Congratulations, fearless moderator [Archive]

Melissa Johnson

12th May 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Melissa,

I suppose you feel free to believe in things there is no evidence for but also no evidence against?
However, of all those things for which there is no evidence for or against, how do you choose which ones to believe in?
Why do you not set them aside for reconsideration if ever any evidence for or against comes along?
Why is it so important for you to believe in God?

BillyJoe.

Billy Joe;

Yes. I feel quite free to believe in perfectly ridiculous things. :D

It isn't important for me to believe in God, and I do reserve the right to reconsider certain beliefs or ideas as different proof presents itself. I think that's all any person can do. The end choice--to believe in a higher power or not--is entirely an individual's perogative. I tend to think there is something other than ourselves. Proof? None. Probably I'm very wrong. Does it make any difference? Only if I'm trying to co-opt others to follow my belief, which I have no interest in doing.

Perhaps the more important question is why should it bother you that I have this inclination to agnosticism/deism?

I know it doesn't bother me you follow atheism. You might very well be right.

12th May 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
I was glad to heard someone else being a skeptic and believing in God.
I have only recently opened my eyes, but I could not see the logic in not believing God.

But I don’t believe God is like the God of the bible or any other religion.

The Buddha had the right idea, when he was ask about God he gave no answer, it was useless to ask question about something that cannot be answered.

And what about the skeptic logic to pray?

woodguard

12th May 2003, 07:06 PM

What are there 5 billion people in the world.

How many believe in one god or another. Almost all

How many don’t believe in God. Very very fews.

We are not organic machine, I like to think we are more.

It is normal for a human to believe in a God. To reach higher and grow beyond limits in knowledge and logic.

If you use logic too much, the right side of you brain would dry up.;)

Kimpatsu

12th May 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
What are there 5 billion people in the world.

How many believe in one god or another. Almost all

How many don’t believe in God. Very very fews.

We are not organic machine, I like to think we are more.

It is normal for a human to believe in a God. To reach higher and grow beyond limits in knowledge and logic.

If you use logic too much, the right side of you brain would dry up.;)
It is not normal; it is common. This is classic argumentum ad populam. Just becasue many people believe in gods, doesn't mean that gods exist. What's more, people believe in different, and mutually contradictory, gods. Where's the logic in that? There is nothing beyond knowledge and logic. The boundaries of knowledge are extended every day. You're just arguing god of the gaps. And Hal is still wrong. To believe in god, he has to put his skepticism on hold. You can never use logic too much, or your brain will wither all together.

12th May 2003, 07:25 PM

Dear Kimpatsu,

An article critical of religion, written by a known vocal strong-atheist, for a humanist magazine (headed by the same person who heads CSICOP) that he is one of the main editors of, hosted on a website by one of his admirers, posted by another one of his fans.

That is not an unbiased source by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore is suspect. I'd have as much trust in a fundamentalist religion site. Despite the myth, bias does apply to skeptical and atheist literature equally.

However, it doesn't take a Sherlock to infer Dawkins' estimate of the probability (0) before one even clicks the link.

Ho hum,
Sincerely,

S.H.

Kimpatsu

12th May 2003, 07:43 PM

You miss the point, Sherlock.
Dawkins isn't defending his atheist position by casting about for evidence that fits his theory. He's an atheist because the evidence forces him to that conclusion. I challenge you to find any assertion in the article that can be refuted. There are no statements of faith, only maths and science. That's why Dawkins's position is superior to that of the theists.

12th May 2003, 08:28 PM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

My main argument with the first part of the article is that Dawkins ignores the good things done by religion and focuses only on the bad, and even then not mentioning the confounding factors (politics, culture, gender (etc.)).

Also, in that article, Dawkins asks and then answers his own question
(emphasis mine)

"How, then, did they (living bodies) come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. "

Dawkins is saying how living things evolved, not how the original material for them came into being. For that, Dawkins has no answer, unless he just says 'chance and time', which is as vague and explains as much as saying 'God'.

Towards the end Dawkins says
(emphasis mine)

"There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started."

I believe Dawkins has to prove that there was such a previous system that arose from chance and is now gone. As it stands, he is simply assuming it existed, and assuming that it was 'simple enough to arise by chance and chemistry'.

Sincerely,

S. H.

Kimpatsu

12th May 2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
My main argument with the first part of the article is that Dawkins ignores the good things done by religion and focuses only on the bad, and even then not mentioning the confounding factors (politics, culture, gender (etc.)).
What good things have religions done? More specifically, what good has religion done that could not be accomplished secularly? Please enlighten me.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Also, in that article, Dawkins asks and then answers his own question (emphasis mine)
"How, then, did they (living bodies) come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. "
Dawkins is saying how living things evolved, not how the original material for them came into being. For that, Dawkins has no answer, unless he just says 'chance and time', which is as vague and explains as much as saying 'God'.
Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing, so it is quite right that Dawkins doesn't touch on abiogenesis. The difference, however, is that science says, we don't know the mechanics of abiogenesis YET, which is not the same as saying we never will know. Religion, however, simply throws up its hands and invokes divine intervention: "god did it", which then closes off the avenue of intellectual inquiry to determine the full story of abiogenesis.
BTW, it's been several years since Dawkins wrote the Improbability of God, and science has moved on since then. (Note that religion has remained static and unmoving, incapable of learning any better.) Abiogenesis is better understood, and the conditions of abiogenesis are now clear. The only hurdle science has to cross now is how the self-replicating molecule arose. That's a lot further down the path to understanding than we were even 10 years ago. Want to bet that we crack it within the next few years, and without recourse to divine intervention?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Towards the end Dawkins says
(emphasis mine)
"There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started."
I believe Dawkins has to prove that there was such a previous system that arose from chance and is now gone. As it stands, he is simply assuming it existed, and assuming that it was 'simple enough to arise by chance and chemistry'.
What you believe and what Dawkins meant are two different things. Remember, Dawkins is an expert, so his opinion on this subject carries more weight than yours, because it is learned. If he then supposes that a simpler mechanism once existed, then he has good grounds--based on knowledge and experience--for doing so. If he can be proven wrong, he will abandon the notion in an instant in favour of a model that incorporates the new evidence. At the moment, the simpler self-replicating mechanism is Dawkins's hypothesis in lieu of anything to the contrary. What better hypothesis is there? "God did it"? At least the Dawkins model has the virtue of being potentially falsifiable, à la Karl Popper, whereas the divine intervention model never can be, which is why it isn't science. The best the creationist model can argue for is the "god of the gaps". At one stage, Christians thought the world was 6,000 years old and created in six days. When that was falsified, they retreated into "god put in place the conditions for evolution to flourish" (which is intellectually stunted, because it means the Xpian god is so small she wants to hide behind the appearance of a natural explanation). When that model is falsified, where will she hide next? Divine intervention? No, [kidding], Sherlock!

12th May 2003, 11:54 PM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

The fact that many good things that religion has done can be done by secular means does not in any way tarnish the good things that religion has done.

Point out even 10 atheist groups that do community services. Most simply publish tirades.

Religion, however, simply throws up its hands and invokes divine intervention: "god did it", (etc.)

You're right Mr. Kimpatsu, I guess 'a lot of chance and time' did it certainly sounds more scientific.

Abiogenesis is better understood, and the conditions of abiogenesis are now clear.

Really?

Want to bet that we crack it within the next few years, and without recourse to divine intervention?

I thought you said it is 'quote clear'? I'll give science 1 million years to figure out for certain how things originally started (if there was a start, that is).

Remember, Dawkins is an expert, so his opinion on this subject carries more weight than yours, because it is learned.

With the same reasoning, Dawkin's opinion carries more weight that yours.

If he then supposes that a simpler mechanism once existed, then he has good grounds--based on knowledge and experience--for doing so.

The fact is that he assumes a simpler mechanism existed, and then admits that it disappeared. He has no evidence for that, just his belief, 'learned' or not.

If he can be proven wrong, he will abandon the notion in an instant in favour of a model that incorporates the new evidence.

Proven wrong? He hasn't even been proven right.

Sincerely,

S.H.

Kimpatsu

13th May 2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,
No need to call me "Mr." Just "Kimpatsu" is fine.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The fact that many good things that religion has done can be done by secular means does not in any way tarnish the good things that religion has done.
What good things have they done? That was my question.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Point out even 10 atheist groups that do community services. Most simply publish tirades.
This challenge is based upon an misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not a lifestyle, unlike, say Xpianity or Islam; it's simply life without recourse to the supernatural. As for secular charity organisations, however, there's the Lions Club, Rotary, Soroptomists, Oxfam, Fair Trials Abroad, Liberty, Amnesty International, Eurodad, Terence Higgins Trust, Lighthouse... is that 10 yet?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You're right Mr. Kimpatsu, I guess 'a lot of chance and time' did it certainly sounds more scientific.
Certainly more than "god did it".
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Really?
Yes. Try to keep up.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I thought you said it is 'quote clear'? I'll give science 1 million years to figure out for certain how things originally started (if there was a start, that is).
There was a start; the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking has also proven that such an event did not require a creator. BTW, 1 million years is very generous, but not necessary. We'll do it before then. What would you care to wager it happens within my lifetime?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
With the same reasoning, Dawkin's opinion carries more weight that yours.
On this subject it does, but as his opinion and mine are the same, that's not really relevant. Do you think you know more than he does?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The fact is that he assumes a simpler mechanism existed, and then admits that it disappeared. He has no evidence for that, just his belief, 'learned' or not.
That's called an "educated guess". It's a hypothesis that has yet to be proven (i.e., become a theory), but has not yet been falsified. And it's a lot more likely than "god did it".
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Proven wrong? He hasn't even been proven right.
Do you actually understand the scientific method, or do you just feel bellicose towards those of us who can explain things without recourse to the supernatural? He can't be proven right; science is a question of falsifiability. Unless and until he is proven wrong, the hypothesis stands. When it has been "tested to destruction", it becomes a theory. Dawkins's hypothesis as it stands fits the facts. "God did it" does not. See?

BillyJoe

13th May 2003, 04:43 AM

Melissa,

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
Yes. I feel quite free to believe in perfectly ridiculous things. :D
Why are you laughing?.......

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
The end choice--to believe in a higher power or not--is entirely an individual's perogative. I tend to think there is something other than ourselves. Proof? None....ah, okay, you are laughing at yourself. :D

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
It isn't important for me to believe in God......I don't think that is right. There is no proof for the existance of God (as you said above), therefore, if you believe in God, it must be important to you. Yes?

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
......and I do reserve the right to reconsider certain beliefs or ideas as different proof presents itself. Well, okay, but I'm not sure why you would want to believe in something for there is as yet no proof - why not wait until the proof presents itself?

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
Probably I'm very wrong. Does it make any difference?Think of all the thing you could believe in and for which there is no evidence. The list is infinite. Why choose a particular one out of an infinite list?

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
Perhaps the more important question is why should it bother you that I have this inclination to agnosticism/deism? I don't know. Perhaps I like you. :)
But seriously, I was just interested in why you are a deist.

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
I know it doesn't bother me you follow atheism. Well, my atheism is not a belief so there is nothing to "follow", as you say. Atheism is a lack of belief - because there is no evidence.

regards,
BillyJoe.

BillyJoe

13th May 2003, 04:54 AM

Woody,

Your responses to replies to your posts are very selective so I will just reply to one part of your last post.....

Originally posted by woodguard
If you use logic too much, the right side of you brain would dry up.;) You have a point here.

It is important for scientists to use both sides of their brain - but they must use both properly.
The right side of the brain, as you know, is the intuitive part of the brain and the left side is the logical part of the brain. There must be an interaction between the two sides. Ideas that arise intuitively in the right side must be filtered by the logic in the left side.

Otherwise all sorts of ridiculous ideas might take hold. ;)

13th May 2003, 08:24 AM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

What good things have they done? That was my question.

Here are some just from the top of my head: gives people something to look forward to, belief feels good, cultivating your intuition and emotion, charities, food drives, shelters, clothing drives, interesting literature, creation of certain foods, teaching of morals, precursur to science, printing press, scores of people inventing and discovering things because of their 'doing it for God' attitude, inspiration, discipline, holidays, an extra way to remember dead family and friends, social venue, and teaching traditions to name a few. Of course, you should really research a list for your own. The fact that you asked the question tells me that you never have.

Atheism is not a lifestyle, unlike, say Xpianity or Islam; it's simply life without recourse to the supernatural.

How are you getting the "p" in there? I can only assume that you are putting it in there on purpose, so for what reason?

Atheism certainly can be a lifestyle if carried to the extremes like a religion, it quickly becomes one. The famous vocal atheist woman who was murdered a few years back, are you telling me that she didn't live an atheist lifestyle?

Certainly more than "god did it".

I don't know how it happened, therefore time and chance (TAC, notice that backwards it too spells an animal) did it.

There was a start; the Big Bang.

However, do you know if that was THE start, or just a local bang?

Stephen Hawking has also proven that such an event did not require a creator.

Hawking has done nothing of the sort. What came before the first thing in Hawking's origin scenario?

We'll do it before then. What would you care to wager it happens within my lifetime?

This is the internet, so I'll say 1 billion dollars.

Do you think you know more than he does?

Do you think you know more than he does?

And it's a lot more likely than "god did it".

A lot more likely, ok, so you have some way of quantifying that then I'd assume, so let's see some numbers. What is the probability for God did it, and what is the probability for TAC did it, and how are you arriving at those numbers, and what are the things you assume to arrive at those numbers?

Do you actually understand the scientific method, or do you just feel bellicose towards those of us who can explain things without recourse to the supernatural?

I'm not playing the game of 'questioning someone's understanding because they don't agree with you'. I could easily say Do you understand the scientific method, or do you just feel that you are justified being scientistic because Dawkins is at times?

Dawkins's hypothesis as it stands fits the facts. "God did it" does not.

He hypothesized that something existed that has now, of course, disappeared. Then he says that that is due to TAC. That sounds like belief to me.

Sincerely,

S.H.

Melissa Johnson

13th May 2003, 09:03 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillyJoe

--Billy Joe: Why are you laughing?.......

...ah, okay, you are laughing at yourself. :D--

Keeps me sane--relatively.

-Billy Joe: -I don't think that is right. There is no proof for the existance of God (as you said above), therefore, if you believe in God, it must be important to you. Yes?--

Well, to lay it on the line--it isn't important to me. Whether I believe in a god or not, the universe will continue on its merry expanding way until it collapses on itself. I don't believe in "God", not in the conventional sense. I'm not that fond of the "watchmaker" theory, actually. I certainly don't believe in an interventionist god--too much evidence to the contrary. I can't, however, adopt an athiest/strict materialist viewpoint, either. To me, existence itself offers some proof of something other than what we can see, feel, taste, etc. The whole how-did-we-get here thing. I'm not even interested in 'proving' there's a God--you know, the white-bearded Sistine-chapel variety. If anything, I'm more interested in the physics of the matter. "God" to me is in the science, if you will.

--Billy Joe: Well, okay, but I'm not sure why you would want to believe in something for there is as yet no proof - why not wait until the proof presents itself?--

Again, I don't think it's a question of belief. More a feeling of awe towards the universe in general. And definitely, a certain waiting for Godot, so to speak.

--Billy Joe: Think of all the thing you could believe in and for which there is no evidence. The list is infinite. Why choose a particular one out of an infinite list?--

I haven't chosen ;) I like the infinite list.

-- Billy Joe: I don't know. Perhaps I like you. :)
But seriously, I was just interested in why you are a deist.--

Flattering! Thank you. I don't know that I've examined exactly why i consider myself a deist, either, except for the reasons listed above.

--Billy Joe: Well, my atheism is not a belief so there is nothing to "follow", as you say. Atheism is a lack of belief - because there is no evidence.

regards,
BillyJoe.

Funnily enough, my devoutly Catholic mother would identify my 'deism' as atheism. Go figure! Thanks for the polite response, BTW.

--Melissa

Soapy Sam

13th May 2003, 02:38 PM

I do not believe in gods. I do not, in all honesty, understand why anyone does. I don't believe being a footballer is a very worthwhile occupation, but some of them earn in a week more than I do in a year. Sometimes, it doesn't matter a toss what I believe.

I'm sure Lt.Col Bidlack and I could have a good bull session on religion and still be in agreement about at least 90% of the things we consider important.

I don't see why people expect scepticism , as a human character trait, to be more uniform and consistent than any other. We all hold inconsistent views; on art, politics, economics, sport, morality, etc. Why should religion be different?

It seems to me that only a very rare person is equally sceptical about everything . If someone is sceptical about everything except his belief in his god, then he would still be an exceptionally sceptical person.

Now I'm wondering what I'm most open minded (gullible??) about. I have a history of thinking new computer software will solve all my hardware conflicts. Does this triumph of hope over experience disqualify me from scepticism generally?

Kimpatsu

13th May 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Here are some just from the top of my head: gives people something to look forward to, belief feels good, cultivating your intuition and emotion, charities, food drives, shelters, clothing drives, interesting literature, creation of certain foods, teaching of morals, precursur to science, printing press, scores of people inventing and discovering things because of their 'doing it for God' attitude, inspiration, discipline, holidays, an extra way to remember dead family and friends, social venue, and teaching traditions to name a few. Of course, you should really research a list for your own. The fact that you asked the question tells me that you never have.
Nice ad hominem, but let me pick apart your list. Something to look forward to? You mean what exactly? A non-existent afterlife? In other words, the Church lies to people to give them something to look forward to. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, the fact that belief feels good (that a Christian ia happier than an atheist) is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober one. Shelters and clothing drives are also (to the homeless and indigent, presumably) are also supplied by secular organisations (see my previous list), so what exactly is your point here? The Church certainly can't claim a monopoly on that one.
Exactly what morals does the church teach? Murder? Genocide? Slavery? Mysogeny? Intolerance of homosexuals? All of which are sanctioned by the Bible. Not very comforting. Secular morals are much better.
Interesting literature? Shakespeare, Milton, and even Stephen King are more entertaining.
Precursor to science? You mean they got everything wrong and held back scientific advance? Look at Bruno and Galileo. The Church has always been the enemy of science, so I don't get what you're trying to say here.
The printing press was not invented by the Church.
Creation of what foods exactly? The communion wafer? Jamie Oliver is much better (and more entertaining).
Scores of people inventing things? Such as what, exactly? During the Middle Ages, the Church even opposed reading glasses for presbyopia, on the grounds that people should suffer as god meant them to. (This attitude also leads to the Bob Jones attitude opposing myscegeny.)
Inspiration and discipline? You can have those without recourse to he Church; unless, you mean inspiration to commit genocide (see the Inquisition).
We can have secular holidays, too. So your argument is basically that you like the Church for days off work?
An "extra way to remember the dead"? Isn't one--the secular way--enough?
Social venue? I get more socialising done down the local pub.
Traditions? Such as what? Intolerance, the great Xpian tradition? Just because something is traditional, doesn't make it good.
Your arguments so far have been worthless. When I researched my list, I came up with the problems I've described above.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
How are you getting the "p" in there? I can only assume that you are putting it in there on purpose, so for what reason?
Because that is the correct way to write Xpianity. You should study the history of your own people.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Atheism certainly can be a lifestyle if carried to the extremes like a religion, it quickly becomes one. The famous vocal atheist woman who was murdered a few years back, are you telling me that she didn't live an atheist lifestyle?
You mena Madelyn Murray O'Hair? No, she didn't live an atheist lifestyle. She lived a secular lifestyle. Try to get the difference.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I don't know how it happened, therefore time and chance (TAC, notice that backwards it too spells an animal) did it.
I don't see what you're getting at here; please expand.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
However, do you know if that was THE start, or just a local bang?
It was local to our universe; can you prove there's a multiverse, or are you just spitballing?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Hawking has done nothing of the sort. What came before the first thing in Hawking's origin scenario?
This is a nonsense question, because there is no "before". Time began at the Big Bang.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is the internet, so I'll say 1 billion dollars.
Can you afford to pay when I come to collect?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Do you think you know more than he does?
Answer my question, don't obfuscate.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
A lot more likely, ok, so you have some way of quantifying that then I'd assume, so let's see some numbers. What is the probability for God did it, and what is the probability for TAC did it, and how are you arriving at those numbers, and what are the things you assume to arrive at those numbers?
God is infinitely improbable, so any natural explanation for the origins of life is de facto more likely than the supernatural explanation.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm not playing the game of 'questioning someone's understanding because they don't agree with you'. I could easily say Do you understand the scientific method, or do you just feel that you are justified being scientistic because Dawkins is at times?[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
[B]
I am a scientist, so I know more than you do.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
[B]He hypothesized that something existed that has now, of course, disappeared. Then he says that that is due to TAC. That sounds like belief to me.
Then you need to wash out your ears; this is scientific conjecture; a well-educated guess. Throwing up your hands and saying "god did it" (your approach) is defeatist.

DrMatt

13th May 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,
Towards the end Dawkins says
(emphasis mine)

"There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started."

I believe Dawkins has to prove that there was such a previous system that arose from chance and is now gone. As it stands, he is simply assuming it existed, and assuming that it was 'simple enough to arise by chance and chemistry'.

Sincerely,

S. H.

You took Dawkins's bait. Such simpler structures and "chance" arrisals (subject to our knowledge of the sheer extent of the universe) have already been accounted for.

13th May 2003, 05:21 PM

13th May 2003, 08:42 PM

Dear Kimpatsu,

I enjoyed reading your "pick apart" of the list, and it was anticipated easily enough as soon as you asked for such a list. In other words, if I don't respond you say that I can't make such a list. If I do respond you pick it apart and say that the items don't apply. This is a typical scenario.

The fact that you have a 'rebuttal' to each item doesn't take away the facts. There are many good things that come and came from religion. The fact that some (not many) secular organizations do similar things does not take away the fact that the good came out of religion.

Telling you that you have never made such a list is far from an ad hominem. If you think that is an ad hominem, you are probably too sensitive for internet discussion groups. ;)

Several things you dismiss in a sentence without study, such as foods. If you indeed had made a similar list, you could have researched it more to answer that question.

Your arguments so far have been worthless.

Interesting discussion style. So my arguments are worthless? In that case, you had better not waste your time and respond.

Because that is the correct way to write Xpianity. You should study the history of your own people.

Pardon? Can you please show everyone where I stated that I am a Christian? Don't be an intellectual coward and turn me into what you are debating against. Let's see where I said that I am a Christian, "skeptic".

Also, do you speak Greek or write other words using Greek letters and pronounciation? Or, is it as I suspect, you just use the X spelling to make your atheist statement.

This is a nonsense question, because there is no "before". Time began at the Big Bang.

You are merely defining the question to not be a sensical question. Certainly it makes sense to ask what came before. Call it negative time, or meta-time, or something other than time, but the question remains: what happened before the Big Bang? How did that start? Was this Big Bang THE bang, or one of many?

Answer my question, don't obfuscate.

I can answer any question how I see appropriate. You don't dictate how I post.

God is infinitely improbable,

Ok, so how did you scientifically come to that calculation? Please, show us your work. Show us the objective science.

Then you need to wash out your ears;

Squeeky clean, but thanks for inquiring.

Can you afford to pay when I come to collect?

Deflate that chest.

Maybe you'll be correct with a lot of "time and chance".

Sincerely,

S.H.

13th May 2003, 08:53 PM

Dear Kimpatsu,

Some more

All of which are sanctioned by the Bible.

I find it interesting how you automatically talk about Christianity, when I started talking about religion in general. I'm anticipating the excuse of 'but Xpianity is the most common religion where I am!', but it is still very telling.

You mena Madelyn Murray O'Hair? No, she didn't live an atheist lifestyle. She lived a secular lifestyle.

Hardly. A secular lifestyle would be lived by someone who merely wasn't religious. Someone who leads an atheist organization, writes books, articles, and does audiotapes on atheism, pickets outside the Whitehouse for atheism, goes to court over atheism, (etc.) is leading an atheist lifestyle.

Throwing up your hands and saying "god did it" (your approach) is defeatist.

That hardly is my position Mr. Kimpatsu. Again, can you show us all where I said "god did it"? Thanks.

Although, it could be Martin Gardner's or Bidlack's position..

Sincerely,

S.H.

Kimpatsu

13th May 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I find it interesting how you automatically talk about Christianity, when I started talking about religion in general. I'm anticipating the excuse of 'but Xpianity is the most common religion where I am!', but it is still very telling.
How so? You argued from the Xpian point of view in earlier posts, so I simply used that as a rebuttal. Besides, from a discussion standpoint, it's the superstition with which I'm most familiar, so I cull the majority of my examples from it. What, exactly, is "telling"? Care to illuminate me?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Hardly. A secular lifestyle would be lived by someone who merely wasn't religious.
Which is the very definition of atheism.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Someone who leads an atheist organization, writes books, articles, and does audiotapes on atheism, pickets outside the Whitehouse for atheism, goes to court over atheism, (etc.) is leading an atheist lifestyle.
Strawman. They are leading a secular lifestyle. As secularists and atheists, we don't want your superstition anywhere near us. That's why we have to fight in court, and write books: so you don't attack strawmen, but actually understand what our position really is. Doesn't seem to have worked in your case, though; you're still attacking the strawman.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
That hardly is my position Mr. Kimpatsu. Again, can you show us all where I said "god did it"? Thanks.
You are arguing a religious standpoint.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Although, it could be Martin Gardner's or Bidlack's position..
If so, they will have abandoned skepticism.

13th May 2003, 09:15 PM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

That's why we have to fight in court, and write books: so you don't attack strawmen, but actually understand what our position really is. Doesn't seem to have worked in your case, though; you're still attacking the strawman.

You are the one using a strawman saying that I am Christian and arguing the religious viewpoint. Then you can't back that up with any evidence. I have no interest in taking up the study of hypocrisy at this moment.

I can see that you are currently not interested in inquiry, and so I am not interested in further discussion (well, me discussing and you telling me to "clean out my ears" or that my "arguments are worthless") with you.

You can have the last word (which is easily anticipated you will take).

Sincerely,

S. H.

Kimpatsu

13th May 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I enjoyed reading your "pick apart" of the list, and it was anticipated easily enough as soon as you asked for such a list. In other words, if I don't respond you say that I can't make such a list. If I do respond you pick it apart and say that the items don't apply. This is a typical scenario.
That's because you can't create a list that answers the question. What did you expect? I must say, this is a novel defence: The evidence shows that you're wrong, so in a classic inversion example of Orwellian doublethink, you claim it therefore proves you right?!
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The fact that you have a 'rebuttal' to each item doesn't take away the facts.
The rebuttals ARE the facts. There you go with that Orwellian doublethink again.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There are many good things that come and came from religion.
Such as? Give me a list, please... Oh, we tried that already. The facts still haven't changed. Religion is still a great virus upon the world.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The fact that some (not many) secular organizations do similar things does not take away the fact that the good came out of religion.
Wait a minute, did it come out of religion because it's religion, or because members of religious organisations did good (secular) things? The two are not the same.
I already gave you a list of 10 secular charities that do good. Why do you say "not many"?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Telling you that you have never made such a list is far from an ad hominem. If you think that is an ad hominem, you are probably too sensitive for internet discussion groups. ;)
Another ad hominem. Why don't you run home to mummy before I paddle your ass? (Now THAT'S an ad hominem; it's funny as well as insulting!)
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Several things you dismiss in a sentence without study, such as foods. If you indeed had made a similar list, you could have researched it more to answer that question.
Which foods? I'm asking you to list them. (I know, another damn list, but you make a statement like that and don't offer any evidence...)
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Interesting discussion style. So my arguments are worthless? In that case, you had better not waste your time and respond.
Oh, you may be a lost case, but there are fence-sitters out there who may read this and be persuaded of the bankruptcy of the theological argument.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Pardon? Can you please show everyone where I stated that I am a Christian? Don't be an intellectual coward and turn me into what you are debating against. Let's see where I said that I am a Christian, "skeptic".
Why "skeptic" in quotes? It's what I am. You're not a Xpian? Then what are you? (Keep it clean!)
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Also, do you speak Greek or write other words using Greek letters and pronounciation? Or, is it as I suspect, you just use the X spelling to make your atheist statement.
BSc, MSc, hoi polloi. I use all of these, too. So you lose.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You are merely defining the question to not be a sensical question. Certainly it makes sense to ask what came before. Call it negative time, or meta-time, or something other than time, but the question remains: what happened before the Big Bang? How did that start? Was this Big Bang THE bang, or one of many?
There was no time before the Big Bang. (Look, this is my area of expertise, OK?)
Time can be viewed as a measurement of how long it takes to travel between two points, A and B. In a singularity, however, there is no distance, as all points are "scrunched up" on top of each other. Therefore, there is no time, which began at the Big Bang. Learn that before you make your absurd pronouncements.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I can answer any question how I see appropriate. You don't dictate how I post.
Right, in the street. Bring your duelling pistol. :rolleyes: If you're going to be that preposterous, why do you bother coming to these boards? You do realise that the majority of people here are rationalists?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Ok, so how did you scientifically come to that calculation? Please, show us your work. Show us the objective science.
Read The Improbability of God (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-sumimprobabilityofgod.htm) by Richard Dawkins for clarification.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Squeeky clean, but thanks for inquiring.
How about opening your mind to scientific inquiry, then?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Deflate that chest.
Huh? I'm just saying that when you lose the bet, you'll owe me a lot of money. Can you afford to lose that much?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Maybe you'll be correct with a lot of "time and chance".
Time and chance aren't required for evolution. As for abiogenesis: You can't have a statistical sample of one. So we need to find other planets with life on them to make a stab at that one.

Kimpatsu

13th May 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You are the one using a strawman saying that I am Christian and arguing the religious viewpoint. Then you can't back that up with any evidence. I have no interest in taking up the study of hypocrisy at this moment.
If you're not a Xpian, then what exactly are you? I know what you're not: rational, or skeptical. How do you define your world view?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I can see that you are currently not interested in inquiry, and so I am not interested in further discussion (well, me discussing and you telling me to "clean out my ears" or that my "arguments are worthless") with you.
I know, I'm guilty of the rationalist fallacy. I remain convinced--even in the teeth of the evidence--that you would be persuaded by the logical superiority of my arguments, but that isn't the case. You'd rather cling to the mantra "religion good, atheism bad".
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You can have the last word (which is easily anticipated you will take).
Of course. Because I'm always right. ;)

13th May 2003, 11:47 PM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

I'm all for education, so I'd like to continue this thread so others can get something from it.

You can use dismissive buzzwords like 'Orwellian doublethink' if you think that makes your case stronger somehow.

Religion is still a great virus upon the world.

You're quite a follower of Dawkins we see. You've even adopted his phrases.

In any case, yours is merely a sentence loaded with emotional rhetoric.

I already gave you a list of 10 secular charities that do good. Why do you say "not many"?

This is how little you are paying attention. I specifically asked

Point out even 10 atheist groups that do community services.

and you think you answered my exact question by merely listing 10 secular groups. You simply provided an answer but to the entirely wrong question.

Which foods? I'm asking you to list them.

I realize that, and I am telling you that I am in no way required to list them, that you should do a minimal amount of basic research, and if you don't want to because it was my claim, then you are free to complain about it.

Oh, you may be a lost case, but

Your divisive approach is hardly desirable.

Why "skeptic" in quotes? It's what I am. You're not a Xpian? Then what are you? (Keep it clean!)

You first call me a Christian, then you ask me what I believe in (if I even do). Your approach is to shoot first apparently, and then try to band-aid it later.

It seems sensible to have had asked me if I believe and what I believe first. It is generally, obviously, bad form to attach a belief to someone else when they haven't professed that belief.

So you lose.

No, not at all. This isn't a win/lose situation. If you feel it is, then good for you, you won. Great job.

There was no time before the Big Bang. (Look, this is my area of expertise, OK?)

No, not ok. I won't accept your argument from authority. I don't know you from Adam. (oh gee, maybe this phrase will make you more convinced that I am Christian? ;) )

Fine, all points are "scrunched up". Where did these points come from? Where did the space to get scrunched up come from? Where did the energy come from that made these points/space/particles/whatever expand?

Learn that before you make your absurd pronouncements.

I didn't make any pronouncements, I simply asked questions you are obviously uncomfortable with. However, we are left wondering why, considering you are an "expert" in this area.

Right, in the street. Bring your duelling pistol. :rolleyes: If you're going to be that preposterous, why do you bother coming to these boards? You do realise that the majority of people here are rationalists?

I didn't catch the street part.

Anyway, I realise that many people give the words 'rationalism' and 'skepticism' a lot of lip service.

Read (cite here) by Richard Dawkins for clarification.

You already posted that link. And I've already told you that it is about as unbiased as a creationist article published in a creationism journal, by its main editor, who is a leader of a creationist center, that is duplicated on a webpage that favors creationism. I might as well read a paper in which the only word is "Amen" used 500 times.

Time and chance aren't required for evolution.

That is interesting. Dawkins mentions TAC many times.

Sincerely,

S. H.

13th May 2003, 11:52 PM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

I know what you're not: rational, or skeptical.

Right Kimpatsu. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically not rational or skeptical. You call me a Christian, then after I catch your obvious blunder, you then ask me what I believe. I'd say you are not rational or skeptical, at least in this case, and everyone can scroll back and see the evidence instead of taking my word for it.

How do you define your world view?

This is something you'd probably have wanted to ask me before you ascribed beliefs to me. You'll know better for your next argument.

You'd rather cling to the mantra "religion good, atheism bad".

I never said that. Could you point out where I did? You keep putting beliefs in my head. Could you please stop that?

Because someone disagrees with you or your teacher Dawkins doesn't mean that they a) favor religion, or b) think atheism is bad. Please quit ignoring that incredibly obvious fact.

Sincerely yours,

S. H.

Kimpatsu

14th May 2003, 12:11 AM

I've since learned from other members of the forum that SH is a troll, but here goes nothing:
Sh promised not to poste to this thread again. I guess we now know what his word is worth.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Right Kimpatsu. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically not rational or skeptical.
Strawman. I said that YOU are not rational or skeptical, as your posts to this thread have demonstrated.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You call me a Christian, then after I catch your obviosu blunder, you then ask me what I believe. I'd say you are not rational or skeptical, at least in this case, and everyone can scroll back and see the evidence instead of taking my word for it.
You argue a theistic (Xpian) viewpoint, and then are surprised when I label you a Xpian? Why is this a blunder? If you're not, state clearly what you are. I make no bones about being a skeptic. Why are you so desperate to hide the fact that you aren't? Ashamed?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is something you'd probably have wanted to ask me before you ascribed beliefs to me. You'll know better for next time.
More ad hominem, still without answering the question. what are you? Theist? Deist? Satanist? Cult of the 11-foot pixie? Aum Shinrikyo?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I never said that. Could you point out where I did?
Are you deliberately being obtuse, are or you just dense? You keep ranting on about all the good that religion has done, whilst ignoring my counter-evidence, and claim that "very few" (your words, note!) secular organisations have ever done any good. That falls de facto under the rubric, "Religion good, atheism bad".
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Because someone disagrees with you or your guru Dawkins doesn't mean that they a) favor religion, or b) think atheism is bad. Please quit ignoring that obvious fact.
I'm only basing the inevitable conclusion on what you yourself have said: disparaging remarks about secularism, and touting the "good things religion has done". (Crusades? September 11? Inquisition? You call those good?)
Now, given that you've already broken your promise not to post here again, I'll ask you once more:
If you are not a Xpian, what do you hold yourself to be?

14th May 2003, 12:28 AM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

I've since learned from other members of the forum that SH is a troll,

An interesting diversion tactic, which in no way has anything to do with your or my points.

Sh promised not to poste to this thread again. I guess we now know what his word is worth.

I said this

You can have the last word.

which is not the same as saying "I promise not to post to this thread again.", so please, quit with your strawmen approaches. They are getting quite tiresome.

You argue a theistic (Xpian) viewpoint,

Huh? How do you get Christian from what I am saying? Why not Buddhist? Why not something else? Could it be that your biases are getting in the way of your judgement?

If you're not, state clearly what you are.

You still don't get it. You referred to me as a Christian first. Then after you are called on it, you ask me what I am. You seem to have the order reversed.

Why are you so desperate to hide the fact that you aren't? Ashamed?

I certainly am if you are considering yourself a skeptic and yet put a belief in someone elses' head.

You seem to know what beliefs I hold before I say them. You should apply for the JREF prize money. ;)

what are you? Theist? Deist? Satanist? Cult of the 11-foot pixie? Aum Shinrikyo?

Oh gee, you make it seem like you actually care? :rolleyes: This, coming only after you call me a Christian, don't admit your mistake, and then beg me to state my religious beliefs, if I even have any (which incidently are not the issue at all here).

and claim that "very few" (your words, note!) secular organisations have ever done any good.

You must read more carefully. I asked you to list atheist groups that do community services. You respond by listing merely secular organizations. These organizations are not necessarily atheist in nature. While some do do good, you have provided a right answer to a wrong question. From the start, I am interested in atheist organizations. The Lions Club, and some other boners you listed, are not atheist organizations.

and touting the "good things religion has done". (Crusades? September 11? Inquisition? You call those good?)

Quit with the silly remarks. I never said those were good things. In fact, the list I made was a direct response to your request to like the good things from religion. If you would have asked me to make a list of the bad things, I would have included those things on the list. Youy can hardly blame me for leaving those out, since you asked a list of the good aspects. This should be crystal clear and obvious, yet you argue the point.

Now, given that you've already broken your promise not to post here again,

There was never any promise that I wouldn't post on this thred again. I simply stated that you can have the last word. And you did in your mind for about 5 seconds.

If you are not a Xpian, what do you hold yourself to be?

And I'll tell you yet again, you should have asked me first, instead of ascribing a belief to me and then asking what I believe later.

Everyone is still awaiting your amazing and objective calculations that allow you to conclude that the probabilty of God is infinitely small. Get crackin' "expert".

Sincerely,

S. H.

Kimpatsu

14th May 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
An interesting diversion tactic, which in no way has anything to do with your or my points.
Diversion? Not at all. I started this debate in good faith; I have seen your posts grow increasingly nonsensical, and now I'm receiving advice that you're a troll. I thought this would be worth pointing out.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I said this...which is not the same as saying "I promise not to post to this thread again.", so please, quit with your strawmen approaches. They are getting quite tiresome.
You clearly don't know what a strawman is. If you say the last word is mine, you have coinceded the fact that you will no longer be posting. You also said, "...I am not interested in further discussion". What could this mean other than that you do not intend to post again?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Huh? How do you get Christian from what I am saying? Why not Buddhist? Why not something else? Could it be that your biases are getting in the way of your judgement?
Buddhists are not theists; Northern Zen Buddhism is a moral code with no deities. So Doshin, the founder of Kongo Zen, said that there is no evidence of any gods, and whether there is an afterlife is irrelevant. It's how you live your life now that matters. So I already know that you aren't a Buddhist. You might be a Muslim, or a Jew, but if you're posting on these boards, chances are you're a Xpian, because you're centainly not a skeptic.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You still don't get it. You referred to me as a Christian first. Then after you are called on it, you ask me what I am. You seem to have the order reversed.
You still haven't answered my question. What are you?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I certainly am if you are considering yourself a skeptic and yet put a belief in someone elses' head.
Huh? The missi0on of all skeptics is to teach critical thinking, as much as apply it ourselves. "Put beliefs in somneone's head"? What exactly do you mean by that?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You seem to know what beliefs I hold before I say them. You should apply for the JREF prize money. ;)
More bulls**t. Why won't you just answer the question? What are you, if not a Xpian?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Oh gee, you make it seem like you actually care? :rolleyes: This, coming only after you call me a Christian, don't admit your mistake, and then beg me to state my religious beliefs, if I even have any (which incidently are not the issue at all here).
Beg? I'm demanding. Answer the question, coward.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You must read more carefully. I asked you to list atheist groups that do community services. You respond by listing merely secular organizations. These organizations are not necessarily atheist in nature.
That's becasue atheism isn't a lifestyle. It's simply acceptance of the fact that there is zero evidence for any gods.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
While some do do good, you have provided a right answer to a wrong question. From the start, I am interested in atheist organizations. The Lions Club, and some other boners you listed, are not atheist organizations.
No, they are secular ones.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Quit with the silly remarks.
My remarks aren't silly, they're witty. Of course, you need a sense of humour to appreciate the distinction...
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I never said those were good things. In fact, the list I made was a direct response to your request to like the good things from religion. If you would have asked me to make a list of the bad things, I would have included those things on the list. Youy can hardly blame me for leaving those out, since you asked a list of the good aspects. This should be crystal clear and obvious, yet you argue the point.
I'm still waiting for your list of the good things from religion. You mentioned cooking, but what exactly? And you still haven't addressed the distinction I made between good things from religion, and good things arising for secular motives within a religious body. Care to do that now?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There was never any promise that I wouldn't post on this thred again. I simply stated that you can have the last word. And you did in your mind for about 5 seconds.
You said you couldn't be bothered to post here again. I will still have the last word. You will be shot at dawn.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
And I'll tell you yet again, you should have asked me first, instead of ascribing a belief to me and then asking what I believe later.
Yo uSTILL haven't answered the bloody question! I shouldn't have to ask you anything; you should state your position upfront, like everyone else. What's really galling is that you are trying to make YOUR omission sound like MY fault!
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Everyone is still awaiting your amazing and objective calculations that allow you to conclude that the probabilty of God is infinitely small. Get crackin' "expert".
I refer you once again to The Improbability of God (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-sumimprobabilityofgod.htm) by Richard Dawkins. Haven't you read it yet?

14th May 2003, 09:54 AM

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

I have seen your posts grow increasingly nonsensical,

Hardly.

In fact, I recall you told me to "clean out your ears", and other grade-school remarks, so it looks like you are the one who is drifting into the non-sensical.

Please, everyone is waiting for your amazing mathematical derivation that the 'probability of god is infinitely small'. Expert, get crackin on that proof! Perhaps you'll evade providing proof for your major claim here...

and now I'm receiving advice that you're a troll.

Boo hoo Kimpatsu! If you can't actually debate and back up your claims, then resort to name-calling. Good job! If I am a troll, then ignore me! I doubt you can because you must get in the last word.

You also said, "...I am not interested in further discussion". What could this mean other than that you do not intend to post again?

It is quite simple. The actual discussion ended long ago. But you have a chance to bring it back (see the end of this post).

So I already know that you aren't a Buddhist. You might be a Muslim, or a Jew,

I might be, then again, I might be Buddhist, I might be Zoroastrian, Taoist, Shinto, Sikh, Jain, a Hutterite, an atheist, or ten's of thousands of other choices.

but if you're posting on these boards, chances are you're a Xpian, because you're centainly not a skeptic.

That line of reasoning doesn't even make any sense, and clearly shows your poor use of logic.

Also, first you tell me what I am by claiming I am a Christian, then you tell me what I am not, by saying I am not a skeptic! If you repeat it enough, it still won't be true. Eat and poorly prepared blowfish recently?

You still haven't answered my question. What are you?

I've answered your question several times, you just don't like the answer. The answer is that I am not obligated in any way to reveal what I believe, if I even believe anything. That apparently makes you uneasy, because perhaps you fear the unknown, and can't debate unless you have something set in stone to chip away on. Get over it, please.

The missi0on of all skeptics is to teach critical thinking, as much as apply it ourselves. "Put beliefs in somneone's head"? What exactly do you mean by that?

"Mission", great choice of words. ;) What I mean, is that you certainly have not practiced critical thinking by assigning me a religion when I have not stated my belief/non-belief.

More bullshi*. Why won't you just answer the question? What are you, if not a Xpian?

There is no "bullshi*", I'm simply exercising my right to not answer your diversional inquiry. We're talking about the Big Bang and evolution, and related issues, and you are asking what I believe in. Completely irrelevant.

Beg? I'm demanding. Answer the question, coward.

And this is an example of why I am not answering. First, you assign me a belief. Then you don't admit you were wrong. Then you ask me what I believe (assuming I do). Then you get upset when I don't feel that telling you will be worthwhile!

Calling me a coward (over the internet, while thousands of miles away in Japan, funny) illustrates some interesting features of people calling themselves skeptics.

No, they are secular ones.

I realize that. I am baffled because I specifically asked you, if you were reading, for examples of atheist organizations who participate in community services. I didn't ask for examples of only secular organizations. The difference is obvious.

I'm still waiting for your list of the good things from religion.

Absurd. I provided a short list already after you inquired for one.

The fact that you believe you "debunked" each item, and the obvious fact that some of those can be accomplished by secular means, in no way, shape, or form, removes the fact that they are good things in religion.

I will still have the last word. You will be shot at dawn.

Riiiggghttt. Anyway.

I shouldn't have to ask you anything; you should state your position upfront,

And you are doing pretty good so far by actually assigning me a belief!

I refer you once again to The Improbability of God (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-sumimprobabilityofgod.htm) by Richard Dawkins. Haven't you read it yet?

Now you are simply repeadetly posting it as an 'inflammation tactic', which is obvious and quite boring. You obviously know I read it since I have already responded to it. Next.

Kimpatsu, where is your proof of the probabily for God being so infinitely small? Is the Big Bang local or a global bang? What came before the Big Bang? I'm asking some reasonable questions here, things you've claimed to have a handle on, being an "expert" and all. :rolleyes: If you can respond to these questions with actual evidence, we can get back on topic.

And try to control your emotion "expert skeptic". Your first post got edited for use of profanity. :D

Sincerely,

S. H.

14th May 2003, 01:27 PM

Dear Kimpatsu,

There is nothing beyond knowledge and logic

Provide evidence for that claim.

Dawkins's position is superior to that of the theists

Provide evidence for that claim. How are you measuring "superiority"?

There was a start; the Big Bang

Provide evidence for the claim that nothing came before. That is, provide evidence that the Big Bang was global and not merely a local Bang.

Secular morals are much better.

Morals are subjective, therefore your point (ie. opinion) is moot.

The Church has always been the enemy of science

There you go again, with the Christian examples you seem to embrace. Expand you mind. Religion is a lot more than Christianity. In any case, looking back, yes, it seems bad. At that time, however, science was tied up with the church. So you'd have to provide evidence that it was really religion vs. science rather than a science theory at that time vs. another science theory at that time.

Time began at the Big Bang.
There was no time before the Big Bang. (Look, this is my area of expertise, OK?)

Provide evidence for the claim there was no time before the Big Bang. An unacceptable answer is that by the definition of singularity, there was no time, as that is merely defining things away.

God is infinitely improbable, so any natural explanation for the origins of life is de facto more likely than the supernatural explanation.

Provide evidence for that claim. Let's see your calculations. Do they really involve 'math and science' as you say, or perhaps you just formed an opinion without doing any work. How did you arrive at measures of 'likeliness'?

Also, I said

A secular lifestyle would be lived by someone who merely wasn't religious.

to which you responded

Which is the very definition of atheism.

Heh, are you serious? One can not be religious and still not be an atheist. Secularity does in no way at all imply atheism.

Time and chance aren't required for evolution.

Time isn't required? Oh, that is VERY interesting. Evolution must unfold in one of those timeless worlds then. :rolleyes:

I expect a lot of moaning, bleeting about, arm flapping, and general avoidance of the real issues.

To appease you, even though you don't really care since you already assigned me Christianity :rolleyes: (or Xpianity, I did a Google search for that spelling, and you are the only one in the world apparently, that puts a p in there funny enough), I am a Buddhist.

Now poke away, as expected, at this, and avoid your responsibilities of providing evidence for all of your above claims. I'll wait a week before responding to this thread again. (now that is an actual promise. Note the difference from before.) That should be enough time, but it shouldn't take long for an expert..

Very sincerely yours,

S. H.