Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
I'll be sure to watch it once i get somewhere with a decent connection. Dawkins is a much better speaker and better humoured than many give him credit for.
I respect Dawkins as an authority in his field. I do not respect him as a religious commentator, any more than I would respect Pat Robertson's opinions on evolution.
Dawkins conducted himself pretty well, considering he's sitting next to a blowhard straw man. My brother really digs Colbert...I never really saw the point. But still, good on Dawkins for being willing to play the ultimate straight man to a faking hyper-rightist.
I respect Dawkins as an authority in his field. I do not respect him as a religious commentator, any more than I would respect Pat Robertson's opinions on evolution.
Where were you the other night when I needed you buddy, and I was trying to explain that while logical positivism may be a consistent world view, it is not the only possible one?
Seinfeld once said that 95% of people in his view are undateable. When asked how they manage to reproduce, his one-word answer was "alcohol".
Now, a more interesting question: Do you really believe that nonsense you posted on the other thread?
I mean this:
And remember, God is a clearly defined concept in Glenn Beck's mind, and in the mind of every free American. There should be no debate, dispute or controvery about what he looks like or what he wants.
I respect Dawkins as an authority in his field. I do not respect him as a religious commentator, any more than I would respect Pat Robertson's opinions on evolution.
When it comes to wondering about religion, I have more time for Anthony Kenny. Did you watch him on that video, by the way?
Where were you the other night when I needed you buddy, and I was trying to explain that while logical positivism may be a consistent world view, it is not the only possible one?
I'm not sure which night that was, but I may have been doing something pointless like reading the Bible. Since life has no purpose, 'tis all one, isn't it? ;^)
Where were you the other night when I needed you buddy, and I was trying to explain that while logical positivism may be a consistent world view, it is not the only possible one?
Didn't Quine pretty much shoot it down or was that someone else?
For the record, I love his science and his ability to teach science.
I am disappointed with his philosophical and political arguments.
As am I. Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist. Absolutely brilliant, one of the best around. However, I find him boorish when discussing religion.
Evolution is about *how* we came about, creationism is about *why* we came about. The Creationists are trying to shove a religious argument down the throat of science, where it neither belongs nor fits.
The problem they have is that evolution contradicts their primitive, literalist interpretation of the scriptures. There are plenty of Christians who do not see a conflict and are perfectly able to accept evolution as the mechanism by which God created the us.
OT, but if anyone uses NoScript, add yieldbuild.com to your allowed list or your login button will be forever grayed out and you'll wonder what you did to be banned.
I have yieldbuild.com blocked (saw it was new yesterday or today) but I can still login. It was my blocking of googlesyndication that caused my button to grey out previously. Just providing feedback.
Yeah, but to them if you're Christian and you believe in evolution then that makes you not a Christian.
I'm sure you are correct. It's the regular "you aren't X unless you agree with every single thing I think and say" argument. I sure fire winner there... NOT.
I mean that Glenn Beck has a clearly defined view of God, one which he would love to force on everyone else, and he seems annoyed at the fact that our society has come to accept that everyone's religious viewpoint is supposed to be weighted equally in our society, which precludes using government organizations, schools and courts to impose any particular religion or or religious view on anyone else.
Indeed. The "V" in V-1 and V-2 stood for Vergultungswaffe, "reprisal weapon" often rendered as "vengeance weapon." The term was coined by Goebbels rather than by the designers.
Didn't Quine pretty much shoot it down or was that someone else?
I have not studied Quine. I do know that Ramban, and several centuries of Jewish philosophy have their answers.
I am careful to say answers, and not shoot down, because you can't really shoot down either overall view. What you can do is show that you have an internally consistent framework and then say it makes sense to you, while respecting another internally consistent framework. So I respect atheists. They may even be right. I don't believe they are, but I can't prove I'm right any more than they can.
My issue with Dawkins, is that he argues the very most basic sort of logical positivist arguments and frequently attempts to make the act of faith itself seem stupid. I would like to see him go up against someone who is actually theologically and philosophically sophisticated. I would like to see him acknowledge that it is possible to have faith and not be crazy or stupid.
another Letterman, Beck etc...I guess he's playing some role here?...the blowhard antagonist?
You know it's all an act, right? He doesn't want to be Beck at all, just act as ridiculously as he does. He actually modeled his character after Bill O'Reilly, and it's led to a situation where a number of right-wingers actually take him seriously.
I have yieldbuild.com blocked (saw it was new yesterday or today) but I can still login. It was my blocking of googlesyndication that caused my button to grey out previously. Just providing feedback.
Funny, that's the only one I had to enable today to get in. I already had to allow googlesyndication some other time.
So if you can't get in the next time, try allowing yieldbuild. I got in this morning without it, but some time in the afternoon I get logged out and have to log in again; that's when it wouldn't let me.
Another wannabe what? Seems like he does pretty well, whatever it is.
Wannabe political comedian? I don't know.
What I do know is that, every time my brother makes me watch the show, I get this funny fantasy where the guest pierces Colbert's fake Joe-McCarthy style and asks to speak to Colbert the man, not Colbert the host.
By "Joe-McCarthy" style, I mean something like--Whittaker Chambers and the guys with Venona are looking over certain communist issues. Very quiet, very calm. Then along comes Tailgunner Joe with his "ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY?!". and suddenly he's the laughingstock blowhard face of anti-communism, and the guys who actually know whether or not there is a "Soviet intrusion" in classified affairs are going "WTF just happened?!"
Same with Colbert. Not necessarily here, but on other issues. There are legitimate, Krauthammer-and-Hanson-and-Nordlinger conservative points to make on, say, medical reforms, and then Colbert comes along, acts like a blowhard twat while shouting and waving his pistol, and suddenly "conservative points on medical issues" becomes associated, not with National Review rationalism, but a guy faking a "rightist" bent with a show on Comedy Central.
As am I. Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist. Absolutely brilliant, one of the best around. However, I find him boorish when discussing religion.
Actually, I don't completely discount his comments on religion, and some of them are worth considering. However, he is not a philosopher. I think he carries much more weight when it comes to talking about neo-Darwinism.
another Letterman, Beck etc...I guess he's playing some role here?...the blowhard antagonist?
Disagree. It's a comedy show, and he fits the bill perfectly. I'm pretty sure he doesn't do much of the writing, unlike Beck. He's pretty funny for the most part. Some of the interviews are eye opening, to be sure. But that should not detract from the basic premise of the show.
I mean that Glenn Beck has a clearly defined view of God, one which he would love to force on everyone else, and he seems annoyed at the fact that our society has come to accept that everyone's religious viewpoint is supposed to be weighted equally in our society, which precludes using government organizations, schools and courts to impose any particular religion or or religious view on anyone else.
btw, is he not a Mormon?
Ah. I was not sure whether you were speaking in Beck's voice or your own. The sarcasm was not evident.
Yes, he's a Mormon, but I'm not sure what bearing that has on anything other than to prove that any religion produces nuts.
You know it's all an act, right? He doesn't want to be Beck at all, just act as ridiculously as he does. He actually modeled his character after Bill O'Reilly, and it's led to a situation where a number of right-wingers actually take him seriously.
I've often thought that Glen Beck is simply a showman and perhaps a closet liberal who is now permanently typecast as a weeping milk toast with tin foil saucers orbiting his bed while he sleeps.
If you are a Christian and you believe in evolution, then you are not a fundamentalist Christian, and to a fundamentalist, those are the only sort of Christians that make the grade.
You know it's all an act, right? He doesn't want to be Beck at all, just act as ridiculously as he does. He actually modeled his character after Bill O'Reilly, and it's led to a situation where a number of right-wingers actually take him seriously.
an act?...of course he's an act...this is TV right?
I'm a Unitarian atheist just to make sure I don't become a bitter atheist like Dawkins can be.
I can understand his bitterness. He's a scientist. It's bad enough that he has to defend facts against religious extremists, but he also has the god-believing scientist nipping at his toes.
It would be enough to make an intelligent person bitter.
Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an "absurdity":
"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."
On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, 'Where does everything come from?'" Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.
Disagree. It's a comedy show, and he fits the bill perfectly. I'm pretty sure he doesn't do much of the writing, unlike Beck. He's pretty funny for the most part. Some of the interviews are eye opening, to be sure. But that should not detract from the basic premise of the show.
I would like to see him go up against someone who is actually theologically and philosophically sophisticated. I would like to see him acknowledge that it is possible to have faith and not be crazy or stupid.
Anthony Kenny once told me that he had tried to arrange a debate between Dawkins and Alvin Plantinga but that Dawkins had refused. I'm not sure if it was a debate about evolution or religion, however. Perhaps it was to include both.
and then Colbert comes along, acts like a blowhard twat while shouting and waving his pistol, and suddenly "conservative points on medical issues" becomes associated, not with National Review rationalism, but a guy faking a "rightist" bent with a show on Comedy Central.
With the actual nutjobs associated with the right wing you're going to pick out a comedy satirist as the guy muddying the image of the right wing?
I thought there were plenty of examples posted on LGF already?
I like how Dawkins said humans see design. I believe it was in Shermer's Why Darwin Matters where I saw the topic of seeing design as an evolutionary behavior discussed. As our groups/tribes developed more complexity in our social functions, noticing patterns would have been important. From recognizing the seasons we were able to develop agriculture, and even before this, seasons would have been important factors in hunting- making sure the tribe had enough food to sustain it through winter. Being able to recognize patterns was important to our ancestors, and seeing design/patterns is still a part of how we operate today.
...I would like to see him go up against someone who is actually theologically and philosophically sophisticated. I would like to see him acknowledge that it is possible to have faith and not be crazy or stupid.
Why, he's a scientist, an intellect, he deals with facts, not feelings.
With the actual nutjobs associated with the right wing you're going to pick out a comedy satirist as the guy muddying the image of the right wing?
I thought there were plenty of examples posted on LGF already?
I want them all to stop! The actual nutjobs and the guys who paint guys like me as nutjobs!
You're probably right, the analogy isn't perfect, but still, the frothing imbecilities of nominally "conservative" groups are bad enough; he doesn't need to add to them.
I have not studied Quine. I do know that Ramban, and several centuries of Jewish philosophy have their answers.
I am careful to say answers, and not shoot down, because you can't really shoot down either overall view. What you can do is show that you have an internally consistent framework and then say it makes sense to you, while respecting another internally consistent framework. So I respect atheists. They may even be right. I don't believe they are, but I can't prove I'm right any more than they can.
My issue with Dawkins, is that he argues the very most basic sort of logical positivist arguments and frequently attempts to make the act of faith itself seem stupid. I would like to see him go up against someone who is actually theologically and philosophically sophisticated. I would like to see him acknowledge that it is possible to have faith and not be crazy or stupid.
We're using "Logical Positivism" to refer to two different things. I was a philosophy major so it's a technical term. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] It looks like Ayer is who I was thinking of.
I like how Dawkins said humans see design. I believe it was in Shermer's Why Darwin Matters where I saw the topic of seeing design as an evolutionary behavior discussed. As our groups/tribes developed more complexity in our social functions, noticing patterns would have been important. From recognizing the seasons we were able to develop agriculture, and even before this, seasons would have been important factors in hunting- making sure the tribe had enough food to sustain it through winter. Being able to recognize patterns was important to our ancestors, and seeing design/patterns is still a part of how we operate today.
I'm not quite sure if you are indicating a direct link between pattern and design. From my perspective I don't automatically think any detectable pattern is the result of a design. Just looking to get my head around your thought.
I can understand his bitterness. He's a scientist. It's bad enough that he has to defend facts against religious extremists, but he also has the god-believing scientist nipping at his toes.
It would be enough to make an intelligent person bitter.
I don't see why he bothers defending facts against religious extremists. The facts don't change, and neither do the extremists.
And if he's threatened by "god-believing scientists", then he is actually a bigot, himself.
The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.
[snip]
Some details about Ardi in the collection of papers:
• Ardi was found in Ethiopia's Afar Rift, where many fossils of ancient plants and animals have been discovered. Findings near the skeleton indicate that at the time it was a wooded environment. Fossils of 29 species of birds and 20 species of small mammals were found at the site.
• Geologist Giday WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory was able to use volcanic layers above and below the fossil to date it to 4.4 million years ago.
• Ardi's upper canine teeth are more like the stubby ones of modern humans than the long, sharp, pointed ones of male chimpanzees and most other primates. An analysis of the tooth enamel suggests a diverse diet, including fruit and other woodland-based foods such as nuts and leaves.
• Paleoanthropologist Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo reported that Ardi's face had a projecting muzzle, giving her an ape-like appearance. But it didn't thrust forward quite as much as the lower faces of modern African apes do. Some features of her skull, such as the ridge above the eye socket, are quite different from those of chimpanzees. The details of the bottom of the skull, where nerves and blood vessels enter the brain, indicate that Ardi's brain was positioned in a way similar to modern humans, possibly suggesting that the hominid brain may have been already poised to expand areas involving aspects of visual and spatial perception.
• Ardi's hand and wrist were a mix of primitive traits and a few new ones, but they don't include the hallmark traits of the modern tree-hanging, knuckle-walking chimps and gorillas. She had relatively short palms and fingers which were flexible, allowing her to support her body weight on her palms while moving along tree branches, but she had to be a careful climber because she lacked the anatomical features that allow modern-day African apes to swing, hang and easily move through the trees.
• The pelvis and hip show the gluteal muscles were positioned so she could walk upright.
• Her feet were rigid enough for walking but still had a grasping big toe for use in climbing
Being able to recognize patterns was important to our ancestors, and seeing design/patterns is still a part of how we operate today.
It's called pareidolia, and it's actually a very interesting subject in neuropsychology. One of the factors behind everything from "Face on Mars" to Jesus in a Cheesesteak.
you hit it on the head, along with the fundamentalists who see a conflict between evolution and their literalist intpretation of the scriptures, there are scientists who fail to see the limits of science.
When the two get into a shouting match you get, well, you pretty much get the level of discourse in America in the 21st Century...
Why do so many arguing either side of the Evolution issue insist on making it about belief in God. No offense to Mr Dawkins, or Kirk Cameron, but I believe in both, and find no contradiction. But that's just me.
As am I. Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist. Absolutely brilliant, one of the best around. However, I find him boorish when discussing religion.
It's called pareidolia, and it's actually a very interesting subject in neuropsychology. One of the factors behind everything from "Face on Mars" to Jesus in a Cheesesteak.
What is really interesting is the latest research indicates that a significant portion of the brain that recognizes patterns lights up (under MRI) only when looking at human faces. We, as a species, are incredibly adept at getting information by looking at faces.
What is really interesting is the latest research indicates that a significant portion of the brain that recognizes patterns lights up (under MRI) only when looking at human faces. We, as a species, are incredibly adept at getting information by looking at faces.
I want them all to stop! The actual nutjobs and the guys who paint guys like me as nutjobs!
You're probably right, the analogy isn't perfect, but still, the frothing imbecilities of nominally "conservative" groups are bad enough; he doesn't need to add to them.
I can understand the sentiment. Personally, I think the best way to get it under control is to do what's being done here. Pull these critters out in the light, expose what they're actually saying and doing, and if you have any faith in your fellow humans at all, they will be informed and (hopefully) make sure they distance themselves from the nuts.
When there's no genuine craziness to make comedy out of, Colbert will be out of a gig.
you have a prehensile tail, or at least the code for it is still buried in your genes, but another mechanism has come along to mask it and keep it from developing.
Some call that proof of evolution, other see it as God's quirky sense of humor...
I can understand his bitterness. He's a scientist. It's bad enough that he has to defend facts against religious extremists, but he also has the god-believing scientist nipping at his toes.
It would be enough to make an intelligent person bitter.
Now Walter, there you are going much too far... You do realize that the entire modern conception of science came from a G-d Believing scientist named Newton right?
I realize that you are too dogmatic to understand that belief in G-d does not preclude the ability to do science. This only proves that you do not understand either science, and how it works or faith. So I will lay it out neatly for you in small bits for you.
Science is about mechanism and observation. It asks "how?"
Faith is about motive and meaning. It asks "why?"
"How did he die?" well he was shot and the bullets caused thus and such damage which led to blood loss... This is science.
"Why did he die?" Saying that there was no reason in a cosmic sense is as much a statement of faith as saying there was one. In either case, Why he died is not a scientific question.
an act?...of course he's an act...this is TV right?
It's an act in the sense that he doesn't believe what he's saying, he's just going all Jonathan Swift by taking things to a ridiculous extreme. He's being completely insincere. I don't know Glenn Beck well enough to say the same about him. He usually strikes me as someone who believes what he's saying.
The bit with faces makes sense, what is the first thing that a baby sees when it is lying in the cradle? An endless parade of faces gorming it up and making incomprehensible noises...
Define love. Some studies have been made, focused mainly on what happens in the brain when humans are in love, or subjected to arousing stimuli. It's really interesting, although I assume that's not what you were getting at.. :(
Or at night, like cats. How many stars do they see on the new moon?
BBL !!!
Don't know about stars, but Chinese see the Jade hare and the Lady Chang Er when they look at the Moon. We in the West, we see a smiling human face - they see a giant hare working a mortar and pestle for the Lady of the Moon.
you have a prehensile tail, or at least the code for it is still buried in your genes, but another mechanism has come along to mask it and keep it from developing.
Some call that proof of evolution, other see it as God's quirky sense of humor...
I can just picture God waiting around 4.4 million years for the big joke payoff.
Now Walter, there you are going much too far... You do realize that the entire modern conception of science came from a G-d Believing scientist named Newton right?
I realize that you are too dogmatic to understand that belief in G-d does not preclude the ability to do science. This only proves that you do not understand either science, and how it works or faith. So I will lay it out neatly for you in small bits for you.
Science is about mechanism and observation. It asks "how?"
Faith is about motive and meaning. It asks "why?"
"How did he die?" well he was shot and the bullets caused thus and such damage which led to blood loss... This is science.
"Why did he die?" Saying that there was no reason in a cosmic sense is as much a statement of faith as saying there was one. In either case, Why he died is not a scientific question.
Gone to far... so what?
Go try to convince yourself, or someone else, your frothing is no better than then your dislike for the way Dawkins see the issue.
"How did he die?" well he was shot and the bullets caused thus and such damage which led to blood loss... This is science.
"Why did he die?" Saying that there was no reason in a cosmic sense is as much a statement of faith as saying there was one. In either case, Why he died is not a scientific question.
Well, if you asked the right person, you might get a reason:
"He died because he was a f*king stool pigeon and I f*cking shot him!"
(not that I've ever shot anybody, but you get the idea.)
I can understand the sentiment. Personally, I think the best way to get it under control is to do what's being done here. Pull these critters out in the light, expose what they're actually saying and doing, and if you have any faith in your fellow humans at all, they will be informed and (hopefully) make sure they distance themselves from the nuts.
...uh...yeah...I don't really have much faith in humanity. My fear is that my fellow humans will see the nutjobs on CNN, then turn to Comedy Central and see Colbert's antics, and go "OMG the whole conservative movement is insane!" And then Nordlinger and Krauthammer and myself will be scratching our heads wondering why everybody thinks we're crazy.
You do realize that the entire modern conception of science came from a G-d Believing scientist named Newton right?
I would argue that Kant came up with the modern concept of science in that he posited that one needs theory and observation to form knowledge. In fact, after he did come up with this he realized that he had constructed the perfect argument to deny the ability to every have knowledge of God and then spent the rest of his life trying to come up with moral proofs of God.
It's an act in the sense that he doesn't believe what he's saying, he's just going all Jonathan Swift by taking things to a ridiculous extreme. He's being completely insincere. I don't know Glenn Beck well enough to say the same about him. He usually strikes me as someone who believes what he's saying.
I do not deny Colberts role playing...I find his delivery and demeanor an non entertaining distraction...in other words I'm no fun
Now Walter, there you are going much too far... You do realize that the entire modern conception of science came from a G-d Believing scientist named Newton right?
[snip]
So, the whole concept of creationism and a young earth comes from G-d believing and fearing religionists. Don't make it so, does it?
I find that Colbert lacks good timing...which is deadly for a comedian. He lays out the lines or the irony but doesn't have the patience to let it set so he then just over-runs his guests and largely doesn't let them get a word in edge-wise.
Don't know about stars, but Chinese see the Jade hare and the Lady Chang Er when they look at the Moon. We in the West, we see a smiling human face - they see a giant hare working a mortar and pestle for the Lady of the Moon.
I find that Colbert lacks good timing...which is deadly for a comedian. He lays out the lines or the irony but doesn't have the patience to let it set so he then just over-runs his guests and largely doesn't let them get a word in edge-wise.
whatever it is, it's third rate...too bad Dawkins feels the need to do this show...I guess the larger point of converting skeptics goes over my head...a waste of time imo
Yunno, if there is a Medicine Man who is making a serious and respectable living by performing a rain dance move the gods to tears, thus making it rain to keep the crop going, he does not want to hear some science guy come along and explain that rain comes from cloud condensation and convection.
That was what led to the original rift between religion and science: they were ruining a perfectly lucrative and well-established scam.
Don't know about stars, but Chinese see the Jade hare and the Lady Chang Er when they look at the Moon. We in the West, we see a smiling human face - they see a giant hare working a mortar and pestle for the Lady of the Moon.
One of the more interesting things I like to do when I meet people from other countries, is to have them do there imitation of how Americans speak.
We have our stereotypical noises we make about other languages.
Go try to convince yourself, or someone else, your frothing is no better than then your dislike for the way Dawkins see the issue.
I don't need any convincing as to the facts.
Walter there is nothing frothing about that...
I will fill in some more gaps in this rather simple argument for you then.
You see, since science answers how questions, and religion answers why questions, they are of necessity, in different spheres.
Since they are in different spheres, they need not contradict each other. The only time that there is a conflict between religion and science is when on the religious side, they try to dogmatically answer how questions by using whatever interpretation of doctrine they have, or when guys like Dawkins try to apply the scientific method to non-physical things after making the leap of faith that all things that actually exist are physical.
I would argue that Kant came up with the modern concept of science in that he posited that one needs theory and observation to form knowledge. In fact, after he did come up with this he realized that he had constructed the perfect argument to deny the ability to every have knowledge of God and then spent the rest of his life trying to come up with moral proofs of God.
Newton did this two centuries before Kant, by actually doing the scientific method in its full form.
I would argue that Kant came up with the modern concept of science in that he posited that one needs theory and observation to form knowledge. In fact, after he did come up with this he realized that he had constructed the perfect argument to deny the ability to every have knowledge of God and then spent the rest of his life trying to come up with moral proofs of God.
And I would argue that Newton lived in a different age, and in his world, an outright dismissal of the concept of G-D would have totally destroyed any chance he had at advancing any of his science. As now a days, his position at Trinity was dependent on patronage and politics, and he was very careful in his public religious face.
I find that Colbert lacks good timing...which is deadly for a comedian. He lays out the lines or the irony but doesn't have the patience to let it set so he then just over-runs his guests and largely doesn't let them get a word in edge-wise.
This is deliberate. He's mocking how Bill O'Reily talks over his guests.
an act?...of course he's an act...this is TV right?
I think you're so right. It's the "Glenn Beck Show" and show it is.
I once had neighbors who argued so loudly in their home the other neighbors would collect on the sidewalk outside their home expecting bloody murder at any point. On one occasion my neighbor opened the window and screamed, "What the hell are you folks doing on my sidewalk?" One of the bystanders responded, "If you put on a show you'll attract a crowd."
So true...
The Grassley debate is a good debate to have. And I do share Malkin’s suspicions that this administration would like to extend subsidized health coverage to illegals – although probably via an amnesty that ended their illegality.
But if this debate is to yield any useful result, conservatives need to be ready to answer the obvious questions: What kind of card? How would it work? What’s our plan? We need to think before we emote.
I think that's very well said. I've tuned out the right's objections to healtcare reform because they've been so full of shit. Death Panels, Sex clinics, FEMA camps, etc. Even when the do raise serious concerns I still ignore them becuase I don't have time to research and verify every hysterical claim they make. If the right was a little more rational it would be much easier to take them seriously.
So, the whole concept of creationism and a young earth comes from G-d believing and fearing religionists. Don't make it so, does it?
And yet, I am G-d believing and have written whole troll hammers here against ID. Walter, you like to accuse me of painting with too broad a brush.
Please see my 132. I know that the argument there is probably too difficult for you to understand, but please try. Science really is something separate from religion. They look at different things, answer different questions, serve different purposes and they have different methods. If you keep them separate, you do not have a problem.
I will fill in some more gaps in this rather simple argument for you then.
You see, since science answers how questions, and religion answers why questions, they are of necessity, in different spheres.
Since they are in different spheres, they need not contradict each other. The only time that there is a conflict between religion and science is when on the religious side, they try to dogmatically answer how questions by using whatever interpretation of doctrine they have, or when guys like Dawkins try to apply the scientific method to non-physical things after making the leap of faith that all things that actually exist are physical.
Look how many paragraphs you have to type to make your point, yet I make mine simply...
God does not exist,
I need no more verbosity than that. I don't need to be convinced otherwise, it's not my position to diminish your belief (unless you want me to).
Like I say, you sound like you need the convincing, not me.
I will fill in some more gaps in this rather simple argument for you then.
You see, since science answers how questions, and religion answers why questions, they are of necessity, in different spheres.
Since they are in different spheres, they need not contradict each other. The only time that there is a conflict between religion and science is when on the religious side, they try to dogmatically answer how questions by using whatever interpretation of doctrine they have, or when guys like Dawkins try to apply the scientific method to non-physical things after making the leap of faith that all things that actually exist are physical.
There is an alternative way: There is no contradiction, it's just that scripture, being written in a different manner than other works, is more dense and difficult to comprehend. Consequently, when a straight-forward text puts forth that which we know to to be true, but which appears to contradict the Scripture, we must re-examine our interpretation of scripture. As the Word of the Divine, it cannot be false; any contradiction is the result of our own limited understanding of the subject, and not inherent in the nature of Reality.
This is deliberate. He's mocking how Bill O'Reily talks over his guests.
I was thinking the same thing. Colbert is a mock Bill O'Reilly and has always mixed comedy with imitation and false flattery. He used to have a picture of "Papa Bear" on the set, not sure if it's still there.
This is deliberate. He's mocking how Bill O'Reily talks over his guests.
so what if his viewers are not familiar with O'Reilly?...like I said, a wanna be...there is mucho money to be made and he's just filling another niche, at best...I liked the high five hustle around the room tho...very original and unO'Reilly like
Dawkins conducted himself pretty well, considering he's sitting next to a blowhard straw man. My brother really digs Colbert...I never really saw the point. But still, good on Dawkins for being willing to play the ultimate straight man to a faking hyper-rightist.
The terrible thing is that Colbert's persona is actually rather centrist, compared to Glenn Beck, who is theoretically really right-wing.
if you have a fixed, fundamentalist view of scripture (especially one that is used to establish political or economic power), and attempt to change that view will be seen as a threat.
if you have a fixed, fundamentalist view of scripture (especially one that is used to establish political or economic power), and attempt to change that view will be seen as a threat.
Not my fault folk don't have enough respect for the Scripture to admit that they may not read it properly.
Look how many paragraphs you have to type to make your point, yet I make mine simply...
God does not exist,
I need no more verbosity than that. I don't need to be convinced otherwise, it's not my position to diminish your belief (unless you want me to).
Like I say, you sound like you need the convincing, not me.
Walter, is there a reason why you are being such a penis? Do you think you are making me question my faith, or that I am suddenly having difficulty with my science because of your brilliant lack of arguments? Do you think that hurts my feelings?
Really Walter, you are like Sal sometimes in terms of tenacity or incapability to see the argument being presented, but only vastly less intelligent or well read as him, and you actually can reason with Sal.
There is an alternative way: There is no contradiction, it's just that scripture, being written in a different manner than other works, is more dense and difficult to comprehend. Consequently, when a straight-forward text puts forth that which we know to to be true, but which appears to contradict the Scripture, we must re-examine our interpretation of scripture. As the Word of the Divine, it cannot be false; any contradiction is the result of our own limited understanding of the subject, and not inherent in the nature of Reality.
That is a paraphrase of a Rambam which I have posted here at least a dozen times. And yes. Absolutely. In fact I posted that the last time Walter tried to argue I can't do science because I am religious.
That is a paraphrase of a Rambam which I have posted here at least a dozen times. And yes. Absolutely. In fact I posted that the last time Walter tried to argue I can't do science because I am religious.
MONTAGUE COUNTY, TEXAS (BNO NEWS) – Deputies with the Montague County Sheriff's Department have shot and killed a cousin of Texas Governor Rick Perry, officials told BNO News on Thursday.
The cousin was identified as 74-year-old Larry Don Wheeler. Montague County District Attorney Jack McGaughey told BNO News that sheriff's deputies initially responded to a 911 call of shots fired at his home at a Montague County country club on Saturday night.
When two deputies arrived on the scene, Wheeler, who was sitting on his backyard deck, pointed a shotgun at the officers and opened fire. One officer sustained a wound to his hand from the shots, McGaughey said. The officers then returned fire, and fatally shot Wheeler.
It was not immediately clear as to why Wheeler may have decided to open fire. The Texas Rangers, and an investigator from the Montague County District Attorney's Office is investigating the case. McGaughey said the sheriff's department is not involved in the investigation.
A spokeswoman for Governor Perry confirmed to BNO News that one of his cousins was killed but had no further information. It was also not clear why the governor did not decide to release the information earlier. Asked if the governor would release a statement, the spokeswoman said she was not sure. She also had no information about the relationship Perry may have had with Wheeler.
Dawkins discovers the "fact" that God does not exist. Fine. No skin off my nose or anybody else's.
Next, he begins to spend time railing against people who haven't seen the light, and feeling upset at colleagues and friends in his own field who disagree with him. And writing books about it calling them deluded.
The parallel between that and some "born-again" believer of any stripe is exact and absolute.
Ack! You mention Fallout 3 without groveling before 1&2? You lose nerd cred.
Reverence for 1 & 2 is inherent. I've pipegunned more than my share of (evolved?) geckos, thank you very much. But does also loving Fallout: Tactics increase my nerd cred, or trash it?
And yet, I am G-d believing and have written whole troll hammers here against ID. Walter, you like to accuse me of painting with too broad a brush.
Please see my 132. I know that the argument there is probably too difficult for you to understand, but please try. Science really is something separate from religion. They look at different things, answer different questions, serve different purposes and they have different methods. If you keep them separate, you do not have a problem.
No, it is only difficult for you to understand that I don't give a scientist to much credit if he believes in G-D. Doesn't mean he is a bad scientist, doesn't mean he is a bad person, doesn't even mean he is wrong, but it does mean I don't put as much trust in his science.
I can understand his bitterness. He's a scientist. It's bad enough that he has to defend facts against religious extremists, but he also has the god-believing scientist nipping at his toes.
It would be enough to make an intelligent person bitter.
Well, many God-believing scientists are being perfectly reasonable to him, he even said something pleasant about one of them in his Newsweek interview this week.
There is an alternative way: There is no contradiction, it's just that scripture, being written in a different manner than other works, is more dense and difficult to comprehend. Consequently, when a straight-forward text puts forth that which we know to to be true, but which appears to contradict the Scripture, we must re-examine our interpretation of scripture. As the Word of the Divine, it cannot be false; any contradiction is the result of our own limited understanding of the subject, and not inherent in the nature of Reality.
No, it is only difficult for you to understand that I don't give a scientist to much credit if he believes in G-D. Doesn't mean he is a bad scientist, doesn't mean he is a bad person, doesn't even mean he is wrong, but it does mean I don't put as much trust in his science.
Wonder what Alex Jones, Beck et al will make of this? A fedgov subversion of local law enforcement, who dispatched a hit-team to send a "warning" to Perry?
Well, many God-believing scientists are being perfectly reasonable to him, he even said something pleasant about one of them in his Newsweek interview this week.
So? Were is the rule that he has to be kind to someone who he feels is deluded.
OK I stand corrected. For some reason I thought Kant was later. But in any case, Newton still did it first. :)
I will admit to having read Kant thoroughly and Newton only for homework assignments. However, clearly Newton instinctively arrives at mathematical equations and then proves them with experiments however he never elucidated the reason that one needs both to have defined knowledge. Kant did. Most texts on scientific reasoning credit Kant.
NEWSWEEK: Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in evolution?
DAWKINS: No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.
I'll bet that the majority of people who hate Richard Dawkins with such a passion have never actually read even one of his books.
I have to admit that I was somewhat apprehensive to read Dawkins' previous book (The God Delusion) as I wasn't sure how to square his arguments with what I had grown up learning about religion. After completing the book, I realized that my initial unease was due to the fact that I was already beginning to question my religious upbringing. Mr. Dawkins' wisdom on the topics of science, evolution, religion and God made me more comfortable to consider myself amongst the growing number of Americans who do not have any faith in the supernatural.
He's abrasive, argumentative and in my opinion, correct. Those with strong beliefs should read his books critically if for no other reason than to strengthen their own convictions. For those of you on the fence, you may find the answers you didn't realize you were looking for.
I will admit to having read Kant thoroughly and Newton only for homework assignments. However, clearly Newton instinctively arrives at mathematical equations and then proves them with experiments however he never elucidated the reason that one needs both to have defined knowledge. Kant did. Most texts on scientific reasoning credit Kant.
When Newton developed calculus, he used a funky h notation to represent an infinitesimal property that was both nonzero and zero. In order to fix the logical problems in his work, later mathematicians of the 19th and 20th century had to develop a more solid logical foundation for calculus. So while it worked, his reasoning was flawed. (And it's why you have to deal with limits before you start dealing with derivatives.)
I cannot say if Leibnitz had the same problem, but I think he did.
Someone who avowedly doesn't believe in God but omits the "o" in what is just another noun for him - makes me think of Pascal's wager.
I once took a class in college on the philosophy of the Bible. It was taught by a professor who was also a Lutheran Minister on the side. Me being an even more flaming atheist back then, submitted my answers to the first mid-term, which was an essay test, with spelled God every time with a small g. I got the test back, with a good grade as I recall, but with every "god" circled in red and then a bold remark from the professor; "not only are you a blasphemer...but it is improper English to not capitalize a proper noun."
I will admit to having read Kant thoroughly and Newton only for homework assignments. However, clearly Newton instinctively arrives at mathematical equations and then proves them with experiments however he never elucidated the reason that one needs both to have defined knowledge. Kant did. Most texts on scientific reasoning credit Kant.
You should read the Principia or some of his letters to Hooke.
He really does lay out the notion of hypothesis and verification quite clearly. He is absolutely the father of modern physics' understanding of how to use mathematics.
I think it is very hard to argue that since he did the whole method and wrote about why it was important to do it that way as a scientist, that the kudos should go to Kant.
The Name is ineffable. The word "God" - and I say this as a believer - is not His Name. It is His Job Description.
I've never seen a Frenchman write "D-eu" or a German "G-tt" or an Italian "D-o".
It's a silly affectation, is what it is.
Well, I don't deny it's a bit of a stretch to apply it to the English-language name attached to the Name, but it's become a convention, ad folk get huffy if ya don't, so...
The Name is ineffable. The word "God" - and I say this as a believer - is not His Name. It is His Job Description.
I've never seen a Frenchman write "D-eu" or a German "G-tt" or an Italian "D-o".
It's a silly affectation, is what it is.
And in my mind, as silly as believing in the existence of G-D. But, I really do respect those who do and have no argument with them, only my opinion as it relates to me and my position.
This (and earlier quotes posted), in contrast to the opinions attributed to Dawkins point out the discrepancy between what the man says, and what people believe he's saying.
we learned that if there is only one of something, you capitalize it. Obama is the President of the United States, he addresses a meeting of bank presidents.
Ergo, if you are talking about the monotheistic concept of God, you are distinguishing him from the pantheon of Greek gods.
Go try to convince yourself, or someone else, your frothing is no better than then your dislike for the way Dawkins see the issue.
I don't need any convincing as to the facts.
Again, I ask, what facts?
The religious people here are saying there is no evidence, no facts, either way. You are free to have your opinions, but when you say there are facts that have convinced you, please let us know what they are.
Was Newton always right? (see, I can play this silly game too).
NO, it is not a silly game at all...
You just don't see how it completely destroys your argument because of your utter ignorance of science.
You claim that a believing scientist is not to have his science trusted. Newton is the greatest physicist ever. Einstein would tell you that and so would Feynman. And yes, Newton was sometimes incorrect, so are all scientists, however, he is noted for all the things that he got right. Absolutely right.
So the question, my slow witted friend, is, Given that Newton was the greatest physicist ever, and that he believed in G-d, how do you support your claim that belief in G-d makes one's science less trustworthy?
I don't see the bitterness. I never have. And I don't understand where that impression comes from.
IN his books, it does not come out much. It really doesn't. It comes out a lot more in his public speaking engagements. I promise that I am not hallucinating about it.
I am really frustrated. Why does it not matter to Beck or to the program directors on Fox that he is spreading blank falsehoods? I understand that the great majority of people will retain some impression that the government is godless etc. and that this is the point of populist rhetoric. But under the guise of news? And being "fair and balanced"? It upsets me.
You just don't see how it completely destroys your argument because of your utter ignorance of science.
You claim that a believing scientist is not to have his science trusted. Newton is the greatest physicist ever. Einstein would tell you that and so would Feynman. And yes, Newton was sometimes incorrect, so are all scientists, however, he is noted for all the things that he got right. Absolutely right.
So the question, my slow witted friend, is, Given that Newton was the greatest physicist ever, and that he believed in G-d, how do you support your claim that belief in G-d makes one's science less trustworthy?
Because I say so. Works for me. It doesn't have to work for anyone else. And I feel no need to prove how or why it works for me. Only one who seems bothered by it is you.
Too bad.
(I'm having fun playing the game the same way LVQ does)
Well, I don't deny it's a bit of a stretch to apply it to the English-language name attached to the Name, but it's become a convention, ad folk get huffy if ya don't, so...
...I enjoy when they get huffy.
It bothers me not a whit if Walter and Dawkins think I'm deluded, or would discount my abilities as a scientist because I'm not an atheist, or believe bigotry is fine in their case because they know the truth. I find it all quite entertaining. Even more so than typographical niceties in spelling divine Names.
The religious people here are saying there is no evidence, no facts, either way. You are free to have your opinions, but when you say there are facts that have convinced you, please let us know what they are.
That is too much logic for Walter. Ask him if Hitler was a leftist :)
Newton was not the greatest physicist ever. As with many early scientists, he benefited greatly from the fact that most people still believed the earth was flat and that ill health was a result of an imbalance of "humours". It was comparatively easy to make great discoveries. Claiming incomparable greatness for Newton is akin to proclaiming the guy who invented the wheel to eb "the greatest engineer who ever lived".
I don't see the bitterness. I never have. And I don't understand where that impression comes from.
It's almost a cliche to vilify atheists. If you listen to the first part of this video you can hear this addressed Daniel Dennett. It deals more with the mis-perceived offensiveness of the dialog.
This (and earlier quotes posted), in contrast to the opinions attributed to Dawkins point out the discrepancy between what the man says, and what people believe he's saying.
Now why is it like this?
Well, the man did write an entire book called "The God Delusion", so there you go.
It bothers me not a whit if Walter and Dawkins think I'm deluded, or would discount my abilities as a scientist because I'm not an atheist, or believe bigotry is fine in their case because they know the truth. I find it all quite entertaining. Even more so than typographical niceties in spelling divine Names.
No, it is only difficult for you to understand that I don't give a scientist to much credit if he believes in G-D. Doesn't mean he is a bad scientist, doesn't mean he is a bad person, doesn't even mean he is wrong, but it does mean I don't put as much trust in his science.
My opinion.
Einstein believed in God, Spinoza's god, but that's still God.
IN his books, it does not come out much. It really doesn't. It comes out a lot more in his public speaking engagements. I promise that I am not hallucinating about it.
I've also watched quite a few videos of Dawkins' speaking appearances, and I still have never seen this "bitterness" that everyone says I'm supposed to see.
Because I say so. Works for me. It doesn't have to work for anyone else. And I feel no need to prove how or why it works for me. Only one who seems bothered by it is you.
Too bad.
(I'm having fun playing the game the same way LVQ does)
Actually I have made substantive arguments. All you have done is whine and pout like a bitch.
So lets try again, You made a claim... I provided a factual counter, that destroys your claim.
So the question, my slow witted friend, is, Given that Newton was the greatest physicist ever, and that he believed in G-d, how do you support your claim that belief in G-d makes one's science less trustworthy?
care to answer that or do you get to be called whiny crying bitch from now on?
I don't get too involved in the evolution thread topics because I just think scientific evolution is as clear as can be. That's my reality.
Choosing to believe otherwise is a religious view, the same as believing that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale, or Moses talked to a burning bush, or that certain Saints performed miracles...etc.
There's nothing wrong with those beliefs...as long as they are keep in the arena of religion, and not in the public schools.
Actually I have made substantive arguments. All you have done is whine and pout like a bitch.
So lets try again, You made a claim... I provided a factual counter, that destroys your claim.
So the question, my slow witted friend, is, Given that Newton was the greatest physicist ever, and that he believed in G-d, how do you support your claim that belief in G-d makes one's science less trustworthy?
care to answer that or do you get to be called whiny crying bitch from now on?
If using little school yard words make you feel better, and if that's the image you want to present on LGF, have at it.
Oh goodness, now I'm going to have to end my life, LVQ called me a whiny bitch.
Just because you can't understand how a person can reconcile their faith and a profession in science doesn't mean their science is unsound. Saying something like that makes you sound like the person everyone claims Dawkins to be- an anti-religion bigot.
Newton was not the greatest physicist ever. As with many early scientists, he benefited greatly from the fact that most people still believed the earth was flat and that ill health was a result of an imbalance of "humours". It was comparatively easy to make great discoveries. Claiming incomparable greatness for Newton is akin to proclaiming the guy who invented the wheel to eb "the greatest engineer who ever lived".
Ummm you have got to be kidding. Establishing the scientific method, inventing the calculus, optics, mechanics and the core principles of all theoretical physics in addition to the experimental discoveries he made very clearly puts him up there. If all you had to go on was the science of his day, you would not have gotten anywhere. Neither would anyone else. If his discoveries were so easy to make, why did not the Greeks or the Romans do it?
I've also watched quite a few videos of Dawkins' speaking appearances, and I still have never seen this "bitterness" that everyone says I'm supposed to see.
Just because you can't understand how a person can reconcile their faith and a profession in science doesn't mean their science is unsound. Saying something like that makes you sound like the person everyone claims Dawkins to be- an anti-religion bigot.
Did I say it was... you want to read my statement again...
No, it is only difficult for you to understand that I don't give a scientist to much credit if he believes in G-D. Doesn't mean he is a bad scientist, doesn't mean he is a bad person, doesn't even mean he is wrong, but it does mean I don't put as much trust in his science.
I don't see the bitterness. I never have. And I don't understand where that impression comes from.
I don't want to become bitter towards people who decide they need faith in their lives so long as they don't try and push it on me. I don't want start thinking all religious people are somehow wrong just because I don't believe in god.
I find a church that accepts all people regardless of their beliefs and places a strong emphasis on social justice issue a good fit.
OK we'll try again.. Oh esteemed and brilliant walter. I am troubled by your claim that if a scientist has faith, his science is suspect. I consider the existence of Sir Isaac Newton to contradict your claim.
OK we'll try again.. Oh esteemed and brilliant walter. I am troubled by your claim that if a scientist has faith, his science is suspect. I consider the existence of Sir Isaac Newton to contradict your claim.
Would you please comment?
I will post what I said before... again...
No, it is only difficult for you to understand that I don't give a scientist to much credit if he believes in G-D. Doesn't mean he is a bad scientist, doesn't mean he is a bad person, doesn't even mean he is wrong, but it does mean I don't put as much trust in his science.
My opinion.
And no, your opinion means nothing to me, although I respect it. Simple.
I'm sorry, I should have realized. I was just a bit weary since I read in an earlier thread that someone thought themselves a creationist. Maybe I got that wrong too?
Didn't expect this sort of conversation to show up on an LGF board!
Since I live near D.C., Fallout 3 also segues nicely into a primer and simulation of the post nuclear Iran scenario. I even get to see what my neighborhood and Metro station might look like after the world gets to enjoy Iran's peaceful civilian nuclear power. It's not only fun, it's edumacational. So also:
The next one I'm waiting on is Borderlands, which is apparently a co-op Mad Max/Diablo hybrid. If it trends after the real world, hopefully I'll have an angry Frenchman who can keep bailing out my cerebral, ineffectual American character.
You are dismissing a scientist's work simply based on the fact they are a Believer- that's wrong.
Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that up. And thanks for your opinion.
No more than you would suspect the judgement of a politician who promotes creationism or other religious learnings. It happens here all the time. Interesting how when it happens to someone else (me) it's suddenly wrong.
I've also watched quite a few videos of Dawkins' speaking appearances, and I still have never seen this "bitterness" that everyone says I'm supposed to see.
I have never seen any bitterness, either.
Just bigotry.
As I wrote above:
Dawkins discovers the "fact" that God does not exist. Fine. No skin off my nose or anybody else's.
Next, he begins to spend time railing against people who haven't seen the light, and feeling upset at colleagues and friends in his own field who disagree with him. And writing books about it calling them deluded.
The parallel between that and some "born-again" believer of any stripe is exact and absolute.
Since Dawkins can no more prove his unphilosophical assertion that God positively does not exist than I can prove the opposite, why waste time on it?
Because I say so. Works for me. It doesn't have to work for anyone else. And I feel no need to prove how or why it works for me. Only one who seems bothered by it is you.
Too bad.
(I'm having fun playing the game the same way LVQ does)
I have to say that I can't agree with you Walter. You seem to be implying that you would apply a different level of skepticism to the presentation of a scientist if you found out he had a theistic belief. That implies an atheistic scientist is 'automatically' more accurate, which would be just as dangerous as assuming the contrary.
One can be an atheist for rational reasons, but one can claim to be an atheist for irrational reasons (bigotry, bad experience, etc.). As an observer, you cannot know WHY someone would claim to be an atheist, so there lies the fallacy you present.
Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that up. And thanks for your opinion.
No more than you would suspect the judgement of a politician who promotes creationism or other religious learnings. It happens here all the time. Interesting how when it happens to someone else (me) it's suddenly wrong.
Well that is because you believe all sorts of things Walter, like that Mussolini was a leftist. That causes some of us to think you may be a bit slow.
Newton is dead, we know what of his science was right and what of his science was wrong. A dead man's beliefs mean nothing to me, his scientific career does.
I'm sorry, I should have realized. I was just a bit weary since I read in an earlier thread that someone thought themselves a creationist. Maybe I got that wrong too?
there are some here, including myself, who would define themselves as religious believers, who also recognize the truth of the scientific evolutionary process.
I for one used to think of that as being a "creationist", but have come to learn from being here that "creationist" is a term used specifically for those who reject the science of evolution.
You may have read someone on another thread describing themselves as a creationist, but it wasn't me.
Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that up. And thanks for your opinion.
No more than you would suspect the judgement of a politician who promotes creationism or other religious learnings. It happens here all the time. Interesting how when it happens to someone else (me) it's suddenly wrong.
The difference here is the word PROMOTES. There's a difference between a politician who's just a creationist, and a politician who wades into changing the school curriculum over it. There's also a difference between a scientist who has a religious life and a scientist who brings their faith into their work.
I have to say that I can't agree with you Walter. You seem to be implying that you would apply a different level of skepticism to the presentation of a scientist if you found out he had a theistic belief. That implies an atheistic scientist is 'automatically' more accurate, which would be just as dangerous as assuming the contrary.
One can be an atheist for rational reasons, but one can claim to be an atheist for irrational reasons (bigotry, bad experience, etc.). As an observer, you cannot know WHY someone would claim to be an atheist, so there lies the fallacy you present.
Oh, and I'm an atheist, by the way.
I would, if his presentation would be of some science that could be colored by his belief.
It's the same way we argue that a politician who has a belief in creationism or is anti-evolution may color his politics with his beliefs.
Newton is dead, we know what of his science was right and what of his science was wrong. A dead man's beliefs mean nothing to me, his scientific career does.
So given that he was right about pretty much everything he ever published, would you care to explain how given that track record, and his faith, you feel it is appropriate to question someone's science because they have faith?
A politician pushing a religious agenda isn't the same thing as a scientist who also subscribes to a religion. Unless the scientist is also pushing a religious agenda (Michael Behe, for example) your analogy doesn't hold.
Not all the way. Stuff like the lack of a concept of zero really held classical mathematicians back. It took the introduction of Arabic numbers to really get things moving. I'm not sure when that happened but when the Catholic church got their hands on the old Greek and Roman texts the Arabs had been preserving stuff started to happen.
Since Dawkins can no more prove his unphilosophical assertion that God positively does not exist than I can prove the opposite, why waste time on it?
It makes him at least look like a bigot.
Well, I've learned that it's kind of pointless to argue about this topic, because you've decided Dawkins is a bigot -- solely because he's an atheist -- and I just don't agree. He arrives at his atheism not by blind bigotry or prejudice, but by exhaustive logic. And he can defend it by the same methods.
Thats not bigotry. I know I can't ever convince you of that, but by the same token you'll never convince me of something that just isn't true.
The difference here is the word PROMOTES. There's a difference between a politician who's just a creationist, and a politician who wades into changing the school curriculum over it. There's also a difference between a scientist who has a religious life and a scientist who brings their faith into their work.
How do I know if the scientist has brought his faith into a scientific work? You don't. No more than outing a creationist politician.
I have to say that I can't agree with you Walter. You seem to be implying that you would apply a different level of skepticism to the presentation of a scientist if you found out he had a theistic belief. That implies an atheistic scientist is 'automatically' more accurate, which would be just as dangerous as assuming the contrary.
One can be an atheist for rational reasons, but one can claim to be an atheist for irrational reasons (bigotry, bad experience, etc.). As an observer, you cannot know WHY someone would claim to be an atheist, so there lies the fallacy you present.
Oh, and I'm an atheist, by the way.
Religion can, no doubt, skew science, but so can politics, money, ideology about gender...just adding on.
Well, I've learned that it's kind of pointless to argue about this topic, because you've decided Dawkins is a bigot -- solely because he's an atheist -- and I just don't agree. He arrives at his atheism not by blind bigotry or prejudice, but by exhaustive logic. And he can defend it by the same methods.
Thats not bigotry. I know I can't ever convince you of that, but by the same token you'll never convince me of something that just isn't true.
That's what I said to Cato above. Bigotry is not always negative if it is born out of fact.
How do I know if the scientist has brought his faith into a scientific work? You don't. No more than outing a creationist politician.
I think (or I would hope) that the standard for criticizing a creationist/ID politician is whether he promotes the idea as policy or in the realm of public education.
How do I know if the scientist has brought his faith into a scientific work? You don't. No more than outing a creationist politician.
Because their work will be shown through the scientific method to be flawed/wrong. Just like how scientists of faith or no faith have proven Michael Behe wrong over and over again.
Newton is dead, we know what of his science was right and what of his science was wrong. A dead man's beliefs mean nothing to me, his scientific career does.
But what you're saying, it seems to me, is that you would consider his work more suspect than that of an atheist because of his theism. How does death negate that?
I think (or I would hope) that the standard for criticizing a creationist/ID politician is whether he promotes the idea as policy or in the realm of public education.
And what of one that waits, and promotes it after he has been elected to some office or position. Every creationist believing and promoting politician had to make that choice to come out and promote it at some point.
But what you're saying, it seems to me, is that you would consider his work more suspect than that of an atheist because of his theism. How does death negate that?
No, of course not now. But if he was alive today, I would.
You are correct, and my response was a bit rash. I've been trying to find a good primer on the history of Newton's ideas since I typed that, but I've come up short.
I didn't mean to suggest that the man had no new ideas, nor that he didn't contribute anything to the old ideas.
And what of one that waits, and promotes it after he has been elected to some office or position. Every creationist believing and promoting politician had to make that choice to come out and promote it at some point.
Now I'm confused - are you saying that you would never vote for someone UNLESS they were an atheist?
How do I know if the scientist has brought his faith into a scientific work? You don't. No more than outing a creationist politician.
I also don't know if a scientist has been paid off by an oil company, or fears retaliation if he challenges the standards of the day, or believes that men are naturally prone to philander, or that the poor are stupid and lazy, and has let these things influence his work.
If a politician proposes teaching creationism in school, I KNOW they've let their agenda out to play.
So if I could prove some the inferiority of a given race, it would be OK to be a bigot?
Bigotry is not relegated to just race. I am talking about this kind of bigatry... "The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another.
Ah. I see. Although it sure seems like a lot of people do think that. They just don't always say it.
But, believing you know something to be true, and in facing other people who do not recognize your belief to be true, aren't you on some level saying they are misguided?
The only ones to come away from your categorizing of bigots seem to be complete agnostics.
Well, I've learned that it's kind of pointless to argue about this topic, because you've decided Dawkins is a bigot -- solely because he's an atheist -- and I just don't agree. He arrives at his atheism not by blind bigotry or prejudice, but by exhaustive logic. And he can defend it by the same methods.
Thats not bigotry. I know I can't ever convince you of that, but by the same token you'll never convince me of something that just isn't true.
I am not calling him a bigot. He is very brilliant and very well reasoned. However, his exhaustive logic is not exhaustive. It is possible to paint the world consistently in a different light. The objection that is made, and perhaps too strongly by Cato is that he really does present people of faith as just dumb.
He then, unfortunately because of his profession, runs into many of the dumbest people of faith. It is not hard to see the vapid stupidity of the ID crowd. I do not blame him.
I would however like him to meet some religious people who are not idiots to perhaps soften some of his criticisms.
Well, I've learned that it's kind of pointless to argue about this topic, because you've decided Dawkins is a bigot -- solely because he's an atheist -- and I just don't agree. He arrives at his atheism not by blind bigotry or prejudice, but by exhaustive logic. And he can defend it by the same methods.
Thats not bigotry. I know I can't ever convince you of that, but by the same token you'll never convince me of something that just isn't true.
You're probably right it's pointless to argue about this, but not for the reasons you state. You claim I've "decided" Dawkins is a bigot "solely because he's an atheist" - and that is at best a misunderstanding if not a misrepresentation of what I've said over and over. He can be an atheist all he wants and not be a bigot.
When he claims to know the philosophically unknowable as if it were a line of reasoning in biology - and then declares people who disagree with him to be "deluded" - and writes polemics about it - he is the exact mirror image of a theistic bigot.
Hitchens is a better example of the bitter atheist than Dawkins, really. I read him, find myself agreeing with him, nodding, and realize I do not want to be this man. I don't want to blame all the problems of the world on religion. I don't want to treat religion as a plague on the human race.
They are bitter for the same reason most atheists are bitter. We're been discriminated against because of our beliefs for most of our lives and we know we're right. Many state constitutions prevent us from holding office and we still have to fake religion if we want to run anywhere else. Growing up a lot of parents wouldn't let their kids play with kids who didn't go to church. Yeah, the "one nation under god" bit in the pledge bugs me. It all adds up and it makes us bitter.
I've just chosen not to be bitter because I believe all people are basicly good. They just get confused and deluded, and it's their right to be confused and deluded.
Colbert interviews are almost never a success this one is no exception.
His interviews are only 5 minutes long and typically consist of him talking and making puns for 4 minutes and his guests not finishing their sentences for 1 minute.
The sign features the hammer and sickle, a symbol of communism and insinuates that Obama will jeopardize the first and second amendments to the Constitution, which are free speech and the right to keep and bear arms.
No. But anyone who claims that God exists and people who disagree are deluded is a bigot. Which is the exact parallel to Dawkins's position.
What if you/they really are deluded. What if that's a fact? Is he still a bigot? I also associate bigotry with hatred and intolerance, not sure that stating someone is deluded really rises to the level of bigotry.
They are bitter for the same reason most vocal atheists are bitter.
I think you mean this - I'm rather quiet about my atheism, and think that many people that are noisy have other issues.
It's the same thing with Dawkins running into the same tiresome arguments all the time and surmising he's met all religious people. Not true by a long shot.
Colbert interviews are almost never a success this one is no exception.
His interviews are only 5 minutes long and typically consist of him talking and making puns for 4 minutes and his guests not finishing their sentences for 1 minute.
Maybe I just don't get it?
He's mocking/impersonating Bill O'Reilly. Based on your above description if you change "making puns" to "hollering" then it's basically dead on.
Colbert interviews are almost never a success this one is no exception.
His interviews are only 5 minutes long and typically consist of him talking and making puns for 4 minutes and his guests not finishing their sentences for 1 minute.
Maybe I just don't get it?
people like that stuff and find it entertaining...Colbert is a humorist, or satirist or whatever...imo it's juvenile trip and a total waste of time
What if you/they really are deluded. What if that's a fact? Is he still a bigot? I also associate bigotry with hatred and intolerance, not sure that stating someone is deluded really rises to the level of bigotry.
When talking about philosophically unprovable assertions, it does.
Ah. I see. Although it sure seems like a lot of people do think that. They just don't always say it.
But, believing you know something to be true, and in facing other people who do not recognize your belief to be true, aren't you on some level saying they are misguided?
The only ones to come away from your categorizing of bigots seem to be complete agnostics.
No. Add to agnostics people who believe or disbelieve whatever they like and refrain from jamming it down everybody else's throat.
When talking about philosophically unprovable assertions, it does.
I think that makes it more clear actually. To paraphrase you are saying judgments and condemnations being made based on concepts that are unprovable. Still not sure if I'd call someone doing that a bigot, I might just call them a dumb ass. Thanks though for helping me think it through.
No. Add to agnostics people who believe or disbelieve whatever they like and refrain from jamming it down everybody else's throat.
Your original definition neglected to mention that point. So now we're up to people who absolutely believe something and want to "jam it down everyone else's throat"? Those people are bigots?
Going back then to what you were saying, Dawkins has an absolute belief and wants to jam it down everyone's throat?
they already have...but some people refuse to see it if you think BO is okay, you like him, and he's doing a good job...millions of people don't think so
Yes, the dumbosphere is indeed linking to Blair's post, screeching like monkeys and flinging dung.
Now Ace of Scumbags is getting into the act -- he actually accuses me of adding a disclaimer to the very old post about Obama's birth certificate after Tim Blair pointed it out. These people are freaking insane!
Your original definition neglected to mention that point. So now we're up to people who absolutely believe something and want to "jam it down everyone else's throat"? Those people are bigots?
Going back then to what you were saying, Dawkins has an absolute belief and wants to jam it down everyone's throat?
That's what you're saying?
I'm finding this "that's what your saying?" discursive method of yours simply inane. Go talk to someone else.
Many state constitutions prevent us from holding office and we still have to fake religion if we want to run anywhere else.
Which states?
I just posted this but I'll post it again. I live in one of the states mentioned and actually read my state constitution or else I probably wouldn't be aware of this.
Yes, the dumbosphere is indeed linking to Blair's post, screeching like monkeys and flinging dung.
Now Ace of Scumbags is getting into the act -- he actually accuses me of adding a disclaimer to the very old post about Obama's birth certificate after Tim Blair pointed it out. These people are freaking insane!
Attention whores don't care about truth, fact or decorum. They just want attention and they obviously don't mine using you to get a daily shlurp from their rabid faithful. Dorks.
According to this theory [strong anthropic principle], there are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: "Why is the universe the way we see it?" The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here! 131
Fits both sides of this debate,, somehow.
Sir Isaac would be proud.
I'm finding this "that's what your saying?" discursive method of yours simply inane. Go talk to someone else.
I think cenotaphium is a citizen and resident of a different country; and I took his/her question simply as an attempt to better understand what you're saying.
I have often wondered if Richard Dawkins might be somewhat less reviled by Americans if he had an LBJ-style Texas accent instead of an Oxford English accent. That may sound like a joke, but I think there's something to it.
In addition to his latest, I also strongly recommend "The Ancestor's Tale", especially to those who are inclined to be turned off by Dawkins. After reading that, I can't begin to understand why anyone, religious or not, would prefer the sad cartoon of creationism over the much more interesting scientific explanation.
I mean, honestly, pick your poison:
1) You are the descendant of people who were made out of mud about 6000 years ago, more or less the same as they are now (and, importantly: God hates fags) or;
2) You are a result of a chain of events that has been unbroken since the beginning of the universe. In all the vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big universe, one particular speck just happened to experience a combination of statistically improbable events that lead to chemical molecules that, under the right circumstances, could split and create copies of themselves that remained stable enough to continue this chemical reaction and create copies of themselves in turn before dissipating.
These copies were slightly imprecise however, and each difference lead to a minutely different copy. Over vast stretches of unimaginable time, these differences piled up, and as it turns out, some of the differences from one generation to the next made life easier in a given environment for some than for others. Those who had it easier lived long enough to produce offspring, thereby passing their ostensibly advantageous traits on to the next generation.
2a) In order for you to exist, every generation of your family, from your cross-dressing grampa all the way back to the beginning of life on Earth, had to survive. You are part of an unbroken biological chain that survived disease, war, predation, freak accidents, and random bad luck.
2b) This same process produced every artist, scientist, philosopher, dumbass, and mass-murderer you have ever heard of.
SEC. 1. Ministers of the gospel being, by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions, therefore, no minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination whatever shall be eligible to the office of the Executive of the Republic, nor to a seat of either branch of the Congress of the same.
This provision had to be dropped when Texas joined the Union, since it conflicted with the First Amendment of the federal constitution.
I just posted this but I'll post it again. I live in one of the states mentioned and actually read my state constitution or else I probably wouldn't be aware of this.
Have you attempted to run for office and been denied? Have you been denied as a juror or witness because of being an atheist?
I get tired of the whimpering of other atheists that they are picked upon - I claimed atheist as my 'Religious Preference' during my 20 years in the Army and wasn't discriminated against. I don't get upset when someone says, 'God bless you' after I sneeze - I even had a Christian apologize to me after she reflexively said it (she knew I was an atheist). I told her that anyone who would be upset by that was a jerk - she was at a minimum showing concern for a fellow human being.
Do you know if anyone has sued because they did not comply with these religious statutes and were denied public positions? I know there are a lot of ridiculous laws still on the books, but they're virtually never enforced.
Yes, the dumbosphere is indeed linking to Blair's post, screeching like monkeys and flinging dung.
Now Ace of Scumbags is getting into the act -- he actually accuses me of adding a disclaimer to the very old post about Obama's birth certificate after Tim Blair pointed it out. These people are freaking insane!
What a bunch of maroons. Yes, some of us had questions about Zero's eligibility. As rational people often do, we found the answers and moved on. Some obviously have not.
The definition of "bigotry" is: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
Richard Dawkins has signed statements promoted by religious people, and he cites several religious scientists in his book. As far as I can tell, he has never shown "intolerance" toward any person -- although he definitely has strong opinions about atheism.
I suspect that the complaint Dawkins is a bigot is really just a thin-skinned reaction to having one's own oxe goared.
The older hominid was already so different from chimps that it suggested “no modern ape is a realistic proxy for characterizing early hominid evolution,” they wrote.
It's like the scientific edition of The NeverEnding Story.
Back to the drawing board///
He actually came to Second Life a few years ago and really enjoyed it. He even made a movie to be shown there which many of us watched, and talked about SL and the evolution of the internet. It was fascinating to see his insight on it all. =)
Do you know if anyone has sued because they did not comply with these religious statutes and were denied public positions? I know there are a lot of ridiculous laws still on the books, but they're virtually never enforced.
There's a difference between stupid laws being on the books and having it stated in a state constitution. It's kinda like if provisions for the counting of slaves in the census were still in the US constitution and just no longer enforced. It's still a blight.
I don't know of anyone being denied a public position in TN but I do know it would be career suicide to be out of the closet as an atheist in many workplaces, including government positions.
I've added links to my answer to Tim Blair's smear post to every one of the LGF articles he linked, to make sure people see my response. Because I know that neither Tim nor any of the morons linking to his post will have the decency to note that I replied.
I think cenotaphium is a citizen and resident of a different country; and I took his/her question simply as an attempt to better understand what you're saying.
Your original definition neglected to mention that point. So now we're up to people who absolutely believe something and want to "jam it down everyone else's throat"? Those people are bigots?
Going back then to what you were saying, Dawkins has an absolute belief and wants to jam it down everyone's throat?
That's what you're saying?
Not exactly.
Dawkins seemingly has absolute certainty about his answer to a philosophical question that centuries of logical debate have shown to be unprovable either way. Fine. That does not make him a bigot.
He proceeds to claim that anyone who does not accept his personal answer to said unprovable philosophical question is deluded. That, in my opinion, does make him a bigot, to the same extent that someone with the opposite answer to the unprovable philosophical question would be a bigot for thinking he had proved it to everyone else's satisfaction.
Does he want to "jam it down everyone's throat"? That's probably going too far, but it doesn't matter. He thinks those who disagree with him are deluded, but he can no more prove that than can his opposite number in the theistic camp.
I stated it more simply above, and you thought it sounded stupid. If you still think so after what I hope is a more careful exposition of my opinion, I can't help it.
All such provisions, insofar as they conflict with the First Amendment, are invalid.
To state that one cannot hold office in any of the states mentioned in your link unless one falsely professes belief in a supreme being is absurd.
Whether the voters will accept you is another matter.
I was elected to public office in a 35% Mormon town even though my agnostic views were common knowledge and my opponent was a Mormon elder. The voters were apparently more influenced by an interview he did with an LA TV station, in which he asserted that the Air Force was hiding UFOs at a nearby base, among other dubious claims. He promised that if elected he would use his office to force the feds to tell the troof.
Have you attempted to run for office and been denied? Have you been denied as a juror or witness because of being an atheist?
I get tired of the whimpering of other atheists that they are picked upon - I claimed atheist as my 'Religious Preference' during my 20 years in the Army and wasn't discriminated against. I don't get upset when someone says, 'God bless you' after I sneeze - I even had a Christian apologize to me after she reflexively said it (she knew I was an atheist). I told her that anyone who would be upset by that was a jerk - she was at a minimum showing concern for a fellow human being.
Atheists ARE picked on in this country. Just take a look at the Glenn Beck video I posted today, or read Ann Coulter or watch Bill O'Reilly, or just about any right wing pundit. The demonization is absolutely relentless.
Whether the voters will accept you is another matter.
Exactly
There was a survey a while back asking people who they would feel most comfortable as a neighbor. Only 50% of people answered that they would feel comfortable living next door to an atheist. That was the lowest scoring demographic group.
There's a difference between stupid laws being on the books and having it stated in a state constitution. It's kinda like if provisions for the counting of slaves in the census were still in the US constitution and just no longer enforced. It's still a blight.
I don't know of anyone being denied a public position in TN but I do know it would be career suicide to be out of the closet as an atheist in many workplaces, including government positions.
In any government job, that person would have an immediate discrimination complaint. They may have to do some legal legwork, but there's no difference there than if they were discriminated for being Jewish, Islamic, black or female.
I direct your attention to my post above. I had some interesting conversations, but it did not hurt my military career one bit. Besides, grow some balls and state your belief; don't preemptively complain about it. I agree a politician would have a hard time, but I would like to see some candidates state that they were atheists instead of the typical insipid showcases of going to church to appease those who are actually bigots!
Dawkins seemingly has absolute certainty about his answer to a philosophical question that centuries of logical debate have shown to be unprovable either way. Fine. That does not make him a bigot.
He proceeds to claim that anyone who does not accept his personal answer to said unprovable philosophical question is deluded. That, in my opinion, does make him a bigot, to the same extent that someone with the opposite answer to the unprovable philosophical question would be a bigot for thinking he had proved it to everyone else's satisfaction.
Does he want to "jam it down everyone's throat"? That's probably going too far, but it doesn't matter. He thinks those who disagree with him are deluded, but he can no more prove that than can his opposite number in the theistic camp.
I stated it more simply above, and you thought it sounded stupid. If you still think so after what I hope is a more careful exposition of my opinion, I can't help it.
Perry flippantly dismissed the findings of "supposed experts." Just in case his sarcasm wasn't evident, he added air quotes with his fingers to dismiss the nationally respected scientists.
When you put someone to death based solely on "experts" you might want to give them a little respect.
Here is more of the detailed story of the trial. I initally just figured it was the usual anti-death penalty crowd reaching. The more i look, the less it looks like they are reaching.
Atheists ARE picked on in this country. Just take a look at the Glenn Beck video I posted today, or read Ann Coulter or watch Bill O'Reilly, or just about any right wing pundit. The demonization is absolutely relentless.
Yes, but I get tired of the whimpering. It's unseemly. Demonizing atheists will occur from certain religious quarters no matter what. I'm not saying it shouldn't be recognized, but someone who jumps down another person's throat for the phrase, 'God bless you' isn't exactly on their best behavior either.
Some people say a man's made out of mud
A poor man's made out of muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bone
A mind that's weak and a back that's strong.
--Tennessee Ernie Ford
Cold iron shackles and a ball and chain
Listen to the whistle of the evening train . . .
Atheists ARE picked on in this country. Just take a look at the Glenn Beck video I posted today, or read Ann Coulter or watch Bill O'Reilly, or just about any right wing pundit. The demonization is absolutely relentless.
One of the snake lady's more popular screeds was entitled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" and blamed atheist influence (especially evolution) for liberalism and many other abominations.
There was a survey a while back asking people who they would feel most comfortable as a neighbor. Only 50% of people answered that they would feel comfortable living next door to an atheist. That was the lowest scoring demographic group.
I probably wouldn't want to live next door to Atheist, their rehearsals must be pretty loud:
I'd love to see a court case where an Arkansan filed a petition to run for office and was refused on grounds that the petitioner lacked the religious requirement.
Yes, but I get tired of the whimpering. It's unseemly. Demonizing atheists will occur from certain religious quarters no matter what. I'm not saying it shouldn't be recognized, but someone who jumps down another person's throat for the phrase, 'God bless you' isn't exactly on their best behavior either.
I think that's a bit of a strawman since nobody suggested atheists should jump down anyone's throat for saying "god bless you." Being treated like equal citizens and maintaining a strong separation of church and state is quite sufficient.
Dawkins seemingly has absolute certainty about his answer to a philosophical question that centuries of logical debate have shown to be unprovable either way. Fine. That does not make him a bigot.
He proceeds to claim that anyone who does not accept his personal answer to said unprovable philosophical question is deluded. That, in my opinion, does make him a bigot, to the same extent that someone with the opposite answer to the unprovable philosophical question would be a bigot for thinking he had proved it to everyone else's satisfaction.
Does he want to "jam it down everyone's throat"? That's probably going too far, but it doesn't matter. He thinks those who disagree with him are deluded, but he can no more prove that than can his opposite number in the theistic camp.
I stated it more simply above, and you thought it sounded stupid. If you still think so after what I hope is a more careful exposition of my opinion, I can't help it.
Thank you for the answer. I wasn't trying to be obtuse earlier.
I think I understand what you're saying now, even though I still feel it's a very broad depiction of bigots (it may be the spectre my native tounge, but I find the word very negatively charged). Like I mentioned earlier, being convinced of a point you don't have adequate proof of is a pretty human behaviour. To think people who don't agree with said opinions deluded (to be decieved, not have the true facts), is pretty common also.
Maybe my whole objection is just a semantics problem. I find Dawkins lucid and informative.. on some points. I do not think he's a bigot. I do think he takes his world view and speaks for it, something that by itself may well offend people (as per my idea above).
You mean "publicly recognized as insane," I think; there are a lot people who run for, and achieve, public office who are publicly insane, but their insanities happen to fit those of their constituents.
There was a survey a while back asking people who they would feel most comfortable as a neighbor. Only 50% of people answered that they would feel comfortable living next door to an atheist. That was the lowest scoring demographic group.
There we go - being an atheist is worse than being black.
I have to disagree, from my own experience. I think the survey does not accurately reflect beliefs, since it would be considered 'unacceptable' to answer that they would feel less comfortable living next to black neighbors.
I don't care about polls or what was in the original state constitutions. Since you had that link ready at hand, you must feel quite oppressed. Have you considered moving to another country?
grrr~ arrggh! My wife is stealing some of my cognac for cooking!
I used to like and respect you Thanos but using cognac for cooking over drinking? Especially by a female who might end up giving you some lovin?? What's wrong with you fool!
There was a survey a while back asking people who they would feel most comfortable as a neighbor. Only 50% of people answered that they would feel comfortable living next door to an atheist. That was the lowest scoring demographic group.
Then I can't see how you could possibly claim that his point is that all religious people are "deluded." That's not even close to his real arguments.
Tell you what. I'll go back and read it again, and we'll take up the subject again at that point. If you like.
From my own personal experience - you've heard me talk about My Moonbat Brother (MMB™) for years now, right? - atheists can be just as dogmatic and just as pompous and just as obnoxious as any pompadoured televangelist.
I'm certainly not putting Dawkins in that category. I do think he'd be a more potent antagonist against creationism if he'd stick to the science, though, and leave the theology to itself. But that's just one Catholic evolutionist's unhumble opinion.
I don't care about polls or what was in the original state constitutions. Since you had that link ready at hand, you must feel quite oppressed. Have you considered moving to another country?
I used to like and respect you Thanos but using cognac for cooking over drinking? Especially by a female who might end up giving you some lovin?? What's wrong with you fool!
I'm a grumpy curmudgeon when it comes to my cognac... that stuff isn't cheap. She has cooking sherry, white and red wine, why the heck can't she use that?!
atheists can be just as dogmatic and just as pompous and just as obnoxious as any pompadoured televangelist
Agreed. I know, because I started drifting in that direction about 8 or 9 years ago. Fortunately, I pulled out of it. (I may still be pompous, dogmatic and pompadoured, but it's about other subjects.)
In a word, taste. You shouldn't cook with anything you wouldn't drink, and if the recipe calls for cognac, that must be the flavor they're going for. Some pates and beef dishes just don't work without it.
From my own personal experience - you've heard me talk about My Moonbat Brother (MMB™) for years now, right? - atheists can be just as dogmatic and just as pompous and just as obnoxious as any pompadoured televangelist.
I've had that experience as well. My big problem with religion was the certainty exhibited by the faithful. I see the exact same unyielding certain in some of my atheist friends. From my perspective they seem just as full of faith as a fundamentalist Christian.
As an agnostic such pronouncements of certainty are disturbing and to be avoided. I like to sum up my position as follows:
"I have no problem with "I don't know" as an answer for most of life's mysteries.
I attempted to make a point similar to this here several months ago. That his, or any other atheists absolute certainty about an unanswerable philosophical question (which is IMO beyond human cognitive abilities) was akin to faith. You'd have thought I insulted people's mothers with the downdings that received.
In a word, taste. You shouldn't cook with anything you wouldn't drink, and if the recipe calls for cognac, that must be the flavor they're going for. Some pates and beef dishes just don't work without it.
I think it's for the scallops, but what do I know about cooking?
From my own personal experience - you've heard me talk about My Moonbat Brother (MMB™) for years now, right? - atheists can be just as dogmatic and just as pompous and just as obnoxious as any pompadoured televangelist.
All you're saying is that atheists are human beings with the same flaws and quirks as any other human being. Sure, I agree. But atheists are no more "arrogant" or "bitter" in general than any other group of human beings.
There is, however, a very determined effort by the religious right to demonize all atheists with these terms.
I'm a grumpy curmudgeon when it comes to my cognac... that stuff isn't cheap. She has cooking sherry, white and red wine, why the heck can't she use that?!
Maybe she just wanted to lean up against you while she was reaching for the bottle. It could happen!
I attempted to make a point similar to this here several months ago. That his, or any other atheists absolute certainty about an unanswerable philosophical question (which is IMO beyond human cognitive abilities) was akin to faith. You'd have thought I insulted people's mothers with the downdings that received.
Again, you're simply misstating Dawkins' views. He does not claim absolute certainty at all.
(Hey I could just be the dream of a space monkey on crack, or "I" could be a constructed fantasy. Either of which probably wouldn't surprise most Lizards.)
All you're saying is that atheists are human beings with the same flaws and quirks as any other human being. Sure, I agree. But atheists are no more "arrogant" or "bitter" in general than any other group of human beings.
There is, however, a very determined effort by the religious right to demonize all atheists with these terms.
I am not of the religious right and I don't agree with Beck. If criticizing Dawkins makes me sound like I'm coming from that corner, it's a mistake.
I attempted to make a point similar to this here several months ago. That his, or any other atheists absolute certainty about an unanswerable philosophical question (which is IMO beyond human cognitive abilities) was akin to faith. You'd have thought I insulted people's mothers with the downdings that received.
And that is where I find the most problems. I have people who insist that I have to be interested in unanswerable philosophical questions. No I don't. I can be an atheist, and at the same time respect your beliefs, without having to go one step further to prove my opinions or to disprove your points.
I find there are certain people who are just not comfortable to leave it at this point, no matter how much I accord them respect.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this line of argumentation about Newton. Some of his theories are supersceded by better theories. Some of his theories were derived from earlier sources. This doesn't mean his ideas were bad or useless, but claiming he was "right" isn't true either. He was also clearly wrong on many things, for instance he was involved in alchemy.
I'm reacting to the common narrative that Newton (and other "idols of science") were somehow beyond fault. More than anything, I think science is the slow accumulation of knowledge through multiple lines of independent inquiry. (Kuhnian paradigm shifts be damned).
The proper attention this post ought to receive (with sourcing, more points) is simply beyond the time and capabilities I have at the moment.
Did you see my sarcasm tag. It was a joke, since I was being pompous and obnoxious. really Cato, you are not the only one with a dry sense of humor here, give us some credit :)
No, it is only difficult for you to understand that I don't give a scientist to much credit if he believes in G-D. Doesn't mean he is a bad scientist, doesn't mean he is a bad person, doesn't even mean he is wrong, but it does mean I don't put as much trust in his science.
My opinion.
Depends on the Science doesn't it? I wouldn't trust Young Earth Creationists in biology or astrophysics. After all the basic concepts of those fields are anathama to a YEC. But Computer Science? Engineering? I can't imagine their belief systems would have any relevance to the subject matter at hand.
You mean "publicly recognized as insane," I think; there are a lot people who run for, and achieve, public office who are publicly insane, but their insanities happen to fit those of their constituents.
Should have thought of that. There are many, many publicly insane politicians but too few are recognized as such. I stand corrected.
Did you see my sarcasm tag. It was a joke, since I was being pompous and obnoxious. really Cato, you are not the only one with a dry sense of humor here, give us some credit :)
In most of the Spanish-speaking world, red wine is referred to as vino tinto (literally, tinted wine).
However, in Colombia, un tinto refers to a cup of black coffee.
I remember the first time I was in a business meeting in Colombia, at about 8:30 a.m., and they offered un tinto to everyone attending. And I'm thinking... wow, these people really need to "get to a meeting", so to speak...
He's mocking/impersonating Bill O'Reilly. Based on your above description if you change "making puns" to "hollering" then it's basically dead on.
No because it's at the expense of his guests I'm fine with his jokes in the rest of the show but if you aren't going to let people that come on the show talk why bother?
I think ' shivv' was meant to be a sooo clever play on the definition... a homemade weapon smuggled into a prison under the guards' noses that can wreak havoc until discovered and confiscated.
Blogger is owned by Google, and they almost never do anything about abuse complaints.
This isn't abuse, it's trademark infringement now. They pretty much have to do something as long as you are willing to fill out the form and give legal name.
When you put someone to death based solely on "experts" you might want to give them a little respect.
Here is more of the detailed story of the trial. I initally just figured it was the usual anti-death penalty crowd reaching. The more i look, the less it looks like they are reaching.
Governor Goodhair's first cousin, Larry Don Wheeler, was a notably outspoken supporter of the governor's death penalty policies.
As noted in the spin-offs, Mr. Wheeler was shot dead by Montague County deputies during a confrontation this morning.
And that is where I find the most problems. I have people who insist that I have to be interested in unanswerable philosophical questions. No I don't. I can be an atheist, and at the same time respect your beliefs, without having to go one step further to prove my opinions or to disprove your points.
I find there are certain people who are just not comfortable to leave it at this point, no matter how much I accord them respect.
But you are not... evangelical for lack of a better term with your beliefs, and I do not believe Dawkins to be either just for clarity's sake here. Simply writing a book about a subject does not make one a rabid pushy missionary of it's contents.
This isn't abuse, it's trademark infringement now. They pretty much have to do something as long as you are willing to fill out the form and give legal name.
Yep, I can't talk about anything that might be under way right now, though.
Even if there was a perfect explanation for the process of abiogenesis as it happened on Earth it won't be something that can be demonstrated in a laboratory experiment. I say there's no end in sight for the God/No God debate.
Governor Goodhair's first cousin, Larry Don Wheeler, was a notably outspoken supporter of the governor's death penalty policies.
As noted in the spin-offs, Mr. Wheeler was shot dead by Montague County deputies during a confrontation this morning.
I'm a grumpy curmudgeon when it comes to my cognac... that stuff isn't cheap. She has cooking sherry, white and red wine, why the heck can't she use that?!
Buy her a bottle of her own. At the rate people typically use such things for cooking, it will last for years. The cost per annum is negligible, your own cognac will remain unviolated, and peace will reign in your home.
A lot of these older games are available for free online. I recently found out, though, that my Intel Mac no longer supports the old software. Probably not a problem on a PC.
In any government job, that person would have an immediate discrimination complaint. They may have to do some legal legwork, but there's no difference there than if they were discriminated for being Jewish, Islamic, black or female.
I direct your attention to my post above. I had some interesting conversations, but it did not hurt my military career one bit. Besides, grow some balls and state your belief; don't preemptively complain about it. I agree a politician would have a hard time, but I would like to see some candidates state that they were atheists instead of the typical insipid showcases of going to church to appease those who are actually bigots!
You've evidently never had a group of students corner you and threaten you in high school for being 'agnostic', or later have someone try to teach you to 'fear God because we're going kick your ass if you don't'. Yes, I know, High School sucks for everyone. But that'll color your perception really quick.
I am self-employed. Most of my clientele are deeply religious people, including evangelists. Some of them are personally religious, but I have my fair share of your everyday door-knocking bible-thumpers. I have nirthers, creationists, and a few I suspect are fairly racist.
In my work, I try to avoid political and religious conversations, for obvious reasons. For one, it has nothing to do with the work I perform, I know I can't "change" their opinion without changing our work/client relationship, and - frankly - I'm often so bored with what I do, I don't want to add another facet to my daily bullshit. I jut shut my fucking mouth, put my head down, and do my work like a good little atheist. And if I do this, and all the stars line up just right, I get paid.
But it's odd, and kind of funny, how people will start rambling about something, go off an religious tangent, and assume you're along for the ride. And sometimes... it's a pretty hairy ride.
Over the years (I've been doing this a long time), and especially since the last election, I've heard shit that makes Glenn Beck look like a freshman. I'm constantly forwarded every crazy new conspiracy theory, racist jokes, homosexual put-downs, rah-rah movements to get prayer back in schools "where it belongs" - all "between friends" - from some of these salt-of-the-earth religious peeps of mine, because they assume - even though it isn't discussed - that I'm on the same plane with them. Prayer chains, pro-life insanity, rural militia nuts, the Terry Shiavo crap, Obama is a commie and wants my guns, godlessness is ruining our country, evolution is a conspiracy - it all lands in my inbox. I spend so much time deleting that stuff, it's a wonder I get anything done some days.
But the assumption is I am one of them, and I'm not. If tomorrow I decided to tell my religious (probably 99% of my) clientele I am atheist, I'm sure they'd think I was joking at first. I mean, how could I possibly do what I do and be an atheist?
The fact is, my business niche consists of very religious people, from what I call "cool religious" (and some of these religious clients have become my friends, and know what a heathen I am) to the most fringe fundies, that think nothing of pushing their religious crap on me without ever asking or considering whether I'm in the fold. I can't attend a single work-related function without being expected to pray in the group, somehow work Jesus and God into a conversation, or read some religious tribute in trade journals that are not even religious subject matter. (And people bitch about In God We trust on currency? Please!)
The funny thing is, my business is not the business of religion, per se, it just includes a lot of religious people who happen to be extremely insensitive to the oddball atheist like myself. I know this is not every atheist's experience, but it sure as hell is mine.
All you're saying is that atheists are human beings with the same flaws and quirks as any other human being. Sure, I agree. But atheists are no more "arrogant" or "bitter" in general than any other group of human beings.
There is, however, a very determined effort by the religious right to demonize all atheists with these terms.
It is perhaps because of that second point, that you are so defensive of Dawkins' religious stance. Please believe that I am not at all trying to take one jot away from his science by disagreeing with his philosophy.
He makes the following flaw. The only statements that are scientific, subject to the scientific method.
Because of this, and the inability to do an experiment on G-d, it is impossible to say anything scientific about His possible existence. You can of course debunk religious claims about physical objects. That noise in your house was unlikely to be a poltergeist. That configuration of raisins in your muffin is not likely the Virgin Mary etc...
However, as to claims about a purely non-physical G-d existing or not, and this is the key point,
A statement that you are sure He does not exist is just as much a statement of faith as a statement that He does exist. Affirming the negative of an unprovable, is just as unprovable as affirming the positive.
The only scientific statement that can be made about G-d's existence is that we have no reproducible data and therefore science can not say.
The biggest flaw with Dawkins philosophically is to presume that only that which falls under the realm of science is that which exists, and then to misapply the scientific method to promote his atheism.
Even if there was a perfect explanation for the process of abiogenesis as it happened on Earth it won't be something that can be demonstrated in a laboratory experiment. I say there's no end in sight for the God/No God debate.
Even if there was, it does not remove the God/No God debate, it just takes god out of the biogenesis business. That does not answer any of the "why" questions about existence of the universe in general.
A lot of these older games are available for free online. I recently found out, though, that my Intel Mac no longer supports the old software. Probably not a problem on a PC.
thanks, I'll look into it...Doom II was brain numbing, something I need once in a while...same with my old pal Duke Nukem...i'm still driving a PC
Depends on the Science doesn't it? I wouldn't trust Young Earth Creationists in biology or astrophysics. After all the basic concepts of those fields are anathama to a YEC. But Computer Science? Engineering? I can't imagine their belief systems would have any relevance to the subject matter at hand.
No to be fair, if you are YEC, in this day and age, then Walter does have a point. You clearly can not evaluate evidence when it hits you on the head and your science would be suspect.
Buy her a bottle of her own. At the rate people typically use such things for cooking, it will last for years. The cost per annum is negligible, your own cognac will remain unviolated, and peace will reign in your home.
I could do that but... being weak I wager I would drink it next time I ran out instead of running to the store. It's ok, this is only the third time she's raided my cognac in 27 yrs, I guess I can live with it.
Atheists ARE picked on in this country. Just take a look at the Glenn Beck video I posted today, or read Ann Coulter or watch Bill O'Reilly, or just about any right wing pundit. The demonization is absolutely relentless.
I agree. I'm not saying anything new here - but if the GOP wants to be the party of GOD - then it will be the party out of power. Funny how the religious liberals I know don't feel the need to shove their religion down everyone's throat.
YO - GOP -- back off.
Suicide by cop is one one of the fastest growing causes of violent death in the country.
Sad as it is, it does save the taxpayers a considerable amount of pain and treasure.
No to be fair, if you are YEC, in this day and age, then Walter does have a point. You clearly can not evaluate evidence when it hits you on the head and your science would be suspect.
Agreed, that sort of thinking would certainly raise red flags.
The only scientific statement that can be made about G-d's existence is that we have no reproducible data and therefore science can not say.
My problem with that line of argument is that to me, the definition of "God" is not sufficiently clear to even rise to the level to talking about data.
No to be fair, if you are YEC, in this day and age, then Walter does have a point. You clearly can not evaluate evidence when it hits you on the head and your science would be suspect.
And maybe we now come to a partial understanding, more to my lack of being clearer. I agree.
Suicide by cop is one one of the fastest growing causes of violent death in the country.
Sad as it is, it does save the taxpayers a considerable amount of pain and treasure.
Because of this, and the inability to do an experiment on G-d, it is impossible to say anything scientific about His possible existence.
I've always found this argument to be slippery. It essentially argues for a deity that's undetectable, that does nothing that can be shown to have a physical effect. In reality, most religions do not argue this. They have very specific tales of wonder about what the deity did, to whom and what the result was.
All those things are subject to scientific criticism. For instance, we can be pretty sure at this point Thor banging the heads of giants is not the reason for thunder and that Zeus does not personally make all lightning.
Why should the claims of monotheists be different?
If we can show that the only defensible religious position is one that argues for a non-interventionist god, or a deceptive god that interevenes but cannot be detected, then would it not be fair to say that most modern religions are indeed "disproved" by science?
Today Science published a series on "Ardi". Posted a spin-off link about the old ... girl .
From the AP article:
"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it," White said. "And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared."
for one thing, he is pretty clear that he believes the good scientists are all atheists and that it is deluded to accept evolution and have faith in God.
This is the speech where he urges militant atheism.
My problem with that line of argument is that to me, the definition of "God" is not sufficiently clear to even rise to the level to talking about data.
True. If you cannot define "God" then looking for, or claiming a lack of, evidence of it's existence is futile since you can't know what this evidence would be in the first place.
One thing to note, is that Science Mag articles are usually not free, but all 11 about Ardi in this issue are free of charge, indicating that the AAAS believes this is probably going to be an important topic in the American culture wars over evolution.
I've always found this argument to be slippery. It essentially argues for a deity that's undetectable, that does nothing that can be shown to have a physical effect. In reality, most religions do not argue this. They have very specific tales of wonder about what the deity did, to whom and what the result was.
All those things are subject to scientific criticism. For instance, we can be pretty sure at this point Thor banging the heads of giants is not the reason for thunder and that Zeus does not personally make all lightning.
Why should the claims of monotheists be different?
If we can show that the only defensible religious position is one that argues for a non-interventionist god, or a deceptive god that interevenes but cannot be detected, then would it not be fair to say that most modern religions are indeed "disproved" by science?
Except that it is a fundamental principle of Judaism that Hashem has no body and is wholly unphysical.
As to interactions, they are not reproducible. Prove to me that a purported miracle 3500 years ago didn't happen.
I am not saying that one should believe all of the things purported in the bible.
I am saying that by the standards of scientific proof and disproof, you have to be very careful.
Atheists are definitely picked on in this Country. But so are a lot of other people. Depends on who is doing the picking. But atheists get singled out for their alleged "evilness".
Atheists are definitely picked on in this Country. But so are a lot of other people. Depends on who is doing the picking. But atheists get singled out for their alleged "evilness".
Prove to me that a purported miracle 3500 years ago didn't happen.
First, describe the miracle to me.
For instance, I think science can quite definitely say that the purported miracle of creation of the entire universe ex nihilio about 6,000 years ago didn't happen.
It seems mainly (not entirely, but mostly) that only losers, creeps, idiots and folks who love abuse go into politics.
;-) "Sully" isn't really qualified.
clubbing around NYC with my good friend from Philly...we were both admiring the buildings and the vibe etc...he turns and says "New York makes Philadelphia look like a town"...so true
For instance, I think science can quite definitely say that the purported miracle of creation of the entire universe ex nihilio about 6,000 years ago didn't happen.
Nor is that "purported in the bible." That is an interpretation.
I've always found this argument to be slippery. It essentially argues for a deity that's undetectable, that does nothing that can be shown to have a physical effect. In reality, most religions do not argue this. They have very specific tales of wonder about what the deity did, to whom and what the result was.
All those things are subject to scientific criticism. For instance, we can be pretty sure at this point Thor banging the heads of giants is not the reason for thunder and that Zeus does not personally make all lightning.
Why should the claims of monotheists be different?
If we can show that the only defensible religious position is one that argues for a non-interventionist god, or a deceptive god that interevenes but cannot be detected, then would it not be fair to say that most modern religions are indeed "disproved" by science?
No; it simply means that religion lies outside the scope of science. Beings with unlimited scope of action, who are not bound by the physical laws which govern the observable, measurable Universe cannot be studied using the methods of science.
One argument that he gets wrong BTW is that evolution must be atheistic.
If you believe in a God that knows the future, the random nature of evolutionary mutations, then guided by selective processes, may have a random mutation that looks random to us, but to a being who knows the future, nothing is random.
Except that it is a fundamental principle of Judaism that Hashem has no body and is wholly unphysical.
As to interactions, they are not reproducible. Prove to me that a purported miracle 3500 years ago didn't happen.
I am not saying that one should believe all of the things purported in the bible.
I am saying that by the standards of scientific proof and disproof, you have to be very careful.
Well, certain things are indeed still up to investigation. I'm pretty certain religious people have pointed out and rejoiced every time modern archeology tells a similar story that's described in whatever holy text they prefer.
As for the deity being explicity non-detectable.. well, I doubt most people agree with you. Take things like prayer, for instance. There should be a discrepancy between those who do pray (and, according to the idea have the ear of an almighty god that is willing to intervene), and those that do not.
I'll add that investigating claims of the paranormal is not new or as controversial, even though many are prepare to defend their belief in ghosts and faeries. I just don't see why there's some magical barrier that prevents investigation into the claims of the religious.
No; it simply means that religion lies outside the scope of science. Beings with unlimited scope of action, who are not bound by the physical laws which govern the observable, measurable Universe cannot be studied using the methods of science.
re: #481 cenotaphium
Most believers would probably tell you that faith , which is the foundation of most religion, is the belief in that which we cannot see, and the knowledge of that which cannot be proven in this life.
Ralph Waldo Emerson put it another way... ' All that I have seen leads me to trust the Creator for that which I cannot yet see'.
No; it simply means that religion lies outside the scope of science. Beings with unlimited scope of action, who are not bound by the physical laws which govern the observable, measurable Universe cannot be studied using the methods of science.
Nor is that "purported in the bible." That is an interpretation.
Okay, my point being that to the extent one's definition of "God" were to be composed (in part) of "the being that created the universe 6,000 years ago", at least that bit is disprovable.
If one insists on defining "God" in inherently untestable ways, well, then, sure, that "God" is, by definition, untestable. But my problem then (as an atheist) is figuring out the affirmative content of that belief.
For instance, I think science can quite definitely say that the purported miracle of creation of the entire universe ex nihilio about 6,000 years ago didn't happen.
Good for us that there are multiple different cabbalistic calculations that place the age of the universe in the billions of years. Between 12 and 15 billion to be precise.
As to creation ex-nihilo, particles wink into existence and out of it all the time. That is the backbone of Quantum Field Theories.
No; it simply means that religion lies outside the scope of science. Beings with unlimited scope of action, who are not bound by the physical laws which govern the observable, measurable Universe cannot be studied using the methods of science.
Okay. Did you read my original point? Or were you answering the question posited at the end?
In any case, apart from the two options I mentioned, there would be a whole lot of modern religious belief challenged by the proposal.
Good for us that there are multiple different cabbalistic calculations that place the age of the universe in the billions of years. Between 12 and 15 billion to be precise.
As to creation ex-nihilo, particles wink into existence and out of it all the time. That is the backbone of Quantum Field Theories.
Okay, my point being that to the extent one's definition of "God" were to be composed (in part) of "the being that created the universe 6,000 years ago", at least that bit is disprovable.
If one insists on defining "God" in inherently untestable ways, well, then, sure, that "God" is, by definition, untestable. But my problem then (as an atheist) is figuring out the affirmative content of that belief.
Yes clearly, many claims of supernatural powers and actions can indeed be disproved, or proven naive, by science.
Maybe. Although I wasn't aware that ghosts had unlimited scope of action or were able to set aside physical laws at will.
For what it's worth, ghosts have been the subject of a number of scientific investigations. To date, no evidence supporting their existence has been found, the ridiculous and credulous shows on SyFy notwithstanding.
As to interactions, they are not reproducible. Prove to me that a purported miracle 3500 years ago didn't happen.
Come on, now. I'm sure you realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence is there that the laws of physics and nature were different on Earth 3500 years ago? The strongest argument against believing in literal miracles is simply that in order to happen the way they're described in the Bible, the very laws of the universe would have to have been somehow mutable.
Asking someone to prove that miracles didn't happen is a logical fallacy. Without proof that they did happen, the only reasonable position for anyone who values the scientific method is to accept that the stories are allegories, not descriptions of actual events.
Most believers would probably tell you that faith , which is the foundation of most religion, is the belief in that which we cannot see, and the knowledge of that which cannot be proven in this life.
Ralph Waldo Emerson put it another way... ' All that I have seen leads me to trust the Creator for that which I cannot yet see'.
Well, here's another thing I find slippery. Because most religious believers I've talked to lean heavily on real, physical arguments on which to lay their beliefs upon. After all, they picked a specific flavour of Christianity over countless other alternatives.
Most often this boils down to a respect for authority - parents, preachers and thinkers that have convinced the person through argument at some point, or reliance on physical evidence (as in "much of archeology and history supports the Bible account"). I've never heard "well, I just woke up one day and believed it".
The quote is nice, but once again seems to argue more for a non-intervening deity, which is far from the description of the gods I've heard people actually describe.
re: #499 Mich-again
Well, they can take comfort in the fact that in the opinion of All Media (except for the right-wing fringe), there is only one acceptable demographic left to demonize and generally ridicule, and they are not included.
///
Okay, my point being that to the extent one's definition of "God" were to be composed (in part) of "the being that created the universe 6,000 years ago", at least that bit is disprovable.
If one insists on defining "God" in inherently untestable ways, well, then, sure, that "God" is, by definition, untestable. But my problem then (as an atheist) is figuring out the affirmative content of that belief.
I keep having these moments, where I can't imagine how one tests for a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immaterial and immanent...
Maybe. Although I wasn't aware that ghosts had unlimited scope of action or were able to set aside physical laws at will.
For what it's worth, ghosts have been the subject of a number of scientific investigations. To date, no evidence supporting their existence has been found, the ridiculous and credulous shows on SyFy notwithstanding.
And you made my point. I can tell you I believe in flying dohickey's and worship them and you can't prove me wrong. But some people would certainly question my sanity. The fine line between acceptable mystical beliefs and acceptable religion.
Why does God need a starship? Why does an "omnipotent" being need a "process"?
Well as to what He needs, is another question. However, since the universe is ordered and it does obey physical processes, if you believe He created it, then you have to believe He created those processes too.
In Hebrew, the first lines of Bereshith are a lot different than in King James.
It is not "In the beginning God created."
It is, "When Gods (actually a plural form of a name of God) began to create."
SO two things to point out...
1. The creation is a work in progress.
2. What about that plural?
Now, many will say that this is a Royal We. Judaism is certainly monotheistic. However, Ramabam's commentary is that God, used the laws of nature to create. The plural is therefore God and the Lews He ordained.
Last night Fox News continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts to win the Olympics for the United States. In the past, hosting the Olympics has been a source of pride and unity for the country, but once again Fox News' Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings.
God blessed me with an entirely ambivalent attitude regarding his existance...I am forever grateful that I have no concerns one way or the other, but I enjoy the debate about his character and nature as if he were Micky Mouse himself...I'm always amazed at the fuss the subject stirs...he is or he isn't...time will tell I guess
“Congressman Paul, the media and even [Rep.] Patrick Kennedy said this, we heard this from two people, Muammar Gaddafi and I believe the other one was Ahmadinejad that both spoke last week and they – we’re hearing it all the time that there’s going to be violence here in America, that people are targeting,” Beck said. “Basically everyone is going to blame this on the right, any kind of violence.”
There would be violence, but not before a dollar crisis happens as some Democratic politicians and media personalities have warned, but afterward Paul said.
“I think that there will be violence,” he explained. “I hope we don’t have to go through, you know, a very violent period of time, but that's what happens too often when the government runs out of money and runs out of wealth, the people argue over, you know, a shrinking pie and, of course, the people who have to produce are sick and tired of producing.”
Because most religious believers I've talked to lean heavily on real, physical arguments on which to lay their beliefs upon.
Yes, I know those religions exist. But I should have said people of faith, not people of religion. The two are not always synonymous. My faith teaches me that there are only two great Thou Shalts, and that everything else is... everything else. I don't get the silly denominational thing either.
Well as to what He needs, is another question. However, since the universe is ordered and it does obey physical processes, if you believe He created it, then you have to believe He created those processes too.
In Hebrew, the first lines of Bereshith are a lot different than in King James.
It is not "In the beginning God created."
It is, "When Gods (actually a plural form of a name of God) began to create."
SO two things to point out...
1. The creation is a work in progress.
2. What about that plural?
Now, many will say that this is a Royal We. Judaism is certainly monotheistic. However, Ramabam's commentary is that God, used the laws of nature to create. The plural is therefore God and the Lews He ordained.
And you are basing your points on a book of what? If I went to Gilgamesh and used it's creation story as my foundation to make a point similar to yours above, what would give my source any more or less credibility?
Come on, now. I'm sure you realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence is there that the laws of physics and nature were different on Earth 3500 years ago? The strongest argument against believing in literal miracles is simply that in order to happen the way they're described in the Bible, the very laws of the universe would have to have been somehow mutable.
Asking someone to prove that miracles didn't happen is a logical fallacy. Without proof that they did happen, the only reasonable position for anyone who values the scientific method is to accept that the stories are allegories, not descriptions of actual events.
They could also be misinterpretations of actual events. The memory of a witness, or the retelling of an event, has proven to be much more malleable than universal laws.
This will definatly cause a major backlash against hte zionist elites if they drag us into a war and crash our economy but it will also empower China. I think Jewish power is a paper tiger due to their small numbers and will crash like it has throughout history.
...
Ron Paul was on Glenn Beck radio a few days ago and said much of the same. He thinks the dollar will collapse within a few years, and there will be civil unrest as a result. He didn't want to go into all the gory details that such an event could produce, but he knows it won't be pretty.
he warns of impending violence from a crashing dollar...you warned of impending violence from town hall shouters...everybody has an impending issue...no big deal
Come on, now. I'm sure you realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence is there that the laws of physics and nature were different on Earth 3500 years ago? The strongest argument against believing in literal miracles is simply that in order to happen the way they're described in the Bible, the very laws of the universe would have to have been somehow mutable.
Asking someone to prove that miracles didn't happen is a logical fallacy. Without proof that they did happen, the only reasonable position for anyone who values the scientific method is to accept that the stories are allegories, not descriptions of actual events.
No Sir, I am saying something much more subtle than that.
First off, I can't prove them. I am not trying to. I could not. The crux of my argument is that so long as something stays within the realm of neither provable or disprovable, you can not make a scientific claim about it.
I am not arguing science at all. I am arguing where science has a limit.
I am saying that there are many mechanisms by which you can have a non-reproducible interaction, and that because it is non-reproducible, you can never verify it with science by doing an experiment.
As a result, there will always be room to believe, because it has not been ruled out.
That is not an argument that you should believe it. That is an argument that if you really want to get down to it, you will have problems actually putting a nail in the coffin of faith itself by scientific means.
A great example.
How can you tell if you have a kosher coin? I mean it has the same odds of being heads or tails?
Well you flip it a bunch of times, say 100, and you get say 49 heads and 51 tails. The odds at that point of it being unkosher are trillions to one against.
However, say you only get one coin flip and something nudges it? How could you ever tell?
You couldn't.
Given how many things in the world come down to very small seemingly random things that only happen once, once could posit that we are awash in miracles. It certainly matters to the cat if the atom decays in a Schroedinger's cat experiment.
he warns of impending violence from a crashing dollar...you warned of impending violence from town hall shouters...everybody has an impending issue...no big deal
There's going to be some impending violence if my kitteh doesn't get his wet food.
“I think that there will be violence,” he explained. “I hope we don’t have to go through, you know, a very violent period of time, but that's what happens too often when the government runs out of money and runs out of wealth, the people argue over, you know, a shrinking pie and, of course, the people who have to produce are sick and tired of producing.”
he warns of impending violence from a crashing dollar...you warned of impending violence from town hall shouters...everybody has an impending issue...no big deal
I worry about impending incontinence. That's going to be an end times moment.
he warns of impending violence from a crashing dollar...you warned of impending violence from town hall shouters...everybody has an impending issue...no big deal
Listen to the audio it's all tied together. After the Jews attack Iran the dollar is going to collapse and the states are going to secede. Anarchy!
/which Beck seems to think is a great idea because it will get the government out of our lives
And you are basing your points on a book of what? If I went to Gilgamesh and used it's creation story as my foundation to make a point similar to yours above, what would give my source any more or less credibility?
You foundation is suspect to start with.
Walter, My goal is to point out that it is possible to have a theological system that is consistent with science. I know Judaism, so I can use that as an example. I'll let the other faiths defend themselves. As to this argument though it is sufficient to say that they are reconcilable.
Given how many things in the world come down to very small seemingly random things that only happen once, once could posit that we are awash in miracles. It certainly matters to the cat if the atom decays in a Schroedinger's cat experiment.
What do you mean ' now'? They've been at it for months. TOTUS actually called them out by name long ago, and Gibbs has been batting cleanup for as long after every Beck show.
Not that they aren't perfectly within their rights. You hit one of ours with a knife, we hit one of yours with a gun. ... so to speak. It's just bidness.
“I think we’re going to have a de facto 10th Amendment, secession,” Paul said “People are just going to ignore the federal government because they won’t – and there’s, you know, a total loss of credibility.”
In fact to make the argument stronger, I'll posit it the other way. If you went to Newton and explained Quantum Mechanics to him, he would think you are mad. There was no reason in his day, based on all available evidence to believe such a thing. Did that mean QM wasn't happening then too?
In fact to make the argument stronger, I'll posit it the other way. If you went to Newton and explained Quantum Mechanics to him, he would think you are mad. There was no reason in his day, based on all available evidence to believe such a thing. Did that mean QM wasn't happening then too?
But again, you're promoting a logical fallacy. Whether Newton knew about quantum mechanics or not doesn't matter. The principles of quantum mechanics were no less valid in Newton's day simply because they hadn't been discovered yet.
Listen to the audio it's all tied together. After the Jews attack Iran the dollar is going to collapse and the states are going to secede. Anarchy!
/which Beck seems to think is a great idea because it will get the government out of our lives
duh!...the dollar has collapsed already by a huge margin...the inevitable energy shortage that's headed our way is gonna make armed town hall shouters seem normal...look at all the shiny objects!
Walter, My goal is to point out that it is possible to have a theological system that is consistent with science. I know Judaism, so I can use that as an example. I'll let the other faiths defend themselves. As to this argument though it is sufficient to say that they are reconcilable.
And it's my goal to disagree, not with malice, please understand, but disagree no less.
You know Judaism. And the whole of your knowledge stem from Torah. And then along with the Talmud and other rabbinical commentaries of the text.
But all that knowledge and the knowledge that has been obtained by you, passed on to you and sought out by you is based on that one foundation, the Hebrew Scriptures.
And that book is found lacking in many different ways, found lacking by applying science to it's contents. Archeology for instance.
I was at a meeting where a candidate for Republican nomination was taking questions, and an incoherent woman stood up and asked the candidate about the tenth amendment. The candidate, who is a district attorney, said, "Yes, I'm familiar with the tenth amendment, what about it?" And the woman in the audience could not articulate what she wanted to know about the candidate's "position" on it. I liked the "yeah, what about it?' answer.
But again, you're promoting a logical fallacy. Whether Newton knew about quantum mechanics or not doesn't matter. The principles of quantum mechanics were no less valid in Newton's day simply because they hadn't been discovered yet.
Well, that's a yes-and-no one.
Given the instruments available at the time, Newton would have been quite right to reject QM as nonsense - I've seen suggested too little sleep and a mild hallucinogen as aids to understanding; but QM was happening all the same. We think. Provided that observing isn't making it happen...excuse me!
But again, you're promoting a logical fallacy. Whether Newton knew about quantum mechanics or not doesn't matter. The principles of quantum mechanics were no less valid in Newton's day simply because they hadn't been discovered yet.
So I could say that God was always here too even if you haven't discovered Him. Just like we can say about electrons and Newton discovering them. No data means no data. The core of the argument is just that. There is no logical fallacy. You can not make any scientific claim in the absence of data.
4409 is the group that staged that stunt with semi-auto weapons in Phoenix at the Obama rally.
They also support the biggest kook running for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in NM, Adam Kokesh. Scary vids of his speeches appear on YouTube. He's got Ron Paul's endorsement too.
They also support the biggest kook running for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in NM, Adam Kokesh. Scary vids of his speeches appear on YouTube. He's got Ron Paul's endorsement too.
So I could say that God was always here too even if you haven't discovered Him. Just like we can say about electrons and Newton discovering them. No data means no data. The core of the argument is just that. There is no logical fallacy. You can not make any scientific claim in the absence of data.
Wait.. so now you are arguing that we should use science to discern the existence of a deity?
Wait.. so now you are arguing that we should use science to discern the existence of a deity?
I'm confused.
NO it is simple.
Science only applies where you can apply the scientific method.
In Newton's day, there was no way to apply the scientific method to the existence of electrons. Therefore, had he been a strict logical positivist, he would have denied the existence of electrons and been wrong.
Electrons were always there. However, there was no way to do an experiment to say so.
Of course, Newton would have said, that is an interesting claim, I won't believe it until you prove it to me, but I can not rule it out. No data is no data.
As per God, No data is still no data.
You are free not to believe. You are also free to believe, provided your beliefs do not lead to contradiction.
How concerned should we be about Obama? Is he a potential dictator with a weird cult following who could destroy this country?
To put it more bluntly, does Obama have the potential for inflicting evil on us? Or, if he's a puppet, are the ones holding the strings malevolent?
These may be the most crucial and urgent questions of our times. Is Obamaphobia a legitimate reaction to an angry president with a vendetta, surrounded by psycho czars? Or is the imagination running amok?
AZ lizards really need to get out and work against Kokesh, and Coca Cola needs to strongly disassociate from these militia skin head nutballs infringing their trademark look and feel.
Not at all. Chaos theory is really clear that a small change in conditions can have a giant effect on outcomes. This is a fact. This is also the field I study professionally. Consider Lyapunov exponents if you wish to get technical.
No. Honestly, I just couldn't care less about the ACORN outrage of the day.
You may be right, it's either the start of something everything will talk about for the next year, or it's a continuation of the hyperventilating over at the usual blogspects.
Science only applies where you can apply the scientific method.
In Newton's day, there was no way to apply the scientific method to the existence of electrons. Therefore, had he been a strict logical positivist, he would have denied the existence of electrons and been wrong.
Electrons were always there. However, there was no way to do an experiment to say so.
Of course, Newton would have said, that is an interesting claim, I won't believe it until you prove it to me, but I can not rule it out. No data is no data.
As per God, No data is still no data.
You are free not to believe. You are also free to believe, provided your beliefs do not lead to contradiction.
But.. didn't I just point out that the "no data" view is far removed from the vast majority of modern religion? Again, no thunder from Thor, no lightning from Zeus.
It's not fair to claim "nothing can be said on the existence of (a) god" without also mentioning that said claim refutes the position of all major religions. It feels dishonest to me.
But.. didn't I just point out that the "no data" view is far removed from the vast majority of modern religion? Again, no thunder from Thor, no lightning from Zeus.
It's not fair to claim "nothing can be said on the existence of (a) god" without also mentioning that said claim refutes the position of all major religions. It feels dishonest to me.
NO I said that nothing scientific can be said about a non physical God and that Judaism holds Gods incorporeality as a core tenant of the faith. Last time I checked, Judaism counted as a major religion.
I will have to refer you to my re: #580 Walter L. Newton again, since I didn't see an answer.
And I have to reiterate. Everything you know about G-D has come to you from writings that science has been applied to, and those writings have been found to be lacking in many areas (and in other areas, very accurate).
But, none the less, the Hebrew Scriptures have had science applied to the text, many sciences, and you are left with a collection of "G-D information" that is less than perfect.
They can't even create an original art concept. I hate it when talentless assholes that do that kind of thing. If I was Coke, they'd already have a case and desist from a trademark attorney, pending legal action.
That's in addition to the obvious fact their out of their fucking minds, of course.
NO I said that nothing scientific can be said about a non physical God and that Judaism holds Gods incorporeality as a core tenant of the faith. Last time I checked, Judaism counted as a major religion.
But something scientific can be said for the foundational material which you base you knowledge of G-D, the Hebrew Scriptures, and science has found problems with those texts.
NO I said that nothing scientific can be said about a non physical God and that Judaism holds Gods incorporeality as a core tenant of the faith. Last time I checked, Judaism counted as a major religion.
Hold on now, it's not only a question of the substance of the deity, it's also a question of if the deity interacts with the physical world.
Ghosts are claimed to be incorporeal also. It's the interations that are most often investigated.
I do believe there's several points described in which the deity directly influences the physical world in your religion. These would be subject to evaluation, would they not?
Hold on now, it's not only a question of the substance of the deity, it's also a question of if the deity interacts with the physical world.
Ghosts are claimed to be incorporeal also. It's the interations that are most often investigated.
I do believe there's several points described in which the deity directly influences the physical world in your religion. These would be subject to evaluation, would they not?
Which is also why I made the point about flipping coins. For every small seemingly random event, there could have been a nudge and you would never be able to tell otherwise by any method.
Which is also why I made the point about flipping coins. For every small seemingly random event, there could have been a nudge and you would never be able to tell otherwise by any method.
But, the laws of mathematics (and randomness) dictates the aggregated outcome of multiple coin tosses, and it always follows the laws.
Or are you saying the "nudge" is always there?
If so, then why have laws, G-D could just keep nudging to make sure things worked out.
Walter, I am not going to engage you in the particulars of each thing you do not like in the Bible.
However, I am going to day that you can not use science to rule out G-d.
I actually should never have brought up Judaism in specific, because it leads to too many side conversations. You are correct about that.
If you want the short answer, I do not believe everything in the Bible as literally true, and for that matter the tradition does not see all the verses as things to always be taken literally either.
Clearly, I am not a young earther or any other such thing. Clearly I know that evolution happened.
There are plenty od Judaism specific ways to reconcile the scientific fact to Judaism, but you are right, that is a side show.
So the main point is refuting the notion that you must be an atheist to be a scientist. The fact is that there is no way for science to rule God out. The fact is that science has no tools to address the issue.
But, the laws of mathematics (and randomness) dictates the aggregated outcome of multiple coin tosses, and it always follows the laws.
Or are you saying the "nudge" is always there?
If so, then why have laws, G-D could just keep nudging to make sure things worked out.
I'm asking seriously.
NO I am saying He could nudge or not in a given trial if He chose and you could never tell - precisely because those laws for distributions only appear over many trials.
I find that Colbert lacks good timing...which is deadly for a comedian. He lays out the lines or the irony but doesn't have the patience to let it set so he then just over-runs his guests and largely doesn't let them get a word in edge-wise.
Well, that's part of his "it's all about me" phony persona.
The same reason while he runs across the stage to talk to the already seated guest, rather than the other way around. Hopefully the guests know what they're in for.
When I watch, the onstage interview are my least favorite part. I prefer the things like "The Word" and the "Threatdown" (bears!).
Walter, I am not going to engage you in the particulars of each thing you do not like in the Bible.
However, I am going to day that you can not use science to rule out G-d.
I actually should never have brought up Judaism in specific, because it leads to too many side conversations. You are correct about that.
If you want the short answer, I do not believe everything in the Bible as literally true, and for that matter the tradition does not see all the verses as things to always be taken literally either.
Clearly, I am not a young earther or any other such thing. Clearly I know that evolution happened.
There are plenty od Judaism specific ways to reconcile the scientific fact to Judaism, but you are right, that is a side show.
So the main point is refuting the notion that you must be an atheist to be a scientist. The fact is that there is no way for science to rule God out. The fact is that science has no tools to address the issue.
And I phant'sy that every one of your G-D arguments are totally dependent on the source of your data, the Hebrew Scriptures.
So, Judaism is not a side show, a side issue, an aside of anything. It has to be your foundational issue, yours Ludwig, since that is what formulates all of your beliefs.
Unless you are to tell me you came out of the womb as a full-fledged, coherent believer in G-D.
NO I am saying He could nudge or not in a given trial if He chose and you could never tell - precisely because those laws for distributions only appear over many trials.
Did I not say the aggregated outcome of multiple coin tosses? I never said a given trial.
Burning bushes is a bit beyond the subtlety of quantum-level interference, is it not?
This is essentially what bugs me with the "have it both ways" type of argument you're making, and that I've heard a lot earlier. You both want the incorporeal, undetectable deity that's beyond criticism from science, but you also want the personal, interfering deity that's actually described in the religion.
The worst use of this is when the untestable deity is put forth to place religion beyond criticism, and then there's a bait-and-switch with a religion that suddenly states abortions should be banned (or some other religiously motivated point).
You also fail to really address the point Walter made about the sum of the religion being in a series of scriptures very much corporeal and subject to all manner of criticism.
The way I see it, I have no problem with the deistic ultimate causes type god used by Einstein, Jefferson or Paine, even though I feel you might as well say "cause yet unknown" to avoid confusion. I do have a problem (as in, a problem understanding) the vague sometimes intervening, sometimes wholly disconnected god you propose. But at least I don't place it in the wholly laughable category of nonsense like ghosts, faeries and creationism.
Maybe I'll understand it someday yet.
Did I not say the aggregated outcome of multiple coin tosses? I never said a given trial.
But that is the point Walter. You don't always have an aggregate to look at. I made this argument rather completely in a response to Charles up thread.
As to all of my data coming from Judaism you are agin missing the point. I have no data I could share with you. That is why it is called faith.
Charles, I heard on Michael Medved's show today that Dawkins will be a guest of his next week for an hour. Medved is on the board of the Discovery Institute (I think that's the name, it's the organization that promotes ID). I thought you might find that of interest. He didn't say which day, but I'm sure it'll be promoted.
re#184 Cato the Elder
As a sometime dyslexic I find belief in Dog to be somewhat grotesque.
And I pay Pascal's wager scant regard in these matters.
WL Newton's apparrent lack of respect is sanctified by the principles of free speech.
But then I'm a dyed in the wool bigot when "faith"in Father Christmas or Mother Goose is at issue.
The great American sceptic H L Mencken described belief in the supernatural as"An attempt by the rational to believe the impossible!"
Unsurprisingly it would appear that Walter L Newton and Richard Dawkins are of similar opinion(Einigkeit).
Isaac Newton was a man of towering intellect who effectively gave birth to physics as we know it.(and of course mathematics)
He also believed in alchemy(dead wrong);but one must remember that he was a man of his time.
His brilliance is demonstrable;but with the paucity of scientific knowlege in those days it's not hard to imagine that he spent time
barking up the wrong tree.
Were he to exist today I rather fancy he might have written the God Delusion.
But that's idle conjecture of course.
Richard Dawkins is a heavyweight scientist and has done much to promote science;his writing is a metaphor for excellence.
Peevish sniping at his declared atheism is puerile ;like Walter he's not afraid of voicing his opinion;and his philosophy is no more trenchant than yours;in fact probably less so.
People who have been claiming that Dawkins absolutely affirms that there is no God are talking shite. I have read and seen him point out several times that he thinks that God's existence is highly improbable. He makes no claim to absolute knowledge on the matter- in fact by some people here's definitions he would count as an agnostic.
People who have been claiming that Dawkins absolutely affirms that there is no God are talking shite. I have read and seen him point out several times that he thinks that God's existence is highly improbable. He makes no claim to absolute knowledge on the matter- in fact by some people here's definitions he would count as an agnostic.
I completely agree. I've been trying to point that out in several threads now. But the propaganda against Dawkins has obviously been effective.
People who have been claiming that Dawkins absolutely affirms that there is no God are talking shite. I have read and seen him point out several times that he thinks that God's existence is highly improbable. He makes no claim to absolute knowledge on the matter- in fact by some people here's definitions he would count as an agnostic.
Yep. I think I stole the "faeries at the bottom of the garden" example from one of his books, actually. Can he prove positively that there are no faeries at the bottom of his garden? No, but he doesn't need to. He finds it highly improbable that there would be faeries at the bottom of his garden; in the absence of evidence to the contrary he sees no reason to believe in faeries.
Analogous to his position vis-a-vis God, and the position of many atheists vis-a-vis God (myself among them).
Burning bushes is a bit beyond the subtlety of quantum-level interference, is it not?
I once joked here about the possibility of cashing in on the religious desire to see miracles etc vindicated by writing a book called "Quantum Resurrection: The Scientific Study of Christs's Triumph Over Death", only to discover shortly afterwards that at least one book with that subject matter/selling point has already been produced.
Yep. I think I stole the "faeries at the bottom of the garden" example from one of his books, actually. Can he prove positively that there are no faeries at the bottom of his garden? No, but he doesn't need to. He finds it highly improbable that there would be faeries at the bottom of his garden; in the absence of evidence to the contrary he sees no reason to believe in faeries.
Analogous to his position vis-a-vis God, and the position of many atheists vis-a-vis God (myself among them).
But there are faeries at the bottom of the garden -- it is written! You cannot prove this to not be true so therefore my contention holds!
I believe it was Douglas Adams who said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Richard Dawkins shows up as having said: "There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?", which I assume is a bit sarcastic.
Analogous to his position vis-a-vis God, and the position of many atheists vis-a-vis God (myself among them).
I think this is what's called "weak atheism", or as I would see it; "agnostic atheism".
Yep. I think I stole the "faeries at the bottom of the garden" example from one of his books, actually. Can he prove positively that there are no faeries at the bottom of his garden? No, but he doesn't need to. He finds it highly improbable that there would be faeries at the bottom of his garden; in the absence of evidence to the contrary he sees no reason to believe in faeries.
Analogous to his position vis-a-vis God, and the position of many atheists vis-a-vis God (myself among them).
Spock raises eyebrow in agreement : "That would appear to be logical"
Spock raises eyebrow in agreement : "That would appear to be logical"
But Spock. Those faeries are there to provide us with food, shelter, rain, and a good life. If you don't believe in those faeries our community will not be allowed these things we need for sustenance. Anyone in the community that doesn't believe in the garden faeries will bring misfortune to our village. If not cast out he will suffer eternal damnation in an enclosed office cubicle not for 20 years, or 100 but for 999 zillion years!
So.. the religious people and sarcastic atheists have different shifts here or something? :)
We (the cool people) try to stagger our shifts, but it doesn't always work out. Sometimes Dawkins messes up our scheduling. Sometimes we sleep late, all worn out from our godless America hatin' orgies. The usual.
We (the cool people) try to stagger our shifts, but it doesn't always work out. Sometimes Dawkins messes up our scheduling. Sometimes we sleep late, all worn out from our godless America hatin' orgies. The usual.
I blame the medical marijuana and my eugenics experiments on unsuspecting neighbors.
I didn't know about flouride in the water until that crazy guy with a sign told me about it. And to think some people say nothing good came out of that whole mess!
ha! I blame ACORN. And the feminists. And the fluoride in the water.
Yeah, it was those damn voting rights or something. Next thing you know they were asking for civil rights and stuff and all the men started growing their hair really long and all woman like.
/Sarcasm
(Added sarcasm switch in case this is copied by Tim Blair.)
But Spock. Those faeries are there to provide us with food, shelter, rain, and a good life. If you don't believe in those faeries our community will not be allowed these things we need for sustenance. Anyone in the community that doesn't believe in the garden faeries will bring misfortune to our village. If not cast out he will suffer eternal damnation in an enclosed office cubicle not for 20 years, or 100 but for 999 zillion years!
//
And how can one even begin to determine right from wrong without being told by a fairy? Insane...///
Well, that's part of his "it's all about me" phony persona.
The same reason while he runs across the stage to talk to the already seated guest, rather than the other way around. Hopefully the guests know what they're in for.
When I watch, the onstage interview are my least favorite part. I prefer the things like "The Word" and the "Threatdown" (bears!).
I like "The Word" and "Tip of My Hat, Wag of My Finger".
Dawkins makes the statement that humans developed design. I would like to meet the human who designed the sun and the planets and then designed them rotating around the sun with their moons rotating around the planets. I would like to meet the person who designed earth and plants that grow in earth. Then there's the chemistry chart. Then there's the fact that the earth works like a giant recycling plant. Trees work like solar machines with leaves as solar cells. Humans have not yet created artificial intelligence. Then there's consciousness. Humans have not yet managed to create a computer that has consciousness. Humans have not yet created a computer that can create new computers, and if they did would the computer question that a human designed it? There's a difference between creating design and recognizing design.
re#657Cato the elder,
I was using the word trenchant in the sense of clearly cut, or defined!
What is your understanding?
You clearly interpreted it as a malapropism!
Maybe it means something else in th USA you tell me.
"There is no purpose to life, but it's not an accident"
An oxymoron is there ever was one. And I don't think Dawson actually believes this. He would agree that because life IS an accident (i.e. undesigned, resulting from the random movements of matter and energy), life has no purpose. I think the point he was trying to make is that evolution is an orderly process, even if the underlying mechanism (random mutation) is not. If you subscribe to Dawson's logic, which I don't, one must conclude that all of the Cosmos, all of life, including the process of evolution is ultimately purposeless, random and "accidental".
"There is no purpose to life, but it's not an accident"
An oxymoron is there ever was one. And I don't think Dawson actually believes this. He would agree that because life IS an accident (i.e. undesigned, resulting from the random movements of matter and energy), life has no purpose. I think the point he was trying to make is that evolution is an orderly process, even if the underlying mechanism (random mutation) is not. If you subscribe to Dawson's logic, which I don't, one must conclude that all of the Cosmos, all of life, including the process of evolution is ultimately purposeless, random and "accidental".
It's only an "oxymoron" if you're determinedly ignorant about the grandeur of the process of natural selection. There's nothing "accidental" about it.
"There is no purpose to life, but it's not an accident"
An oxymoron is there ever was one. And I don't think Dawson actually believes this. He would agree that because life IS an accident (i.e. undesigned, resulting from the random movements of matter and energy), life has no purpose. I think the point he was trying to make is that evolution is an orderly process, even if the underlying mechanism (random mutation) is not. If you subscribe to Dawson's logic, which I don't, one must conclude that all of the Cosmos, all of life, including the process of evolution is ultimately purposeless, random and "accidental".
From a theological point of view, you must believe that G-d knows the future.
Since we can not predict the future, but He can, what is random to us is not to Him. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Random, by definition. is that which can not be predicted. G-d already knows the outcome, even if we do not.
What that means is that Dawkins' science is not only correct, but not in contradiction to monotheistic faith.
Frank says: