our own genome consists of  ancient remnants of viral insertions. 

Does the flower cause the insect to mutate?  Or does the insect cause the flower to mutate?

Neither. The mutations are random in each. Interdependent symbiotic relationships between species' do affect the selection of mutations, though (whether the changes are harmful or beneficial). It's called coevolution. It's going on in your gut microbiota right now.

God, God, everywhere

No magic, no magic, anywhere.

How is the origin of species different than the origin of life? 

You don't understand the difference between the very beginning of a process and changes that occur after the fact?

The development and emergence of every new species does not require a unique accompanying biochemical genesis event. Species' emerge successively within an unbroken continuum of common but modified descent from the very first cell, which was itself a very long time in the making after the original abiogenesis event.

There still needs to be a God in the beginning. 

By that logic, the god would have needed another god who would have needed another god who would have needed another god, on and on and on. If nothing can happen or exist without a magical sky fairy to cause or create it, then the same applies to the magical sky fairy itself. Infinite regress.

At the most basic level life is a chemical reaction, molecular self-replication powered by metabolizing chemical and/or solar energy. No magic required.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.3    4 months ago
The idea of spontaneous or random mutation can also explain the origin of God. 

I agree.   A creator of the known universe could indeed exist as am emergent property of existence.   That is, if the universe could emerge from existence then one must hold that a creator of same could have emerged from existence (and indeed a creator of the creator, ...).    Of course, that reasoning illustrates that a sentient creator is not necessary.

Every supposition about the origin of life or the origin of species are just as applicable to God.  Life and God reside in the gaps.

We know life exists.   We cannot say the same for God.   Why speculate on the origin of that which is not known to exist?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.3    4 months ago
Nature selects; a miracle occurs. 

Odd you call that a miracle.  Is a thunderstorm a miracle?   Was the erosive creation of the Grand Canyon a miracle?   Are snowflakes tiny little miracles?

That avoids confronting the necessity of highly specialized synergistic mutations in species without a genetic relationship.  Without the bacteria in the termites' gut both species go extinct.  So, life is responsible for the presence of life.  There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

As noted earlier, you have to actually think about this stuff.   I already explained coevolution of plants and insects.   I am not going to explain every other example of coevolution.   It is your turn to think about what I explained, not reject it and offer another example.   Also, have you given any thought to how the eye evolved?   It seems impossible, right?

 
 
 
CB
7.2.7  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.4    4 months ago
By that logic, the god would have needed another god who would have needed another god who would have needed another god, on and on and on. If nothing can happen or exist without a magical sky fairy to cause or create it, then the same applies to the magical sky fairy itself. Infinite regress.

May I jump in on this point?

There is no such thing as an "infinite regression," certainly not to any discussion humanity ought to be sharing between themselves. Find the "suitable" end-point we can think back to and post a reasonable stop there. God is at that point.

Also, I resent this appearance of the "magical sky fairy' bull. Whatever mechanization God (and I do believe in God) uses to manifest the universe -> the "magic" which comes to mind from television camera use of "smoke and mirrors" is not that and should not be alluded to highhandedly. Similarly, the Richard Dawkins "doctrine" of humiliating believers with talk of "flying spaghetti monsters" and other mocking images, is both maddening and disturbing. After all, at the level he professes to operate at why deploy such foolish and emotionally-charged tactics? 

Does Richard Dawkins want to have a principled debate or an inefficient 'talk' where anything goes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.7    4 months ago
God is at that point.

Why insert 'God' when we have existence itself?    We know existence IS and necessarily has always BEEN.   There is the end of the infinite regress.   Anything that exists is (by definition) a form of the quintessential substance of existence (whatever that might be).

That  is about as abstract as one can get without making assumptions.   

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.9  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  CB @7.2.7    4 months ago
There is no such thing as an "infinite regression," certainly not to any discussion humanity ought to be sharing between themselves.

Ought to be sharing between themselves? What does that even mean?

Find the "suitable" end-point we can think back to and post a reasonable stop there. God is at that point.

No, that is simply where our knowledge ends. The Big Bang is a perfect example. We don't know what happened in the very first instant. Our knowledge (or rather, knowledge-based theory) ends there, and that's OK. There is no reason whatsoever to dream up some kind of magical actor to be inserted there.

Also, I resent this appearance of the "magical sky fairy' bull.

I really don't care. If you want to be taken seriously, then don't expect others to take completely unfounded magical nonsense seriously. A magical sky fairy is exactly what the Abrahamic god hypothesis is. It can only be imagined, and that makes it... wait for it... IMAGINARY. It's right up there with gnomes, orcs, Harry Potter, and Puff the Magic Dragon. There is no trace of it to be found and observed in the real and actual universe. It only exists in people's imaginations, and if people are good at anything, it's imagining things that don't exist. We have probably always been a species of storytellers. Just think of all of the fiction that has been produced throughout history, all of the mythical beasts and hero legends. We're pretty good at it. People in the past can be excused for believing in such nonsense, if only because there was really no way for most of them to know any better, but people today no longer have that excuse.

the Richard Dawkins "doctrine" of humiliating believers with talk of "flying spaghetti monsters" and other mocking images, is both maddening and disturbing.

Then stop professing belief in made up shit like ancient superstitions and magical stories from distant times when the majority of people were vastly more ignorant than they are even today (and that's really saying something).

Or better yet, just stop expecting others to take it seriously. If you don't like ridicule, then don't invite it. Don't pretend that supernatural religious mythology has any basis in fact and expect everyone else to just nod and pretend as well.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.6    4 months ago

... adding on ...

To keep with the Dawkins theme, here is a younger Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.11  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.9    4 months ago
Ought to be sharing between themselves? What does that even mean?

Hi DS, it means at some point discussion leaves the range of known-possible/probables and attempts to become one of unknown-unknowns. Try to imagine what an infinite regression (Beginning +1) can be. For it can never cease receding into itself. Who can discuss that? Yet, we all will agree that anything with a beginning, must have a starting end-point. For humanity, the scope of a starting point are the cause/s which effect we are.

World religions, inclusive, aside the Christian Faith's worldview does not believe in magic; in-spite of what this or that individual preacher might say in a recording studio. God evidently operates on a slow, methodical, "natural" curve where laws are created and allowed to remain constant and only limited use of "extraordinary" displays of power are necessary to express.

You know, I take exceptional exception to you calling a faith which you can not or will not recognize and the lives of countless peoples, in, out, and no longer in the world to be a group of dummies who can be so easily dismissed simply because science has come along. We can all agreed that moderation in what science can do for the body, and what religion can do with the spirit can be a benefit to all of mankind—working together.

However, this faux separation of scientism (that is, science as 'idol') and naturalism (that is, the material nature is all there was, is , and ever will be), so let's screw everything that professes to be anything true about this world, universe, and beyond is rank stupid in its own right. For to state that the natural man waits for "evidence" of something outside of the material order is tantamount to saying that the natural man and woman won't move his or her butt one iota to learn what is just outside of their POV. Whereas, the spiritual man can experience the natural order (flesh) and the spiritual order (spiritual).

It is worth being open to think about, even if one does not! We do have reasonable people from all walks of life (including astronauts who have been outside the Earth's sphere) who turn to and profess faith in God.

The remainder paragraph was simply just spewing rhetorical poison in all directions.

Note: I barely know your perspectives in these long running discussions. However, what you wrote comes across as 'familiar.'

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.3    4 months ago
Otherwise, Dawkins' lecture would not provide affirmation for atheists.

Do you think atheists are people who want no god?    If so, you are trying to understand atheism through religious-colored glasses.   

A much better way to try to understand an atheist is to simply be skeptical.   Follow the evidence to where it leads.   Until the evidence leads to a god, the skeptic does not find the god hypothesis to be persuasive.

In contrast to a religious view which simply inserts the answer -god- and seeks ways to justify this answer;  the skeptic lets the evidence do the talking.   Believe that which is evidenced and avoid jumping to an answer based on what you wish were true.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.13  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.9    4 months ago
We have probably always been a species of storytellers. Just think of all of the fiction that has been produced throughout history, all of the mythical beasts and hero legends. We're pretty good at it. People in the past can be excused for believing in such nonsense, if only because there was really no way for most of them to know any better, but people today no longer have that excuse.

What makes you consider it possible that, in this case, Christianity is founded on 'storytelling'? Some academics and some nonbelievers in God are not the only people who are given to clear thinking about what is true and what is fiction in this world. It is untrue and dare I say, delusional of one or another person to assume that the bible's accounts can be simply reduced to sets of book fiction. Moreover, this would imply that all we who are experiencing spiritual life in this modern era or deceivers, tricksters, delusional, or telling the truth which nonbelievers choose not to give credence.

What reason would you have to accuse all Christians (and other religions) of wanting to trick, deceive, or delude the world? What value is it in that? When, should you consider it, if it is possible to 'drop' the notion of God, we could all live versions of successful life apart from such religious paraphernalia and spiritual imagery?

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.14  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.10    4 months ago
here is a younger Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye.

It's astonishingly simple, isn't it? Anyone who's ever made and played around with a pinhole camera should have no trouble at all understanding what he's showing there.

And to think this was in 1991, and yet 10, 15, 20 years later there were (and still are I think) ID fraud peddlers trying to claim that eyes are irreducibly complex. Even with the internet! You'd think they'd have gotten the memo by now.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.15  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.10    4 months ago

Dawkins is explaining how to develop an eye progressively over a long, long, period of time. He begins with a membrane designed to receive changes in light and dark. But what cells unintentionally bumped together and "willed" to see to start this long, long, journey to an eye?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.14    4 months ago
It's astonishingly simple, isn't it?

As I have noted, one must actually (seriously) think about this stuff.   Too many categorically dismiss select findings of science because the concept conflicts with their religious views.   

Worse yet are those who cry ~~pseudoscience~~ yet demonstrably do not have clue one about that which they dismiss.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.15    4 months ago
But what cells unintentionally bumped together and "willed" to see to start this long, long, journey to an eye?

Why do you presume there was an intent (your word "willed") to detect light?

( and this is not cells bumping together, but rather mutations that wound up (unintended) serving a survival purpose )

 
 
 
CB
7.2.18  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.17    4 months ago

Tig, I am using Dawkins' language in the video: "A single sensitive sheet of light sensitive cells."

Moreover, Dawkins continues on with discussion of 'seeing predators.' Creatures at this point which are blind too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.18    4 months ago
A single sensitive sheet of light sensitive cells

Yes ultimately we are talking about cell functionality.   But DNA mutations cause new functioning cells to form.   Existing cells do not 'bump together', rather new cells (with new functionality) 'grow'.

Moreover, Dawkins continues on with discussion of 'seeing predators.' Creatures at this point which are blind too.

Why is that significant?   The point is that seeing a predator is a survival advantage so those with the eye genes are more likely to produce progeny who will, in turn, likely evolve even better eyes.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.20  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.19    4 months ago
eye genes

New words introduced, "eye genes." New "functionality."

At this stage, an eye is not an advantage, because it has not come into existence. Why do cells mutate to form light sensitive cells?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.11    4 months ago
We can all agreed that moderation...and what religion can do with the spirit can be a benefit to all of mankind—working together.

Speak for yourself, please.  Some of us are just fine without religion.

the natural man and woman won't move his or her butt one iota to learn what is just outside of their POV.

When are you going to give credence to the existence of Zeus?  You demand credence for your god, but have an obvious double standard when it comes to other gods.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.20    4 months ago
Why do cells mutate to form light sensitive cells?

Because DNA reproduction is an error-prone process.   The errors sometimes produce instructions that do nothing, sometimes produce a desirable feature and sometimes produce an undesirable feature.

There is no plan, no intent, no will.   Variations simply happen.   The good variations (those that aid survival) tend to be passed through generations and improved (until the improvement no longer provides a survival / reproductive advantage).

 
 
 
CB
7.2.23  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.21    4 months ago

Many more do just fine with both science and religion. The natural and spiritual working together in the body. STELLAR!

If I worship Zeus, will you come alongside and become spiritual? Fair is fair. I am confident you will agree with that!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.20    4 months ago
Why do cells mutate to form light sensitive cells?

You're assuming there's a force driving the mutation.  As I believe Dig explained above, mutations have no intent.  There is nothing directing them.  They happen, and then they either get passed along to progeny, or they don't.  If they're adaptive, they're more likely to get passed along.  If they're not adaptive, they're less likely to get passed along.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.23    4 months ago
Many more do just fine with both science and religio

And many of those could do fine without religion, if they chose.

And some think they're doing fine with religion, but to the outside eye, really aren't.

I have no reason to be "spiritual".  I'm the one who's not convinced that the "spiritual" world as you see it exists.  You insist that it does, without evidence, but only your version, not anybody else's unevidenced version.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.26  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  CB @7.2.11    4 months ago
Try to imagine what an infinite regression (Beginning +1) can be. For it can never cease receding into itself. Who can discuss that?

There's no beginning. That's what makes it infinite. 

But here's the point: It is logically incorrect to look around at the universe and decide that it is too complex to have occurred naturally, and must therefore be the product of an even more complex creator. Do you not see the problem there? How does a person who is incapable of accepting the natural occurrence of a rock and all of the atoms in it (for example) turn around and imagine and accept an even more complex creator of the rock? If the former is too mind-blowing to exist without a creator, then the latter has to be even more so. Thus the latter requires a creator, who would also require a creator, who would also require a creator... ad infinitum.

That's what makes every creator-god hypothesis an infinite regress. If nature is too astonishing to exist naturally, then so must any imagined creator be. The creator-god couldn't just exist either.

World religions, inclusive, aside the Christian Faith's worldview does not believe in magic

Is it possible that you don't understand what the word magic means?

You know, I take exceptional exception to you calling a faith which you can not or will not recognize and the lives of countless peoples, in, out, and no longer in the world to be a group of dummies who can be so easily dismissed simply because science has come along

You can take extraordinarily exceptional exception for all I care. I already said that it is understandable how people in the past could be so easily duped, but people in the present, not so much. I'm pretty sure I didn't make this accusation, but maybe stupidity IS the answer.

I have lived around religious people my entire life, including a few relatives who are very religious, and I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the dumbest people I have ever encountered in my life are also the most religious. They constantly do and say the dumbest shit, they wholeheartedly believe the dumbest conspiracy theories, and they seem to fall for every damn scam that lands on their doorstep, even to the point of gambling themselves into bankruptcy because, you know, if they pray hard enough then God will eventually reward them with the big jackpot. Seriously.

However, this faux separation of scientism (that is, science as 'idol') and naturalism (that is, the material nature is all there was, is , and ever will be), so let's screw everything that professes to be anything true about this world, universe, and beyond is rank stupid in its own right. For to state that the natural man waits for "evidence" of something outside of the material order is tantamount to saying that the natural man and woman won't move his or her butt one iota to learn what is just outside of their POV. Whereas, the spiritual man can experience the natural order (flesh) and the spiritual order (spiritual).

I sat here for a good long while trying to decipher this so I could respond to it, but I failed.

It is worth being open to think about, even if one does not!

I am open to anything that can be observed and described by science, which... stop the presses... amounts to an awful lot of stuff. Nature is pretty amazing after all. But anecdotes about supposedly supernatural things that can ONLY be imagined, and are often imagined differently by different people, every one of whom thinks they know the 'truth', which always seem to boil down to some kind of desire for personal salvation (which I assume comes from an overpowering fear of mortality)? Not so much.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.26    4 months ago
I sat here for a good long while trying to decipher this so I could respond to it, but I failed.

I speak CB lingo, so I offer this translation:

Spiritual people (those who allow themselves to believe in a reality outside of that which can be evidenced) are able to understand / experience the natural world and also understand / experience the supernatural.   You stubborn atheists are so smug but actually you are the ones who are ignorant of a greater reality.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.28  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.22    4 months ago

Well, Richard mentions that he is "supposing." What he is supposing?

How the eye can come into existence without a need for God to start the process.

He has no empirical data for any of that demonstration. And, that is interesting coming from a man heavily possessed of the usage: "Show me evidence!"

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.28    4 months ago
How the eye can come into existence without a need for God to start the process.

I am confident I just answered that question (several times).   Further, I am confident Professor Dawkins just provided an entire lecture answering that question.

He has no empirical data for any of that demonstration. 

He is providing an explanation of how evolution could produce an eye.   The evidence supporting this explanation (as he mentioned) is all around us.  We observe eyes today at various levels of evolution.   We also can see what our own eyes might have evolved to had there been a survival / reproduction advantage (e.g. the eagle eye).    

What he did not do is state that this is precisely what happened.   He is explaining what appears to have happened based upon all current knowledge.   That, CB, is what science does.

If you want a proclamation of certainty for something you will have to turn to religion.   

 
 
 
CB
7.2.30  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.24    4 months ago

I took no such thing for granted! I simply asked Tig for his explanation for why some undirected cells would form light sensitivity to the world outside.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.31  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.25    4 months ago

Can't profess for "anybody else" that's for 'em to do. That how it works, Sandy.

Incidentally, I performed just fine without faith in God too. But, I could not stay in that position. Life changed me. I could either accept the 'compelling,' or push against it to no avail. Now then, which of those two sound more reasonable in your opinion?

 
 
 
CB
7.2.32  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.26    4 months ago
But here's the point: It is logically incorrect to look around at the universe and decide that it is too complex to have occurred naturally, and must therefore be the product of an even more complex creator. Do you not see the problem there? How does a person who is incapable of accepting the natural occurrence of a rock and all of the atoms in it (for example) turn around and imagine and accept an even more complex creator of the rock? If the former is too mind-blowing to exist without a creator, then the latter has to be even more so. Thus the latter requires a creator, who would also require a creator, who would also require a creator... ad infinitum.

No. There is no practical application for attempting to push backwards infinitely. Infinity + 1 > Everything we understand breaks down in such an 'exercise.' We can not reasonably 'go there.'

The reason a Christian discusses God in the first place is because of a scriptural basis. But, we know there are limitations on understanding where God resides and derives.

That's what makes every creator-god hypothesis an infinite regress. If nature is too astonishing to exist naturally, then so must any imagined creator be. The creator-god couldn't just exist either.

Not so. God's make-up is/should be known to God, at least that is what, for the sake of discussion, a human will have to presuppose. We do not have any answer otherwise to ponder the matter. Infinity adding onto itself into what>>>>infinity? Senseless.

For believers, our 'stopping point' is contact with God. Beyond that no amount of conjecture has any bearings, markers, or indicators.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.33  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.26    4 months ago
I have lived around religious people my entire life, including a few relatives who are very religious, and I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the dumbest people I have ever encountered in my life are also the most religious. They constantly do and say the dumbest shit, they wholeheartedly believe the dumbest conspiracy theories, and they seem to fall for every damn scam that lands on their doorstep, even to the point of gambling themselves into bankruptcy because, you know, if they pray hard enough then God will eventually reward them with the big jackpot. Seriously.

That was remarkable irresponsible and an overgeneralization. I am not any kin of yours. So, why throw them under the bus online? if you just want some Christians and other religious folks to bash, why didn't you simply say so plainly?

My first impression was to give more credit than looking for fhits and giggles.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.34  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.26    4 months ago
I am open to anything that can be observed and described by science, which... stop the presses... amounts to an awful lot of stuff. Nature is pretty amazing after all. But anecdotes about supposedly supernatural things that can ONLY be imagined, and are often imagined differently by different people, every one of whom thinks they know the 'truth', which always seem to boil down to some kind of desire for personal salvation (which I assume comes from an overpowering fear of mortality)? Not so much.

Your loss? (Dryly.)  It is sad but true. I can not give you a belief in God. Only God can. So in the meantime, do. . . uh, this.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.35  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.27    4 months ago

Oh you! A real-life, "cb-whisperer." As I live and breathe!

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.33    4 months ago

I think Dig was giving us his anecdotal experiences.   We are all shaped by our environment and he just shared a bit of his.    You, of all people, should appreciate his candor since you constantly complain that atheists do not share their personal stories.

Now, in my experiences, most of the people I know (family and friends) are religious (mostly Catholic and Protestant like Lutheran) and are normal, responsible, intelligent people.    But MoCowGirl would offer experiences that correlate well with what Dig reported.    

I have no reason to doubt MoCowGirl or Dig's experiences (quite the opposite - both are very trustworthy IMO) and I certainly have met enough people in my life to put forth examples that match what they report.   

Bottom line, I know and see (public figures) people who are without question highly intelligent and are also quite religious.   Indeed, if religion were limited to the stupidest among us I would not be so concerned.   But since religion (in general) has evolved systems so effective that it (in general) can still ensnare the minds of intelligent, modern, informed people I am motivated to continue to counter it with debate.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.37  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.29    4 months ago
I am confident I just answered that question (several times).   Further, I am confident Professor Dawkins just provided an entire lecture answering that question.

I wrote no question there needing any answer, Tig. So the words, "superfluous straw-man" comes to mind.

Moreover, there was no need for you to get emotional and throw 'shade' at this person of people of faith, because Dr. Dawkins wants to explain life apart from God—whether it occurred that way or not!

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.38  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  CB @7.2.13    4 months ago
What makes you consider it possible that, in this case, Christianity is founded on 'storytelling'?

Are you kidding me? Everything about Christianity is founded on storytelling. The OT came from Jewish cultural storytelling (with striking similarities to the earlier cultural storytelling of other peoples, as with the Epic of Gilgamesh), and the NT came from stories written down something like a century after Jesus supposedly lived and died, by people who weren't even alive at the time. That is not what anyone should consider a good source of information.

It's all storytelling.

It is untrue and dare I say, delusional of one or another person to assume that the bible's accounts can be simply reduced to sets of book fiction.

See previous comment.

Moreover, this would imply that all we who are experiencing spiritual life in this modern era or deceivers, tricksters, delusional, or telling the truth which nonbelievers choose not to give credence.

Some ARE deceivers and tricksters. Ever notice those money grubbing televangelists? I'd say that most are delusional, though. The last option certainly isn't the case, especially considering that nobody can even to get the story straight. If they could, there wouldn't be so many different denominations and sects.

What reason would you have to accuse all Christians (and other religions) of wanting to trick, deceive, or delude the world?

Oh, it's not my reason, but in the case of Christianity, the Bible tells followers to spread 'the faith', or 'the word', or maybe 'the Gospel'. Something like that anyway. Pretty sure the Koran tells Muslims to do so as well. And both have done it at the tip of a bloody sword.

My own reasoning for the 'why' of it all probably has more to do with tribalism than anything else. I think people largely inherit their religions from their parents and surrounding communities. I think it has more to do with sociology than anything else.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.37    4 months ago
I wrote no question there needing any answer, Tig. So the word, "superfluous" comes to mind.

Here is your entire comment to which I responded:

CB @7.2.28Well, Richard mentions that he is "supposing." What he is supposing?  How the eye can come into existence without a need for God to start the process.  He has no empirical data for any of that demonstration. And, that is interesting coming from a man heavily possessed of the usage: "Show me evidence!"

I see no point where you stated 'no question' or that you indicated your question was rhetorical.    Not sure what you are talking about, but your comment deserved a rebuttal and got one.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.40  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.38    4 months ago

I won't dignify that canard rhetoric with anything further. It is simply a drain to keep rehashing. One thing: As for different denominations and sects, . . . there are reasons, but I won't take out discussing them with you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.40    4 months ago

He is right.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.42  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  CB @7.2.32    4 months ago
No. There is no practical application for attempting to push backwards infinitely. Infinity + 1 > Everything we understand breaks down in such an 'exercise.' We can not reasonably 'go there.'

I thought that's what I said, that we can't reasonably (logically) go there. That was kind of my whole point.

we know there are limitations on understanding where God resides and derives.

I know exactly where he resides and derives... in the believer's imagination.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.43  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.39    4 months ago
Well, Richard mentions that he is "supposing." What he is supposing?  How the eye can come into existence without a need for God to start the process.

I answered my (own) question, Tig. See it now? I know my own intentions, Tig.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.44  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  CB @7.2.33    4 months ago
That was remarkable irresponsible and an overgeneralization. I am not any kin of yours. So, why throw them under the bus online? if you just want some Christians and other religious folks to bash, why didn't you simply say so plainly?

I wasn't generalizing. I was speaking specifically of my own experience. You might want to re-read the first sentence of what you quoted there.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.45  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.43    4 months ago
I know my own intentions, Tig.

Now your challenge is to express yourself clearly to others rather than expect us to read your mind.   

By the way, your comment required a rebuttal regardless (even if you had been clear) because it still argues that God is the driving force behind the eye.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.46  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.41    4 months ago

He may be, but then again this was not what this discussion between us (all) newly begin with. Moreover, I do ask you or others to defend every lame activity undertaken through the liberty/ities vested in one acting in the science field.  That is, the non-conformists.

Though you will like comeback with:  all scientists are free to do as they want. . .with peer review (pressure) pressing down and ever 'watchful' to keep 'em accountable.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.47  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.36    4 months ago

Ditto, "Dig-whisperer." (Smile.)

 
 
 
CB
7.2.48  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.45    4 months ago

Whatever. You owe me a clear explanation for why you could not see I answered my own question. The question mark singular was in the proper place, after all. No matter. Let's move on. This is how we figuratively, 'die' lost in weeds of the thread.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.49  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.44    4 months ago

You stated quite a 'mouthful' and I do not choose to read it again, the 'let-down' the first time around is sufficient for now. Care to move on back to God or Richard?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.50  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.48    4 months ago
You owe me a clear explanation for why you could not see I answered my own question.

Sure.  Even if you think you answered your own question that does not mean you expressed that as your intent.   Also, note that your comments are often vague.   Thus we tend to not parse your words too deeply to try to divine a precise intent.  

Further, when someone writes a comment, poses a question and then answers the question then the next step should be to delete the comment.   If you are not inviting others to opine then do not publish the comment.   Given you posted the comment for all to see you are inviting a response.   See?   Social media 101, Cal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.51  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.49    4 months ago

Cal, why would anyone take you seriously after that brush off?   Most every time it is best to accept a person's correction of your misinterpretation and move on.   It is bad to pretend you did not misinterpret (implicitly calling the author a liar).   

Dig just showed you that he was talking about his own experience and was not stereotyping.  I even explained that to you prior to his response.   If you read his opening sentence (as he suggested) you would clearly see you are flat out 100% wrong:

Dig @7.2.26 - I have lived around religious people my entire life, including a few relatives who are very religious, and I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the dumbest people I have ever encountered in my life are also the most religious.
 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.52  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.45    4 months ago
By the way, your comment required a rebuttal regardless (even if you had been clear) because it still argues that God is the driving force behind the eye.

Side question: If God in his infinite perfection created the human eye, then why are human eyes so damn faulty? For example, why do so many people, even children, need glasses? You'd think God could have done a better job.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.53  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.50    4 months ago

We're dying here a slow, tedious media figurative death. (Last gasps.)

 
 
 
CB
7.2.54  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.51    4 months ago

'Dying' media death Step 2! (Gasping.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.55  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.52    4 months ago

Certainly.

By the same reasoning, why not regenerate teeth?   The loss of teeth (and the decay prior to loss) was a major contributor to early death.    And why do men have nipples?    

Easily explained if the mad scientist is an undirected process where good-enough tends to be the end result.   

 
 
 
CB
7.2.56  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.52    4 months ago

You might as well ask what does "infinite perfection" mean if it means what we see in this 'dingy,' bitchified world on a daily basis. Dig, this is not God's perfection. God is perfect in God-self. We are mere mortals struggling through life on one planet in a 'sea of "worlds" without end.'

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.57  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.55    4 months ago
Easily explained if the mad scientist is an undirected process where good-enough tends to be the end result.

Yup.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.58  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  CB @7.2.56    4 months ago
We are mere mortals struggling through life on one planet in a 'sea of "worlds" without end.'

Finally. Something I can agree with. :)

Edit: That actually reminded me of one of the most profound things I've ever read. It's from Carl Sagan in 'Pale Blue Dot'. The quote is a bit long, but here's a link to the quote on a page from the Planetary Society that also shows the image from Voyager 1 that the quote is referring to.

 
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.59  seeder  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.58    4 months ago

Ah! Found it on YouTube, read aloud by Sagan himself:

 
 
 
CB
7.2.60  CB   replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.59    4 months ago

The beauty is in the words in the first part of the package and at its end.  In the third section trying to reduce everything he has prior uttered about the being called us into a 'dust bal' of no consequence falls flat. Clearly, we are the only dust ball we know of in this universe, naturally and spiritually combined which can look back and reflect upon itself! That unique. And, there is no need for one side to vainly attempt to appropriate all 'everything' unto itself.

For all we know one day the dark 'cathedral' of the universe itself may slowly turn up the lighting on the drama we with all our imperfections were permitted to put on. Take nothing for granted, my friends.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.61  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.31    4 months ago
I could either accept the 'compelling,' or push against it to no avail. Now then, which of those two sound more reasonable in your opinion?

That depends on the source of the "compelling".  I suspect that the source of the "compelling" is more likely to be due to one's upbringing and societal pressure than a deity actually asserting itself, but some don't find themselves capable of arriving at that conclusion.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.62  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @7.2.32    4 months ago
For believers, our 'stopping point' is contact with God. Beyond that no amount of conjecture has any bearings, markers, or indicators.

That's intellectually lazy, and you seem to want to impose that laziness on the rest of us.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.63  Nerm_L  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.4    4 months ago
That most certainly is not the argument. Environmental changes do not 'miraculously' cause specific mutations allowing a specific species to adapt and survive. Think about it. If that were true then no species would ever go extinct. Copy error mutations occur all the time, and at a measurable and statistically-predictable rate in different genomes (some are more error-prone than others due to things like varying chromosomal structure). You actually have some DNA in your cells right this minute that is slightly different than it was when you were born, because it was copied every time new cells were made and the replication process is not 100% error-proof. Environmental changes having to do with chemical or radiation exposure can increase the mutation rate, but there's nothing magical about it.

So, environmental changes have nothing to do with natural selection?  Or are you claiming that genetic mutations cause the environment to adapt to the mutation?  A stable unchanging environment establishes a stable unchanging biota.  

Coding errors might explain species changes in viruses or single cell life forms.  However, coding error mutations in complex organizations are not enlightening.  Coding errors during mitosis might result in tumors but will unlikely result in speciation.  For genetic mutation to result in a new species the coding errors would need to occur during meiosis of reproductive cells.  The mutated reproductive cells would then need to result in a viable embryo which could only produce one mutated individual for each mutated reproductive cell.  

Wouldn't a more reasonable approach be hybridization; reproduction between species that are more closely related genetically?  Hybridization could produce more offspring with the same mutation across several breeding seasons.  Hybridization would establish a population with the same genetic make up while random mutations would only produce a single mutated individual.  (BTW, that's why new species arise within a genus and why its not possible to show that mutations in pigs would produce goats.)  

Copy error mutations may occur all the time but its not likely that copy errors are the source of diversity within the plant and animal kingdoms.  And copy error mutation certainly can't explain evolution of highly specialized symbiotic relationships between species that are unrelated genetically.  That makes natural selection a 'then a miracle occurred' argument.  

By that logic, the god would have needed another god who would have needed another god who would have needed another god, on and on and on. If nothing can happen or exist without a magical sky fairy to cause or create it, then the same applies to the magical sky fairy itself. Infinite regress. At the most basic level life is a chemical reaction, molecular self-replication powered by metabolizing chemical and/or solar energy. No magic required.

Every argument for the emergence of sentient life provides an equally applicable explanation for the emergence of God.  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.64  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.63    4 months ago
So, environmental changes have nothing to do with natural selection?

Not sure how you get that from what Dig wrote.

Every argument for the emergence of sentient life provides an equally applicable explanation for the emergence of God. 

Sure, except that the emergence of something as complex as a god does not compare well with the emergence of life forms as we know them.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  

The egg.

There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

Why?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.65  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.5    4 months ago
I agree.   A creator of the known universe could indeed exist as am emergent property of existence.   That is, if the universe could emerge from existence then one must hold that a creator of same could have emerged from existence (and indeed a creator of the creator, ...).    Of course, that reasoning illustrates that a sentient creator is not necessary.

Why not call quintessential existence what it really represents - God?  According to that argument the presence of sentient life requires quintessential existence.  There still needs to be a God at the beginning.  

We know life exists.   We cannot say the same for God.   Why speculate on the origin of that which is not known to exist?  

There isn't even agreement on how to determine what exists and what does not exist.  Calling God by the name 'quintessential existence' isn't enlightening.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.66  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.65    4 months ago
Why not call quintessential existence what it really represents - God? 

Define ‘God’ as you use the word.   Seems to me that you equate it to first cause with no requirement for sentience (and thus no intent).

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.67  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.12    4 months ago
Do you think atheists are people who want no god?    If so, you are trying to understand atheism through religious-colored glasses.   
A much better way to try to understand an atheist is to simply be skeptical.   Follow the evidence to where it leads.   Until the evidence leads to a god, the skeptic does not find the god hypothesis to be persuasive.

Richard Dawkins is a Biblical atheist who uses the Bible to justify his atheism.  That's not the same thing as an atheist.  Dawkins doesn't utilize intellectual curiosity to ask the pertinent question; what is God?  Replacing the Biblical God with some other representation of God is not atheism.  Skepticism is an agnostic approach to particular answers for the pertinent question of 'what is God'.  

In contrast to a religious view which simply inserts the answer -god- and seeks ways to justify this answer;  the skeptic lets the evidence do the talking.   Believe that which is evidenced and avoid jumping to an answer based on what you wish were true.

Which God?  What does religion have to do with God?  Why has religion played such a prominent role in human history?  Why has there always been a need for a God at the beginning?

Sentience is based upon a triad or trinity of knowledge, experience, and abstraction.  Sentience possesses the qualities of knowledge of the past, senses to experience the present, and abstract thinking to foresee the future.  Those are anomalous qualities in a material universe governed by deterministic regulating principles.  The material universe can only be what it is and cannot change how it behaves.  Progressing from inert deterministic matter and energy to a sentient life form that possesses the quality of 'free will' is always going to need a God at the beginning.  

I don't believe there is any such thing as an atheist.  Atheists don't exist.  The contradictions established by the presence of life where it should not be present requires a God at the beginning.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.68  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.67    4 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a Biblical atheist who uses the Bible to justify his atheism. 

That is nonsense.   Dawkins is an atheist because he is not convinced there is a god (a sentient creator).   

The material universe can only be what it is and cannot change how it behaves.  Progressing from inert deterministic matter and energy to a sentient life form that possesses the quality of 'free will' is always going to need a God at the beginning.  

Why?   Define 'God'.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.69  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.68    4 months ago
Why?   Define 'God'.

THAT is the pertinent question for the intellectually curious.  What is God?   According to Richard Dawkins that question should be approached with humility; the humble answer would be 'we don't know'.  If we do not know what God is then atheists cannot exist.

Can something come from nothing?  Where did good and evil come from?  Has good and evil been present in the material universe from the beginning?  Why isn't the material universe governed by principles of good and evil?  Why isn't good and evil part of physics?

Humans are a sentient life form.  Humans possess qualities that allow them to alter the future of the entire universe by opposing the deterministic regulating principles governing inert matter and energy (although they currently lack the means).  Humans can influence the future to greater extent than is possible by natural progression (and humans are obtaining the means).  Mankind is not governed by the laws of physics; mankind can break the rules.  Where did those human qualities come from?  Could those human qualities come from nothing?  

Richard Dawkins ends his lecture on a note of pride for science.  Science has not only provided knowledge; science has allowed mankind to break the rules governing a deterministic material universe.  Knowledge, experience, and abstraction are contrary to the deterministic laws of science.  Free will contradicts the laws of science.  Did all of that come from nothing?

Life, itself, is a miraculous contradiction of the material universe.  There always needs to be God at the beginning.  But what is God?

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.70  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.69    4 months ago
If we do not know what God is then atheists cannot exist.

What?  I know what an atheist is - are you saying that you don't? 

Where did those human qualities come from?  Could those human qualities come from nothing?  

Could your god have come from nothing?

There always needs to be God at the beginning. 

See above.

Why has religion played such a prominent role in human history?  Why has there always been a need for a God at the beginning?

Humans seem to have invented vengeful gods in their various civilizations once they've reached about a million people, but not at the beginning of humanity.  We seem to be hardwired to invent gods, at least until we know enough about science and the natural world to not need such things.  It's also one way to get a group sense of morality (although that morality often changes as humanity matures).  And, of course, it's a good method to control people.  Gods weren't necessary in our hunter-gatherer stage, for example.

https://www.livescience.com/65039-punishing-gods-rise-with-complex-societies.html

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.71  Nerm_L  replied to  katrix @7.2.70    4 months ago
What?  I know what an atheist is - are you saying that you don't? 

Did atheism come from nothing?  Atheist cannot exist without God; otherwise there would nothing to disbelieve.  There still needs to be a God at the beginning.

Could your god have come from nothing?

I don't know.  What is existence?  What is God?

If God does not exist, as atheists claim, then God must have come from nothing.  Atheist claim that God is a figment of the imagination and does not exist; therefore, imagination does not exist and that also means an imaginary God came from non-existence or nothing.

Is God a thing?  Is God an idea?  Is God a description of regulating properties and principles?  How can someone claim that existence is all that exists but that God absolutely does not exist without knowing what is God?  Atheist require someone else to define God before atheist can disbelieve that definition.  That is intellectual cowardice.

So, here is the question for atheists:  what is not God?  Atheists need to explain why God is not needed at the beginning.  And atheists begin arguing the gaps like any theologian.  Does that make atheism a theology?

Humans seem to have invented vengeful gods in their various civilizations once they've reached about a million people, but not at the beginning of humanity.  We seem to be hardwired to invent gods, at least until we know enough about science and the natural world to not need such things.  It's also one way to get a group sense of morality (although that morality often changes as humanity matures).  And, of course, it's a good method to control people.  Gods weren't necessary in our hunter-gatherer stage, for example.

The sun exists and humans have accepted the sun a benevolent and vengeful God; their God existed.  Nature exists and humans have accepted nature as a benevolent and vengeful God; their God existed.

Throughout human history the vengeful forces of nature have been made Gods.  But identifying any God as vengeful requires an understanding of good and evil.  Where did good and evil come from?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.72  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.69    4 months ago
There always needs to be God at the beginning.  But what is God?

Your post is a bit too non-committal for me to find much interest.

Bottom line, if you do not know what you mean by 'God' and thus are unwilling to define your meaning then do not make claims about 'God'.   The claim is nonsensical.   For example, take what I quoted with the meaning you have supplied for 'God' and you have:

There always needs to be 'undefined' at the beginning.  But what is 'undefined'?

See if you can commit to some meaning that is somewhat relevant to the topic.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.73  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.69    4 months ago
If we do not know what God is then atheists cannot exist.

The etymological root for the word atheism is from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s).

Someone who has never considered the concept of "God" would, by the basic root of the word, be an atheist or "without God".

"Can something come from nothing?"

We don't know. If it can't, then is "God" something? If so, then how did that something come from nothing if nothing else can come from nothing? Maybe a better question would be "Is empty space really empty?".

"Where did good and evil come from?"

They did not exist as we know them until humans existed because good and evil are subjective. Social evolution has defined things that harm humans as "evil" and things that benefit humans as "good". Decapitating an innocent human: Evil. Decapitating an innocent chicken to feed a human: Good.

"Has good and evil been present in the material universe from the beginning?"

No, as I just explained. The universe doesn't care a wit about humans and will unknowingly kill us in an instant if we forget our relative place in it.

"Why isn't good and evil part of physics?"

As I said, the universe doesn't care what you put in its way, it'll crush us and recycle our energy in an instant if we're not careful.

"Humans possess qualities that allow them to alter the future of the entire universe by opposing the deterministic regulating principles governing inert matter and energy (although they currently lack the means).  Humans can influence the future to greater extent than is possible by natural progression (and humans are obtaining the means)."

And yet so often I hear conservatives claiming humans are so insignificant they can't have any effect on rapid climate change... weird huh.

"Mankind is not governed by the laws of physics; mankind can break the rules."

Really? Please explain how and when man has broken the laws of physics. I was not aware we had gained magical powers or proven the divine or spiritual exists. We have discovered quantum mechanics which seem to break the laws of physics as we once knew them, but that's not humans doing it, we are merely getting a peek into that realm. If you are saying that humans can effect physics, well I assumed that was a given. We can invent ways to harness energy using physics, we can explore our environment and we keep expanding our mastery over using physics to our advantage, but as of yet I do not know of any humans who has broken the laws of the universe.

"Where did those human qualities come from?  Could those human qualities come from nothing?"

Those qualities have evolved over a very long time as humans use trial and error most often to make life/survival/procreation easier for humans. From the invention of tools, farming, harnessing natural power and making it work for us starting with water mills and windmills to the modern invention of modes of mass transportation enabling large numbers of humans to migrate anywhere on the globe within hours.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.74  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.61    4 months ago

What could/would you know about my 'societal pressure' which does not affect you, or my 'upbringing' which has nothing to do with returning to a life of faith. I was done and away from my past religious upbringing—much like some of your current associates on this board.

If you do not trust me to tell you the truth, why bother with me? I have no reason or agenda to show up here on a daily basis to lie to you. Moreover, I do not care if you ever become a person of faith - if you need to hear me state it.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.75  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.62    4 months ago

I take exception to your calling me intellectually lazy, when I take the time to look at all sides of an issue on a recurring basis. Which you know from all the board discussions we have encountered each other on. So, that is an untrue statement.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.76  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.72    4 months ago
Your post is a bit too non-committal for me to find much interest.

Bottom line, if you do not know what you mean by 'God' and thus are unwilling to define your meaning then do not make claims about 'God'.   The claim is nonsensical.   For example, take what I quoted with the meaning you have supplied for 'God' and you have:

There always needs to be 'undefined' at the beginning.  But what is 'undefined'?

See if you can commit to some meaning that is somewhat relevant to the topic.

Doesn't the claim of non-committal really mean that nothing has been provided to justify atheism?  As I stated in my comment beginning this discussion I have rationally concluded there is a God.  That conclusion is a prerequisite for defining God and a prerequisite for atheism.  Without God atheism becomes irrelevant nonsense.  There can be no atheism without God, no matter how that God is defined.

What I have asked Katrix I now ask you:  what is not God?   Defining what God 'is not' also provides answers for what God 'is'.  That is Aristotle's logic.  How can you justify the existence of atheism if there is no God?  Atheism is a logical contradiction in defining God; atheists cannot define God therefore there must be no God.  The conclusion is predetermined by the premise.  And if the premise becomes 'we don't know' then atheists cannot exist.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.77  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.64    4 months ago
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  
The egg.

Why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.78  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.77    4 months ago

Eggs were around well before the ‘first’ transitional chicken-like life form hatched from one.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.79  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.76    4 months ago
Doesn't the claim of non-committal really mean that nothing has been provided to justify atheism?

Define what you mean by 'God'.   Without that, anything you ask or claim in this subject matter has no meaning.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.80  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.77    4 months ago
Why?

I consider single cell organisms as natures first "egg" that was both the lifeform and its progeny as it would split into a second lifeform in a process called binary fission. So the answer to that seemingly ancient puzzle would be "Egg". You know to spice things up you can always rephrase the question as "Which came first, the velociraptor or the egg?".

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.81  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.75    4 months ago

You wrote:

CB @7.2.32 -  For believers, our 'stopping point' is contact with God. Beyond that no amount of conjecture has any bearings, markers, or indicators.

That suggests that when believers hit the 'God-point' in the regress they stop and make no attempt to even think about the remaining issues.   That is equivalent to the cliche 'God works in mysterious ways' when an inexplicable question is posed.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.82  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.81    4 months ago

Actually, it is equivalent to an atheist scientific profession of, "I don't know, will await new information." Don't you think so?

Moreover, the atheist thinks believers are a 'variety' of delusional as it is. Imagine if the believer began to make assertions about how Spirit came to be! We stop where the texts reasonably stops; no wild speculations running amok.

Lastly, when believers say that God works in mysterious ways, generally what is meant is something along the lines of we can not explain something which occurs in and to humanity that is inconsistent with the 'situation.'  For example, floodwaters which tear through a house killing one person out of several sleeping on a bed. One could wonder why any were left alive at all. These became known as "divine mysteries."

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.83  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.82    4 months ago

No I do not think so.    God is stated as a definitive answer.   The infinite regress ends at God (in your view) and God has a meaning to you (sentient creator, etc.).   That is not the same as 'I do not know' unless you are saying that whatever is the first cause you will call 'God' even if that first cause is not sentient, did not intentionally create the known universe, etc.

Now to me, I have an answer too.   It is a bit of a placeholder but is also grounded in something we know.   In my view existence itself is real.   Everything that exists is of existence.   So whether material (as we define material) or spiritual (however you wish to define that) everything that exists is by definition an emergent property of existence - a form of quintessential existence.

I can state that I do not know what the substance of quintessential existence is.   Thus it is simply a placeholder.

If you can state that what you call God is entirely unknown to you and it is simply a placeholder for whatever is the first cause then that is equivalent to 'I do not know'.  However, I am confident that you have quite a few attributes associated with what you call God so instead of 'I do not know' you are making a very specific, positive claim as the first cause (sentient creator with intent, etc.).

 
 
 
CB
7.2.84  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.83    4 months ago

At some point, Apostle Paul realized that he was not going to be able to inform believers' answers to every question they could come up with about the "heavenly father."  Even Jesus cautioned John (the Apostle) to "go your way when he asked about those others being left behind for purposes, " and Daniel (Old Testament)  who kept asking was directed to, 'go your way, and you will stand in your lot at the end of days,' and Jesus state that regarding the exact end of this world's life no man (including Jesus the Incarnation) know - only God. Both Jesus and Daniel's messenger imply there are other orders of magnitude which have no bearing on our ability to be faithful stewards in/of the Earth.

Does this mean we know nothing about God as believers, of course not! It means we know what is shared from spiritual men and women of old, that we glean through revelation, and wisdom, and finally Jesus and the Spirit (which does not leave us spiritual orphans).

We, believers, are not atheists who can not know because they lack a belief in God, gods (some not all) and following that, refuse to go in search of or in a spiritually directed manner. At the point where Jesus, the prophets, the texts, and revelations stop 'talking,' we as believers ought to also. And not presume we can speak for God with something resembling (reckless) abandon.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.85  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.84    4 months ago
We are not atheist who can not know because they lack a belief and following that refuse to go in search of in a spiritually directed manner.

See this is where you go awry.   You presume that atheists abruptly stop seeking truth simply because we are not persuaded by mere claims of other human beings.    To me this is like a flat Earther accusing the balance of rational society of refusing to investigate 'the truth'.    Flat Earthers like to exclaim that if only you people would open your eyes you would see that you are being tricked by NASA, et. al.

Most atheists were brought up religious and almost all were exposed to plenty of religion growing up.   Religions offer many claims with no supporting evidence.   And, much much worse, religions are replete with contradictions.   You think it strange that atheists do not ignore these problems that atheists do not blindly submit to believe without evidence that atheists do not accept without question that which we are told.   I, in contrast, find it strange that anyone (past the age of reason nowadays in modern society) buys what religions sell.

It does not surprise me that people believe in a sentient creator with intent.   I get that.   But they do not leave it there.   Once one moves from an abstract possibility with few details (since we do not know anything) into a bunch of details that are supported only by the words of human beings, we have a problem in veracity.   And if those details are contradictory, we have a logical problem that should result in lack of belief that the details are correct.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.86  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @7.2.82    4 months ago
Actually, it is equivalent to an atheist scientific profession of, "I don't know, will await new information." Don't you think so?

The equivalent of that would be a religious person admitting "I don't know, will await new information". Saying a Christians "stopping point" is contact with God is the opposite of that.

What they're really saying is "I don't know, and don't know how to convince you of what I can't prove, but I don't have time to await new information, I'm just going to believe it anyway and have faith I'll be proven right in the end, and you better believe too or else we will make life very difficult for you."

"We stop where the texts reasonably stops; no wild speculations running amok."

Who is this "We" you speak of? Because that's not where most religious persons that I've known, especially evangelical Christians, stop. I'd estimate a good 85% of their message is pure wild speculation based on numerous every changing flawed interpretations of the bible. It's certainly not straight out of scripture.

"when believers say that God works in mysterious ways, generally what is meant is something along the lines of we can not explain something which occurs in and to humanity that is inconsistent with the 'situation."

If a professor of mathematics asks whether every finite lattice is isomorphic to the congruence lattice of some finite algebra, proposing the finite congruence lattice problem, one of many unsolved algebra problems, and one of this students raises his hand and says "Yeah, I know this one, the answer is 42", should we believe him? The problem is unsolved thus we can't prove it's not "42". And when the teacher asks how the student came up with that answer and his reply is "Well, it's a mystery", should that satisfy the teacher? Should he call up other professors of mathematics and tell them his student may have solved one of the unsolvable problems? Of course not. Besides being laughed out of class the student will likely get a big fat "F" for wasting everyone's time.

The honest answer to something we can't explain is "I don't know". The charlatans deceitful answer to something we can't explain is "I know who knows, and am on good terms with Him, but I can't tell you, it's a mystery...".

 
 
 
CB
7.2.87  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.85    4 months ago

I am not missing the mark. You are making a separate point about the natural order of life. Thus, you are missing the spiritual case I am making: Christians believe in God after this manner:

15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

and this,

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Tig! What you do not count as evidence: The Spirit, we, believers, count as evidence every day and night in our faith!

 
 
 
CB
7.2.88  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.86    4 months ago

See @8. Maybe stop spinning your time?  I no longer am interest in rank scoffing!

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.89  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.87    4 months ago

It is common knowledge that believers consider their feelings (the Spirit) to be evidence.   

Claiming what you 'feel' is evidence does not make it so and certainly is not going to persuade skeptics.

In fact, because the very best 'evidence' that can be offered is nothing more than 'I just believe', that strengthens the skepticism.   This is the very best evidence of the grandest possible entity?   The most impressive possible claim is evidenced by 'I just believe'?   Just that?  

What surprises me is that you do not seem to understand why this is such a feeble case to be made for the existence of God.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.90  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.2.88    4 months ago

DP made some excellent, insightful points.   You refuse to even consider what he said and offer a pointed rebuttal.   Why engage atheists -especially as aggressively as you try- if you do not want to deal with the predictable opposing perspective?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.91  Gordy327  replied to  CB @7.2.87    4 months ago
What you do not count as evidence: The Spirit, we, believers, count as evidence every day and night in our faith!

That's because it's not evidence. It's just emotional and/or anecdotal. Or even psychological. Perhaps you should learn what constitutes actual valid and credible evidence. Your so called "evidence" amounts to nothing more than "I believe" or "because I said so." But your feelings or empty declarations is hardly convincing.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.92  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.89    4 months ago

What you do not understand is I am not TRYING to persuade a skeptic. For that matter, being a skeptic is NO BIG DEAL.  Why not? Because a skeptic is only such a person until they are persuaded by the Spirit.

This is a really old argument that has gone on likely before and since biblical times. Skepticism is not a new thing. It is just very loud in the science age.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.93  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.2.90    4 months ago

Why won't you respond to him on my behalf?