Level of Opposition [Archive]

volatile

27th December 2006, 08:46 AM

Over the past few days, I've been immersed in 911 and Christianity threads, and I've noticed something fairly curious.

There are a lot of very, very intelligent people on this board, as evidenced by postings competent across numerous complex disciplines made regularly in 911 conspiracy threads. And this is what confused me - obviously, massive intellects have no problem posting on internet forums. I'm working on a philosophy PhD, and sometimes arguing on the Internet feels like a guilty pleasure, but posts in those technical threads from very well-educated people have shown me that forum posting is not necessarily an intellectually base thing to do.

Why, then, are the only people who show up in these forums in support of Christianity so very, very dumb? Recent posts from JamRan and MickinEngland are like kids playing with crayons; they, like seemingly every other person who comes here to show us the error of our ways, babble on incoherently, ignore arguments and generally make fools of themselves.

There are very, very many quite intelligent and educated Christians - and indeed, I personally know numerous people of faith educated to a higher-degree level and who are perfectly capable of having a conversation without resorting to the kind of things JamRan and his ilk do. So, seeing as forum posting isn't beneath them intellectually, why don't *they* come here and lay out their claims? It'd be much more interesting, and rewarding, and stimulating to discuss these questions with someone who can have a rational argument, just once.

It's so very confusing.

Ducky

27th December 2006, 08:56 AM

I am of the opinion that the more fervent the bible thumping prosletyzer is, the more base the arguments are. Most of the very intelligent Christians I know do not wish to preach or convert. For example, most of the hardcore preaching and attempt to have people repent here in the past 2 years was done by Kurious_Kathy, who admits she has no higher education and often claims persecution when told she should read or study certain things like logic and critical thinking. In fact, she has posted things that suggest she thinks education itself makes people atheist (which may or may not be true, but her argument is certainly a poor strawman regarding this) and at one point was caught by me admitting she purposefully posts in certain ways to tweak the educated people on the forum for her own amusement.

As for other posters I have seen that use rather dishonest and poor argumentation when discussing their own brand of fundy religion, I have noticed that not all of those posters are of low intelligence, but all do display a specific need to displace any type of rationality or compassion when their security blanket is threatened. This usually results in the meltdown we saw with JamRan resorting to simple repetition and childish posting styles, or the types of insults Huntster hurls around with quipped, cryptic arguments that make no logical sense. Mick also seems very unwilling to accept the proposition his premises about religion could be false, and so I think as intelligent people point out more and more logical problems with their beliefs as posted, the natural reaction of frustration they may have could result in a degeneration into insults and childish behavior.

ETA: It also seems that in some circles of evangelical internet posters, they actually wish for a martyr situation in which to claim it is their beliefs, and not their behavior, that they are mocked, insulted, or persecuted for. It's been pointed out to Kathy and Huntster over and over that it has little to do with their beliefs when they are mocked or held in derision by members of this board, but more to do with their insults, intellectually dishonest debating, and inability to attempt to comprehend the other side of their discussion in any way.

That's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

MickinEngland

27th December 2006, 08:58 AM

Why, then, are the only people who show up in these forums in support of Christianity so very, very dumb?..
It's so very confusing.

Let me enlighten you Jack :)
Here we all are on this spinning ball of dust whizzing through space without knowing how we got here or where we're going when suddenly a young carpenter arrives on the scene and says "I can tell you!"
Can you give me just one logical valid reason why anyone wouldn't want to listen to him and analyse him and discuss him and dissect him?

Will you listen to him Spock?
"Yes Mick I'm all ears"..
--------------------------

volatile

27th December 2006, 09:02 AM

Tricky

27th December 2006, 09:08 AM

There are a lot of very, very intelligent people on this board, as evidenced by postings competent across numerous complex disciplines made regularly in 911 conspiracy threads. And this is what confused me - obviously, massive intellects have no problem posting on internet forums. I'm working on a philosophy PhD, and sometimes arguing on the Internet feels like a guilty pleasure, but posts in those technical threads from very well-educated people have shown me that forum posting is not necessarily an intellectually base thing to do.

Why, then, are the only people who show up in these forums in support of Christianity so very, very dumb? Recent posts from JamRan and MickinEngland are like kids playing with crayons; they, like seemingly every other person who comes here to show us the error of our ways, babble on incoherently, ignore arguments and generally make fools of themselves.

There are very, very many quite intelligent and educated Christians - and indeed, I personally know numerous people of faith educated to a higher-degree level and who are perfectly capable of having a conversation without resorting to the kind of things JamRan and his ilk do. So, seeing as forum posting isn't beneath them intellectually, why don't *they* come here and lay out their claims? It'd be much more interesting, and rewarding, and stimulating to discuss these questions with someone who can have a rational argument, just once.

It's so very confusing.
There have been several of the type of Christians you describe who have posted on our boards. Recently, Mr. Clingford was spending some time here. In the past, Potato Stew was a thoughtful and sane poster. Though not Christian, Meadmaker has quite the religious bent to his posts, and he is not normally abusive.

As much as I hate to say it, a lot of the blame lies with us, or at least some of us. Because we see ten "Micks" for every "Clingford", we tend to go on the attack any time we see a person who admits to Christianity. At least half the posts toward these Christians are nothing but nasty sarcasm and ridicule, or sometimes monotonous "evidence please?" posts which do nothing to further discussion. So they usually don't stay long. Selective pressure on this board favors trolls for long-term survival.

While we at JREF are a great deal more tolerant than a place like "Rapture Ready", we still tend to attack thoughtful Christians and idiot Christians indiscriminately. I wish we wouldn't.

l0rca

27th December 2006, 09:12 AM

When I first came here, I was intimidated, and lurked mostly. This place doesn't have the air of an intellectual place, at least not not superficially, because of it being a forum in a famous person's name, and that carries the bias of fandom. What's intimidating about this place is that nearly everyone writes well, uses logical arguments, and critically thinks. When I started venturing into arguments here, I realized I was underestimating myself, and I was happy to be complimented and respected here.

These days though, I've noticed that although there are smart people here, what they tend to discuss is usually redundant, and there's a lot of troll feeding. But the reason behind this I think found a while back, when I made a few topics. Generally, if a person here makes a strong conjecture, well backed and philosophically sound, most of the members on the board won't disagree. Other times, a worthwhile question will be brought up, and the disagreements attract everybody, and for me, the subjects become a chore to read through and argue about. There are some pretty worthwhile people here to argue with, and learn from, but most arguments here from the intelligent are either entirely semantical, or about technical ideas which can not yet be resolved in proof or reasoning.

My favorite feature of this forum is the science one, where if you don't understand something in science or theory, many members actually like getting into the technicalities of the issue and providing further reading material.

I think this sub-forum has a long way to go to compete with that one. If this one's going to get started, there needs to be more issues threaded dealing with modern philosophy, advances in the field, and ideas about consciousness, linguistics, and culture.

I'm really not interested in talking about god stuff much.

KingMerv00

27th December 2006, 09:22 AM

Tricky

27th December 2006, 09:38 AM

Let me enlighten you Jack...
You have all the enlightening power of one half of a dead firefly.

Freethinker

27th December 2006, 10:53 AM

I think many of those who post here fail to realize the logical inconsistencies under which they live and believe. Because of intellectual failings or lack of education (formal or otherwise), they aren't able to understand the opposing viewpoint. Their arguments are based on beliefs they have that to them are simply givens. They fail to realize that their arguments have no basis.

Kurious Kathy argues that we should believe that Jesus is our savior and if we follow him we'll go to heaven. She fails to make any remotely valid argument that proves any afterlife exists, heaven exists, god exists, that Jesus ever existed, or if Jesus did exist that he fulfilled the prophesies of a savior in the bible. Much like a builder attempting to install the cupola on a house before the foundation is built.

Those who understand the logical failings of belief in a deity and choose to believe anyway don't often argue here because they know that their position can't be logically defended. Those who do argue here don't realize how completely their arguments are refuted because they don't or won't understand the logical validity of the counter-arguments. Maybe a case of cognitive dissonance gone wild; the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying nah-nah-nah-I can't hear you.

Freethinker

27th December 2006, 11:01 AM

Let me enlighten you Jack :)
Here we all are on this spinning ball of dust whizzing through space without knowing how we got here or where we're going when suddenly a young carpenter arrives on the scene and says "I can tell you!"
Can you give me just one logical valid reason why anyone wouldn't want to listen to him and analyse him and discuss him and dissect him?

Will you listen to him Spock?
"Yes Mick I'm all ears"..
--------------------------

1. There is no evidence he ever existed. (the bible is not evidence)

2. If he did exist and the bible is true, it is clear that his father is inherently one of the most evil beings ever written about.

3. If the bible were true, he doesn't even come close to fulfilling the prophesies of the alleged savior.

4. Marshall Applewhite told his followers much the same thing, and look where it got them.

5. Jim Jones " " " " " " " "

etc., etc.

The only light you are casting is one that illuminates your ignorance of your own religion.

volatile

27th December 2006, 11:08 AM

Those who understand the logical failings of belief in a deity and choose to believe anyway don't often argue here because they know that their position can't be logically defended. Those who do argue here don't realize how completely their arguments are refuted because they don't or won't understand the logical validity of the counter-arguments. Maybe a case of cognitive dissonance gone wild; the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying nah-nah-nah-I can't hear you.

I guess that's what's really at the crux of my frustrations - I really would like to know why and, indeed, how those people who do understand those logical failings reconcile them with belief not just in a deity, but a very specifically outlined dogmatic one. It's just no-one ever wants to acknowledge that or debate it with any degree of rigour.

I'm a secular humanist, but even I (and even Dawkins, actually) can see that it's not completely illogical that there are ways in describing the universe in scientific and rational terms that do not utterly refute all possibility of a metaphysical deity that, at the very least, "set up" the world to behave exactly as science perceives it to. You can't prove that either way. I'm pretty damn sure that there isn't one, but I can't prove a negative.

I think what us rationalists do have problems with is that that tiny philosophical gap in to which a highly unlikely, never-manifested but still logically coherent "God" might fit isn't enough for most religious people. They have all this weird dogma, convention, scripture, "teaching" and ahistorical technobabble on top of the basic acceptance that God could exist.

This is where the "I contend we are all atheists, I just contend that I believe in one God fewer than you" comes in - as I, and I guess most other rational atheists, can't see how the jump from the possibility of the existence of a deity that created the world as perceived by science to religious proscriptions on what type of hat we should wear actually works.

Freethinker

27th December 2006, 11:52 AM

I guess that's what's really at the crux of my frustrations - I really would like to know why and, indeed, how those people who do understand those logical failings reconcile them with belief not just in a deity, but a very specifically outlined dogmatic one. It's just no-one ever wants to acknowledge that or debate it with any degree of rigour.

If Huntster were less beligerent in his arguments and more willing to stick to a point, he could probably present a good discussion. He is well educated in his religion, and I believe that he has stated that he acknowledges some of the inconsistencies most atheists notice, yet he still chooses to believe.

I don't think it is possible to truly examine ones religious beliefs honestly without introducing doubt. Many Christians are afraid of a world without their faith, so they are afraid of entertaining any ideas that may damage their faith. I can attest that it took me years after I stopped believing to truly acknowledge that fact myself, but now that I have, it seems blindingly obvious. I believe many (likely the smarter ones) only pretend to have faith to fit in. This leaves the unthinking sheep and those so afraid of losing their faith that they ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs to be the "true believers" and show up here to impress us with their ignorance and intransigence.

Ryan O'Dine

27th December 2006, 03:13 PM

Why, then, are the only people who show up in these forums in support of Christianity so very, very dumb? Recent posts from JamRan and MickinEngland are like kids playing with crayons; they, like seemingly every other person who comes here to show us the error of our ways, babble on incoherently, ignore arguments and generally make fools of themselves.

The most impressive defenders of Christian thinking on this forum have been, in my opinion, non- or ex-Christians. Take a look at slingblade’s and drkitten's posts here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70119) to see what I mean.

Why do the Christians do such a poor job around here? I think you have to ask what kind of believer would be motivated to post in the religion section of a skeptics’ forum. It seems natural to me that you’ll mainly get two types: people who like to argue, and people who like to proselytize. Believers who are secure in their faith but interested in delving into the finer points of theology have more amenable forums available.

The apologists at Internet Infidels, or the Ship of Fools, for example, are much more impressive.

Dogdoctor

27th December 2006, 04:14 PM

My opinion is that someone exposing a nonskeptical belief will become the crap flinging target of the forumite grumps who have no manners for and care not for anyone who disagrees with them. Seeing that they either find a forum with higher standards or choose not to post anything likely to end up in pointless hostility.
eta: If they are intelligent

billydkid

27th December 2006, 04:35 PM

I think that Christians who are intelligent recognize that they can not make genuinely rational arguments for their beliefs. Clearly, they choose to believe what they do based on something other than reason.

billydkid

27th December 2006, 04:38 PM

I think this sub-forum has a long way to go to compete with that one. If this one's going to get started, there needs to be more issues threaded dealing with modern philosophy, advances in the field, and ideas about consciousness, linguistics, and culture.

I'm really not interested in talking about god stuff much.

There are advances in the field? How does one recognize one of these?

Dogdoctor

27th December 2006, 05:08 PM

l0rca

27th December 2006, 08:00 PM

There are advances in the field? How does one recognize one of these?

I'm speaking more about the last twenty years than things that are happening right now, but there are books out there worth discussing. Take Consciousness Explained, by Daniel Dennett.

Otherwise in advances, myself I'm not in the know. But there has to be some people here that could help us all out.

l0rca

27th December 2006, 09:42 PM

This is likely true but why do they choose not to post about it here?

Because these beliefs are generally guarded from reason.

What separates a smart person from atheism is usually how critically they assess themselves.

Another response I get is that to them, atheists do not realize or appreciate their strong emotional feelings that they attribute to spiritualism, the holy spirit, etcetera.

Dogdoctor

27th December 2006, 10:06 PM

Because these beliefs are generally guarded from reason.

What separates a smart person from atheism is usually how critically they assess themselves.

Another response I get is that to them, atheists do not realize or appreciate their strong emotional feelings that they attribute to spiritualism, the holy spirit, etcetera.

Ummm but that says nothing about why they don't post here and reveal their non skeptical veiws.

l0rca

27th December 2006, 10:10 PM

Because this forum, and the website on a whole confronts their lack of critical thinking head-on. Most people, coming across this site, immediately dismiss this place as "not understanding". I'm sure it sort of gives them a pit in their stomach too.

Huntster

28th December 2006, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by mattlodder
I guess that's what's really at the crux of my frustrations - I really would like to know why and, indeed, how those people who do understand those logical failings reconcile them with belief not just in a deity, but a very specifically outlined dogmatic one. It's just no-one ever wants to acknowledge that or debate it with any degree of rigour.

If Huntster were less beligerent in his arguments and more willing to stick to a point, he could probably present a good discussion. He is well educated in his religion, and I believe that he has stated that he acknowledges some of the inconsistencies most atheists notice, yet he still chooses to believe.

And I "debate it with a degree of rigour".

Funny..........some seem to want it, and others loath it.

I don't think it is possible to truly examine ones religious beliefs honestly without introducing doubt.

I agree.

Many Christians are afraid of a world without their faith, so they are afraid of entertaining any ideas that may damage their faith.

I don't think you understand the faithful very well.

I can attest that it took me years after I stopped believing to truly acknowledge that fact myself, but now that I have, it seems blindingly obvious. I believe many (likely the smarter ones) only pretend to have faith to fit in.

If I "pretend" any harder, will you like me more?

Huntster

28th December 2006, 02:35 AM

...That's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

I'll leave it.

It was truly worth about $0.02.

Foster Zygote

28th December 2006, 10:08 AM

Freethinker

28th December 2006, 10:58 AM

I don't think you understand the faithful very well.

If I "pretend" any harder, will you like me more?

Those are examples of the reason your discussions deviate from their course. I didn't say you were pretending, and my guess is you didn't think I did. The original post indicated that I thought you were a true believer, educated in your faith who had honestly examined it and found it valid. I didn't claim you were pretending, nor did I imply it. Such responses don't contribute to making a point, and most often derail the discussion into animosity.

I can assure you, I understand church going Christians very well. I was raised Roman Catholic, and the rest of the Christian world, which I am immersed in here in the bible belt, is markedly different. Note again that I said many, not all or most. Here again you attempt to derail the thread by attacking my understanding, not my claim. If you have information or a thought that disproves or discredits my claim that many people fear that if they honestly examined their faith they would lose it, post it.

Derailing threads or responding with non-sequiturs only decreases the likelihood of your posts being responded to thoughtfully.

Loss Leader

31st December 2006, 09:48 PM

Can you give me just one logical valid reason why anyone wouldn't want to listen to him and analyse him and discuss him and dissect him?

Because he was a false prophet and everything one needs to know about such questions was answered in the word of God as revealed to Moses.

As it was written, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before me. 4You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Study of your person tempts people to create another god and put him before the Lord. As your god was a person, people are tempted to make images of him. And altogether to many people bow down and worthis him instead of Almighty God.

I certainly have no interest in learning anything about a person who claims any magic powers not completely encapsulated in the Torah.

Or , at least, that's how I would answer if I believed in God.

Huntster

2nd January 2007, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I don't think you understand the faithful very well.

If I "pretend" any harder, will you like me more?

Those are examples of the reason your discussions deviate from their course. I didn't say you were pretending, and my guess is you didn't think I did. The original post indicated that I thought you were a true believer, educated in your faith who had honestly examined it and found it valid. I didn't claim you were pretending, nor did I imply it.

Were these not your words?:

I believe many (likely the smarter ones) only pretend to have faith to fit in. This leaves the unthinking sheep and those so afraid of losing their faith that they ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs to be the "true believers" and show up here to impress us with their ignorance and intransigence. Such responses don't contribute to making a point, and most often derail the discussion into animosity.

I can assure you, I understand church going Christians very well. I was raised Roman Catholic, and the rest of the Christian world, which I am immersed in here in the bible belt, is markedly different. Note again that I said many, not all or most.

I didn't claim that you don't understand "church going Christians" very well (although I'm not sure you do).

I claimed that:

I don't think you understand the faithful very well.

Here again you attempt to derail the thread by attacking my understanding, not my claim.

I'm not "attacking" your understanding.

I simply stated that "I don't think you understand the faithful very well."

If you have information or a thought that disproves or discredits my claim that many people fear that if they honestly examined their faith they would lose it, post it.

If you have any evidence that many people fear that if they honestly examined their faith they would lose it, please post it.

Derailing threads or responding with non-sequiturs only decreases the likelihood of your posts being responded to thoughtfully.

Very few of my posts are responded to thoughtfully, anyway, and I doubt that will change any time soon.

Call me a "skeptic."

Huntster

2nd January 2007, 09:32 AM

.....There are very, very many quite intelligent and educated Christians - and indeed, I personally know numerous people of faith educated to a higher-degree level and who are perfectly capable of having a conversation without resorting to the kind of things JamRan and his ilk do. So, seeing as forum posting isn't beneath them intellectually, why don't *they* come here and lay out their claims?...

Unlike me, they're too wise to waste time with you.

drkitten

2nd January 2007, 03:00 PM

I guess that's what's really at the crux of my frustrations - I really would like to know why and, indeed, how those people who do understand those logical failings reconcile them with belief not just in a deity, but a very specifically outlined dogmatic one. It's just no-one ever wants to acknowledge that or debate it with any degree of rigour.

Because religious belief is not usually the sort of thing that you need to debate with any degree of rigour. The strongest argument for religious belief -- especially among evangelicals -- is usually simply personal experience. One has either "known" God or one hasn't, but personal knowledge and experience isn't the sort of thing you debate over.

Case in point : one of my best friends has recently moved to Los Angeles and is busy making a dog's breakfast of his life, including his job, his career, his sanity, and his relationship with his wife and daughter. It worries me.

Having said that -- I don't think that I could prove any of the statements in the paragraph above. My friendship with him is not a proposition that could be the conclusion of a logical or reasoned argument. I don't even know that I could prove to your skeptical satisfaction that he exists. But I'm not going to seriously entertain the idea that he doesn't exist or that my friendship with him is somehow unreal or a figment of my imagination.

Well, what if my best friend were God (as many evangelicals claim)?

wolfgirl

2nd January 2007, 04:36 PM

Because religious belief is not usually the sort of thing that you need to debate with any degree of rigour. The strongest argument for religious belief -- especially among evangelicals -- is usually simply personal experience. One has either "known" God or one hasn't, but personal knowledge and experience isn't the sort of thing you debate over.

Case in point : one of my best friends has recently moved to Los Angeles and is busy making a dog's breakfast of his life, including his job, his career, his sanity, and his relationship with his wife and daughter. It worries me.

Having said that -- I don't think that I could prove any of the statements in the paragraph above. My friendship with him is not a proposition that could be the conclusion of a logical or reasoned argument. I don't even know that I could prove to your skeptical satisfaction that he exists. But I'm not going to seriously entertain the idea that he doesn't exist or that my friendship with him is somehow unreal or a figment of my imagination.

Well, what if my best friend were God (as many evangelicals claim)?But you're not (as far as I know) claiming that your friend created the world or can cause miracles to happen. Claiming that someone is your friend is one thing, claiming that that someone has magical powers is another. The former is not likely to cause anyone to question the validity of your statement, while the latter certainly should.

wolfgirl

2nd January 2007, 04:43 PM

Here we all are on this spinning ball of dust whizzing through space without knowing how we got here or where we're going when suddenly a young carpenter arrives on the scene and says "I can tell you!"
Can you give me just one logical valid reason why anyone wouldn't want to listen to him and analyse him and discuss him and dissect him?Why should I believe a young carpenter can tell me how we got here or where we're going? Any more than I should believe any other person that thinks he knows the answers? Not to mention the fact that these answers he supposedly had were written in a book 2,000 years ago, an old book that could've been written by anyone. Why should I believe that old book more so than, say, The Iliad?

Can you give me just one logical, valid reason why anyone WOULD want to listen to him and analyze him and discuss him and dissect him?

Tricky

2nd January 2007, 05:55 PM

Why should I believe a young carpenter can tell me how we got here or where we're going? Any more than I should believe any other person that thinks he knows the answers? Not to mention the fact that these answers he supposedly had were written in a book 2,000 years ago, an old book that could've been written by anyone. Why should I believe that old book more so than, say, The Iliad?

Can you give me just one logical, valid reason why anyone WOULD want to listen to him and analyze him and discuss him and dissect him?
Sadly, my lovely lycanthrope, he has disappeared as suddenly as he came. It appears to have just been a drive-by trolling.

drkitten

3rd January 2007, 07:55 AM

But you're not (as far as I know) claiming that your friend created the world or can cause miracles to happen. Claiming that someone is your friend is one thing, claiming that that someone has magical powers is another. The former is not likely to cause anyone to question the validity of your statement, while the latter certainly should.

Why? From a certain point of view, the fact that the world was created is pretty self-evident (even hard-core materialists accept the Big Bang, which is close enough to a creation event to be indistinguishable to the naked eye -- as the old joke has it, "we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price"). Similarly, miracles happen on a regular basis -- the fact that we have a partial explanation in terms of science makes them no less miraculous. (Remember Clarke's third law?)

It's no more surprising that I should be friends with a person who happens to be the creator of the universe than that I should be friends with a person who happens to live in LA. (Actually, given my opinion of southern Californians in general, it's perhaps more likely.)

wolfgirl

3rd January 2007, 04:56 PM

Why? From a certain point of view, the fact that the world was created is pretty self-evident (even hard-core materialists accept the Big Bang, which is close enough to a creation event to be indistinguishable to the naked eye -- as the old joke has it, "we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price").The concept of a "created" world or universe implies a creator, which is NOT backed by mainstream science. Similarly, miracles happen on a regular basis -- the fact that we have a partial explanation in terms of science makes them no less miraculous. (Remember Clarke's third law?)Um, by definition, miracles do NOT happen on a regular basis. And yes, if science can explain them, they are not miracles. Miracles, as I understand them, are things that are inexplicable.It's no more surprising that I should be friends with a person who happens to be the creator of the universe than that I should be friends with a person who happens to live in LA. (Actually, given my opinion of southern Californians in general, it's perhaps more likely.)I think most people would have less trouble believing that you talk on the phone, say, with someone in California than that you have conversations with an invisible, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being that has existed forever and will exist forever and for which nobody can explain his origin. I don't think I'm alone in this. There are various ways that we can confirm the Californian's existence (should we want to bother). We could fly out there and see him and ask him about his relationship with you. We could examine his phone records. We could eavesdrop. And so on. And yes, we could possibly be deceived in any of those ways. But at least we have some sort of tangible evidence, the kind that I think most reasonable people would find pretty compelling. But we can only take your word for it if you say you talked to a god this morning.

drkitten

4th January 2007, 08:18 AM

The concept of a "created" world or universe implies a creator, which is NOT backed by mainstream science.

Really? So explain how "mainstream science" can distinguish the Big Bang from a "creation event." Empirical science neither supports nor rejects a creator, because there's little empirical data. But it's hard to avoid noticing the similarities between a created universe and the one that the data does show.

Um, by definition, miracles do NOT happen on a regular basis.

Not by any sensible definition of which the evangelicals are aware.

And yes, if science can explain them, they are not miracles. Miracles, as I understand them, are things that are inexplicable.

Well, then your understanding is incompatible, not only with most of the evangelical wing of the Christian church, but with mainstream theology as well. Even the OED differs with you; the primary definition it offers is simply "A marvellous event not ascribable to human power or the operation of any natural force and therefore attributed to supernatural, esp. divine, agency; esp. an act (e.g. of healing) demonstrating control over nature and serving as evidence that the agent is either divine or divinely favoured." Miracles are things beyond human power (and natural forces), not necessarily beyond human explanation -- and frequency doesn't seem to enter into it. Especially when the "scientific" explanation turns out to be built on sand if you look at it closely enough.

A good example, the so-called "miracle of life" (pregnancy and reproduction), which has achieved the status of a cliche. Quite commonplace; there are six billion humans in the world today, and the number is only increasing -- and of course there are uncounted zillions of puppies, kittens, squirrels, fruit bats, and so forth. But we still don't have a scientific understanding of how we get from a moment of passion to a thinking, feeling, human being.

I think most people would have less trouble believing that you talk on the phone, say, with someone in California than that you have conversations with an invisible, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being that has existed forever and will exist forever and for which nobody can explain his origin.

But that's exactly my point. To be honest, neither I nor my Angelino friend really care much whether you (or "most people") have trouble believing in him or not. You can, if you like, believe that I'm completely delusional about having a friend in LA. I'm not going to put myself (and my friend) to the trouble of proving his existence to your skeptical standards, because -- well, because that's a silly waste of time, energy, money, and brains.

The problem, as I said, is one of communication. You, like many (most?) skeptics, regard God as an abstraction, and the proposition "God exists" to be something that must be established in the abstract before any meaningful discussion can begin. Evangelists approach the subject entirely differently -- God is not an abstraction, but a very real and personal being -- a friend, if you will. When they try to "bring you to Jesus," they're not trying to persuade you to accept an abstract belief, but to introduce you to a personal friend.

Imagine, if you will, that I'm trying to set you up on a blind date. (I make the assumption that you
are female and straight; if not, make appropriate changes.) "There's this really nice man who started work in my office, and I think he'd be perfect for you. I know you value your privacy,
so I didn't give him your phone number -- but he did tell me it was okay to give you his."

Am I going to get into a discussion about whether this man exists? "Of course he exists, wolfgirl.! I talk to him on, like, a daily basis. What do you mean, I probably just made up the phone
number? Well, yeah, okay, I guess I could have -- but.... Look, he's a nice guy and I think
you'll really like him, that's it. What do you mean, 'prove it'?"

Dogdoctor

4th January 2007, 11:47 AM

If the definition of a miracle is things we can't explain completely then almost everything is a miracle at some point in time and ceases to be one or will cease to be one at another point in time.

drkitten

4th January 2007, 12:17 PM

If the definition of a miracle is things we can't explain completely then almost everything is a miracle at some point in time and ceases to be one or will cease to be one at another point in time.

The first half of that statement is probably true.

The second half is probably false. Is there anything that science has yet managed to explain completely?

Have you ever spent time around a three year old? One question that they like asking is "Why?"

It's getting colder outside. Why?
Because winter's closing in. Why?
Um, because that's the way the earth tilts this time of year. Why?
Well, um,... because it has to tilt in some direction, doesn't it? Why?
Because that's just the way it is, honey.... Why?
...

Drink your milk, honey. Why?
Because it's good for you. Why?
Because it makes your bones strong. Why?
Because it's got calcium in it, and bones are made from calcium. Why?
Because making bones out of spaghetti would make them too brittle. Why?
Um, because the crystal structure of.... Um, because .... Because that's just the way it is, honey. Why?

If an evangelist chooses to substitute "Because that's the way God wanted it," for "Because thta's just the way it is," there's your miracle. At the bottom of every pile of explanations, there is a miracle.

Davo

4th January 2007, 12:28 PM

[QUOTE=drkitten;2227438]Really? So explain how "mainstream science" can distinguish the Big Bang from a "creation event." Empirical science neither supports nor rejects a creator, because there's little empirical data. But it's hard to avoid noticing the similarities between a created universe and the one that the data does show.

What does a created universe look like ?

Why would a creator make the universe look like it hadn`t been created i.e fossils, geological data, diseases, mosquitos ?

Well, then your understanding is incompatible, not only with most of the evangelical wing of the Christian church, but with mainstream theology as well. Even the OED differs with you; the primary definition it offers is simply "A marvellous event not ascribable to human power or the operation of any natural force and therefore attributed to supernatural, esp. divine, agency; esp. an act (e.g. of healing) demonstrating control over nature and serving as evidence that the agent is either divine or divinely favoured." Miracles are things beyond human power (and natural forces), not necessarily beyond human explanation -- and frequency doesn't seem to enter into it. Especially when the "scientific" explanation turns out to be built on sand if you look at it closely enough.

What would be your best example of a miracle which had taken place ?

A good example, the so-called "miracle of life" (pregnancy and reproduction), which has achieved the status of a cliche. Quite commonplace; there are six billion humans in the world today, and the number is only increasing -- and of course there are uncounted zillions of puppies, kittens, squirrels, fruit bats, and so forth. But we still don't have a scientific understanding of how we get from a moment of passion to a thinking, feeling, human being.

But there is a physical process to getting pregnant, explained by science.

There probably is a scientific explanation of the moment of passion to a thinking human baby, it would probably kill the moment though !

But that's exactly my point. To be honest, neither I nor my Angelino friend really care much whether you (or "most people") have trouble believing in him or not. You can, if you like, believe that I'm completely delusional about having a friend in LA. I'm not going to put myself (and my friend) to the trouble of proving his existence to your skeptical standards, because -- well, because that's a silly waste of time, energy, money, and brains.

The problem, as I said, is one of communication. You, like many (most?) skeptics, regard God as an abstraction, and the proposition "God exists" to be something that must be established in the abstract before any meaningful discussion can begin. Evangelists approach the subject entirely differently -- God is not an abstraction, but a very real and personal being -- a friend, if you will. When they try to "bring you to Jesus," they're not trying to persuade you to accept an abstract belief, but to introduce you to a personal friend.

I would imagine that most skeptics have wanted to believe at some time in their lives. I have tried communicating, through prayer and haven`t felt an inkling of response, hence my agnostic athiestic view.

Dogdoctor

4th January 2007, 12:29 PM

There are things that science has not explained yet. Is there anything that science will never explain? You seem to think so I don't think so.

drkitten

4th January 2007, 12:37 PM

There are things that science has not explained yet. Is there anything that science will never explain? You seem to think so I don't think so.

I'm simply extrapolating from the track record. Science has never managed to explain anything fully, therefore I feel confident that science will never be able to explain anything fully. We will always be digging new facts out of the coalface of reality, and be able to say nothing about those new facts except "well, that's the way things are."

hammegk

4th January 2007, 12:42 PM

There are things that science has not explained yet. Is there anything that science will never explain? .... I don't think so.
You're wrong. Analysis prior to Planck time after T=0, and now for areas of spacetime smaller than Planck length, will not be done.

At the moment, see if someone can manage the math to merge GR & QM, and demonstrate scientifically such was done. :)

Darth Rotor

4th January 2007, 12:43 PM

Over the past few days, I've been immersed in 911 and Christianity threads, and I've noticed something fairly curious.

There are a lot of very, very intelligent people on this board, as evidenced by postings competent across numerous complex disciplines made regularly in 911 conspiracy threads. And this is what confused me - obviously, massive intellects have no problem posting on internet forums. I'm working on a philosophy PhD, and sometimes arguing on the Internet feels like a guilty pleasure, but posts in those technical threads from very well-educated people have shown me that forum posting is not necessarily an intellectually base thing to do.

Why, then, are the only people who show up in these forums in support of Christianity so very, very dumb?

So, matt, you allege that you are working on a PhD in philosophy. You then provide us with that brilliant assertion. Back to the books, lad, it'll do you good. Or, maybe too much time spent in the Philosophy Department is rotting your brain. (You wouldn't be at the U of Wallamalloo by any chance, would you? Crack tube!)

Based on that data point, you are either hoping to "preach to a choir," or are more interested in name calling than in conversation. Any graduate of a school yard worth its salt can tell you, even a philosopher, that your approach is how retalliation and violence get incited. To misquote John Cleese:

"People like you are what cause unrest!"

Did you ever see the movie Caddyshack? If so, did you note the scene where the rich white guys were talking smack about blacks, while the black club employee was in earshot?

Way to go, Matt "Judge Smails" Lodder, you impressed the hell out of some poor, oppressed, Christian cum Darkies. (Perhaps your term would be Christian Dorkies?)

Kurious_Kathy, Matt seems to have a need to feel superior to someone. I am sure you can give him exactly the stereotype he wants. Where are ya, Kathinator?

I see "Philosophy Major" and have a very hard time not reading "wanker" between the lines. Sadly, your opener confirms my bias, which isn't at all fair to Philosophy Majors.

DR

drkitten

4th January 2007, 12:47 PM

What does a created universe look like ?

Why would a creator make the universe look like it hadn`t been created i.e fossils, geological data, diseases, mosquitos ?

More or less exactly like the one we have. Nothing in the metaphor of God creating the universe prevents fossils from forming. Most Christians aren't Young-Earth Creationists, you know, although the YEC nutcases get a lot of press. Here, for example, is the Catholic perspective on what a created universe looks like (http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp):

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

About the only thing that a created universe requires is a creation event -- i.e., that the universe be of a finite age, whether that be 6000 or twenty billion years ago. Oddly enough, that's about the only thing that we can say with confidence about the Big Bang, too. Science predicts a universe with a finite age. Catholicism predicts a universe with a finite age -- and identifies the beginning that as a miracle.

What would be your best example of a miracle which had taken place ?

Didn't you read the post to which you responded? -- A good example [is] the so-called "miracle of life" (pregnancy and reproduction), which has achieved the status of a cliche.

But there is a physical process to getting pregnant, explained by science.

Er, partially explained, yes. At the bottom of every pile of explanations there is a miracle.

I would imagine that most skeptics have wanted to believe at some time in their lives. I have tried communicating, through prayer and haven`t felt an inkling of response, hence my agnostic athiestic view.

I haven't had a response either. But I'm not foolish enough to bellieve that my inability to find something means it doesn't exist. By that rubric, my car keys seem to be popping in and out of existence on a daily basis.

AgingYoung

4th January 2007, 01:46 PM

At the moment, see if someone can manage the math to merge GR & QM, and demonstrate scientifically such was done.

I managed this several years ago but our dog at the proof. The proof isn't in the pudding; it's in the dog.

Gene

volatile

4th January 2007, 09:08 PM

So, matt, you allege that you are working on a PhD in philosophy. You then provide us with that brilliant assertion. Back to the books, lad, it'll do you good. Or, maybe too much time spent in the Philosophy Department is rotting your brain. (You wouldn't be at the U of Wallamalloo by any chance, would you? Crack tube!)

While I don't agree that philosophy is necessarily opposed to a pugilistic approach to discourse, I suppose in this instance its something of a fair cop. It was a hasty turn of phrase, and a flippant one. But it was borne out of frustration, and the seeming disparity between the presence of very educated people on the CT subforums, but the absence of them in the Religion ones willing to come out with a theistic position, when, of course, we all know plenty of very educated theists. Additionally, it came at the end of a few days I'd spent wallowing in incoherent Bible-dumping by the likes of MickinEngland, and I was just about pulling my hair out. Not an excuse, but a reason nonetheless!

Based on that data point, you are either hoping to "preach to a choir," or are more interested in name calling than in conversation. Any graduate of a school yard worth its salt can tell you, even a philosopher, that your approach is how retalliation and violence get incited. Preaching to the choir is certainly not what I was after - in fact, just the opposite. As the CT subforums show, there's nothing particularly base about well-educated and well-spoken individuals engaging in debate on the Internet, and so I was just wondering why there was such a dearth of eloquent theists fighting their corner. Indeed, I want to be told what I'm missing; I'd love to see exactly what it is that all these otherwise rational theists see that I don't; I'd love to grasp how the leap can be made from theistic assumption to dogmatic adherence.

Kurious_Kathy, Matt seems to have a need to feel superior to someone.Quite the opposite, in fact - and that's really at the core of my post. I know that there are plenty of people who know far more than I do, and who are capable of far more nuanced thinking than I am, who also happen to believe in not just God, but a very specific God. I'm honestly genuinely interested in the case for dogmatic belief, but it's sometimes rather frustratingly troublesome to find out exactly what that case might be...

The Atheist

5th January 2007, 01:05 AM

Why, then, are the only people who show up in these forums in support of Christianity so very, very dumb? Recent posts from JamRan and MickinEngland are like kids playing with crayons; they, like seemingly every other person who comes here to show us the error of our ways, babble on incoherently, ignore arguments and generally make fools of themselves.
I suggest that you've missed the smarter ones in amongst the dross, because there are a couple of very smart and perceptive christians who post there, but aren't often drawn into threads on religion.

I'm not going to name them publicly, as some people mightn't even realise that they're christians. I suspect that they realise that "coming out" could be counter-productive as some of us are pretty scornful, arrogant atheists.

Like me, for example.

But do take the time to have a look and see if you can draw them out; you might be surprised.

joobz

5th January 2007, 01:25 AM

I suspect that they realise that "coming out" could be counter-productive as some of us are pretty scornful, arrogant atheists.

Like me, for example.

In that case.
Um, I'm a not a christian.
Wait, yeah I am.
Um no, I'm not.
um, I think I still am....maybe...not...a...Uh
I don't know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:boggled:

clarsct

5th January 2007, 01:40 AM

Actually, Dr kitten, we have a pretty darned good understanding of what happens when we have sex and procreate. OBGYNs go to school for a number of years, tis true, but we really have a good grasp of cell division and specialization.

It really isn't a miracle, you see. We can point through our microscopes and say "see? there is is!" We can even grow embryos in a test tube and implant them into the mother. We're well on our way to developing the technology to clone ourselves(it will happen, mark my words!). These things are based on understanding how the biological machinery works. I am really having difficulty seeing your argument, here.

Your example of a three year old is particularly flawed. The three year old has little basis of understanding why we get cold as our precious blue gem revolves around a rather uninteresting star. It would be a futile as explaining how the sun warms his body by resorting to physics. It isn't that physics is flawed, it is that the listener is. (By no fault of his own, BTW, it is simply a fact. The poor tyke has no framework to hang this information on, it takes time!!) A teenager can be taught why we get summer and winter, which is why you see so few temples to Persephone or Demeter about. We no longer need gods to fill in the gaps like we used to.

And that is, really, what I am getting out of your arguments. That science has gaps, and those gaps are God. I must respectfully disagree.

If I have done violence to your thoughts or words, please correct my understanding. Such is not my intent. This is merely my interpretation of what you have posted.

Gwyn ap Nudd

5th January 2007, 04:48 AM

There have been several of the type of Christians you describe who have posted on our boards. Recently, Mr. Clingford was spending some time here. In the past, Potato Stew was a thoughtful and sane poster. Though not Christian, Meadmaker has quite the religious bent to his posts, and he is not normally abusive.

As much as I hate to say it, a lot of the blame lies with us, or at least some of us. Because we see ten "Micks" for every "Clingford", we tend to go on the attack any time we see a person who admits to Christianity. At least half the posts toward these Christians are nothing but nasty sarcasm and ridicule, or sometimes monotonous "evidence please?" posts which do nothing to further discussion. So they usually don't stay long. Selective pressure on this board favors trolls for long-term survival.

While we at JREF are a great deal more tolerant than a place like "Rapture Ready", we still tend to attack thoughtful Christians and idiot Christians indiscriminately. I wish we wouldn't.

I tend to lurk in the Religion topics more than I post for that very reason. All too often, any hint of sympathy for a spiritual point of view, or any consideration of anything beyond the scope of modern science is seen as an endorsement of the fundies' point of view and attacked. Not by everyone, but by enough people to discorage too many serious discussions.

Case in point: Dr Kitten in this very thread. Consider what the good Doctor said in her (his?)* first post:Because religious belief is not usually the sort of thing that you need to debate with any degree of rigour. The strongest argument for religious belief -- especially among evangelicals -- is usually simply personal experience. One has either "known" God or one hasn't, but personal knowledge and experience isn't the sort of thing you debate over.
<snip>
Well, what if my best friend were God (as many evangelicals claim)?

All Dr Kitten is saying is that believers come to the argument with a different perspective. For them, the existence of God is not in issue because they are already aquainted with Him as a person. That is what makes the hard-core fundamentalist evangelicals so fervent in their proseltyzing, and what keeps the more moderate conservatives from trying to "argue" their point on a site such as this which favors a different starting viewpoint.

Recognizing that they experience God as a person does not, in itself, mean that He is as real to Dr Kitten as He is to them, any more than if she (he?)* were to describe how real a personal relationship is that an elderly aunt has with an old beau. In itself, recognizing the aunt's perspective says nothing about the reality of the beau. He might be a figment of the aunt's imagination, or she might have known him once, and he's mainly a vivid memory, or he might be real. But it is harder to talk about whether or not he is real if you don't aknowledge that he is, at least in some sense, real to her.

And from Dr Kitten's second post:Why? From a certain point of view, the fact that the world was created is pretty self-evident (even hard-core materialists accept the Big Bang, which is close enough to a creation event to be indistinguishable to the naked eye -- as the old joke has it, "we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price"). Similarly, miracles happen on a regular basis -- the fact that we have a partial explanation in terms of science makes them no less miraculous. (Remember Clarke's third law?)
Basically all she (he?)*is saying is that the current universe had a beginning and the today's science can say nothing about what occured before that beginning. Science does not support belief in a creator, but it is not incompatible with such a concept either, so it cannot disprove His existence. It is neutral on the subject.

And yet, many of the responses to Dr Kitten assume that she (he)* is advancing all the fundies' assertions and endorsing them, and some of those responses are less than polite.

It may very well be that Dr Kitten is a believer. That she (he?)* did not assert that her (his?)* posts were not about the truth of the Christian's beliefs, but only about the fact of those beliefs may be taken as evidence by some. But negative evidence is not the same as proof.

*Because of the good Doctor's username, and the cute kitten in her (his?) old avatar, I tend to assume that she (he?) is female. If I am mistaken, I apologize.

Mr Clingford

5th January 2007, 06:43 AM

Indeed, I want to be told what I'm missing; I'd love to see exactly what it is that all these otherwise rational theists see that I don't; I'd love to grasp how the leap can be made from theistic assumption to dogmatic adherence.Hello.

Would you unpack what you mean by your last two phrases here, 'theistic assumption' and 'dogmatic adherence' as it is possible to have theistic assumptions and also try to relate to God.

ETA Some people appear to have little or no time for what Christians may have to say and can be very dismissive, rude and demeaning. This does not encourage one to put in a lot of time and effort to engage with others when one's efforts may be at best ridiculed and at worst not read and understood properly.

volatile

5th January 2007, 07:13 AM

Hello.

Would you unpack what you mean by your last two phrases here, 'theistic assumption' and 'dogmatic adherence' as it is possible to have theistic assumptions and also try to relate to God.

*doffs cap*

A pleasure to make your acquaintance, Mr C.

My key question is as follows. Its one people such as Richard Dawkins allude to, but don't quite state in the same way, and one which seems to be skirted around in discussions of the sort that crop up here.

Stephen Roberts' famous quote, "I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours", is one wielded by atheists with great regularity, but its one which requires some clarification. What Roberts is talking about here is not belief in a general God, but belief in a very specific, denominational and dogmatic God arising from a specific time and geographical location. Dawkins, along the same lines, often points out that even the most devout religious person knows what its like to reject a theistic belief set, as to pick one means necessarily eschewing all others, current and former.

I accept, as most atheists do, that the possibility remains (though unlikely) that there is or was a non-interventionist deity who established the universe to behave and appear exactly as human beings, via the scientific process, have, will and can experience it. God, in all his unfalsifiability, is outside of the rules of the game in this respect, and thus I feel discussions on theism which revolve around this quite specific question are fruitless and ultimately doomed to impasse. What I do not accept, however, is how, from this general acceptance that a God could exist, we get religions which specify diet, head wear, systems of punishment and other types of dogmatic adherence.

Debates with theists tend to be of the former type - focussing on the unknowability or otherwise of God, how He might have established the Universe and so on. What so often remains undiscussed is how someone who conceives of a universe created by a deity extrapolates this belief into what type of hat to wear.

For me, this is the problem at the core of my scepticism. We know the historical teleology of the Christian canon. We know that large chunks of Catholic dogma have been created by Popes over the centuries and are entirely non-Scriptural. Jehovah's Witnesses are quite aware that a group of people sit around a table in an office in Brooklyn and make JW doctrine up as they go along, and yet still there is slavish adherence to its norms. It's obvious that what religion you might happen to be is an accident of geography, history and circumstance and yet still each believer clings to his or her particular dogma (and again, I'm talking quite specifically about dogma and not about the fuzzy, warm feeling that there might be a God) as if its the only true one.

drkitten

5th January 2007, 09:00 AM

Your example of a three year old is particularly flawed. The three year old has little basis of understanding why we get cold as our precious blue gem revolves around a rather uninteresting star. It would be a futile as explaining how the sun warms his body by resorting to physics. It isn't that physics is flawed, it is that the listener is.

The problem is, thought, that all listeners are flawed.

To give an infinite series of explanations would require an infinite amount of knowledge, something that no human being has or can ever hope to have. If you really think that we know how pregnancy and childbirth work, all the way down, then why is there still research being done in the field? Or to use the weather example -- why is the axial tilt of the Earth about 23 degrees? Why isn't it 28, or 13? I don't believe that anyone, from the three year old to the top planetary astrophysicist in the world, has a meaningful answer for this question beyond "that's just the way it is."

And that is, really, what I am getting out of your arguments. That science has gaps, and those gaps are God. I must respectfully disagree.

You're welcome to disagree. My point was not to argue that God is the gaps, but to point out a valid -- and as far as I can tell, unarguable-with -- perspective that evangelical Christians share in which they bellieve God to be the gaps. And holding the opinion that God is the gaps may be an opinion with which you disagree, but it's not necessarily a stupid one.

Mr Clingford

5th January 2007, 09:01 AM

*doffs cap*

A pleasure to make your acquaintance, Mr C.I am confident that the pleasure will not be solely yours, Mr Lodder (Who watched Sense and Sensibility at Christmas!).

My key question is as follows. Its one people such as Richard Dawkins allude to, but don't quite state in the same way, and one which seems to be skirted around in discussions of the sort that crop up here.

Stephen Roberts' famous quote, "I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours", is one wielded by atheists with great regularity, but its one which requires some clarification. What Roberts is talking about here is not belief in a general God, but belief in a very specific, denominational and dogmatic God arising from a specific time and geographical location. Dawkins, along the same lines, often points out that even the most devout religious person knows what its like to reject a theistic belief set, as to pick one means necessarily eschewing all others, current and former.A problem I have with this argument is that I think it is too blunt an instrument. I believe that there is a God and that adherents of religions are attempting to relate to and describe this God. As I come from a Christian background in the UK it is not surprising that I consider Christianity to be the most accurate but I believe that there is some truth in other approaches, that we can learn from anyone. It is something like a scientific theory in the sense that what is believed now is incomplete and will always be incomplete.

I accept, as most atheists do, that the possibility remains (though unlikely) that there is or was a non-interventionist deity who established the universe to behave and appear exactly as human beings, via the scientific process, have, will and can experience it. God, in all his unfalsifiability, is outside of the rules of the game in this respect, and thus I feel discussions on theism which revolve around this quite specific question are fruitless and ultimately doomed to impasse. What I do not accept, however, is how, from this general acceptance that a God could exist, we get religions which specify diet, head wear, systems of punishment and other types of dogmatic adherence.

Debates with theists tend to be of the former type - focussing on the unknowability or otherwise of God, how He might have established the Universe and so on. What so often remains undiscussed is how someone who conceives of a universe created by a deity extrapolates this belief into what type of hat to wear.
It is good to be aware of the limits of ones approach. The Christian argument goes something like this that the Jews encountered God back in OT times and found that God wants us to behave in certain ways of which the general gist is 'Love the Lord your God' and 'Love your neighbour'. But it was a specific culture at a specific time with its own customs and rules for the way the group operated. We can see the sense, for instance, of the dietary rules which cut down the risk of eating unhealthy meat. Christians argue that we don't need to follow the specific OT rules anymore.

For me, this is the problem at the core of my scepticism. We know the historical teleology of the Christian canon. We know that large chunks of Catholic dogma have been created by Popes over the centuries and are entirely non-Scriptural. Jehovah's Witnesses are quite aware that a group of people sit around a table in an office in Brooklyn and make JW doctrine up as they go along, and yet still there is slavish adherence to its norms. It's obvious that what religion you might happen to be is an accident of geography, history and circumstance and yet still each believer clings to his or her particular dogma (and again, I'm talking quite specifically about dogma and not about the fuzzy, warm feeling that there might be a God) as if its the only true one.I think my approach is the 'truest', not the only true one. I think God is much more interested in ones character and the way one lives than the believing of any specific dogma. I don't think that all religions beliefs are true, but the life and death of Jesus is for all, not just Christians.

I'm sorry that I haven't given more detailed answers because each point really merits more time and effort.

drkitten

5th January 2007, 09:12 AM

I tend to lurk in the Religion topics more than I post for that very reason. All too often, any hint of sympathy for a spiritual point of view, or any consideration of anything beyond the scope of modern science is seen as an endorsement of the fundies' point of view and attacked. Not by everyone, but by enough people to discorage too many serious discussions.

Case in point: Dr Kitten in this very thread. Consider what the good Doctor said in her (his?)* first post:

All Dr Kitten is saying is that believers come to the argument with a different perspective. For them, the existence of God is not in issue because they are already aquainted with Him as a person. That is what makes the hard-core fundamentalist evangelicals so fervent in their proseltyzing, and what keeps the more moderate conservatives from trying to "argue" their point on a site such as this which favors a different starting viewpoint.

Thank you. Yes, that's exactly the point that I am trying to make.

It may very well be that Dr Kitten is a believer.

No, I'm not a "believer"; I'm a hard-line agnostic. I believe that many of the "truths" of religion cannot be addressed in an empirical, materialistic framework, in the same way that we can never know for certain that Sagan's garage does not have an invisible fire-breathing dragon in it. Sagan -- and most skeptics -- are happy rejecting the idea of the dragon in his garage on the grounds of parsimony and insufficiency of evidence.

The other issue is that the evidence that suffices to convince me, through personal experience, is almost certainly different than the evidence that would convince you through hearing of my experience. I'm willing to be convinced of the reality of ghosts through personal experience; if I wake up next year to find my old business partner wearing a collection of Chanel chains and lockboxes by Dior, I might be more inclined to celebrate Christmas. But I don't expect you to believe me if I tell you about the experience.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 09:14 AM

volatile

5th January 2007, 09:18 AM

It is good to be aware of the limits of ones approach.

I'd suggest that it's not so much a limit in the approach, more a limit in so much that any conception of God is beyond criticism. "That's just how God is", or "God doesn't operate to the laws of the material universe" are so readily deployed as counterpoints to metaphysical arguments to the point that such arguments are rarely conducive to interesting discussion.

It's for this reason that I want to really focus on the more pragmatic aspects of religious adherence, as already mentioned, and its something that relates to your following point:

I think my approach is the 'truest', not the only true one. I think God is much more interested in ones character and the way one lives than the believing of any specific dogma. I don't think that all religions beliefs are true, but the life and death of Jesus is for all, not just Christians.

This is at the crux of my problem with dogma. How does belief in Jesus follow from the more general "encounter" with God (whatever that might entail)? The Jesus myth has a teleological historiocity (see, for example, The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, which postulates the appropriation of pagan mythologies into Christian doctrine) and does not logically follow from a belief in *a* God. What makes your approach the truest? What makes other approaches (Scientology, Islam, the Invisible Pink Unicorn) less true?

In short, how do you justify the leap from belief in a God, to belief in a specific God, whilst still being intellectually aware of the chronological and geographic specificity of your belief system?

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 09:28 AM

While I don't agree that philosophy is necessarily opposed to a pugilistic approach to discourse, I suppose in this instance its something of a fair cop. It was a hasty turn of phrase, and a flippant one. But it was borne out of frustration, and the seeming disparity between the presence of very educated people on the CT subforums, but the absence of them in the Religion ones willing to come out with a theistic position, when, of course, we all know plenty of very educated theists. Additionally, it came at the end of a few days I'd spent wallowing in incoherent Bible-dumping by the likes of MickinEngland, and I was just about pulling my hair out. Not an excuse, but a reason nonetheless!

Preaching to the choir is certainly not what I was after - in fact, just the opposite. As the CT subforums show, there's nothing particularly base about well-educated and well-spoken individuals engaging in debate on the Internet, and so I was just wondering why there was such a dearth of eloquent theists fighting their corner. Indeed, I want to be told what I'm missing; I'd love to see exactly what it is that all these otherwise rational theists see that I don't; I'd love to grasp how the leap can be made from theistic assumption to dogmatic adherence.

Quite the opposite, in fact - and that's really at the core of my post. I know that there are plenty of people who know far more than I do, and who are capable of far more nuanced thinking than I am, who also happen to believe in not just God, but a very specific God. I'm honestly genuinely interested in the case for dogmatic belief, but it's sometimes rather frustratingly troublesome to find out exactly what that case might be...
Well answered, and I wish you the best in your quest for high quality discussion/debate on the topic at hand. To characterize all believers as dogmatic seems to me a slight error along the lines of generalization.

Perhaps not. Doctrine, canon, dogma, etc, do come with the badge. It's maybe a matter of degree rather than of kind.

Oh, and I forgot, welcome. :)

DR

volatile

5th January 2007, 09:36 AM

Well answered, and I wish you the best in your quest for high quality discussion/debate on the topic at hand. To characterize all believers as dogmatic seems to me a slight error along the lines of generalization.

Perhaps not. Doctrine, canon, dogma, etc, do come with the badge. It's maybe a matter of degree rather than of kind.

Oh, and I forgot, welcome. :)

DR

Thanks!

I think "dogma" might not quite be precisely the concept I wish to decry, but its close enough. Simply, I think my incredulity comes from how belief in a God (or belief that there might well be a God) - a position that seems closer to agnosticism or deism than strict theism - is often extended into theistic adherence that includes various extensions of belief including dress, worship, magic and miracles, judgement, divine intervention, dietary proscriptions etc. despite the obviously localised nature of those very extensions.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 09:41 AM

Thanks!

I think "dogma" might not quite be precisely the concept I wish to decry, but its close enough. Simply, I think my incredulity comes from how belief in a God (or belief that there might well be a God) - a position that seems closer to agnosticism or deism than strict theism - is often extended into theistic adherence that includes various extensions of belief including dress, worship, magic and miracles, judgement, divine intervention, dietary proscriptions etc. despite the obviously localised nature of those very extensions.
My great frustration in my roundabout journey into Faith is best summed up as follows:

When the Ritual overtakes the Word, the Message suffers.

Yes, that's my own, and it has caused me some difficult conversations among various flavors of the Faithful. So be it. Most things worthwhile aren't necessarily easy.

DR

Mr Clingford

5th January 2007, 09:53 AM

I'd suggest that it's not so much a limit in the approach, more a limit in so much that any conception of God is beyond criticism. "That's just how God is", or "God doesn't operate to the laws of the material universe" are so readily deployed as counterpoints to metaphysical arguments to the point that such arguments are rarely conducive to interesting discussion.

It's for this reason that I want to really focus on the more pragmatic aspects of religious adherence, as already mentioned, and its something that relates to your following pointI'm happy to focus on your next point.

This is at the crux of my problem with dogma. How does belief in Jesus follow from the more general "encounter" with God (whatever that might entail)? The Jesus myth has a teleological historiocity (see, for example, The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, which postulates the appropriation of pagan mythologies into Christian doctrine) and does not logically follow from a belief in *a* God. What makes your approach the truest? What makes other approaches (Scientology, Islam, the Invisible Pink Unicorn) less true?

In short, how do you justify the leap from belief in a God, to belief in a specific God, whilst still being intellectually aware of the chronological and geographic specificity of your belief system?For a Christian it follows because the disciples of Jesus came to believe that the man they knew, Jesus, was 'God'. The disciples and Paul formed faith communities and passed on their message and the rest is history.

Yes, there are theories that Jesus was a myth and there never was a bloke that Peter etc knew. These vary in the quality of their scholarship with Freke and Gandy not being very good as far as I can tell.

The main thing, of course, is that I am English so Christianity was the main influence - of course I may be wrong and Islam might be right or even Dawkins :). As it is possible to be Christian and follow science, biblical criticism etc I don't have to switch my brain off, rather the opposite. I have been encouraged to use my brain in regard to my faith.

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 09:55 AM

Because religious belief is not usually the sort of thing that you need to debate with any degree of rigour.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who would disagree with that. Belief in god, leprachuans, and homeopathy are no different from one another. They are all a belief in things for which there is no evidence, and indeed for which there is compelling evidence against. Religious ideas are not somehow special. They are ideas and in the marketplace of ideas, all ideas are subject to criticism.

The strongest argument for religious belief -- especially among evangelicals -- is usually simply personal experience. One has either "known" God or one hasn't, but personal knowledge and experience isn't the sort of thing you debate over.

If experiences cannot be debated, why do we have the sciences of psychology and nuerology? Humans are prone to percieving things which are not there, missing the obvious, and comming up with the wrong explainations for sensory input. A person who claims to be recieving moral guidance from unicorns is in need of professional help, because the world in which we live does not include unicorns and no matter how convincing their hallucinations of unicorns are, an objective observer cannot confirm them, neither can the faithful unicornist provide any evidence of unicorns. Likewise, a person who has religious experiences is seeing something that just isn't there. Pretending that religious experiences are somehow special leads one to ask "what hallucinations are immune to doubt and criticism, and what halluctinations are garden variety mental problems?"

Well, what if my best friend were God (as many evangelicals claim)?

Then you should see a therapist.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 09:56 AM

...When the Ritual overtakes the Word, the Message suffers.....

While I understand and appreciate your position, for some of us, the ritual doesn't overtake the Word. It glorifies it.

That's why I have so much appreciation for a Roman Catholic Mass, or daily prayers in the Islamic tradition.

volatile

5th January 2007, 09:58 AM

My great frustration in my roundabout journey into Faith is best summed up as follows:

When the Ritual overtakes the Word, the Message suffers.

Yes, that's my own, and it has caused me some difficult conversations among various flavors of the Faithful. So be it. Most things worthwhile aren't necessarily easy.

Might I be so blunt as to ask what your specific faith comprises then? Are you a Christian? Agnostic? Deist?

volatile

5th January 2007, 10:08 AM

I'm happy to focus on your next point.

For a Christian it follows because the disciples of Jesus came to believe that the man they knew, Jesus, was 'God'. The disciples and Paul formed faith communities and passed on their message and the rest is history.

There have been plenty of men who claimed to be God. And plenty more who claimed to be his exclusive messenger. See Joseph Smith, for example, who wrote his own book, or Rev. Moon. There are still more who claimed an equally valid spiritual Truth - L. Ron Hubbard, for example - whose texts have been taken as, if you'll excuse the turn of phrase, Gospel. What makes you trust St. Paul more than you trust Joseph Smith?

Yes, there are theories that Jesus was a myth and there never was a bloke that Peter etc knew. These vary in the quality of their scholarship with Freke and Gandy not being very good as far as I can tell.

Fair enough, I accept that. And yet there's still a leap you have to make, and its one that's very lazily specific to the time and place you grew up in. The leap is that Jesus was the Son of God, because he said so, and that no-one else who ever claimed equal divine origin or enlightenment was. That's a leap you only make because of where you come from and how you've been raised.

The main thing, of course, is that I am English so Christianity was the main influence - of course I may be wrong and Islam might be right or even Dawkins :). As it is possible to be Christian and follow science, biblical criticism etc I don't have to switch my brain off, rather the opposite. I have been encouraged to use my brain in regard to my faith.

That's superb, but it doesn't really answer my question. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes the waters far muddier, as outlined above.

I accept, as outlined previously, that you can be a deist or an agnostic and follow science and remain in logical coherence. What I cannot accept is why its Christianity you choose to accept as true, and not any of the other religions, current or former...

To accept Christianity as Truth requires accepting the word of Paul and others above the word of the hundreds of thousands of others throughout history who disagreed with them. And the basis of agreeing with the Bible (written by men, compiled by men, published, disseminated, translated and interpreted by men) over, say, Norse mythology is a baseless gut feeling led almost entirely by the stories you were told when you were growing up in England in the 20th century.

drkitten

5th January 2007, 10:14 AM

I'm sure I'm not the only person who would disagree with that. Belief in god, leprachuans, and homeopathy are no different from one another. They are all a belief in things for which there is no evidence, and indeed for which there is compelling evidence against. .

And you know what? Little of the time -- in fact, outside of the Randi forums, practically never -- do I need to debate the existence of leprechauns. The topic doesn't seem to come up, for some reason. if I insisted in discussing the question "do leprechauns exist" at the lunch table, I suspect I would quickly find myself lunching alone in the faculty lounge. Because the question is not one that often needs to be debated.

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 10:28 AM

And you know what? Little of the time -- in fact, outside of the Randi forums, practically never -- do I need to debate the existence of leprechauns. The topic doesn't seem to come up, for some reason. if I insisted in discussing the question "do leprechauns exist" at the lunch table, I suspect I would quickly find myself lunching alone in the faculty lounge. Because the question is not one that often needs to be debated.

Again I strongly disagree. It is a question that is seldom debated, I agree, but I believe it is a question that should be strongly and incessantly debated. I am not comfortable living a society full of people who listen to advice of leprechauns.

drkitten

5th January 2007, 10:32 AM

Again I strongly disagree. It is a question that is seldom debated, I agree,

You know, I'm used to you not reading my posts. But I find it highly amusing when you don't even read your own.

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 10:36 AM

You know, I'm used to you not reading my posts. But I find it highly amusing when you don't even read your own.

I disagree with you, but I ageee with the specific assessment summarized in the clause preceeding "I agree." Are you literate?

Maybe if you could get over your hate-on for me, you'd be able to process language.

To forstall the inevtiable sophomoric retort: I don't hate you, I hate Christanity and tolerant attitudes towards it.

Mr Clingford

5th January 2007, 10:36 AM

RenaissanceBiker

5th January 2007, 10:44 AM

This seems appropriate.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11168459e8cd0497bc.jpg

volatile

5th January 2007, 10:45 AM

Yes, I did not sit down and decide to examine all religious truths and then accept one or none. But I think there is a lot of sense and truth in Christianity. Although there are lots of things I don't understand and parts that find I can't make much sense of I think that God and religion lie outside the realm of the scientific method and therefore why abandon something that 'works', that contains a lot of truth that can also turn people's lives around and make them better people and isn't shown to be false?

At this point, we begin to go round in circles.

Yes, it is acceptable logically that there can be no proof which denies irrefutably the existence of a non-interventionist deity who established the universe as science can and will perceive it. God, indeed, lies beyond the scientific method.

But the things you believe are things that aren't outside the realms of science - you quite specifically believe in a historically teleological religion, one which invokes doctrines of behaviour and practice that simply do not follow from the provability or otherwise of a deity. A religion doctrine that comes from a short history of myth and fable with a very exact historical lineage.

Religion does not lie outside the scientific method, as religions are collections of practices with historical genises suggesting things (such a prayer, for example) which categorically are proven not to work.

As such, you're still skirting around my fundamental question - how does the unprovability of a divine being logically lead to a specifically Christian pattern of belief?

Furthermore, atheism also "'works'", "contains a lot of truth that can also turn people's lives around and make them better people and isn't shown to be false" but doesn't rely on sloppy, geo-centric thought...

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 10:55 AM

Might I be so blunt as to ask what your specific faith comprises then? Are you a Christian? Agnostic? Deist?
Christian, and we (as a family) currently belong to a Catholic Church, though I help one night a week at a Methodist Bible Study, and never completed the Catacumen due to . . . well, a lot of things. :) The best clergyman I ever encountered was a Navy Baptist Chaplain. Came late to the Faith, though the Word does not seem to have changed. Raised by two agnostic parents who were themselves raised Orthodox and Episcopalean.

"What a long, strange trip it's been."

Huntster: the RCC does indeed embody much that is good, for all my personal complaints otherwise. The priest who officiated our marriage is one of the most decent human beings to walk the earth.

DR

Mr Clingford

5th January 2007, 10:58 AM

At this point, we begin to go round in circles.

Yes, it is acceptable logically that there can be no proof which denies irrefutably the existence of a non-interventionist deity who established the universe as science can and will perceive it. God, indeed, lies beyond the scientific method.

But the things you believe are things that aren't outside the realms of science - you quite specifically believe in a historically teleological religion, one which invokes doctrines of behaviour and practice that simply do not follow from the provability or otherwise of a deity. A religion doctrine that comes from a short history of myth and fable with a very exact historical lineage.

Religion does not lie outside the scientific method, as religions are collections of practices with historical genises suggesting things (such a prayer, for example) which categorically are proven not to work.I was trying to cut to the chase in my last post..

As such, you're still skirting around my fundamental question - how does the unprovability of a divine being logically lead to a specifically Christian pattern of belief?Now that you put the question like that I can answer it - of course it doesn't follow, but it's not the only question.

Furthermore, atheism also "'works'", "contains a lot of truth that can also turn people's lives around and make them better people and isn't shown to be false" but doesn't rely on sloppy, geo-centric thought...Would you be so kind as to point out my sloppy, geo-centric thought.

volatile

5th January 2007, 10:59 AM

Christian, and we (as a family) currently belong to a Catholic Church, though I help one night a week at a Methodist Bible Study, and never completed the Catacumen due to . . . well, a lot of things. :) The best clergyman I ever encountered was a Navy Baptist Chaplain.

DR

So, then I guess my next question has to be: further to my arguments already espoused here, and in response to your acknowledgement of the problems of ritual over spirituality, do you believe that you can truly be a Christian without the rituals that the Judaeo-Christian doctrine splices into the more over-arching belief in a higher being?

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 11:02 AM

Yes, I did not sit down and decide to examine all religious truths and then accept one or none. But I think there is a lot of sense and truth in Christianity.

What is sensible about an all powerful deity who rewards or punishes people to infinite degrees and for an infinite duration in payment for deeds of finite scope and duration using an obscure and frequently self-contradictory rubric?

Although there are lots of things I don't understand and parts that find I can't make much sense of I think that God and religion lie outside the realm of the scientific method [snip]

I am always impressed by how people who assert that there are "questions outside of what science can answer" assume they know what science would say if it could answer.

and therefore why abandon something that 'works', that contains a lot of truth that can also turn people's lives around and make them better people and isn't shown to be false?

Two reasons. Firstly, there is nothing that has been demonstrated to be true about Christianity. Secondly, Christianity, like all other religions, has been a part of terrible things in the past. At the very least belief in imaginary creatures slows human progress and insults human dignity.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 11:03 AM

So, then I guess my next question has to be: further to my arguments already espoused here, and in response to your acknowledgement of the problems of ritual over spirituality, do you believe that you can truly be a Christian without the rituals that the Judaeo-Christian doctrine splices into the more over-arching belief in a higher being?
Well, quite obviously, yes.

Induced drag comes from production of lift.

I accept as part of the deal that the various rituals are there, and not whine about them, just as I learned to communicate over HF radio and accept that static is part of the package. It is when I opened my heart to accepting the various differences, for all that their appearance was as "filler" if viewed by one trying to find fault, that I started to "get it."

DR

volatile

5th January 2007, 11:05 AM

Now that you put the question like that I can answer it - of course it doesn't follow, but it's not the only question.

So it's illogical? What are the other questions I'm missing?

Would you be so kind as to point out my sloppy, geo-centric thought.I had tried to do that in previous posts. Specifically, for illustration's sake, your contention that Jesus Christ was the Son of God because Paul said so, even though plenty of other people have claimed other divine revelations throughout the course of human history and across the pantheon of human cultures.

Your thinking is sloppy because it relies on the illogical and unsubstantiated word of a small collection of politicised proletysers, and it is geo-centric because, had you been born in Iran, you'd be making a similarly bold and assertive case for the authenticity of Islam, and had you been born in Mesoamerica, you'd swear blind that Quetzalcoatl was divine and "made sense".

RandFan

5th January 2007, 11:13 AM

Unlike me, they're too wise to waste time with you.:rolleyes: Hmmmm.....

We are grateful for your input Huntster. :)

ETA: This wasn't meant as a slight Huntster. I appreciate your being self deprecating.

RandFan

volatile

5th January 2007, 11:20 AM

I accept as part of the deal that the various rituals are there, and not whine about them, just as I learned to communicate over HF radio and accept that static is part of the package. It is when I opened my heart to accepting the various differences, for all that their appearance was as "filler" if viewed by one trying to find fault, that I started to "get it."

That's interesting, and, for me, inherently frustrating.

You're saying that to be religious you have to basically ignore all the incoherency that comes with doctrine? That would drive me potty, I'm afraid... I've always been a curious sort of chap (hence, I suppose, the academic career), and I'd find it impossible ever to be comfortable in a world-view that essentially demanded me to abandon my curiousity in order to accept it.

Mr Clingford

5th January 2007, 11:29 AM

So it's illogical? What are the other questions I'm missing? I find your question odd because I don't think anyone suggests that
the unprovability of a divine being logically lead[s] to a specifically Christian pattern of belief
Christianity did not start from the unproveability of God but from encountering God. OT encounters, then Jesus and Peter, Paul and the church onwards til now.

I had tried to do that in previous posts. Specifically, for illustration's sake, your contention that Jesus Christ was the Son of God because Paul said so, even though plenty of other people have claimed other divine revelations throughout the course of human history and across the pantheon of human cultures.As I have said it is not just because Paul said so. What exactly do you mean by 'divine revelations'?

Your thinking is sloppy because it relies on the illogical and unsubstantiated word of a small collection of politicised proletysers, and it is geo-centric because, had you been born in Iran, you'd be making a similarly bold and assertive case for the authenticity of Islam, and had you been born in Mesoamerica, you'd swear blind that Quetzalcoatl was divine.Where is it illogical? It might be true that Jesus was 'God'. But faith is not an abstract package of ideas in isolation from one's life as it informs it. Many people who have had violent, messy lives have through faith turned these lives around. The hope that change, redemption, is possible.

I did not understand what you meant by 'geo-centric' because that word is to do with viewing life/the universe as revolving around the Earth and humanity.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 11:33 AM

That's interesting, and, for me, inherently frustrating.

You're saying that to be religious you have to basically ignore all the incoherency that comes with doctrine? That would drive me potty, I'm afraid... I've always been a curious sort of chap (hence, I suppose, the academic career), and I'd find it impossible ever to be comfortable in a world-view that essentially demanded me to abandon my curiousity in order to accept it.
Matt, I make it a rule not to try an convert anyone on the internet. I think it is a complete waste of time. I also am not well trained in apologetics, which is an art, so I don't presume to offer any such to you. As I see it -- your mileage may vary -- there are two problems inherent in internet prostelytizing . . . perhaps more.

Faith isn't an abstract intellectual exercise, for starters, and for afters it is the interpersonal element of human, spiritual interaction that got me to where I am. No text book, no radio show, no televangelist, no chat room, no Papal decree had any Power to bring me to Faith. The Word, my curiosity, and a whole host of people over the course of my life, on the other hand, did.

That, to me is critical.

People, in the flesh.

I don't expect that much of anything I can offer you is going to be other than frustrating. FWIW, I spent some years wrapping my brain around the abstract, much as you appear to be doing, very much the agnostic. I think that was good for me, even in my frustration over detail.

I am not as far along the trail as Huntster is, but I've found a path worth following. You will or won't, as your life's journey pans out, depending on your choices.

DR

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 11:35 AM

I am not as far along the trail as Huntster is, but I've found a path worth following. You will or won't, as your life's journey pans out, depending on your choices.

DR

DR, with respect, how can a person choose to the find the improbable and the impossible to be convincing?

volatile

5th January 2007, 11:36 AM

Christianity did not start from the unproveability of God but from encountering God. OT encounters, then Jesus and Peter, Paul and the church onwards til now.

As I have said it is not just because Paul said so. What exactly do you mean by 'divine revelations'?

Mohammed encountered God. Joseph Smith encountered God. The ancient Greeks encountered Zeus. The mesoamericans encountered their divinities and Native American shamans encountered theirs...

Where is it illogical? It might be true that Jesus was 'God'. But faith is not an abstract package of ideas in isolation from one's life as it informs it. Many people who have had violent, messy lives have through faith turned these lives around. The hope that change, redemption, is possible.I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion at hand. It might well be the case that people can become nicer people after religious conversion. But that's not what's at hand, and your previous paragraph is a non-sequitor. Santa Claus is a pleasant tale to tell children, but that doesn't mean he exists.

It's illogical to extrapolate, as you seem to, that because there might be a God, he is definitely the specific God of the Judaeo-Christian bible, manifest in the corporeal form of Jesus Christ. That's the illogicality.

I did not understand what you meant by 'geo-centric' because that word is to do with viewing life/the universe as revolving around the Earth and humanity.Apologies for the confusion. By geo-centric, I meant geographically specific. That having been clarified, would you care to address the substantial point that your Judaeo-Christian belief is one you hold purely by geographical and chronological coincidence, not because Judaeo-Christianity holds any specific metaphysical truth value?

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 11:42 AM

Apologies for the confusion. By geo-centric, I meant geographically specific. That having been clarified, would you care to address the substantial point that your Judaeo-Christian belief is one you hold purely by geographical and chronological coincidence, not because Judaeo-Christianity holds any specific metaphysical truth value?

Gosh, I thought you were suggesting that it would be illogical for god to create a hostile universe so vast that we may not even be able to see its edges for the salvation of a few motes of dust living on a speck.

volatile

5th January 2007, 11:47 AM

Gosh, I thought you were suggesting that it would be illogical for god to create a hostile universe so vast that we may not even be able to see its edges for the salvation of a few motes of dust living on a speck.

Well, that too! But it wasn't the specific thought I had in mind at the time of posting, hence the retraction.

But you've had a rather wonderful knack of taking the words out of my mouth over the previous few posts, so please don't let this discourage you from continuing to do so! :)

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 11:52 AM

Well, that too! But it wasn't the specific thought I had in mind at the time of posting, hence the retraction.

But you've had a rather wonderful knack of taking the words out of my mouth over the previous few posts, so please don't let this discourage you from continuing to do so! :)

Thanks, but you give me too much credit. I thought you were refering to the geo-centric theory of the solar system.

volatile

5th January 2007, 11:54 AM

Thanks, but you give me too much credit. I thought you were refering to the geo-centric theory of the solar system.

Oh, I realised that. But whilst I do believe that religious thought is geo-centric in the way you mean, it wasn't specifically what I was referring to in the previous discussion, hence my clarification.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 11:56 AM

DR, with respect, how can a person choose to the find the improbable and the impossible to be convincing?
By learning that life isn't an academic exercise, and by being willing to risk being wrong. Try it sometime, it's liberating. :)

DR

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 12:03 PM

Mohammed encountered God.
Mohammed either did or didn't encounter God. The uncertainty is tantalizing, isn't it? I hold that Mohammed is a false Prophet, even though I risk being wrong. That's right, I have faith in my salvation through Jesus Christ, and I could be completely and utterly wrong. Mohammed may indeed have been other than a plagiarist, and thus the joke's really is on me. I'll never go to that rock in Mecca, and thus no virgins for me in Paradise. ROFL, on me, in the cosmic sense, eh?

Unlike some, I take delight in that sort of cosmic joke, and I am not going to lose a bit of sleep over it. See the Chesterton in my sig. :D

DR

volatile

5th January 2007, 12:04 PM

Matt, I make it a rule not to try an convert anyone on the internet. I think it is a complete waste of time. I also am not well trained in apologetics, which is an art, so I don't presume to offer any such to you. As I see it -- your mileage may vary -- there are two problems inherent in internet prostelytizing . . . perhaps more.

Faith isn't an abstract intellectual exercise, for starters, and for afters it is the interpersonal element of human, spiritual interaction that got me to where I am. No text book, no radio show, no televangelist, no chat room, no Papal decree had any Power to bring me to Faith. The Word, my curiosity, and a whole host of people over the course of my life, on the other hand, did.

That, to me is critical.

People, in the flesh.

I don't expect that much of anything I can offer you is going to be other than frustrating. FWIW, I spent some years wrapping my brain around the abstract, much as you appear to be doing, very much the agnostic. I think that was good for me, even in my frustration over detail.

I am not as far along the trail as Huntster is, but I've found a path worth following. You will or won't, as your life's journey pans out, depending on your choices.

DR

I appreciate your honesty in regards to proletysation, and I concur wholeheartedly. It muddies the terms of the discussion, and so I'm glad to set conversion questions to one side.

Firstly, I want to echo ID's question as to how one might choose to cast aside reason for illogicality.

Secondly, I'd like to address your point that faith isn't an intellectual exercise, when theologians and philosophers have presented faith precisely in these terms for centuries. Why shouldn't it be an intellectual enterprise?

What struck me most about my particular atheistic epiphany was the degree to which reason and critical thinking must be abolished if one is to embrace a theistic, dogmatic worldview. If faith is inherently absurd, which you seem to imply that it might be, what reason should anyone have for embracing it?

As mentioned in previous posts, it's problematic for me that otherwise intelligent, critically-aware people are willing to abandon their intellect in pursuit of a comfort blanket of faith that goes beyond the bounds of their sense. I can see, though I don't subscribe, why someone might be a deist. Deism is compatible with sensible thinking, by and large. But the obvious illogicality of picking once specific doctrine of faith to the exclusion of all others is what never ceases to amaze me, and one which, despite my best efforts, has still not been justified, other than your suggestions which seem to amount to the contention that it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you do believe.

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 12:04 PM

Oh, I realised that. But whilst I do believe that religious thought is geo-centric in the way you mean, it wasn't specifically what I was referring to in the previous discussion, hence my clarification.

Well, there's no shortage of reasons why religion is illogical.

By learning that life isn't an academic exercise, and by being willing to risk being wrong. Try it sometime, it's liberating. :)

DR

That is the scariest thing you could have said. Believing in ideas, especially ideas that are wrong or dangerous, because one don't care about their validity is what I consider to be an egregious ethical lapse in the responsability that comes with having a functioning brain.

volatile

5th January 2007, 12:10 PM

By learning that life isn't an academic exercise, and by being willing to risk being wrong. Try it sometime, it's liberating. :)

DR

The beauty of not having faith is that we're perfectly capable of being wrong, and indeed are always actually trying to find out if we are.

The faithful, on the other hand, seem to stop short of this exercise, and settle at "God did it". It's academic exercise, and not faith, which allows freedom of thinking. Once you've subscribed to a specific belief-set, you're pretty much locked in!

volatile

5th January 2007, 12:12 PM

Mohammed either did or didn't encounter God. The uncertainty is tantalizing, isn't it? I hold that Mohammed is a false Prophet, even though I risk being wrong. That's right, I have faith in my salvation through Jesus Christ, and I could be completely and utterly wrong. Mohammed may indeed have been other than a plagiarist, and thus the joke's really is on me. I'll never go to that rock in Mecca, and thus no virgins for me in Paradise. ROFL, on me, in the cosmic sense, eh?

Unlike some, I take delight in that sort of cosmic joke, and I am not going to lose a bit of sleep over it. See the Chesterton in my sig. :D

DR

Would accept, though, that your choice of Jesus over Mohammed over Zeus over Vishnu is happy accident rather than any overwhelming truth value as to the divinity of ole JC?

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 12:38 PM

That is the scariest thing you could have said. Believing in ideas, especially ideas that are wrong or dangerous, because one don't care about their validity is what I consider to be an egregious ethical lapse in the responsability that comes with having a functioning brain.
You are welcome to your perspective on that.

I've had enough self important people try to convince me of seeing things their way over the course of a lifetime that your PoV impresses me no more than any before me. Another voice in the Greek Chorus, telling me "for my own good" what I ought to believe. I'll take my own pathway, thanks, friend ID. May you have the joy of yours.

Cheers.

DR

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 12:40 PM

You are welcome to your perspective on that.

I've had enough self important people try to convince me of seeing things their way over the course of a lifetime that your PoV impresses me no more than any before me. Another voice in the Greek Chorus, telling me "for my own good" what I ought to believe. I'll take my own pathway, thanks, friend ID. May you have the joy of yours.

Cheers.

DR

I'm not asking you to see things my way. I'm asking you to care about whether the things you embrace are true or false.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 12:42 PM

Would accept, though, that your choice of Jesus over Mohammed over Zeus over Vishnu is happy accident rather than any overwhelming truth value as to the divinity of ole JC?
"Accident" my sainted aunt's backside. The journey began when I was 18 and first got involved in a Bible study (rejected the Fundies running after about a year) and took some 25 years of looking around to find what I was looking for. I am still not convinced that the Tao isn't divinely inspired, but I can't prove it.

No, Matt, not an accident. Not hardly.

DR

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 12:43 PM

I'm not asking you to see things my way. I'm asking you to care about whether the things you embrace are true or false.
I was born at night, ID, not last night.

DR

volatile

5th January 2007, 12:48 PM

"Accident" my sainted aunt's backside. The journey began when I was 18 and first got involved in a Bible study (rejected the Fundies running after about a year) and took some 25 years of looking around to find what I was looking for. I am still not convinced that the Tao isn't divinely inspired, but I can't prove it.

No, Matt, not an accident. Not hardly.

DR

The key there is "involved in Bible study"... biblical study is a very historically and geographically specific practice. Had you been born in India, I suspect your outcome may have been different.

What is it particularly about the judaeo-christian belief system which proves it to be correct above all other theologies?

I sense it doesn't really matter to you if it is.

volatile

5th January 2007, 12:49 PM

I was born at night, ID, not last night.

DR

That's an odd way not to answer a question, DR... have we gotten to the stage where the answers to our questions have become so illogical that the only recourse is to evasion?

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 12:50 PM

I was born at night, ID, not last night.

DR

But I was born early enough in the morning to pull one over on you.

Hey, if you get to use a cliche, I get to use a cliche.

ETA: Seriously though, what is more important about an idea than how true it is? Ideas aren't cookies or flowers, sweetness and prettiness aren't their most important characteristics.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 01:20 PM

That's an odd way not to answer a question, DR... have we gotten to the stage where the answers to our questions have become so illogical that the only recourse is to evasion?
No, we have gotten to the point where it is still an academic exercise for you, but it isn't for me. Most conversations on this topic tend to reach what I call a "culminating point," (OK, I borrow that from Clausewitz) after which diminishing returns are rather rapidly reached. I sense that this characteristic is part of your frustration, from your opening sentiments. If you seek someone well versed in apologetics, I am sadly unable to offer that.

It's personal, and at some point, what I have isn't going to get to you over 1's and 0's in text. That is part the reason of why I don't try to convert, or prostletyze on the internet, and why I don't care for those who do, be they atheist or religious of any stripe.

So, there is a limit to how far conversation can take us. ID and I have perhaps reached it. Not sure if you and I have, though I hope not, since I like your style.

DR

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 01:23 PM

But I was born early enough in the morning to pull one over on you.

Hey, if you get to use a cliche, I get to use a cliche.

ETA: Seriously though, what is more important about an idea than how true it is? Ideas aren't cookies or flowers, sweetness and prettiness aren't their most important characteristics.
What kind of idea? And why do you use the word "true" rather than "good" which is how I tend to frame ideas: good idea, bad idea.

For example, is democracy a good idea? Is it a true idea? Those two questions don't match.

DR

hammegk

5th January 2007, 01:25 PM

I'm not asking you to see things my way. I'm asking you to care about whether the things you embrace are true or false.
I care, but I have doubts. Perhaps if you would tell me what is true, I'll find something to embrace?

I admit I do have 100% faith that thought exists. What else do you offer?

drkitten

5th January 2007, 01:28 PM

No, we have gotten to the point where it is still an academic exercise for you, but it isn't for me. Most conversations on this topic tend to reach what I call a "culminating point," (OK, I borrow that from Clausewitz) after which diminishing returns are rather rapidly reached. I sense that this characteristic is part of your frustration, from your opening sentiments. If you seek someone well versed in apologetics, I am sadly unable to offer that.

What's so sad about that? Apologetics is a skill, and a rather rare one at that. I'd no more expect a random person on the net to be well versed in apologetics than I would expect her to be well-versed in dental surgery.

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 01:30 PM

What kind of idea? And why do you use the word "true" rather than "good" which is how I tend to frame ideas: good idea, bad idea.

For example, is democracy a good idea? Is it a true idea? Those two questions don't match.

DR

Good point.

However, the question whether an idea can be true depends on wether it is normative or positive. Democracy, being an idea of how things should be, is normative. Things that don't exist yet can't be confirmed to be true, though I think they can confirmed to be false (2 + 2 will not equal five tomorrow, since it is illogical and logic doesn't change with events,) so I agree with you there.

However, Christianity hinges on a great many positive statements, statements about the structure of reality right now, and those statements are all either false or unfalsifiable.

drkitten

5th January 2007, 01:39 PM

However, Christianity hinges on a great many positive statements, statements about the structure of reality right now, and those statements are all either false or unfalsifiable.

And the standardized methodology of skepticism assumes that the last two terms are synonymous.

And then skeptics wonder why evangelical Christians don't take them seriously.

It's also simply not true that Christianity's positive statements about the structure of reality right now are either false or unfalsifiable. The three-in-one nature of the Trinity, for example, could easily be falsified if God appears to you and said "what, three in one? No, I'm actually four in one, but we had to leave the Eric Clapton aspect on the cutting room floor because we were running out of special effects budget." (You might not find that falsification convincing -- that's the reliability of falsification problem that Popper never found a satisfactory solution to. But it's a falsification nevertheless.)

More generally, you cannot make the assumption that because qualia are externally inaccessible, they cannot falsify things. For example, it's very easy for you to falsify the claim that you will go to Heaven when you die. The problem is that while you might well get proof adequate to satisfy you, you are unlikely to be able to share your proof with anyone.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 01:42 PM

....Huntster: the RCC does indeed embody much that is good, for all my personal complaints otherwise. The priest who officiated our marriage is one of the most decent human beings to walk the earth.....

I've known lots of priests, a few archbishops, and even served as an altar boy for a cardinal.

One of my favorite two priests is still alive and lives down the road here, semi-retired. He "re-married" Mrs. Huntster on our 20th anniversary, but that's not why he's my favorite.

Without even trying, he brought the liturgy back for me by simply praising God from the heart and soul.

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 01:51 PM

And the standardized methodology of skepticism assumes that the last two terms are synonymous.

No. The question of whether there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter not clearly false, it is unverifiable with current equipment. The only things that are clearly false are the illogical, the disproven, and self-contradictory. 2+2=5 is false. God is unfalsifable. Get it right.

And then skeptics wonder why evangelical Christians don't take them seriously.

It's also simply not true that Christianity's positive statements about the structure of reality right now are either false or unfalsifiable. The three-in-one nature of the Trinity, for example, could easily be falsified if God appears to you and said "what, three in one? No, I'm actually four in one, but we had to leave the Eric Clapton aspect on the cutting room floor because we were running out of special effects budget." (You might not find that falsification convincing -- that's the reliability of falsification problem that Popper never found a satisfactory solution to. But it's a falsification nevertheless.)

More generally, you cannot make the assumption that because qualia are externally inaccessible, they cannot falsify things. For example, it's very easy for you to falsify the claim that you will go to Heaven when you die. The problem is that while you might well get proof adequate to satisfy you, you are unlikely to be able to share your proof with anyone.

DANGER, Will Robinson, DANGER. My sensors detect prevarication. Saying that Heaven is falsifiable because it is inacessable requires a most unusual definition of "inacessable" because god is clearly stated in the Bible to send down angels on numerous tasks, and an angel that were to bring me information from dead people that no one could know and which would be testable, such as the secret word Houdini included in his will which he promised to include in any afterlife missives so the recipients would be assured of their validity, or a note from Jimmy Hoffa telling us his burial place would help to confirm the existence of Heaven.

As four your pitiful trinity example, god could simply be lying or mistaken. If it weren't for modern medical science, I couldn't tell you whether my genetic information were a double or tripple helix. If god were to submit himself for detailed examination, the subdivisions of it could be ascertained. However, since god is only as real as Harvey the White Rabbit, apologists such as you feel obligated to explain his non-existence as a reason to believe in his existence.

God is claimed to possess sufficent magical powers for any believer to dismiss any lack of evidence as god's magical handwaving to avoid being tested. Dowsers and woos of all stripes claim that their pet phenomoenon is likewise untestable. Such a magical phenomenon is correctly designated "unfalsifiable."

ETA: As far as self-contradition goes, the god of the Bible is anything but shy. It's extremely inconsistent for a being who turns people into salt, makes asses speak, and stops the sun in sky to become as shy as a mouse when people go looking for him.

billydkid

5th January 2007, 04:13 PM

Mohammed either did or didn't encounter God. The uncertainty is tantalizing, isn't it? I hold that Mohammed is a false Prophet, even though I risk being wrong. That's right, I have faith in my salvation through Jesus Christ, and I could be completely and utterly wrong. Mohammed may indeed have been other than a plagiarist, and thus the joke's really is on me. I'll never go to that rock in Mecca, and thus no virgins for me in Paradise. ROFL, on me, in the cosmic sense, eh?

Unlike some, I take delight in that sort of cosmic joke, and I am not going to lose a bit of sleep over it. See the Chesterton in my sig. :D

DR

Don't you think there might be some real value in believing things you actually know to be true rather than arbitrarily choosing to believe something you can not possibly know to be true. You don't do that in other areas of you life. I could choose to believe I can walk through walls, but that would be stupid. The truth of things is important to you in all other areas of your life. Why wouldn't that be so in regard to such things as gods and saviours?

billydkid

5th January 2007, 04:26 PM

Didn't you read the post to which you responded? -- A good example [is] the so-called "miracle of life" (pregnancy and reproduction), which has achieved the status of a cliche.

Wait a second, by definition wouldn't a miracle be something that happens unpredictably and not a few million times a day?

billydkid

5th January 2007, 04:38 PM

One has either "known" God or one hasn't

Ok, please explain to me just exactly what this means. Explain it to me. I know my next door neighbor. I have spoken to him and he has spoken back. I have seen him mowing his lawn. I have even shaken his hand. I know he exists. Please tell me, how did God look when you met him? Does he have a deep voice? Does he really have a long robe and long flowing white hair? Did he appear in your living room? In what way did you sense his existence. It doesn't really help putting quotation marks around the word. I have no idea what the implications of them are. I guess it means that you don't know him literally. If you don't know him literally, in what way do you know him. Is there another way to know someone besides knowing them. It reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart's claim that God "speak to his heart". Hmmm, does Jimmy's heart have ears?

billydkid

5th January 2007, 04:54 PM

kitten, I want to apologize for my last message. It was pointlessly snotty and disrespectful. I'm sorry.

RandFan

5th January 2007, 05:05 PM

The three-in-one nature of the Trinity, for example, could easily be falsified if God appears to you and said "what, three in one? And if I showed you a square circle? What if god showed you a square circle? What if god proceeded to create a rock too heavy for him to lift up and then proceeded to change it back so he could pick it up? What if god made a prediction about what he would do the next day? What if the next day he changed his mind?

ImaginalDisc

5th January 2007, 05:42 PM

kitten, I want to apologize for my last message. It was pointlessly snotty and disrespectful. I'm sorry.

I thought it was a perfectly legitimate question when faced with the ridiculous notion that a person can "know" a god who refuses to exist.

The Atheist

5th January 2007, 07:50 PM

Pretty easy to sort the children from the adults in this thread - fortunately, it appears to have only one of the former.

For chrissake, NOBODY let on to KK that this is a religion thread.

Good work, Matt, you've got 'em all in here.

Much better than bumper stickers. I'm loving this.

I'm surprised that nobody's yet mentioned [or I missed it] that the only falsifiable statement in the religion debate is:

No god exists.

joobz

5th January 2007, 10:00 PM

While listening to the Q&A session with Dawkins from his book reading (link is in the "What if your Wrong" thread)

I was interested in the number of people who wished to as him questions in effort to challenge him and had started with a statement of, "I'm impressed how well you debate... How well you reason.. You have an amazing way of words.." then they would ask a somewhat juvinile and not well thought out question.

The part that struck me was how all of these statements were an admission that they couldn't challenge the statements he made. Or that they were at a loss to understand or wished to not think about what was said. It was almost as though they valued this attitude of dissmissiveness.

Perhaps it is this aspect that prevents a number of christians from developing more complex arguments for god's existence. That and also it is a much more difficult point to debate.

Huntster

5th January 2007, 11:49 PM

....I could choose to believe I can walk through walls, but that would be stupid....

Yeah, it would be stupid, but don't let that stop you.

In fact, for your first attempt, show some faith.

Take a running start, and begin with a concrete block wall..........

PixyMisa

6th January 2007, 12:26 AM

And the standardized methodology of skepticism assumes that the last two terms are synonymous.

Nope. For example, I can look at this statement skeptically, and determine that it is false, and hence not unfalsifiable.

Falsifiability is a question of the utility of a statement, not its truth value. So unfalsifiable statements about God are not false, but worthless.

And then skeptics wonder why evangelical Christians don't take them seriously.

No we don't.

It's also simply not true that Christianity's positive statements about the structure of reality right now are either false or unfalsifiable. The three-in-one nature of the Trinity, for example, could easily be falsified if God appears to you and said "what, three in one? No, I'm actually four in one, but we had to leave the Eric Clapton aspect on the cutting room floor because we were running out of special effects budget." (You might not find that falsification convincing -- that's the reliability of falsification problem that Popper never found a satisfactory solution to. But it's a falsification nevertheless.)

Define God, and I can tell you whether this is a valid example of falsification.

More generally, you cannot make the assumption that because qualia are externally inaccessible, they cannot falsify things.

I have yet to see a definition of qualia that is coherent. The concept only works under dualism, and dualism is either an incoherent concept itself or a concept describing a universe that is not logically consistent.

If qualia are simply mental experiences, then under materialism they necessarily are externally accessible (in principle) because they are nothing but physical processes. (And under idealism the corresponding but reverse situation holds.)

The only way to coherently define qualia such that they are inaccessible - and I have yet to see anyone do this - is to explicitly define qualia to be inaccessible.

billydkid

6th January 2007, 08:49 AM

Yeah, it would be stupid, but don't let that stop you.

In fact, for your first attempt, show some faith.

Take a running start, and begin with a concrete block wall.......... Wow, clever!!! It hasn't stopped you from believing in fairy tales.

Huntster

6th January 2007, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yeah, it would be stupid, but don't let that stop you.

In fact, for your first attempt, show some faith.

Take a running start, and begin with a concrete block wall..........
Wow, clever!!! It hasn't stopped you from believing in fairy tales.

I don't believe in fairies, whether or not they have tails.

billydkid

6th January 2007, 03:03 PM

I don't believe in fairies, whether or not they have tails.

Yes, impressive catch.

hammegk

6th January 2007, 05:08 PM

This seems appropriate here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009482

The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite.

:)

volatile

6th January 2007, 05:28 PM

"The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite."

:)

That works both ways, Hammegk.

The theists say that they are addressing atheists. Faithful all, can they believe that rationalists would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite.

RandFan

6th January 2007, 05:38 PM

The atheists say that they are addressing believers.Not quite true. Haris, Dawkins and the rest all concede that they are not going to persuade died in the wool believers. The audience they seek are those who are on the fence (those that are not quite taken with religion) and young people.

I used to be of the opinion that Atheists needed to be more diplomatic. I'm not so sure anymore. I think we need to raise awareness and give those who are atheists the courage to speak up. So yes, in a big way the message is being preached to the choir in hopes of raising the volume of the message. It's simply an idea whose time has come. Atheism isn't the boogeyman and there is not one single legitimate reason why an Atheist shouldn't hold public office. There is no reason that atheists should be the most distrusted group in America.

hammegk

6th January 2007, 05:44 PM

That works both ways, Hammegk.
Not here.

volatile

6th January 2007, 05:47 PM

Not here.

You in the same place as I am?

The Atheist

6th January 2007, 05:50 PM

Not quite true. Haris, Dawkins and the rest all concede that they are not going to persuade died in the wool believers. The audience they seek are those who are on the fence (those that are not quite taken with religion) and young people. I think that if Dawkins and others believe that, they're deluding themselves at least as much as any christian. Take TAM as a case in point - it's all about sceptics, not people in doubt, and I suggest that people who read Dawkins' books are the same, either those who are already atheists, or strong theists who like to cherry-pick it as we do the bible.
I used to be of the opinion that Atheists needed to be more diplomatic. I'm not so sure anymore. I think we need to raise awareness and give those who are atheists the courage to speak up. So yes, in a big way the message is being preached to the choir in hopes of raising the volume of the message. It's simply an idea whose time has come. Atheism isn't the boogeyman and there is not one single legitimate reason why an Atheist shouldn't hold public office. There is no reason that atheists should be the most distrusted group in America.That's quite funny, actually. I used to think like that, but I'd have to confess that I'm beginning to think there might be more merit in a calmer approach.

The old adage, "you can catch more flies with jam than vinegar" is right and maybe that's how we should approach dialogue with christians. You can present all the evidence in the world and debunk every page of the bible, but it just hardens the resolve of the faithful and ends up confusing the doubters.

If we should show secular humanism as a system which can offer the benefits of both atheism and theism, while just leaving the supernatural out of the equation, it might carry more weight with the doubters. This is one of the reasons why I started the charity thread - theists have a low opinion of atheists as self-serving, selfish people and it might be that, on the whole, they're correct.

Since atheism is tarred with that brush, using a softer touch might encourage people to question their beliefs if they see a viable and compassionate alternative.

qayak

6th January 2007, 06:01 PM

The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite.

Now atheists have to worry that the delicate dispositions of believers will be offended by the truth? :dl:

I agree with Dawkins, who cares? The condescension is in the deluded mind of the believer. The atheist does not insult the intelligence of believers, the believers do that themselves.

qayak

6th January 2007, 06:11 PM

Take TAM as a case in point - it's all about sceptics, not people in doubt. . .

What is your point? A skeptic convention that is all about skeptics, is a surprise to you?

You make it sound like an atheist's job is to convert people. It isn't, that is a believer's belief. Dawkins puts the cold hard facts out there expecting that people can handle the truth. The vocal few that can't are hardly worth worrying about.

hammegk

6th January 2007, 06:15 PM

You in the same place as I am?
We both seem to be posting "here". It's very difficult to communicate otherwise -- not that much in the way of communication actually occurs here.

clarsct

6th January 2007, 11:24 PM

The problem is, thought, that all listeners are flawed.

To give an infinite series of explanations would require an infinite amount of knowledge, something that no human being has or can ever hope to have. If you really think that we know how pregnancy and childbirth work, all the way down, then why is there still research being done in the field? Or to use the weather example -- why is the axial tilt of the Earth about 23 degrees? Why isn't it 28, or 13? I don't believe that anyone, from the three year old to the top planetary astrophysicist in the world, has a meaningful answer for this question beyond "that's just the way it is."
And Achilles never gets there.

The axis of the Earth is actually ever shifting, it's near 23 degrees at the moment. We actually do know why it shifts. Why is it at 23 degrees right now? Randomness. Randomness does not mean we do not know the process, but that the process has an essential chaotic element to it. We don't know which genes will come from the mother or the father, because the process is essentially random.

If this randomness is the basis for anyone's belief in God, then they might want to take a good, hard look. Might as well say the God runs Las Vegas.

You're welcome to disagree. My point was not to argue that God is the gaps, but to point out a valid -- and as far as I can tell, unarguable-with -- perspective that evangelical Christians share in which they bellieve God to be the gaps. And holding the opinion that God is the gaps may be an opinion with which you disagree, but it's not necessarily a stupid one.

It is, necessarily, an illogical one.

I agree that people, intelligent people, hold all sorts of ideas based on illogical premises, even skeptics. I probably do, too. I know I do.
(I happen to think my wife is the most beautiful, talented and patient woman on the planet. Evidence: She puts up with me.)

But when you're talking about your system of morality, and the system by which you want to pursue your goals and aspirations, religion is a poorly thought out one.

I doubt I'd change many minds by pointing some of these things out, much the same as you would have difficulty changing my mind about my wife, but I will be honest about my views, and about pointing out that such an arguement is flawed.

I love my wife, and I know my thoughts on her are flawed, and I simply do not care that they are....

....but the flaw remains.

RandFan

7th January 2007, 12:07 AM

Since atheism is tarred with that brush, using a softer touch might encourage people to question their beliefs if they see a viable and compassionate alternative.Atheists have always remained quiet and it has gotten them no where. I think awareness is the single most important thing. You've got to get people to think, to acknowledge that atheists are just humans. That's what worked during the civil rights era and I think it will work now. Sure there will be a backlash but in the end we will be better for the efforts. Sitting down and shutting up certainly isn't the answer and playing nice doesn't help. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, et al haven't done anything that any mainstream political group hasn't done.

IMO we are on the right track. We just need to get a number of the atheists to stand up and speak out. Avoid personal attack but demonstrate strenth in our convictions.

Thanks,

RandFan

clarsct

7th January 2007, 12:14 AM

Atheists have always remained quiet and it has gotten them no where. I think awareness is the single most important thing. You've got to get people to think, to acknowledge that atheists are just humans. That's what worked during the civil rights era and I think it will work now. Sure there will be a backlash but in the end we will be better for the efforts. Sitting down and shutting up certainly isn't the answer and playing nice doesn't help. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, et al haven't done anything that any mainstream political group hasn't done.

IMO we are on the right track. We just need to get a number of the atheists to stand up and speak out. Avoid personal attack but demonstrate strenth in our convictions.

Thanks,

RandFan

Hrm.

I think you're both right, to a degree.

We need to get the message out, and I think TA has that in mind, but he'd like to see the message be a little more user friendly than 'Xians are idiots.'

There seems to be a certain....smugness....about atheists sometimes. It's a perception that needs changing. We need to be loud, yes, but loud and friendly.

I understand that you were a missionary(or whatever equivalent) for the Mormon church, RF. Did you preach fire and brimstone all the time, or did you hold youth group activities that were fun and educational? Maybe you did both, but I think Athiests would benefit from doing the latter as opposed to the former.

Just a $.02.

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 01:08 AM

Hrm.

I think you're both right, to a degree.

We need to get the message out, and I think TA has that in mind, but he'd like to see the message be a little more user friendly than 'Xians are idiots.'

There seems to be a certain....smugness....about atheists sometimes. It's a perception that needs changing. We need to be loud, yes, but loud and friendly.

I understand that you were a missionary(or whatever equivalent) for the Mormon church, RF. Did you preach fire and brimstone all the time, or did you hold youth group activities that were fun and educational? Maybe you did both, but I think Athiests would benefit from doing the latter as opposed to the former.

Just a $.02.Tosser! $0-02 all you can afford? :D

I think you're onto it. I find the greatest difficulty is in stopping myself from just throwing up my arms and going, "you thicko ####!"

The growth in chirstianity is unquestionably fundamental, all round the world. And they do it exactly as you note; fun for the pre-teens, get 'em hooked while they're young, they'll believe anything. Jesus Camp, anyone?

Thirty years ago, they called them cults and used de-programmers to unconvert these gullible twats.

How you combat it is the problem, but I don't see Dawkins having much appeal to 13 year olds.

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 01:09 AM

Might as well say the God runs Las Vegas.

Definitely Satan

RandFan

7th January 2007, 01:11 AM

Hrm.

I think you're both right, to a degree.

We need to get the message out, and I think TA has that in mind, but he'd like to see the message be a little more user friendly than 'Xians are idiots.'

There seems to be a certain....smugness....about atheists sometimes. It's a perception that needs changing. We need to be loud, yes, but loud and friendly.

I understand that you were a missionary(or whatever equivalent) for the Mormon church, RF. Did you preach fire and brimstone all the time, or did you hold youth group activities that were fun and educational? Maybe you did both, but I think Athiests would benefit from doing the latter as opposed to the former.

Just a $.02.Thank you.

Mormon missionaries (M&M's) are the picture of understated. Meek, mild and ever so friendly. I can tell you that it is sincere for most. It is an odd dynamic that M&M's lose themselves in the service of others. My missionary work absolutely convinced me that there was a basis for the Christian philosophy of serving your fellow man. Though I have to confess that once a person gets married, purchases a home and has children the priorities shift dramatically which is why M&M's are single.

That said I don't know how that would work for atheists. I'm not against it but atheists don't have missionaries that are compliant to strict rules of conduct like M&M's are.

If it's true that organizing atheists is like herding cats then I suspect that the best we can do is move atheists to action and let their consciousness be their guide. I think the most important step is action.

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 01:21 AM

What is your point? A skeptic convention that is all about skeptics, is a surprise to you?Hardly, but as I've pointed out a time or two, as it's a JREF thing, what educational value is there in it? Do people come to find out whether astrology is real or to flag-wave and drink piss?

There's nothing wrong with flag-waving and drinking piss - done plenty of that myself in my time - as long as you have no goals beyond that. If you do, then a little more effort is necessary.

You make it sound like an atheist's job is to convert people. It isn't, that is a believer's belief. Dawkins puts the cold hard facts out there expecting that people can handle the truth. The vocal few that can't are hardly worth worrying about.
Yeah, that works, eh?

How many years since we figured out that the Earth orbits the sun rather than the other way round? How long since Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species? The cold, hard facts have been available for ever. I suggest that Dawkins has persuaded virtually no people to give up their beliefs, but has made lots of money trying to [make money].

"The vocal few".

The vocal few what? The billion catholics, or the other billion christians? Maybe the billion muslims? The billion hindus perhaps?

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 01:26 AM

There is no reason that atheists should be the most distrusted group in America.
Apart from the fact that we're all in the employ of Satan, sure.

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 01:30 AM

Last edited by mattlodder : Today at 01:36 PM. Reason: ETA: ...not that I don't share your distaste for the rather rapid decline in the quality to argument in the thread!Always happens when I come in. I destroy threads for a hobby.

Have you registered at the Ship of Fools? You'd enjoy it there. Clingford asked me over and is still regretting it, but as a scholar and gentleman (of which I'm neither), you'll be welcomed. No fundies, great bunch of devout and intelligent christians, with the odd hardline agnostic thrown in for a lively debate.

RandFan

7th January 2007, 01:38 AM

Apart from the fact that we're all in the employ of Satan, sure.Shhhh..... Dude, come on. You keep this up and we are going to take away your decoder ring.

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 01:46 AM

Shhhh..... Dude, come on. You keep this up and we are going to take away your decoder ring.Pssh, I agree with them and type the lord's prayer backwards.

When they're at that level of unmentality, all hope is long gone.

qayak

7th January 2007, 02:33 AM

How many years since we figured out that the Earth orbits the sun rather than the other way round? How long since Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species? The cold, hard facts have been available for ever. I suggest that Dawkins has persuaded virtually no people to give up their beliefs, but has made lots of money trying to [make money].

Excuse me, but up until Dawkins everyone has given religion far more respect than it deserves. The soft touch has been the one that hasn't worked since Darwin's time. Sagan was a lot nicer to religion but that didn't get a lot of converts did it? Gould didn't have much success either and he was really polite.

You can suggest anything you want but the fact is, you do not know how many people have converted because of Dawkins or anyone else. I can just as easily point to a lot of nice people who haven't had any success.

And as far as that goes, I don't see Dawkins as being particularly rude. In all the interviews I have seen, it has been the religious fanatic that he is in discussion with that has launched the attacks.

Finally, I suggest that Dawkins' style is just what we need. Someone who isn't afraid to be controversial is going to get the atheist and scientific movements far more publicity and have more of a positive influence than all the nice people who nobody has ever heard of, combined.

Have you ever wondered why Dawkins is so popular right now? Do you really think it is because of atheists? How do you get an anti-religion book onto the best sellers lists by selling only to one group? How did Dawkins get so many? Look at all the great science books written by great scientists that have little success. If your suggestion was correct that Dawkins is only selling to the already converted, wouldn't these books sell far better?

The fact is, Dawkins makes money selling books because they are good books that speak on subjects people want to hear about. The bonus with Dawkins is that his anti-religion stand is so well known that no religion would dare take his quotes out of context to support their own agenda. That's what happened to Sagan, Feynman and Gould. Pick up a few Jehovah's Witness books and read them. You will never see Dawkins in there, even the peons of the JW know who he is and exactly where he stands on the god issue.

qayak

7th January 2007, 02:37 AM

"The vocal few".

The vocal few what? The billion catholics, or the other billion christians? Maybe the billion muslims? The billion hindus perhaps?

With a billion Catholics speaking out against Dawkins, I am surprised he gets a moment of air time! :rolleyes:

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 02:40 AM

And as far as that goes, I don't see Dawkins as being particularly rude. In all the interviews I have seen, it has been the religious fanatic that he is in discussion with that has launched the attacks.

Rudeness is no issue at all, I just don't see him as having any charisma. Maybe he's seen differently in USA, but in the commonwealth, I'd say that, other than flag-wavers, he's seen as a typical pommy twat.

Religion seems to have declined quite nicely in every part of the developed world barring USA, so obviously something's been working for 50 or so years. Religion's in the minority throughout Europe, all long before Dawkins started his crusade.

Check in 10 years' time.

joobz

7th January 2007, 02:54 AM

Rudeness is no issue at all, I just don't see him as having any charisma. Maybe he's seen differently in USA, but in the commonwealth, I'd say that, other than flag-wavers, he's seen as a typical pommy twat.
he's got that stammering, british accent that americans find quite endearing. It's what gave Hugh Grant his career.

Religion seems to have declined quite nicely in every part of the developed world barring USA, so obviously something's been working for 50 or so years. Religion's in the minority throughout Europe, all long before Dawkins started his crusade.

Check in 10 years' time.
I do not know how true any of this is. I think you can find pockets of declining religion at various moments in history. But there always seems to be some great conflict that arises that re-initiates views of faith.

The only difference now is the interconnectedness and continous access of the internet.

qayak

7th January 2007, 03:19 AM

Rudeness is no issue at all,

My opinion as well but others seem to differ.

I just don't see him as having any charisma. Maybe he's seen differently in USA, but in the commonwealth, I'd say that, other than flag-wavers, he's seen as a typical pommy twat.

He has enough charisma to get on television just fine. :p

That last time I checked, Canada was part of the Commonwealth and he isn't viewed that way here. :D

Religion seems to have declined quite nicely in every part of the developed world barring USA, so obviously something's been working for 50 or so years. Religion's in the minority throughout Europe, all long before Dawkins started his crusade.

Check in 10 years' time.

Dawkins has been at it for more than 20 years, so I guess he gets some of the credit for the 50 year decline decline.

clarsct

7th January 2007, 03:19 AM

he's got that stammering, british accent that americans find quite endearing. It's what gave Hugh Grant his career.

I do not know how true any of this is. I think you can find pockets of declining religion at various moments in history. But there always seems to be some great conflict that arises that re-initiates views of faith.

The only difference now is the interconnectedness and continous access of the internet.

Don't underestimate that!

I wonder how many became more open because they found that they were not alone? I know it's helped me, personally, having this group, as well as others, who think along similar lines.

The Internet may very well be one of the most defining instruments in the society and culture of the next century.

I hope I'm around long enough to enjoy it!

H3LL

7th January 2007, 03:32 AM

I don't believe in fairies, whether or not they have tails.

It's rather hard to know what you do believe in.

We have established that you don't believe in approx. 90% of the bible, including christ, but do believe is some parts of religions other than christianity.

As for tails, you made a rather pathetic attempt at trying to present ermine as not having tails.

.

Huntster

7th January 2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't believe in fairies, whether or not they have tails.
It's rather hard to know what you do believe in.

I don't give much of a damn if you know what I believe or not.

We have established that you don't believe in approx. 90% of the bible, including christ, but do believe is some parts of religions other than christianity.

You haven't established squat. You just stated that it's hard to know what I believe in.

If you're really interested, work on it harder.

As for tails, you made a rather pathetic attempt at trying to present ermine as not having tails.

I've seen ermines. Skinned a couple. They have tails.

Fairies? I don't know. I've never seen a fairy.

Look down at your ass and let us know if you have a tail or not.....

Darth Rotor

7th January 2007, 10:46 AM

Don't you think there might be some real value in believing things you actually know to be true rather than arbitrarily choosing to believe something you can not possibly know to be true. You don't do that in other areas of you life. I could choose to believe I can walk through walls, but that would be stupid. The truth of things is important to you in all other areas of your life. Why wouldn't that be so in regard to such things as gods and saviours?
You are free to apply whatever framework to your life that you wish, and I wish you great joy in it. Please don't ask me to look through your cookie cutter, it's rather presumptious.

DR

Darth Rotor

7th January 2007, 10:54 AM

Not quite true. Haris, Dawkins and the rest all concede that they are not going to persuade died in the wool believers. The audience they seek are those who are on the fence (those that are not quite taken with religion) and young people.

I used to be of the opinion that Atheists needed to be more diplomatic. I'm not so sure anymore.
I'd say your first feeling on this is probably more correct, based on my years of mistrust and distrust of many of the Fundies and their shrill approach to the topic. I find the combative atheist at least as distasteful, which colors the message.

More flies with honey. If the product is good, it will sell, but you can still scare off customers with a crappy sales pitch. Put in a different context, yelling louder doesn't make the foreigner speak English any better when you are asking for directions.

DR

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 11:01 AM

he's got that stammering, british accent that americans find quite endearing. It's what gave Hugh Grant his career.Never mind religion, I'd like to know what kind of blindness lets your mob see that as attractive.

Dawkins doesn't know Divine Brown does he?

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 11:02 AM

That last time I checked, Canada was part of the Commonwealth and he isn't viewed that way here. :D :eye-poppi

It's not a state of USA?

Darth Rotor

7th January 2007, 11:04 AM

Atheists have always remained quiet and it has gotten them no where. I think awareness is the single most important thing.

You've got to get people to think, to acknowledge that atheists are just humans.
Who in the world thinks atheists aren't humans?
That's what worked during the civil rights era and I think it will work now.
Rand, you seem to be approaching the path of "applying for special victim status." This is similar to the martyr complex some Fundies wrap around themselves like a cloak. That's not an appeal with any integrity. I would think that the Atheist appeal would need to be grounded in integrity, if what is under question is the truth, or the nature of truth. Why taint the message?

No one seems to suggest sitting down and shutting up as a method -- that's not how to get any kind of message out -- but to point out that medium and message need to be tailored to achieve an aim. Sure, some opponents of atheism would rather you all STFU, but likewise, plenty of people wish Pat Robertson would STFU as well. Non issue, in either direction.

Oh, and as to those shrinking violets atheists . . . sure, Carl Sagan was such a wall flower, as were Voltaire, Nietzsche, Marx . . . real quiet, shy, retiring types. :D

DR

RandFan

7th January 2007, 11:44 AM

Who in the world thinks atheists aren't humans? I never said that anyone thinks we aren't humans. You miss my point. Consider a statement made by the former President of the United States.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under god.

--George H. W. Bush.Now, compare this with another statement.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Ok, lets try something else.

In a study by the University of Minnesota, more than 2,000 people were asked which of their fellow citizens lacked the proper "vision of American society." More than blacks, gays, immigrants, lesbians or even Muslims... atheists are viewed as the least American (according to the survey).

How can that be? Are atheists inherently bad? No. We are just human like anyone else. I'm not trying to say that we are not viewed as human. I'm trying to say that since we are only human there is no reason for these ignorant views. If we can get that point accross. To make those who have these silly and absurd notions stop and think "yeah, atheists are only human" then we can change hearts and minds. It's worked before.

http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/MAN/manwide.jpg

Rand, you seem to be approaching the path of "applying for special victim status." This is similar to the martyr complex some Fundies wrap around themselves like a cloak. Darth, I like you so please don't take this the wrong way. BS.

I don't want a pity party.
I don't want any new laws.
I don't want special status.
I don't at all want to be viewed as a victim.

I want atheists to stand up and assert that they have as much right and legitimacy to be citizens AND elected officials as anyone else. I want atheists to stand up to the ignorance, bigotry and false fears of the population at large to show that their ideas are not based in reality.

No one seems to suggest sitting down and shutting up as a method -- that's not how to get any kind of message out -- but to point out that medium and message need to be tailored to achieve an aim.There is social pressure to keep quiet. One could lose a job for being atheist. One can suffer social stigma and loss of friendship for being atheist. I know that I feel that way in many circumstances.

Oh, and as to those shrinking violets atheists . . . sure, Carl Sagan was such a wall flower, as were Voltaire, Nietzsche, Marx . . . real quiet, shy, retiring types. And the modern day equivalents? How many politicians are openly atheistic? I'm sorry Darth but outside of academia and scientific research it does not pay to be openly atheist.

RandFan

7th January 2007, 11:49 AM

More flies with honey. If the product is good, it will sell, but you can still scare off customers with a crappy sales pitch. Yes, this is the same message given to the civil rights activists in the 50's and 60's. It's a good thing they didn't buy it back then.

joobz

7th January 2007, 11:50 AM

Never mind religion, I'd like to know what kind of blindness lets your mob see that as attractive.
[speaking with authority for all americans!:rolleyes:]
It's caters entirely to the american's British stereotype. Americans like to view the British as non-threatening, overly polite, slightly neurotic bumblers. it's, in our mind, an anachronistic attitude that reminds us that americans have torn away such facades to advance culture and the spirit. It's the same mentality that makes most americans PROUD of the ugly american sterotype.

Dawkins doesn't know Divine Brown does he?
Dana Carvey did a funny bit about Hugh's run-in with cops. It perfectly demonstrates the american view of British Foppishness.

RandFan

7th January 2007, 12:06 PM

Dana Carvey did a funny bit about Hugh's run-in with cops. It perfectly demonstrates the american view of British Foppishness.:) Gave me a whole new perspective on Jimmy Stewart and Kathryn Hepburn.

chriswl

7th January 2007, 02:24 PM

Rudeness is no issue at all, I just don't see him as having any charisma. Maybe he's seen differently in USA, but in the commonwealth, I'd say that, other than flag-wavers, he's seen as a typical pommy twat.
But he writes books so who cares whether he has charisma in person? Steven Pinker has stupid hair, Daniel Dennett looks like an Old Testament prophet and Carl Sagan sounded like Kermit the frog. But why would I be so superficial as to care about any of that? It's the ideas and the writing that matter.

Religion seems to have declined quite nicely in every part of the developed world barring USA, so obviously something's been working for 50 or so years. Religion's in the minority throughout Europe, all long before Dawkins started his crusade.
That's true. The US is a bit of a puzzle.

Obviously, fundamentalism is more common in the US than in Europe. But the other difference that I find striking is that whilst most European liberals seem to be non-believers or agnostics this is not the case in the US. My theory is that in Europe (or at least the non-Catholic parts) religion was a victim of the 60's counter-culture as it was heavily associated with the "establishment" (many European churches are dull state-sponsored monoliths).

In the US the rigid separation of church and state protected them from this liberal backlash and left the churches free to innovate (become more fundamentalist, more liberal, or more political)

qayak

7th January 2007, 04:20 PM

:eye-poppi

It's not a state of USA?

Nope, the U.S. is a province of Canada. It's where we keep the whackos! :D

qayak

7th January 2007, 04:29 PM

Yes, this is the same message given to the civil rights activists in the 50's and 60's. It's a good thing they didn't buy it back then.

Got that right!

The Atheist

7th January 2007, 05:30 PM

Nope, the U.S. is a province of Canada. It's where we keep the whackos! :DThat'd be right, the whackos outnumbering the sane by about 10:1.

RandFan

7th January 2007, 05:35 PM

Obviously, fundamentalism is more common in the US than in Europe. But the other difference that I find striking is that whilst most European liberals seem to be non-believers or agnostics this is not the case in the US. My theory is that in Europe (or at least the non-Catholic parts) religion was a victim of the 60's counter-culture as it was heavily associated with the "establishment" (many European churches are dull state-sponsored monoliths).

In the US the rigid separation of church and state protected them from this liberal backlash and left the churches free to innovate (become more fundamentalist, more liberal, or more political)Interesting. Many in the counter culture (hippies) in America were part of the the Jesus movement (http://www.ottawainnercityministries.ca/newsArticlesStats/Jesus_Movement.htm). Activists in the south relied heavily on churches for organizing and a way to get the message out. MLK was a Reverand.

joobz

7th January 2007, 05:53 PM

Nope, the U.S. is a province of Canada. It's where we keep the whackos! :biggrin:
That'd be right, the whackos outnumbering the sane by about 10:1.
But by giving us the "right to bear arms", what's that say about the "sane"? Canada better hope the US doesn't run out of beer any time soon..:p

Huntster

7th January 2007, 10:49 PM

But by giving us the "right to bear arms", what's that say about the "sane"? Canada better hope the US doesn't run out of beer any time soon..:p

Canadian beer sucks. It's almost as bad as Canadian cigarettes.

RandFan

7th January 2007, 11:03 PM

But by giving us the "right to bear arms", what's that say about the "sane"? Canada better hope the US doesn't run out of beer any time soon..:pWhat most don't know is that the plan for invasion is already set.

http://www.pumpkinsoft.de/covershots/3906.jpg

joobz

7th January 2007, 11:48 PM

What most don't know is that the plan for invasion is already set.

http://www.pumpkinsoft.de/covershots/3906.jpg
We have ways of making you pronounce the letter "O"!

The Atheist

8th January 2007, 01:35 AM

We have ways of making you pronounce the letter "O"!They are gonna come out of their house and shout at you.

Darth Rotor

8th January 2007, 08:40 AM

Yes, this is the same message given to the civil rights activists in the 50's and 60's. It's a good thing they didn't buy it back then.
I see, Rand. The atheist is the next special set of victims to stand on the shoulders of the black man.

Entitlement politics for fifty, Alex. I'd never have seen you coming from that direction.

Thanks for your various replies.

I find the attempt at equivalence to the black man's struggle to be a stretch. However, if that's how you see it, by all means, go for it. I am sure you can evokde a variety of symbols for the poor, economically and socially disadvantaged atheist that will resonate with your fellow citizens.

Hmm, what about a next step.

Affirmative action quotas to ensure a proportional representation of atheists at universities? Whoops, we'd have to fire half of the professors, I think, as the atheists would seem to be over quota as a percentage of the population. (I think someone here mentioned a 5-10 % percent of the population.) So maybe the affirmative action path is one best not taken in this struggle, eh?

Get that march started, and get those Senators and Congressmen energized. The good news is that you should have a lot of lawyers available to pursue legislation.

DR

qayak

8th January 2007, 02:44 PM

But by giving us the "right to bear arms", what's that say about the "sane"? Canada better hope the US doesn't run out of beer any time soon..:p

Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada's first prime minister, was a brilliant man. Some believe he was a god. When Canada was in its infancy a debate raged in parliament about how the new nation was going to pay for a fence across the entire continent to keep the crazies to the South.

Sir John stood up and calmed the members and said, "We don't need a fence! We'll just draw a line. They'll never figure it out." And he was right.

Then Sir John in his infinite wisdom said, "We'll call the Southern province "Useless Space" and use the initials U.S. but we'll tell them it stands for United States." And these things he did do.

And Sir John said "Give them the right to bear arms and they will be occupied shooting each other and defending their right to do so. The people of Canada will be safe." And Sir John was right.

But Sir John had great wisdom and could also see the future. He saw that the crazies would one day turn their eyes Northward so he decided what was needed was a menace to the South of the Useless Space. So he drew another line across the continent and told the crazies that South of them was another country called Mexico, and the second line would keep the Mexicans out of the U.S. Sir John, having created the Mexicans for just such a purpose, knew that they were smart enough to figure out that they could walk across the line anytime they felt like it. Once again, Sir John the Good was proven correct.

"You must be ever vigilant" said Sir John, "For Mexicans are not to be trusted. They will come north and try to steal your jobs and daughters." And a great cry of fear was heard throughout the U.S.

And so it came to pass that the chosen people of Canada were led into a time of great peace and prosperity while the crazies people in the south live in turmoil and confusion. Fighting never ending wars and wasting time and resources trying to build a fence to keep the Mexicans out of the province of Useless Space. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Note For Humour Impaired Trolls: Don't get your panties in a knot, this is all in fun.

Darth Rotor

8th January 2007, 04:53 PM

Note For Humour Impaired Trolls: Don't get your panties in a knot, this is all in fun.
OK, I got most of that, but I am still unclear on some of your history.

1. If you wanted the crazies to say in the Lower 48, why did you brew such good beer? It was bound to attract some of them.

2. With her huge tracts of land, why did you let Pamela Anderson go?

3. How is it that the crazies were able to kidnap The Great One from you, in plain sight?

4. How's that million that a Northern Genius payed for Mark McGuire's home run ball looking now, eh? :D

I'll have 24 Elsinore, and some sausage for my dog Hosehead. ;)

DR

RandFan

8th January 2007, 05:01 PM

I see, Rand. The atheist is the next special set of victims to stand on the shoulders of the black man.

Entitlement politics for fifty, Alex. I'd never have seen you coming from that direction.

Thanks for your various replies.

I find the attempt at equivalence to the black man's struggle to be a stretch. However, if that's how you see it, by all means, go for it. I am sure you can evokde a variety of symbols for the poor, economically and socially disadvantaged atheist that will resonate with your fellow citizens.

Hmm, what about a next step.

Affirmative action quotas to ensure a proportional representation of atheists at universities? Whoops, we'd have to fire half of the professors, I think, as the atheists would seem to be over quota as a percentage of the population. (I think someone here mentioned a 5-10 % percent of the population.) So maybe the affirmative action path is one best not taken in this struggle, eh?

Get that march started, and get those Senators and Congressmen energized. The good news is that you should have a lot of lawyers available to pursue legislation.

DRI've already responded to a similar post of yours but perhaps you didn't see it. I'll make some of the same points and perhaps add a few more.

I don't want any special status.
I don't want a pity party.
I don't see myself as a victim.
I don't equate atheism with ANY other strugle.
I don't see the need personaly for marches or any legislation.
My only point about the civil right era is that what I do endorse is possible.

Darth Rotor

8th January 2007, 05:08 PM

I've already responded to a similar post of yours but perhaps you didn't see it. I'll make some of the same points and perhaps add a few more.

I don't want any special status.
I don't want a pity party.
I don't see myself as a victim.
I don't equate atheism with ANY other strugle.
I don't see the need personaly for marches or any legislation.
My only point about the civil right era is that what I do endorse is possible.
I think we have closed the book on this bit, thanks. :)

DR

Mr Clingford

9th January 2007, 02:16 AM

Gosh, I thought you were suggesting that it would be illogical for god to create a hostile universe so vast that we may not even be able to see its edges for the salvation of a few motes of dust living on a speck.Christian thinking goes 'If there is a God he appears to be creative because there is a universe. God could appreciate the beauty and majesty of the universe for its own sake, whether we exist or not. A human being may be very tiny in size and lifespan but we do not measure the value of something solely by those criteria. Futhermore if there is intelligent life something not unlike ours then God may relate to them too'.

The Atheist

9th January 2007, 02:26 AM

Futhermore if there is intelligent life something not unlike ours then God may relate to them too'.

Damn right (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5621226325041057058)

Mr Clingford

9th January 2007, 02:31 AM

It's illogical to extrapolate, as you seem to, that because there might be a God, he is definitely the specific God of the Judaeo-Christian bible, manifest in the corporeal form of Jesus Christ. That's the illogicality.That is not what I am doing as I have already posted. I have moved from Jewish encounters with God in the OT

Apologies for the confusion. By geo-centric, I meant geographically specific. That having been clarified, would you care to address the substantial point that your Judaeo-Christian belief is one you hold purely by geographical and chronological coincidence, not because Judaeo-Christianity holds any specific metaphysical truth value?Isn't it a bit amusing that your accusation of sloppy geo-centric thought was itself sloppy?:D Your question sets up a false opposition - my Christian beliefs may have truth value. You appear to be assuming that I have not examined my beliefs, although they have actually changed over time. Only if you are God are you in a position say that I hold my beliefs purely by geographical and chronological coincidence. I am in no position to know whether I would hold different beliefs if I lived elsewhere.

What is the area of your PhD, BTW?

volatile

9th January 2007, 06:35 AM

I am in no position to know whether I would hold different beliefs if I lived elsewhere.

Mr C, it's quite clear I can posit a number of examples where your beliefs would certainly be quite different given a different historical or geographical context. If you're saying that your ideas about the Christian god as you understand Him came to you spontaneously, then I don't believe you for a second.

Examples could include - being raised on a desert island, with no access to Christian Scripture. Being raised in Ancient Rome. Being raised in Aboriginal Australia prior to its discovery. Being raised in Ancient Britain. Being born and raised in modern-day North Korea, even.

But the question is actually a little more nuanced than this. Access to information is not disproof of that information, of course. The point is, raised on your hypothetical desert island, you could, given a reasonable amount of time, discover all sorts of information in isolation from other human beings. Things such as, for example, the fact that rubbing two sticks together makes fire. You'd more than likely also conclude that there was some divine creator.

What would not happen on this isolated desert island is that you'd dream up a God just like the Judaeo-Christian one, with all the scriptural baggage such as it is encumbered with. Your God would be markedly different from all other Gods, and considering the God of the OT (and the NT, for that matter) defines belief in him in very, very specific ways, you're metaphysically screwed, aren't you?

Basically, its irrefutable that dogmatic religious belief varies wildly by geographical and historical circumstance. I understand a deist argument, I really do, but the theist one just escapes me...

What is the area of your PhD, BTW?In simple terms, my thesis straddles art history and philosophy, and I'm working on developing theories of embodiment to account for bodies over which the subject has had some degree of control - bodies deliberately modified by tattooing, for example, or other technological means.

Mr Clingford

26th January 2007, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford
I am in no position to know whether I would hold different beliefs if I lived elsewhere.

Mr C, it's quite clear I can posit a number of examples where your beliefs would certainly be quite different given a different historical or geographical context. If you're saying that your ideas about the Christian god as you understand Him came to you spontaneously, then I don't believe you for a second.

Examples could include - being raised on a desert island, with no access to Christian Scripture. Being raised in Ancient Rome. Being raised in Aboriginal Australia prior to its discovery. Being raised in Ancient Britain. Being born and raised in modern-day North Korea, even.It seems as though we have been talking past each other a bit as that is not what I am saying. I was trying to say that if I had been born, say, in modern India I don't know whether I would have become Christian if I had been rasied Hindu. I'm hardly saying that I would spontaneously create specifically Christian understandings on my own. BTW if it was Ancient Rome after c. 50AD I might have been exposed to Christianity through Paul!

But the question is actually a little more nuanced than this. Access to information is not disproof of that information, of course. The point is, raised on your hypothetical desert island, you could, given a reasonable amount of time, discover all sorts of information in isolation from other human beings. Things such as, for example, the fact that rubbing two sticks together makes fire. You'd more than likely also conclude that there was some divine creator.

What would not happen on this isolated desert island is that you'd dream up a God just like the Judaeo-Christian one, with all the scriptural baggage such as it is encumbered with. Your God would be markedly different from all other Gods, and considering the God of the OT (and the NT, for that matter) defines belief in him in very, very specific ways, you're metaphysically screwed, aren't you?No, not at all. My way of understand things is that I am 'judged' by how well I do with what I know and how I act on that. This is why I do not see atheists or those following other faiths to be 'damned' (whatever that entails) per se.

Basically, its irrefutable that dogmatic religious belief varies wildly by geographical and historical circumstance. I understand a deist argument, I really do, but the theist one just escapes me...Yes, beyond the idea of some 'personal ground of all being' that is beyond us there is heaps of variety - but there are heaps of varieties of cultures and times.

If there was a logical proof of god no trusting leap of faith would be required. I have tried to get to God logically and understand life, the universe etc (especially during my 2 years of Philosophy and Theology at Leeds University) but found I couldn't. Bummer.

In simple terms, my thesis straddles art history and philosophy, and I'm working on developing theories of embodiment to account for bodies over which the subject has had some degree of control - bodies deliberately modified by tattooing, for example, or other technological means.Thank you. Are you making any use of Post-Modern theories regarding bodies?

ImaginalDisc

26th January 2007, 08:53 AM

Christian thinking goes 'If there is a God he appears to be creative because there is a universe. God could appreciate the beauty and majesty of the universe for its own sake, whether we exist or not. A human being may be very tiny in size and lifespan but we do not measure the value of something solely by those criteria. Futhermore if there is intelligent life something not unlike ours then God may relate to them too'.

This is wild and groundless speculation, but what else should one expect from Christian apologetics? Firstly, there is not scpritural text or scientific evidence for the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence, so justifying god by invoking them is a terrible stretch. And, the bit about god needing to be creative ignores that the universe is incredibly more vast than we, or any numer of aliens could ever explore. The overhwelming majority of it is vaccuous and hostile to life. It would take a very cruel god to make a hostile and vast universe for himself to enjoy for aethetic reasons, and then shoehorn intelligence into it as an afterthought. How does "Christian thinking" flip from making humanity and humanity's salvation the central concern of god's attention to suddenly relegating us to insignificance?

ETA: Or, is watching insignificant and tiny intelligent beings flounder about in a great sea of nothingness trying to improve their lot and the lives of their children how god gets his rocks off? The Book Job would suggest this to be the case.

volatile

26th January 2007, 08:57 AM

No, not at all. My way of understand things is that I am 'judged' by how well I do with what I know and how I act on that. This is why I do not see atheists or those following other faiths to be 'damned' (whatever that entails) per se.

Doesn't that necessarily imply that someone with the same access to information (me, say!) is judged less well than you are? Whatever "damned" might mean to you, your theology accepts that a moral hierarchy of post-mortal judgement actually exists... My point remains that the existence of this moral hierarchy is itself a peculiar artefact of a narrow historical tradition.

Yes, beyond the idea of some 'personal ground of all being' that is beyond us there is heaps of variety - but there are heaps of varieties of cultures and times.

If there was a logical proof of god no trusting leap of faith would be required. I have tried to get to God logically and understand life, the universe etc (especially during my 2 years of Philosophy and Theology at Leeds University) but found I couldn't. Bummer.

See, if I'd spent two years trying really, really hard to confirm my belief system but then spectacularly failing to do so, I'd start to think that the belief system itself might just be the problem... but that's just me.

Thank you. Are you making any use of Post-Modern theories regarding bodies?

Yup. And lots of non "post-modern" ones too. In fact, there's lots of cross-over.

Mr Clingford

26th January 2007, 09:03 AM

This is wild and groundless speculation, but what else should one expect from Christian apologetics? Firstly, there is not scpritural text or scientific evidence for the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence, so justifying god by invoking them is a terrible stretch. And, the bit about god needing to be creative ignores that the universe is incredibly more vast than we, or any numer of aliens could ever explore. The overhwelming majority of it is vaccuous and hostile to life. It would take a very cruel god to make a hostile and vast universe for himself to enjoy for aethetic reasons, and then shoehorn intelligence into it as an afterthought. How does "Christian thinking" flip from making humanity and humanity's salvation the central concern of god's attention to suddenly relegating us to insignificance?

ETA: Or, is watching insignificant and tiny intelligent beings flounder about in a great sea of nothingness trying to improve their lot and the lives of their children how god gets his rocks off? The Book Job would suggest this to be the case.You know, I'm not sure what to type as a lot of what you have written seems to bear little relation to what I actually typed. I may reply but if that is what you say I'm not sure it is worth the effort.

ImaginalDisc

26th January 2007, 09:08 AM

You know, I'm not sure what to type as a lot of what you have written seems to bear little relation to what I actually typed. I may reply but if that is what you say I'm not sure it is worth the effort.

You're not reading. You say that "Christian thinking" includes such ideas as god made the universe for his own enjoyment. If god made the universe vast and hostile, which he did (assuming he exists), and he did it for his own enjoyment, that implies that god does not love humanity more than his own pleasure.

Mr Clingford

26th January 2007, 09:14 AM

Doesn't that necessarily imply that someone with the same access to information (me, say!) is judged less well than you are? Whatever "damned" might mean to you, your theology accepts that a moral hierarchy of post-mortal judgement actually exists... My point remains that the existence of this moral hierarchy is itself a peculiar artefact of a narrow historical tradition.No-one has the same information, that is, relationships, experiences, thoughts etc. My parents are both Christians and I find that I respect their beliefs and actions a great deal - with them it was 'do as I say' as they are not hypocrites - your total experiences are different.

Would you unpack this for me
your theology accepts that a moral hierarchy of post-mortal judgement actually exists..

See, if I'd spent two years trying really, really hard to confirm my belief system but then spectacularly failing to do so, I'd start to think that the belief system itself might just be the problem... but that's just me.I was disappointed that I couldn't understand life by thought. For me it wasn't possible to confirm my belief system through logic, but that is far from it being disproved.

Yup. And lots of non "post-modern" ones too. In fact, there's lots of cross-over.Do you think some of them 'true' or is the concept 'true' devoid of meaning? I got a bit fed up when it seemed to me in my English BA and MA that it didn't matter whether what I wroye might be true, only if it was a clever use of some theory.

Mr Clingford

26th January 2007, 09:19 AM

You're not reading. You say that "Christian thinking" includes such ideas as god made the universe for his own enjoyment. If god made the universe vast and hostile, which he did (assuming he exists), and he did it for his own enjoyment, that implies that god does not love humanity more than his own pleasure.I'm not following; why does it imply that?

ImaginalDisc

26th January 2007, 09:24 AM

I'm not following; why does it imply that?

A: The universe is so vast that we cannot possibly even indirectly percieve its edges.

B: Except for our comparatily minute planet and possibly many other planets equally tiny and greatly removed from us, it is hostile to life.

C: Allegedly, god made this unvierse.

D: Given that A, B and C are true, it is not possible that god made this universe for our benefit, as it in no ways suits us.

According to you, the "Christian thought" sollution invokes the explanation that god made the universe for his own enjoyment, which means that he enjoys placing us in a hostile universe. If he didn't, he would have designed it differently.

Mr Clingford

26th January 2007, 09:38 AM

A: The universe is so vast that we cannot possibly even indirectly percieve its edges.

B: Except for our comparatily minute planet and possibly many other planets equally tiny and greatly removed from us, it is hostile to life.

C: Allegedly, god made this unvierse.

D: Given that A, B and C are true, it is not possible that god made this universe for our benefit, as it in no ways suits us.

According to you, the "Christian thought" sollution invokes the explanation that god made the universe for his own enjoyment, which means that he enjoys placing us in a hostile unvirse. If he didn't, he would have designed it differently.Thank you. I'll agree with A - C. D. Well, as life exists on Earth one could say that it then suits us. I think I would argue that God made this universe not only for its amazingness but also for the purposes of intelligent, creative life like us. Perhaps humans might become extinct and other lifeforms might develop that also have the capacity to relate to God. What are you unhappy about - that we are alone? That the universe is so big?

ImaginalDisc

26th January 2007, 09:43 AM

Thank you. I'll agree with A - C. D. Well, as life exists on Earth one could say that it then suits us. I think I would argue that God made this universe not only for its amazingness but also for the purposes of intelligent, creative life like us. Perhaps humans might become extinct and other lifeforms might develop that also have the capacity to relate to God. What are you unhappy about - that we are alone? That the universe is so big?

Whoa, now suddenly youre saying that god made the universe vast and hostile, and not only are our needs not a priority, but we might be a protype for another intelligent spcies that may yet arrise?

Do you not see how reconciling A, B and C requires a great departure from the humanity as the ceneter of god's creation that is the standard position of Christianity?

The only section of the Bible that paints humanity as ancilliary in god's attention is the Book of Job, in which a man's life, family, and health are mere playing things to god and Satan. When Job finally confronts god, god tells Job that he is worthless and insigficicant, and that there are more important things on his mind than humanity. Is that your position then? Why on our tiny and vulnerable Earth should anyone worship such an indifferent and selfish creator, even if he exists?

volatile

26th January 2007, 09:44 AM

Would you unpack this for me

You implied that it didn't really matter what you believed, it was how you used the information available that would seal your judgement. My point is that belief in judgement is in itself an ad-hoc position to take, and one which is in itself still very narrow.

I was disappointed that I couldn't understand life by thought. For me it wasn't possible to confirm my belief system through logic, but that is far from it being disproved.

Have you read about Kurt Wise ("http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_21_4). His story fully made me weep. I contend you've been through a similar process, though not quite as extreme.

Do you think some of them 'true' or is the concept 'true' devoid of meaning? I got a bit fed up when it seemed to me in my English BA and MA that it didn't matter whether what I wroye might be true, only if it was a clever use of some theory.

Do I think that Deleuze's description of desire as a flow and the body as a conduit of desire is an empirically-testable, material fact about the world? No, of course not - and neither did Deleuze. It's not empirically "true" in that sense, if that's what you mean.

The utility of these theories, or theories about art or literature or film, or indeed any philosophy, post-modern or otherwise, is not in their empirical truth. It is in their ability to frame the world in such a way that it becomes possible to conceive, understand and appreciate it in ways in which empirical science cannot currently do.

For example - take philosophies of mind/body interactions. It is perfectly possible to subscribe to any particular school of thought on embodiment (be it Cartesianism, sophism, monism etc.) and still remain of the opinion that all of our experience arises from the interaction of chemicals and biochemical processes in our brains. The philosophies provide ways of looking at problems, provide models for understanding ourselves and others, and at the same time rarely need to make claims to metaphysical or magical truth.

I sense you're trying to make an equivocation about my "belief" in Deleuzian conceptions of phenomenology and your belief in God, but there really isn't one.

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:21 PM

...Firstly, there is not scpritural text or scientific evidence for the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence.....

So why are scientists lobbying for and spending millions per year on SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)?

Surely, so many prominent "scientists" wouldn't be pursuing something at such a cost which has no evidence whatsoever to support it, and doing so for years, would they?

Huntster

26th January 2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc
This is wild and groundless speculation, but what else should one expect from Christian apologetics? Firstly, there is not scpritural text or scientific evidence for the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence, so justifying god by invoking them is a terrible stretch. And, the bit about god needing to be creative ignores that the universe is incredibly more vast than we, or any numer of aliens could ever explore. The overhwelming majority of it is vaccuous and hostile to life. It would take a very cruel god to make a hostile and vast universe for himself to enjoy for aethetic reasons, and then shoehorn intelligence into it as an afterthought. How does "Christian thinking" flip from making humanity and humanity's salvation the central concern of god's attention to suddenly relegating us to insignificance?

ETA: Or, is watching insignificant and tiny intelligent beings flounder about in a great sea of nothingness trying to improve their lot and the lives of their children how god gets his rocks off? The Book Job would suggest this to be the case.

You know, I'm not sure what to type as a lot of what you have written seems to bear little relation to what I actually typed. I may reply but if that is what you say I'm not sure it is worth the effort.

Believe me, it wouldn't be.

Watch how the exchange goes with this "feller" after my above post.

It isn't worth it, but sometimes it's fun to play with puppets.............

ImaginalDisc

26th January 2007, 04:05 PM

So why are scientists lobbying for and spending millions per year on SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)?

Surely, so many prominent "scientists" wouldn't be pursuing something at such a cost which has no evidence whatsoever to support it, and doing so for years, would they?

Wow, it's almost as if you can't tell the difference between something for which there is no current evidence, and something which is inherently unfalsifiable.

26th January 2007, 05:21 PM

This is likely true but why do they choose not to post about it here?

I've done that in the past. And other than a brief, senseless attack from CFLarsen, those discussions went OK.

Of course, I'm not a Christian; I'm a pagan. Or, rather, a deist with Pagan leanings.

I think for most intelligent persons of faith, it wouldn't make sense to come into a place like this and discuss faith. How do you discuss a subject that you have to deliberately divorce from evidence and fact, on a board where evidence and fact reign supreme? I have a lot of strange beliefs, personally, but I don't discuss them here. Why not? I think the better question is, why would I? What's to be gained by talking about my gut feelings, imagininings, or flights of fancy? Not a lot... at least, not here.

I think, also, a lot of intelligent faithful enjoy the few unexplained experiences they've had, and don't really want to expose them to the devastating light of critical analysis. A ghost encounter isn't nearly as fun, once you find out about the car lights reflecting on windowpanes, or the sounds a cooling heat duct makes, or the childish pranks set up weeks ago that only now tricked an observer into seeing ghosts.

Yeah, I've had those experiences. It's fun to remember seeing glowing green lights in an empty and long abandoned house. It's fun to recall watching a tiny grey blob walk past my bedroom window, stop, and turn to look in with glowing blue eyes. It's amusing to recall scaring someone by doing nothing more than imagining myself unfolding into full dragon form. It's a lot less fun when someone comes up with reasonable explanations for all of that.

As for those who DO come here to debate... well, I don't want to turn this into any form of personal attack, but the vast majority who come here making religious claims are really undereducated, or worse - willfully ignorant, dolts. Many of them, once cornered, even admit that logic, reason, and education are evil, and faith is always to be preferred.

So I wonder why they come here at all? Probably ego. Faith does tend to give one an inflated sense of personal power. They're pretty sure they'll snag a few convertees before they leave... and are pretty stunned when they don't.

Darth Rotor

26th January 2007, 06:13 PM

So I wonder why they come here at all? Probably ego. Faith does tend to give one an inflated sense of personal power. They're pretty sure they'll snag a few convertees before they leave... and are pretty stunned when they don't.
Some of us come here for the wit, Sturgeon's Law considered, or for the posts like yours just now.

DR

Huntster

27th January 2007, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster
So why are scientists lobbying for and spending millions per year on SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)?

Surely, so many prominent "scientists" wouldn't be pursuing something at such a cost which has no evidence whatsoever to support it, and doing so for years, would they?
Wow, it's almost as if you can't tell the difference between something for which there is no current evidence, and something which is inherently unfalsifiable.

I know "differences". I see them in you.

Answer the question, BOY.

Or shut up, read, and learn.

Mr Clingford

29th January 2007, 10:04 AM

You implied that it didn't really matter what you believed, it was how you used the information available that would seal your judgement. My point is that belief in judgement is in itself an ad-hoc position to take, and one which is in itself still very narrow.I'm afraid I am still not really following what you are saying.

Have you read about Kurt Wise ("http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_21_4). His story fully made me weep. I contend you've been through a similar process, though not quite as extreme.I hadn't come across him before - it makes me glad I was not brought up in the kind of environment that suggested such a fight between religion and science, that had such a misguided literal approach to the Bible. Science, though, has not been a concern for me since I was about 20. it's been, for instance, more history - did such and such events take place - that has been challenging. I have found myself surprised over the last few years because more of the Bible has been reasonably historical than I thought.

Do I think that Deleuze's description of desire as a flow and the body as a conduit of desire is an empirically-testable, material fact about the world? No, of course not - and neither did Deleuze. It's not empirically "true" in that sense, if that's what you mean.

The utility of these theories, or theories about art or literature or film, or indeed any philosophy, post-modern or otherwise, is not in their empirical truth. It is in their ability to frame the world in such a way that it becomes possible to conceive, understand and appreciate it in ways in which empirical science cannot currently do.So do you think that science will make them redundant in the future?

For example - take philosophies of mind/body interactions. It is perfectly possible to subscribe to any particular school of thought on embodiment (be it Cartesianism, sophism, monism etc.) and still remain of the opinion that all of our experience arises from the interaction of chemicals and biochemical processes in our brains. The philosophies provide ways of looking at problems, provide models for understanding ourselves and others, and at the same time rarely need to make claims to metaphysical or magical truth."rarely need"? Again I'm not sure what you are saying, a not unknown occurance for me - in my readings of writers such as Derrida they took great pains to write stuff that couldn't be pinned down! (Not that I'm saying you are doing that here).

I sense you're trying to make an equivocation about my "belief" in Deleuzian conceptions of phenomenology and your belief in God, but there really isn't one.Not at all. I was just wondering about your take on them.

Mr Clingford

29th January 2007, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by me:
Thank you. I'll agree with A - C. D. Well, as life exists on Earth one could say that it then suits us. I think I would argue that God made this universe not only for its amazingness but also for the purposes of intelligent, creative life like us. Perhaps humans might become extinct and other lifeforms might develop that also have the capacity to relate to God. What are you unhappy about - that we are alone? That the universe is so big?
Whoa, now suddenly youre saying that god made the universe vast and hostile, and not only are our needs not a priority, but we might be a protype for another intelligent spcies that may yet arrise?Again, that is not what I wrote! I have never said that the universe wasn't huge and haven't said much about whether it is hostile or not. Scientists seem completely split between those who say of course it is teeming with life that is far away and those who say that it is likely that it is not - I, therefore, have no idea.
Also, what I said did not infer at all that we are a prototype.

Do you not see how reconciling A, B and C requires a great departure from the humanity as the ceneter of god's creation that is the standard position of Christianity?It has not only been the standard position of Christianity but also the standard of most people until recently. Some Christians do seem to have some catching up to do.

The only section of the Bible that paints humanity as ancilliary in god's attention is the Book of Job, in which a man's life, family, and health are mere playing things to god and Satan. When Job finally confronts god, god tells Job that he is worthless and insigficicant, and that there are more important things on his mind than humanity. Is that your position then? Why on our tiny and vulnerable Earth should anyone worship such an indifferent and selfish creator, even if he exists?Job is quite a kettle of fish, but I don't get my cosmology from it. Where does God tell Job that "he is worthless and insigficicant, and that there are more important things on his mind than humanity"?
I might actualy reach a point of becoming a deist in which case God might be indifferent to life, but I am not there at the moment.