Richard and the Child [Archive]

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 03:49 PM

Richard and the Child: A Creative Suggestive Dialogue

Young Wonderer: Hello Mr. Dawkins are you a scientist?
Dawkins: Hello to you son. As a matter of fact I am. I am an evolutionary biologist with a background in theoretical physics.

Young Wonderer: Do you mind if I ask you some questions?
Dawkins: Of course not. Please go right ahead.

Young Wonderer: I went to school today and my scripture teacher said God created the universe and then the world followed. Is this right?

Dawkins: Hah that old chestnut! Well son it so has it that as scientists we do not believe as such. We consider these things to be stories of myths so to speak.

Young Wonderer: Oh. OK So what did then?
Dawkins: Well a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away there was this massive big bang and then from this, via some exceptional circumstances the planets and stars came to be created.

Young Wonderer: Wow. That's sounds unbelievable!
Dawkins: Yes amazing isn't it. Some people believe that the universe was created via some creative guidance. But this is nonsense - the universe was originally the size of a pea and exploded from this.

Young Wonderer: Oh. That's mad Mr. Dawkins. So what was there before the big bang thing?
Dawkins: That's easy. Nothing was there before the big bang because time was invented also.

Young Wonderer: Of course! It all sounds perfectly clear apart from the fact of creating something from nothing. Anyway I am too young to understand. So how do you know all of this stuff Mr. Dawkins?
Dawkins: Scientifically speaking our knowledge of the world has been defined and proven by observation and experiment!!

Young Wonderer: That sounds like a lot of sense. So our view of the world is defined by stuff we experience?
Dawkins: Correct son. You are really catching on. We know the Big Bang happened because we can observe it's after effects in approx 4 percent of the universe.

Young Wonderer: What does pea sent mean? Does that mean it came from the pea?
Dawkins: You are funny. No percent means a proportion. So in other words 4 percent is the same as if there were a total of 100 footy cards to collect and you only had collected 4. You would have 4 percent.

Young Wonderer: Gotcha Mr. Dawk. But why only 4 percent?
Dawkins: Mr. Dawkins thank you. Well the other 96% we believe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy.

Young Wonderer: Whoa… cool - like Darth Vader and the Force?
Dawkins: Ha Ha!. You have a great imagination son. No not exactly, but it is there, have some faith - we just cannot see it or measure it.

Young Wonderer: You are really clever Mr. Dawkins. So I now know how the universe came about but what about me? Why I am I here?
Dawkins. Well... now this is my specialty. Basically we are little vehicles that allow our DNA to propagate.

Young Wonderer: Huh?? Sorry Mr. Dawkins lost me, I do not understand? What is D and A?
Dawkins: Sorry son. I know it sounds a little complex but basically all our decisions are the result of chemical reactions which ultimately serve to spread and protect our DNA. If you like our DNA is used to house genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms.

Young Wonderer: This sound really cool. So DNA is sort of like the code that instructs how computers and robots should work? I knew the Darth Vader thing was there! I see you’ve constructed a new light saber Dawk-walker.(heavy breathing)

Dawkins: Yes yes OK let’s come back to earth - You are sort of on the right track. You have such a great imagination - you should write a book the dosh would roll in son!

Young Wonderer: Hey I am still in primary school. I have heard some people call you a professor is that right?

Dawkins: Yep I am currently the Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University.
Young Wonderer: Do you eat nuts?

Dawkins: What’s that got to do with anything?
Young Wonderer: Sorry just a bit hungry. One last question Mr. Dawkins..... If we are controlled by our DNA and all our actions and decisions are ultimately driven by our DNA....

Dawkins: Yes please go ahead son.
Young Wonderer: Why do you get out of bed of a morning?

Dawkins: Umm....well....you see.....it’s a little complicated and I need to head off to a lecture. Can I take your name and get back to you? What is your name?
Young Wonderer: Richard.

I would like to highlight this white elephant along with the above fictional dialogue clearly does not illustrate Mr. Dawkins or his opinions.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 03:57 PM

Mr Dawkins is not without Straw in his hat - the response is so predictable - Challenge an athiest and you get childish pictures of a straw man - there is no argument in that.

davo

5th March 2010, 03:57 PM

lol wut?

Have you had to many happy pills? Not sure what making up some silly story full of ... well, nonsense, means?

Maybe I am missing the point of your whole post, it really doesn't make any sense

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 04:02 PM

The straw man is such a typical response. Mr Dawkins is not without his straw my atheist friends

davo

5th March 2010, 04:06 PM

The straw man is such a typical response. Mr Dawkins is not without his straw my atheist friends

Have you got an actual point to make or are you just going to come across as insane?

You make up a story, putting forward what is referred to as a straw man argument, an error of reasoning called a logical fallacy, then when people both point it out and ask you what the hell you are talking about or the point of the post you start saying your challenging us?

Are you alright?

Try discussing a point before making up a story about what someone elses position is on something.

It's called dialog.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 04:17 PM

The dialogue was an attempt to illustrate that some of the arguments Mr Dawkins puts forward can sound just as silly as the arguments religion puts forward - fictional dialogue has and continues to be used for such devices.

kazzaqld

5th March 2010, 04:22 PM

But you're putting words into his mouth - so those aren't real dialogues and fit the classic definition of a strawman argument.

I don't suppose to speak for the Professor but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't answer those questions in the way you have presented it.

If they were the arguments he puts forward I would agree that they are silly - but they aren't!

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 04:39 PM

wolty

5th March 2010, 04:46 PM

You just don't get it - sigh - can anyone on this forum grasp a concept without the continual demand for actual proof. If you read the bottom of the dialogue there is a disclaimer in case you missed it.

Funny that, we rely on evidence, factually reliable stuff, moreso than fairy stories. Who would have thunk it.

Are you telling me you rely on concepts that are factually unreliable to live your life?

davo

5th March 2010, 04:48 PM

You just don't get it - sigh - can anyone on this forum grasp a concept without the continual demand for actual proof. If you read the bottom of the dialogue there is a disclaimer in case you missed it.

young man : I think I will go down to the lolly shop!

bgbarber : I have a van, why don't you jump in the back? I won't hurt you! :D:D:D *

* please note this is an accurate representation of the logic and reasoning used by bgbarber, using his same assumptions that if you make up a story about someones position it does not need evidence for it.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 04:49 PM

I am saying when you peel away the layers - atheists and non-atheists make little steps of faith every day.

davo

5th March 2010, 04:51 PM

I am saying when you peel away the layers - atheists and non-atheists make little steps of faith every day.

But believers make massive leaps of faith to a conclusion based on no evidence about the complete workings of the universe.

That's a little different than walking on a brick fence and having faith in your ability not to fall off.

You are trying to compare religious faith, with trust based on evidence. Even walking on that brick fence, you have some evidence and experience of the evidence to support your position of belief that you won't fall off.

wearestardust

5th March 2010, 04:57 PM

Dawkins: Well a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away there was this massive big bang

Never mind Dawkins, no-one who has been conscious within the last 20 years would say this unless they are extremely stupid or having malign intent. SO why put this nonsense in the mouth of the putative atheist except to create a straw man.

and then from this, via some exceptional circumstances the planets and stars came to be created.

Gravity is an exceptional circumstance?

Dawkins: the universe was originally the size of a pea and exploded from this.

Again, try to have your facts even moderately straight if you are going to draw some sort of observations out of words put into someone else's mouth.

Young Wonderer: Of course! It all sounds perfectly clear apart from the fact of creating something from nothing.

Isn't that was god was supposed to have done, by the way? - ex nihilo creation? Anyway, that's just an aside.

Anyway I am too young to understand. So how do you know all of this stuff Mr. Dawkins?
Dawkins: Scientifically speaking our knowledge of the world has been defined and proven by observation and experiment!!

Young Wonderer: That sounds like a lot of sense. So our view of the world is defined by stuff we experience?
Dawkins: Correct son. You are really catching on. We know the Big Bang happened because we can observe it's after effects in approx 4 percent of the universe.

Young Wonderer: What does pea sent mean? Does that mean it came from the pea?
Dawkins: You are funny. No percent means a proportion. So in other words 4 percent is the same as if there were a total of 100 footy cards to collect and you only had collected 4. You would have 4 percent.

Young Wonderer: Gotcha Mr. Dawk. But why only 4 percent?
Dawkins: Mr. Dawkins thank you. Well the other 96% we believe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy.

Young Wonderer: Whoa… cool - like Darth Vader and the Force?
Dawkins: Ha Ha!. You have a great imagination son. No not exactly, but it is there, have some faith - we just cannot see it or measure it.

Is this deliberate misunderstanding for the sake of argument, or just plain ignorance?

Too many things to comment, but the key one: dark matter is a hypothesis. It's not taken to be proven, even in the sense of proven-as-shorthand I used in my post in the proof thread.

Young Wonderer: You are really clever Mr. Dawkins. So I now know how the universe came about but what about me? Why I am I here?
Dawkins. Well... now this is my specialty. Basically we are little vehicles that allow our DNA to propagate.

Young Wonderer: Huh?? Sorry Mr. Dawkins lost me, I do not understand? What is D and A?
Dawkins: Sorry son. I know it sounds a little complex but basically all our decisions are the result of chemical reactions which ultimately serve to spread and protect our DNA. If you like our DNA is used to house genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms.

I am not sure what traction you are trying to get out of positing a view of genetic determinism. No-one raises the issue as a serious prospect unless they are ignorant or trying to muddy the waters.

Dawkins, by the way, explicitly rejects the idea of genetic determinism. So either you haven't read his books, which makes this passage intellectually dishonest, or you have, in which case you are just plain dishonest.

Young Wonderer: This sound really cool. So DNA is sort of like the code that instructs how computers and robots should work? I knew the Darth Vader thing was there! I see you’ve constructed a new light saber Dawk-walker.(heavy breathing)

Dawkins: Yes yes OK let’s come back to earth - You are sort of on the right track. You have such a great imagination - you should write a book the dosh would roll in son!

I don't get it. Are you suggesting that DNA is a fiction?

Young Wonderer: Hey I am still in primary school. I have heard some people call you a professor is that right?

Dawkins: Yep I am currently the Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University.
Young Wonderer: Do you eat nuts?

Dawkins: What’s that got to do with anything?
Young Wonderer: Sorry just a bit hungry. One last question Mr. Dawkins..... If we are controlled by our DNA and all our actions and decisions are ultimately driven by our DNA....

which they are not

Dawkins: Yes please go ahead son.
Young Wonderer: Why do you get out of bed of a morning?

I can't answer for Dawkins, but the world is just as wonderful whether or not one is a theist. To be frank, and this was the case even when I did Believe, the idea of creationism has always struck me as the result of the limitations of tiny afraid minds. Real cosmology is much more awe-inspiring, and many theists think so too.

Dawkins: Umm....well....you see.....it’s a little complicated and I need to head off to a lecture. Can I take your name and get back to you? What is your name?
Young Wonderer: Richard.

I would like to highlight this white elephant along with the above fictional dialogue clearly does not illustrate Mr. Dawkins or his opinions.

No, but like so many theists you are so terrified about the effect he has had on religion that you have to use the most tawdry means possible to attack back.

Anyway: nearly everything you wrote, except the spelling of "Dawkins", was complete bollox showing either your profound ignorance of the subjects you are trying to canvas, or your complete dishonesty.

Let's see if I can come up with a dialogue:

bgbarber: here (zipping sounds) suck on that!!! do I win?
atheist: er. Looks filthy and handed down from some brainless pastor. I coulnd't possibly without protection, and I don't have any in micro-size.
bgbarber: nnnnggg nnnnngggg nnngggg yeerrrrrr
atheist: sorry, didn't quite catch that
bgbarber: how dare you offend me. The universe is doughnut shape and I know it because Homer Simpson exists!
atheist: I don't think....
bgbarber: gravity doesn't exist! Look at me jump out this window to prove it!
atheist ... er
bgbarber: but I don't need to, you shouldn't test the lord, but I know if I jumped there'd be no gravity
atheist .... um,
bgbarber: I ate my crayons. Science tells us nothing and has no answers to anything. Without faith we know nothing. I heard that at a conference I flew to. I told all my firends on the phone.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 04:59 PM

All right let me cut to the chase and it is called philosophy (skepticism) my friends. Ridiculing a belief or school or thought due to the limitations of one's won perception is well simply - naive.

The one thing atheists are silent on and I am yet to hear a valid argument against is that empirical observation is limited via perception. You can call me a straw man all you you like but unfortunately you will also calling a lot of famous philosophers this also.

I am not saying religion proves this or that - just making a point that the insistence on observable behavior to define one's own reality - is limiting.

I challenge you to at least consider all empirical observation may be just a subset of perception - it make take you out of your comfort zone it may not.

I have to go. Been good chatting.

davo

5th March 2010, 05:09 PM

All right let me cut to the chase and it is called philosophy (skepticism) my friends. Ridiculing a belief or school or thought due to the limitations of one's won perception is well simply - naive.

Who has ridiculed what? I don't believe claims made of their being a god based on none of the claims having any evidence, reasoning or logic that convinces me that there is one.

What is naive, is that you jump on here with preconceptions, then wonder why people don't understand what you are talking about.

What is naive about not accepting a claim that has no evidence, reasoning or logic?

Please answer, I would really like to know how that is naive.

The one thing atheists are silent on and I am yet to hear a valid argument against is that empirical observation is limited via perception. You can call me a straw man all you you like but unfortunately you will also calling a lot of famous philosophers this also.

I don't see your point? So what if it is limited by perception? If you are making a claim something exists, and there is nothing at all that can show, test or prove that it does, what is the point in believing it in the first place?

You are looking at it one sided. You are believing something with no evidence, reasoning or logic that can be put forward, then claiming that due to limitations of 'perception' (whatever that is) one cannot claim it does not exist.

Where have I claimed god does not exist bgbarber?

You are coming here, obviously leading to the fact you have a belief, and want others to accept that. Fine, you believe in something you can never have any evidence whatsoever for. good on you. call me naive all you like *shrug*

Some people also shoot themselves in the head, it's sad, but hey you can't do much about it.

I am not saying religion proves this or that - just making a point that the insistence on observable behavior to define one's own reality - is limiting.

How? How am I limited? You are making a claim here, show us how this is true.

I challenge you to at least consider all empirical observation may be just a subset of perception - it make take you out of your comfort zone it may not.

I have to go. Been good chatting.

bye bye

wearestardust

5th March 2010, 05:10 PM

All right let me cut to the chase and it is called philosophy (skepticism) my friends. Ridiculing a belief or school or thought due to the limitations of one's won perception is well simply - naive.

The one thing atheists are silent on and I am yet to hear a valid argument against is that empirical observation is limited via perception. You can call me a straw man all you you like but unfortunately you will also calling a lot of famous philosophers this also.

I am not saying religion proves this or that - just making a point that the insistence on observable behavior to define one's own reality - is limiting.

Do you actually read posts that you respond to? Or do you just prattle on.

I've already made the point that from a scientific perspective, all knowledge is uncertain. This is due, of course, to limitations of our perception.

This is what I mean by my comment that it is theists who keep talking about a need for proof - or, more to the point, who keep insisting on putting a need for proof into the mouths of humanists and rationalists.

we have not been silent on this. I would be happy to scream in your ear "PERCEPTION IS LIMITED, ALL KNOWLEDGE IS PROVISIONAL".

Now because you've been so ruse as to just fire off questions (that display your ignorance) we have no idea where you are coming from. But, usually when someone makes the 'you stupid atheists look for proof' argument, where they are going is a conclusion that is something like 'we don't know, therefore god'. Which is a nonsense conclusion. If you lose your keys, does that mean god did it? I would take a guess that you've never seen Napoleon face to face. Does that mean we have to take his existance as a matter of faith without evidence?

I challenge you to at least consider all empirical observation may be just a subset of perception - it make take you out of your comfort zone it may not.

.

How can you have perception - or indeed any knowledge or experience - that is not observation? That is the question I have never gotten a straight answer from a theist on.

Justin

5th March 2010, 05:22 PM

I challenge you to at least consider all empirical observation may be just a subset of perception

This *has* been examined by science and rejected. If this were so we would see consistent results from populations around the world (which there is not) or see extra information being gained by some people that informs their understanding of reality beyond those of "normal" senses (which there is no sign of).

If you continue believe this despite such tests you must claim to either believe those who tell you they have extra perception (despite *no-one* *ever* having been proved to have such extra perception), or someone who claims to have such an perception yourself. The first makes you naive, the second makes you someone worth testing.

The final possibility is that you believe in perception of things *outside* reality (and there is no evidence of such a location). If those things don't effect reality (and there has been NO evidence that anything ever has), then you need to get that cut out as it is *irrelevant*!

Drop into an atheist meeting (anywhere) and they'll be sure to assist.

In the meantime enjoy your deluded existence.

askegg

5th March 2010, 07:03 PM

bgbarber, what is this crap? Do you really expect to win people over the Jesus by smearing your faeces all over the floor?

Loki

5th March 2010, 07:19 PM

bgbarber might also have provided a reference to his rant. It is a clumsy rehash of something which has been around for a very long time. I read a version recently where the "young whatever" was Einstein and "Dawkins" was a lecturer.

It's funny that when people use a confrontational approach other people respond as to an attack. An interesting example of the fight/flight response, a useful instinct from an evolutionary perspective. Oh, sorry, did I say evolution, bugger.

I'd go a step further and suggest that the confrontation approach is due to knowing that what you are saying is inflamatory and dishonest. That's the overwhelming impression I get from drive-bys, dishonesty.

Loki

5th March 2010, 08:12 PM

Here we go

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

A drive-by plagiarist. I'd be ashamed too.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th March 2010, 08:47 PM

Funny enough I read this in my RSS feed alligator... type... thingy... and thought that Dawkins was on a win here. Of course some things are too complex to explain well to a child. Things like the DNA sequence and what not.

However can YOU explain YOUR religion and god? There is one Christian I know who has the excuse "God is really hard to explain" but she "knows" it is true because there is "evidence" in the bible. Of course, any known attempt to explain to her what CIRCULAR REASONING was proved futile.

Give us something we haven't heard before. Yes many of us know about God but think as if we don't know anything about your religion. I'll write more about such an approach later in another thread, but for know assume we know absolutely nothing about religion. You're the salesperson of a dodgy car and you gotta convince me to buy it. Why? Why not the spanking shiny new Scientologooberoo and not the Muslimitsubishi instead?

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 08:53 PM

No dishonesty there - I composed that dialogue couple years agao as I was mad becuase my lecturer failed me as I could not attend a lecture due to a friends wedding day. He said he would consider a "creative suggestion" for an excuse.

Neve even read what you are talking about. As for confrontational - there appears to be a definintion of dissent of argument on this forum that is mistaken for confrontational - that is concerning.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 08:59 PM

I did not mean YOU are limited. My arguments are not personal attacks. They may make people feel uncomfortable and challenge notions of belief but never are they personal - how could they be - do not know you.

I am a little amused that some are directed personally towards me - I do not take it personally.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 09:02 PM

cool - when was this done? I actually posted the dialogue a year or so ago on another forum.

Loki

5th March 2010, 09:02 PM

Ok, so what was the question you were asking, or the point you were making. It may have gotten lost somewhere.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 09:13 PM

"How can you have perception - or indeed any knowledge or experience - that is not observation? That is the question I have never gotten a straight answer from a theist on." This is easy - it is called reflection. Someone wanted a refernce:

This not yet published but it is my material

"A “mental model” can be defined as the (cognitive and emotional) context in which an individual interprets new material (Kim 1993). Using the above arguments to illustrate the importance of the inter connectivity between the observer and the perceived reality of the experience, the identification of the mental models around each of the observers or stakeholders involved in the change process is critical
in shaping the experience."

In other words your present reality and experience of events is defined by your current understanding of the world - your "mental model".

The understanding, knowledge, and learning generated by a concrete experience is only defined by the current interpretation of such an event – that is the current mental model. A “mental model” can be defined as the (cognitive and emotional) context in which an individual interprets new material (Kim 1993). By continually revisiting events and experiences using reflective observation, new learning can be obtained and as such we can “travel back in time”, effectively change the perception of the experience, and ultimately who we are in the present.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 09:19 PM

References: A good illustration of the concept is the "The Brain in a Vat" example. Again, my point is not to attack empirical observation and experiment - it is very important.

My argument is that it is limiting to discount theory on the basis of a lack of observable evidence. To actaully demand proof before belief although safe, is not a good growth strategy, as inherent in any forms of growth an element of risk needs to be present.

GenericBox

5th March 2010, 09:27 PM

Hooch is crazy.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 09:28 PM

The argument is highlighting that there are schools of thought around knowledge.

This is my own opinion (no reference) - Science/Maths are beautiful vehicles that allow debate, discourse, paths to truth and are essential for experience - there are others some may argue.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 09:34 PM

"The final possibility is that you believe in perception of things *outside* reality (and there is no evidence of such a location). If those things don't effect reality (and there has been NO evidence that anything ever has), then you need to get that cut out as it is *irrelevant*!"

There is an argument that via the sheer act of asking or being conscious of such a question may well be all the proof you need? - These are philsophical arguments remember and have been debated long before the tools of scientific empirical observation and experiment evolved - so no I have no empirical proof - just reasoning.

There have been some studies (scientific) done on similar concepts.

Loki

5th March 2010, 09:54 PM

I'm sure that most atheists would at least entertain a rational explanation of superstition which did not contain empirical evidence. From a rational hypothesis it should be possible to devise an experiment to empirically test such an explanation.

However it is my experience that such a rational explanation has not been forthcoming.

The definition of atheism as accepted by the AFA is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

As an atheist (and I am speaking as a quorum of one) I form my worldview from the things I can experience (taste, touch, see, etc.) and things I can infer and which have been tested by others (I lack the mathematics to explore general relativity past the basic proof, yet many others have and they have used that ability to perform tests on the observable universe which are observable and which back up the maths).

The problem I see with religion is that it works in the opposite direction to science. Lots of atheists like the science thing, it is a rigourous structure aimed at observing and describing the universe in a rational fashion, I think it is this rational aspect which attracts us.

Science says "I wonder if x happens because y", and a test is devised with a single variable. There are two possible answers, x happens because y, or x happens because z. If z happens then that is what science reports. Science is not preconcieved.

Religion says "y causes x". Religion presupposes the answer, this is not rational.

I'm not sure what you mean by "To actaully demand proof before belief although safe, is not a good growth strategy". If I invest money in shares, I accept that there is a risk associated with this strategy. I try and minimise the risk by researching the companies I buy shares in, by demanding proof that they are genuine and viable businesses. I need to see that they have a firm footing. I demand the same of religion.

If you are suggesting that accepting religion would lead to "growth" of some sort, or a positive outcome for myself as a person, then I beg to differ. You would first have to convince be that the supernatural exists, and then that gods, and specifically your god (whichever that is) exist as well. It's entirely possible that someone might feel better about themselves if they had faith, I wouldn't know, I certainly didn't. However for me it's not about what makes you feel better, it's about what is right (as in factually correct). Heroin makes you feel better, I'm told, but I'm not about to try that either.

bgbarber

5th March 2010, 10:07 PM

just before we get into religious debate - can I highlight that this is the first time I mentioned that word.

Religion says "y causes x". Religion presupposes the answer, this is not rational - It does - sounds like it has a serious Quantum mind–body problem.

Loki

5th March 2010, 10:10 PM

Highlight away, the intention is inferred, through repeated observation of previous visiters.

Worldslaziestbusker

6th March 2010, 04:12 AM

DNA drives us, but not in the way we drive our cars. It can't make snap decisions. It gets transcribed to RNA which makes the proteins that let our cells do stuff. Some of the proteins are used as hormones to induce physiological changes in the larger organism. Some of the hormones make us want to have sex, a chance to make more copies of the DNA and share the goodness.
Anyone who has ever been sexually aroused has acknowledged the chemical bidding of their DNA. This is as true for gay as for straight folks (or furries, or people who marry inanimate objects etc), as the DNA does't understand that some encounters will not be successful, it just wants you to have a go.
Relationships have been a prime mover in decisions about my career, travel and friendships. Since successfully reproducing, my life is geared around giving my offspring the best chance of reaching adulthood.
DNA rules my life.
There have been periods where chocolate and music had to suffice as reasons to get out of bed, but there was always the hope of future DNA driven fun to keep me from succumbing to an overdose of ennui.
Next straw man.
WLB

atheist_angel

6th March 2010, 05:02 AM

just before we get into religious debate - can I highlight that this is the first time I mentioned that word.

- It does - sounds like it has a serious Quantum mind–body problem.Don't tell me, he's going to try to explain 'quantum field theory' to us now....

bgbarber, what ARE you talking about?

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 11:33 AM

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 11:35 AM

No - I will not try to explain - Out of my depth there - I will attempt to highlight current scientific debate about who the hell is pushing who atoms around though.

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 12:11 PM

The reason I talk in "twaddle" is I am just attempting see what the level of enquiry is that's all. The concept of "who is pushing who's atoms around" is akin to the "Observer effect" in quantam mechanics. Which basically means that the act of observation as the quantum level changes (or has an impact) on the experiment. This has wider implications for empirical observation itself.

I do not profess to be an expert on such but from a laymans point of view the basic concepts are fascinating.

two dogs

6th March 2010, 12:58 PM

...
The concept of "who is pushing who's atoms around" is akin to the "Observer effect" in quantam mechanics. Which basically means that the act of observation as the quantum level changes (or has an impact) on the experiment. This has wider implications for empirical observation itself.
...

Observation, in this sense, means measurement, not looking at, as we can't see particles directly. However, we can infer their properties from their interaction with other forces, and of course applying those forces is going to have an effect on the particles.

davo

6th March 2010, 01:44 PM

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 01:48 PM

Science is also not black and white over emperical evidence. It is only part of evidence not the totality of it as being presented.

Science looks at observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning to validate or reject hypothesis. These terms have specific meanings in regard to the scientific method.

No disagreement!
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2862261&l=edc6987686&id=653579907http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2862261&l=edc6987686&id=653579907
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2862261&l=edc6987686&id=653579907

davo

6th March 2010, 02:11 PM

My argument is that it is limiting to discount theory on the basis of a lack of observable evidence. To actaully demand proof before belief although safe, is not a good growth strategy, as inherent in any forms of growth an element of risk needs to be present.

But science does not discount doing this at all. It does however discount holding onto a belief to substantiate a position based on lack of any evidence. It's also called hypothesis not theory in science.

Science does not say 'there is no god'. Science is a method of coming to understanding about existence and gathering knowledge based on that.

Faith is claims made without evidence. That's fine, but does not at all relate to science.

Really I have no idea what you are saying, other than trying to substantiate holding a faith position as being scientific?

I find it kinda ironic that believers seem to have such an issue with science, mainly because it can confront a lot of faith positions really.

I would like to ask tho, if you are presenting something that is faith in the religious concept of a god, can you do so? Without the position clarified over what you are claiming exists, it is simply not worth it for me to take part in discussing the possibility of something that cannot even be defined, tested, observed or makes sense logically or via a reasoned thought process.

Effectively you are saying, because we don't know everything, anything outside our knowledge could therefore exist ..

... TA-DA! therefore god.

I'm I getting close to whatever point you are making?

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 02:22 PM

But science does not discount doing this at all. It does however discount holding onto a belief to substantiate a position based on lack of any evidence. It's also called hypothesis not theory in science.

Science does not say 'there is no god'. Science is a method of coming to understanding about existence and gathering knowledge based on that.

Faith is claims made without evidence. That's fine, but does not at all relate to science.

Really I have no idea what you are saying, other than trying to substantiate holding a faith position as being scientific?

I find it kinda ironic that believers seem to have such an issue with science, mainly because it can confront a lot of faith positions really.

I would like to ask tho, if you are presenting something that is faith in the religious concept of a god, can you do so? Without the position clarified over what you are claiming exists, it is simply not worth it for me to take part in discussing the possibility of something that cannot even be defined, tested, observed or makes sense logically or via a reasoned thought process.

Effectively you are saying, because we don't know everything, anything outside our knowledge could therefore exist ..

... TA-DA! therefore god.

I'm I getting close to whatever point you are making?

My position is best summed up as below - Dawkins (and science in general) is out of his depth when attempting to use science to ridicle other schools of thought.

(http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2862261&l=edc6987686&id=653579907[/img) (Linked)

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 02:33 PM

...tested, observed or makes sense logically or via a reasoned thought process.

Effectively you are saying, because we don't know everything, anything outside our knowledge could therefore exist ..

... TA-DA! therefore god.

I'm I getting close to whatever point you are making?

Yep - that is my argument! This does not lead us to "God" but does not exclude the possiblilty. We can reason, be logical, and find truths in the absence of empirical evidence - this is was philosophers have been doing for thousands of years. - thanks for listening.

Loki

6th March 2010, 02:33 PM

I'm starting to think it's getting to the stage where "faith is claims made without evidence" needs to be redefined as "faith is claims made despite evidence".

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 02:39 PM

I'm starting to think it's getting to the stage where "faith is claims made without evidence" needs to be redefined as "faith is claims made despite evidence".

Other way around Loki - otherwise Faith would be part of the natural sciences. I am just attempting to get outside the box of the requirement of evidence as a pre-req. this does not cheapen scientific method rather it expands its enquiry.

Loki

6th March 2010, 02:59 PM

How do you know which bits outside your box you need to have faith in? What are the criteria? Do you believe in unicorns?

bgbarber

6th March 2010, 03:09 PM

How do you know which bits outside your box you need to have faith in? What are the criteria? Do you believe in unicorns?

That all comes down to personal choice I would imagine and what things as a person they hold value to and what the object of belief it represents. Often objects themselves are merely metaphors for underlying beliefs.

Loki

6th March 2010, 03:12 PM

Why do you have faith in the xian god and yet do not have faith in unicorns? The evidence for both is identical. Please be specific.

davo

6th March 2010, 06:08 PM

My position is best summed up as below - Dawkins (and science in general) is out of his depth when attempting to use science to ridicle other schools of thought.

Dawkins and science are responding to claims that are made without evidence that attack science, using no evidence for the claims this is why.

Science is not out of depth in responding to claims that are faith based claims that contradict the evidence.

Worldslaziestbusker

6th March 2010, 07:59 PM

Thanks for your response - I am still confused as to who is making your decisions here though.

In relation to DNA and natural selection in general however there appears to be flaw -To think a little more abstractly (I can hear the shrieks of scientific method horror) -Via what hideous mutation in natural selection would allow dissent which ultimately could bring about the destruction of itself? - Not so much a natural selection me thinks?

I'm making the decisions, but (and I don't mean to sound base) when I look at my life as a whole, those decisions have been geared toward getting as much of my genes out into the world as possible. I really don't want to put you off your food, but I am aroused at least once a day. My DNA is making hormones that control aspects of my physiology and behaviour that I cannot alter any more than I can stop the tides.
My decisions are geared to serve the call of my DNA. Feel free to deny it is the case for you, but I am comfortable that my animal instincts are no more or less valid than those of any other organism.

I don't understand the second section of your post. Are you requesting information about organisms that abstein from reproduction or about a memetic shift that would cause natural selection to fall on it's ear as a component of evolutionary theory?
In the first case: organisms that choose not to reproduce leave no offspring and any geneitc trait predisposing them to such a tendency is erased from the population.
In the second case: provide evidence that natural selection is invalid or that a simpler and better explanation supercedes Darwin's model and you'll get published in Nature.
WLB

Loki

6th March 2010, 08:03 PM

In the second case: provide evidence that natural selection is invalid or that a simpler and better explanation supercedes Darwin's model and you'll get published in Nature.
WLB

Even better, I'll personally come and cheer from the front row at the ceremony in Sweden.

Justin

6th March 2010, 10:59 PM

I'm very impressed with the quality of arguments presented here and am even surprised that our guest has calmed down from his original post and shown some civility and actually explained his actual question.

Unfortunately it boils down to the standard refrain of "I say God exists and you can't prove he doesn't." (even tho' our guest has yet to admit the "I say god exists" component (hardly important!))

If you claim that mentally internal experience tells you that something exists that you say cannot be proven by science (and it can as you will see shortly), why is it that this "thing" is inconsistent at the level of nations (eg you experience "God", Indian people sense a panalpy of gods, I experience wonder at the Universe, etc). Such a thing is still testable on a consistency basis and fails!

A more likely explanation is that commonality *within* a culture arises from the seeding of ideas in peoples minds. How many people have "discovered" such a being without having that idea seeded first...I'll give you a clue...NONE.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 01:16 AM

bxNJHuM0Js0

atheist_angel

7th March 2010, 03:04 AM

No - I will not try to explain - Out of my depth there - I will attempt to highlight current scientific debate about who the hell is pushing who atoms around though.I would have to agree with you - You ARE out of your depth. ;)

What controls the weather? (<not "causes" it - but "controls" it. - This is my attempt to ask a similar question in a non-in-depth way..) What pushes the wind around? Cause and effect? Domino effect? Reflexes? What makes you think it has to be a "who"?

You definitely seem to be stuck in a box, of some kind.

Do YOU ever look at any other schools of thought?

Worldslaziestbusker

7th March 2010, 06:53 AM

Other way around Loki - otherwise Faith would be part of the natural sciences. I am just attempting to get outside the box of the requirement of evidence as a pre-req. this does not cheapen scientific method rather it expands its enquiry.

Wow, that would be awesome and everyone could get along and homeopaths could use less rigorous standards of proof to hawk their water...

No, wait, the other thing.

You are a git.

You came barging in with an extremely presumptuous take on an old question. It was pointed out that you were putting up a straw man but I put time and energy into answering your question anyway. Instead of attempting to rebut my take on the matter all you do is try to wriggle around the meanings of words and link to a video that only serves to remind me how Coldplay got very crap very quickly.
If you don't come up with something better than you've been posting I'll ignore your future efforts. If this is the best you can do, not only have you failed to make me a convert, you've failed to justify your own faith. You're welcome to believe what you like but you can't prevent me saying I think you're wrong.

Sidetrack: The song is good but the album is not. I pretend they only released Parachutes before breaking up to work on unsuccesful solo projects. Yes, it's belief in the face of evidence, but it's so inconsequential to the community at large that I can live with the self deception, enjoy their first album and ignore X + Y and whatever else they did since.
Faith in some larger lie in the face of evidence, say a proscriptive religion with lots of inherent inequalities and contradictions, would require a capacity for delusion I don't expect to acquire till I get senile.

WLB

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 10:15 AM

Is Coldplay's "The Scientist" offered as proof, entertainment, or diversion?

We'd rather hear what you have to say, unless you're bringing some of that peer-reviewed reference material.

This is fantasy Island - correct? Making argument outside of scientific "rules" makes those who argument within those rules a little uncomfortable - observed from the emotional responses.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 10:20 AM

I would have to agree with you - You ARE out of your depth. ;)

What controls the weather? (<not "causes" it - but "controls" it. - This is my attempt to ask a similar question in a non-in-depth way..) What pushes the wind around? Cause and effect? Domino effect? Reflexes? What makes you think it has to be a "who"?

You definitely seem to be stuck in a box, of some kind.

Do YOU ever look at any other schools of thought?

My posts were immediately placed in Fantasy Island - I believe the question is more pertinent to some on this forum.

In answer to your question 'What makes you think it has to be a who?" - I do not believe I ever made any assertions relating to this. In relation to the concept of control - how can one have control and choice at the same time - this is an interesting question.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 10:23 AM

What emotional responses, Bee Gee?

Exasperation at your intransigent thick-headedness aside, I mean.

I would prefer to be referred to as a git from now on - thank you

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 10:27 AM

Wow, that would be awesome and everyone could get along and homeopaths could use less rigorous standards of proof to hawk their water...

No, wait, the other thing.

You are a git.

You came barging in with an extremely presumptuous take on an old question. It was pointed out that you were putting up a straw man but I put time and energy into answering your question anyway. Instead of attempting to rebut my take on the matter all you do is try to wriggle around the meanings of words and link to a video that only serves to remind me how Coldplay got very crap very quickly.
If you don't come up with something better than you've been posting I'll ignore your future efforts. If this is the best you can do, not only have you failed to make me a convert, you've failed to justify your own faith. You're welcome to believe what you like but you can't prevent me saying I think you're wrong.

Sidetrack: The song is good but the album is not. I pretend they only released Parachutes before breaking up to work on unsuccesful solo projects. Yes, it's belief in the face of evidence, but it's so inconsequential to the community at large that I can live with the self deception, enjoy their first album and ignore X + Y and whatever else they did since.
Faith in some larger lie in the face of evidence, say a proscriptive religion with lots of inherent inequalities and contradictions, would require a capacity for delusion I don't expect to acquire till I get senile.

WLB

The song is beautiful. "say a proscriptive religion with lots of inherent inequalities and contradictions, would require a capacity for delusion" - life is a paradox my friend - and this is perhaps the true definition of courage - living with paradox - I do not have an answer to placate your anger only a fools advice.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 10:29 AM

Fearless

7th March 2010, 10:29 AM

I think you confuse anger with frustration too easily.

Edit: Well and other similar emotions.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 10:33 AM

Clue for you (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=899), bg. Other Clue (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=963).

In case your Boeotian bent extends to an inability to click links, let me quote:

I undertand this is an athiest forum - however I would also like to highlight the dangers of censoring debate that challenges the current subject matter.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.

...I may be wrong.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 10:57 AM

BG: That is definitely an "I know you are, but what am I".

You've also done a Dumpty's Wriggle.

Produce something of substance, if you can, or you will be mentioned to Mod Council as being an unsubstantiated waffler.

My attempts at illustrating argument using other schools of thought as anticipated have elicited the same old responses - give me data, give me evidence, why, why, why?
The inability to recognise or even acknowledge valid argument around concepts of philosophical scepticism from members is a little concerning perhaps dogmatic? Attempts at engaging in philosophical debate to give context to scientific argument are met with allegations of “waffle” and “straw man”.
The truly great scientists and thinkers of the age were not just scientists. There were men and women of thought (and some of religion).
Nowhere have I argued against science and its methods. My arguments are attempts to highlight the dangers of thinking and rationalising around the world using a single school of thought.
I hope I have at least got some people thinking. The next time you pick up the “God Delusion” I hope the title begins to also have a meaning on another level – the irony of the title is not lost on Mr Dawkins

Fearless

7th March 2010, 11:04 AM

Why are they always this predictable?

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 11:14 AM

Why are they always this predictable?

The predictability that you observe is due to the platform. One cannot be seen to agree or acknowledge the outsider for fear of being ostracised by forum members.

This is one criticism I have of forums (both theist and atheist) and they are not really the best platform for intellectual debate - but at least it is some form of platfom :)

Fearless

7th March 2010, 11:21 AM

The predictability that you observe is due to the platform. One cannot be seen to agree or acknowledge the outsider for fear of being ostracised by forum members.

Lol, you understand us less than you know.

Meh, this is getting boring anyway... toodles.

Darwinsbulldog

7th March 2010, 11:33 AM

My attempts at illustrating argument using other schools of thought as anticipated have elicited the same old responses - give me data, give me evidence, why, why, why?

Both scientists and religious folks have brain farts. Creativity in inherent in everyone. The difference is that scientists submit their notions to nature for testing. Many scientists [including myself] are not unaware of the arguments of philosophers of science like Popper, Hume, Kuhn, Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle etc, etc.
The inability to recognise or even acknowledge valid argument around concepts of philosophical skepticism from members is a little concerning perhaps dogmatic?Then make you arguments more coherent. Claims are one thing, but a claim devoid of evidence, is an opinion.
Attempts at engaging in philosophical debate to give context to scientific argument are met with allegations of “waffle” and “straw man”.A person trained in philosophy would not present unfounded claims, waffle, straw man arguments and other fallacies of reasoning in a serious discussion, so why do you do so?

The truly great scientists and thinkers of the age were not just scientists. There were men and women of thought (and some of religion).And your point is? Great scientists can make mistakes, ordinary laypersons can be occasionally correct, but what matters is the quality of argument in every case, and the evidence one presents in support of it.
Nowhere have I argued against science and its methods. My arguments are attempts to highlight the dangers of thinking and rationalising around the world using a single school of thought.I don't know where you have been, but modern scientific thinking [and academic thinking in general] is often both multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary. Even practical or engineering problems and challenges are done more often by a team approach where many diverse skills contribute.
I hope I have at least got some people thinking. The next time you pick up the “God Delusion” I hope the title begins to also have a meaning on another level – the irony of the title is not lost on Mr DawkinsOh, apparently we don't think here? What an assumption! Further drivel by you. Are you going to privilege us with the benefit of your wisdom once more? Oh goodie! :rolleyes:

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 11:46 AM

Both scientists and religious folks have brain farts. Creativity in inherent in everyone. The difference is that scientists submit their notions to nature for testing. Many scientists [including myself] are not unaware of the arguments of philosophers of science like Popper, Hume, Kuhn, Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle etc, etc.
Then make you arguments more coherent. Claims are one thing, but a claim devoid of evidence, is an opinion.
A person trained in philosophy would not present unfounded claims, waffle, straw man arguments and other fallacies of reasoning in a serious discussion, so why do you do so?

And your point is? Great scientists can make mistakes, ordinary laypersons can be occasionally correct, but what matters is the quality of argument in every case, and the evidence one presents in support of it.
I don't know where you have been, but modern scientific thinking [and academic thinking in general] is often both multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary. Even practical or engineering problems and challenges are done more often by a team approach where many diverse skills contribute.
Oh, apparently we don't think here? What an assumption! Further drivel by you. Are you going to privilege us with the benefit of your wisdom once more? Oh goodie! :rolleyes:

There is nothing in my above post I refute. It was made in good will and there is no assertion that members do not think at all. As a man of science I would have hoped the interpretation of a reference was unbiased.

"I don't know where you have been, but modern scientific thinking [and academic thinking in general] is often both multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary." - this was exactly my point and I am glad you have higlighted it.

Loki

7th March 2010, 11:49 AM

The inability to recognise or even acknowledge valid argument around concepts of philosophical scepticism from members is a little concerning perhaps dogmatic?

The frustration and head banging arises from either your intellectual dishonesty or your inability to express yourself in a way which can be understood. Your "argument" is nothing but polemic, with no substance. People here would be happy to agree with a lot of things, dare I say even those which might support your position, if you could provide a lucid argument.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 12:04 PM

The frustration and head banging arises from either your intellectual dishonesty or your inability to express yourself in a way which can be understood. Your "argument" is nothing but polemic, with no substance. People here would be happy to agree with a lot of things, dare I say even those which might support your position, if you could provide a lucid argument.

I have made many lucid arguements around the limits of using empirical evidence to define ones own reality. These arguments are around core concepts of philsophical skepticism. Members are either unwilling or unable to debate at this level - I am not sure how many times I need to repeat these arguments. Do you at least acknowledge such arguments? Would you consider the possiblity you are a "brain in vat" and as such also is science?

Worldslaziestbusker

7th March 2010, 12:12 PM

bgbarber
You cry despair that our responses to your canards are the same old atheistic tosh, but to us your straw man tactics and unsubstantiated claims are every bit as easy to predict.
Trace back through the Fantasy Island history and you'll see you're not the first to arrive with little to say and to say it loudly.
You claim we are closed minded to reject your ideas.
A second hypothesis could be that we are open minded and your ideas have little merit. Have you been sufficiently open minded to consider this option?
Give me something substantial and you'll make a convert.
Continue to do an impression of an empty vessel making noise and I'll maintain my ideas as they stand.
Open mindedness is an ability to change an opinion or idea when a better one comes along. It is distinct from just accepting what someone tells you to accept, which seems to be what you are expecting of us.
Redefining words and bleating about the unfairness of the limitations of emperical evidence are also common features of theist posts on the island, so you'll have to resign yourself to further indifference to your statements if you continue on those lines.
The language we use is english and online dictionaries are available free. The standards of emperical evidence apply as much to atheists as to theists, so it's fair that we expect you to come up with something credible. Incredible claims rely on special pleading that I don't allow myself, so I don't see why I should accept it from you.
WLB

Peter A

7th March 2010, 12:30 PM

Dawkins: Hah that old chestnut! Well son it so has it that as scientists we do not believe as such. We consider these things to be stories of myths so to speak.

Young Wonderer: Oh. OK So what did then?
Dawkins: Well a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away there was this massive big bang and then from this, via some exceptional circumstances the planets and stars came to be created.

I realise that this little story, in trying to put forth a particular point-of-view, is just fiction and should not be taken too seriously, but the misunderstanding here was too much for me to just let pass. The universe was not created in a specific location in an already-existing universe ('galaxy far far away'); space itself, along with time, came into existence at the 'moment' of the proverbial Big Bang.

I just wrote this because it appears the writer - bgbarber - does not understand basic cosmology. I know, that sounds extremely patronising, but, judging by the letter, unfortunately true.

Perhaps an examination of how an effect (the universe) could, without a cause, come into being, and the absence of this type of lopsided causality in nature as we see it today, would have been a more effective angle of attack from the theological point of view :).

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 12:32 PM

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 12:34 PM

I realise that this little story, in trying to put forth a particular point-of-view, is just fiction and should not be taken too seriously, but the misunderstanding here was too much for me to just let pass. The universe was not created in a specific location in an already-existing universe ('galaxy far far away'); space itself, along with time, came into existence at the 'moment' of the proverbial Big Bang.

I just wrote this because it appears the writer - bgbarber - does not understand basic cosmology. I know, that sounds extremely patronising, but, judging by the letter, unfortunately true.

Perhaps an examination of how an effect (the universe) could, without a cause, come into being, and the absence of this type of lopsided causality in nature as we see it today, would have been a more effective angle of attack from the theological point of view :).

it is a story!!!! Put your science book away :)

Peter A

7th March 2010, 12:43 PM

it is a story!!!! Put your science book away :)

Yes, I know that, but it's the way you mangle the story (with misconceptions) that bothers me. Why did you write it, by the way? Can I assume to argue the point that science can be misleading and/or incomplete? Obviously you had a motive and/or agenda to push; a Christian one, perhaps? You tell me.

Loki

7th March 2010, 12:46 PM

I asked this of someone else recently, perhaps you'd like to answer it.

Why do you have faith in the xian god and yet do not have faith in the unvisible pink unicorn. Please be specific.

Peter A

7th March 2010, 12:58 PM

This is fantasy Island - correct? Making argument outside of scientific "rules" makes those who argument within those rules a little uncomfortable - observed from the emotional responses.

Is this an admission that your stance is a repudiation of all that science stands for, and that you would rather follow instinct when it comes to determining the truth? The 'scientific rules' exist for very good reasons, one of those reasons being to prevent personal feelings and bias from causing one to misinterpret evidence, for example.

Peter A

7th March 2010, 01:07 PM

I asked this of someone else recently, perhaps you'd like to answer it.

Why do you have faith in the xian god and yet do not have faith in the unvisible pink unicorn. Please be specific.

Can I answer this one? Can I? Can I? Pleeeeese!
Okay, now the Christian God is real because Jesus Christ was real, and he was real because there were witnesses to his many deeds, and we all know that these particular witnesses could not have lied, or been dishonest, or whatnot because, well... the Bible says so, and that book is never wrong. Is it? :D

Anyway, pink unicorns don't exist because, well... um... they are not mentioned in the Bible?

There you go - argument from authority. Works every time. It's all the Christians have really.

atheist_angel

7th March 2010, 01:37 PM

Can I answer this one? Can I? Can I? Pleeeeese!
Okay, now the Christian God is real because Jesus Christ was real, and he was real because there were witnesses to his many deeds, and we all know that these particular witnesses could not have lied, or been dishonest, or whatnot because, well... the Bible says so, and that book is never wrong. Is it? :D

Anyway, pink unicorns don't exist because, well... um... they are not mentioned in the Bible?

There you go - argument from authority. Works every time. It's all the Christians have really.You might be surprised at what passes for 'truth' in the bible...
Numbers 23:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+23:22&version=KJV)
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. More unicorn verses (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=9)

Peter A

7th March 2010, 02:05 PM

You might be surprised at what passes for 'truth' in the bible...
More unicorn verses (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=9)

I just can't believe it! :eek: :eek: :eek: I thought you were just joking, but it actually does mention unicorns. Incredible. The link you gave that I clicked on led to a site that I've recently been to a few times (New King James Bible) just recently in an ongoing debate with a Bible-belcher.

Well, I suppose that since the authors of that dreadful book classed bats as birds and thought that pi was equal to 3 (exactly equal), that I should not be at all surprised. Still came as a shock though.

Peter A

7th March 2010, 02:11 PM

Actually, they weren't pink; the ones in the Bible, it doesn't give their colour. Actually, the 'debate' I was having with the Bible-Basher wasn't at the site linked, but another site, and I was using this NKJV resource for the quotes. Just thought that I should clear that up. Sorry for the extra post :rolleyes:

Loki

7th March 2010, 03:04 PM

Wow, unicorns in the bible, I'm so much deeper than I thought. Must remember that connection.

As bgbarber answered my question:

Do you believe in unicorns?with:

That all comes down to personal choice I would imagine and what things as a person they hold value to and what the object of belief it represents. Often objects themselves are merely metaphors for underlying beliefs.I am interested in hearing about his personal choices and values and how they guide his belief. He has asserted that;

We can reason, be logical, and find truths in the absence of empirical evidenceso i'd like to hear his reasons and for accepting the truth of the xian god, as opposed to his reasons and logic for denying unicorns, in the absence of empirical evidence. I'm hoping that by explaining his reasoning I can understand where his position comes from.

Surely that's not too much too ask?

.

wearestardust

7th March 2010, 06:09 PM

The predictability that you observe is due to the platform. One cannot be seen to agree or acknowledge the outsider for fear of being ostracised by forum members.

This is one criticism I have of forums (both theist and atheist) and they are not really the best platform for intellectual debate - but at least it is some form of platfom :)

I think what Fearless meant was: "why do theists invariably get all upset because others aren't willing to accept what they say without any sort of evidence. argument or other justification at all?"

wolty

7th March 2010, 06:16 PM

I think what Fearless meant was: "why do theists invariably get all upset because others aren't willing to accept what they say without any sort of evidence. argument or other justification at all?"

Add to that the idea we like straight talking, getting to the point and really really don't like obfuscation. Also people that make wild outrageous claims which we have problems even understanding, let alone responding to. And bullshit and stuff made up to prove a point. And never answering questions, going off topic, ignoring the hard questions and responding badly to the easy ones. And bad grammar and spelling.

Anymore? Thats just for starters.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 07:03 PM

Wow, unicorns in the bible, I'm so much deeper than I thought. Must remember that connection.

As bgbarber answered my question:

with:

I am interested in hearing about his personal choices and values and how they guide his belief. He has asserted that;

so i'd like to hear his reasons and for accepting the truth of the xian god, as opposed to his reasons and logic for denying unicorns, in the absence of empirical evidence. I'm hoping that by explaining his reasoning I can understand where his position comes from.

Surely that's not too much too ask?
.

No it is not too much to ask. I never brought up unicorns or xian gods - it appears you did. What is this called - tin man?. I am still waiting for the response for the "brain in a vat" question - the silence is deafening
.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 07:10 PM

105 posts and all I got was a lousy headache.

Mr Barber, please make a point, disclose your substantiated reasoning behind the proposition you are about to put forward so a normal discussion can take place or I'll send you to Disneyland for a while... this is more annoying than a discussion on smileys :rolleyes:

OK - Can I have your opinion on the possibility that reality is constrained by the tools that define that reality? This is a school of thought called philosophical skepticism and may allow the possibility of a "god" - this is my argument and my point.

A reasoned response would be appreciated.

Loki

7th March 2010, 07:25 PM

Would you consider the possiblity you are a "brain in vat" and as such also is science?

I'd love to help you out but the question is a little hard to decipher, let's have a shot anyway.

Science is an attempt to describe the universe, so far very successfully (as far as we know). There are however many, many things science has not described adequately or we do not yet have adequate tools to test. These things are called "that which we do not know". Your "brain in a vat" analogy could be stretched to mean that science and rationality is limited in that it only comments on that for which we have empirical data, or which can be logically derived from "that which we do know". Not commenting on "that which we do not know" is known within scientific circles as "rigour". Science does not claim to know everything, a liberating position once you get used to it.

There you go, now have a go at mine, and please stop saying the xian god is not on your agenda, if it isn't then you are the worst Poe I've ever seen.

So you don't have to look far:

I'd like to hear his reasons and logic for accepting the truth of the xian god, as opposed to his reasons and logic for denying unicorns, in the absence of empirical evidence.

Please be specific.

wearestardust

7th March 2010, 07:27 PM

OK - Can I have your opinion on the possibility that reality is constrained by the tools that define that reality? This is a school of thought called philosophical skepticism and may allow the possibility of a "god" - this is my argument and my point.

A reasoned response would be appreciated.

Are you trying to say: "our perceptions of reality are constrained by the limitations of our perceptual tools"? If so, that is entirely uncontroversial. I have said this before, IN CAPS. You might as well be inviting discussion on the wetness of water. I am not sure how this admits of god.

I ask because what you have actually written is something different, but unclear. First, you are suggesting that reality is something constructed. Fine, but a difficult position to hold if one is a theist (ie it is difficult to hold that god is a subjective reality, but not objectively existent, and still be a theist like the theist on the clapton omnibus). Then you talk about reality being defined by "the tools". What tools? What do you mean? And as I already said in this para, this viewpoint seems to be inimical to the idea of existence of an externally and objective god.

So please be clear about what you mean - or, alternatively, clearly write what you mean, and we may be able to have that reasoned discussion.

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 07:28 PM

Is this an admission that your stance is a repudiation of all that science stands for, and that you would rather follow instinct when it comes to determining the truth? The 'scientific rules' exist for very good reasons, one of those reasons being to prevent personal feelings and bias from causing one to misinterpret evidence, for example.

Any interpretation is subjective. It is called a "mental model".

bgbarber

7th March 2010, 07:30 PM

wearestardust

7th March 2010, 07:33 PM

Would you consider the possiblity you are a "brain in vat" and as such also is science?

What on earth do you mean? This is too coded. Please explain. (I know what the brain in the vat analogy is, btw, I just have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to get from it)

Loki

7th March 2010, 08:22 PM

You keep returning to philosophical skepticism, an esoteric concept I have trouble ascribing any meaning to. I am trying to find out how you apply this concept in the real world. Please answer my question.

Lord Blackadder

7th March 2010, 08:46 PM

Young Wonderer: Why do you get out of bed of a morning?

Dawkins: Umm....well....you see.....it’s a little complicated and I need to head off to a lecture.

This is probably the most offensive of all the piffle this evolutionary throwback postulates. Are you implying sir, that because I am an Atheist, I have no meaning or purpose in my life?

I have many reasons to get out of bed in the morning, the main one being that The Master (a.k.a. the Spawn of Satan a.k.a. the Cat) does her whiny bitch routine at 06:00. Try and sleep through that.

You only have one life - make sure you make the most of it.

Worldslaziestbusker

7th March 2010, 09:26 PM

Jaar-Gilon

7th March 2010, 09:45 PM

What astounds me is the amount of ego involved in having to come to an atheist forum and prod and poke like a kid with a beehive, there are clear indications in your posts that you knew exactly what reaction you would get. I would suspect the way you have structured your posts is an aid to your fishing!
Set 'em up and then shoot 'em down!
Jesus was a bit of a big head too I suspect!

atheist_angel

8th March 2010, 05:19 AM

No - I will not try to explain - Out of my depth there - I will attempt to highlight current scientific debate about who the hell is pushing who atoms around though.What makes you think it has to be a "who"? You definitely seem to be stuck in a box, of some kind. Do YOU ever look at any other schools of thought?Don't you think your response, which is below, contradicts your initial statement a little...?In answer to your question 'What makes you think it has to be a who?" - I do not believe I ever made any assertions relating to this. In relation to the concept of control - how can one have control and choice at the same time - this is an interesting question.Let's try this again... What do you think excites atoms causing them to move?

Heat? ..or a supernatural fairydust? What makes you think it has to be a "who"?My posts were immediately placed in Fantasy Island - I believe the question is more pertinent to some on this forum.And that would have 'what' to do with the price of eggs?

Did you not just say you were going to "highlight current scientific debate"?

atheist_angel

8th March 2010, 05:31 AM

In relation to the concept of control - how can one have control and choice at the same time - this is an interesting question.'Control' and Choice? or, 'Cause and Effect' and Choice?

I think you're stuck in that box again...

Peter A

8th March 2010, 10:56 AM

OK - Can I have your opinion on the possibility that reality is constrained by the tools that define that reality? This is a school of thought called philosophical skepticism and may allow the possibility of a "god" - this is my argument and my point.

A reasoned response would be appreciated.

Yes, you have a point here, that due to the inherent limitations of the 'tools' we use and the five senses we have, that reality could very well be far grander than anyone could imagine. However, to infer from this fact that there not only is a god, but that this god must also be tyrannical misogynist of the Bible, is an assumptive leap that even Superman couldn't perform.

Why gods anyway? Why not imagine that we are nothing more than characters playing a role in an elaborate alien computer simulation (like the films Matrix and Thirteenth Floor postulate) and that our reality isn't real after all? There is the same amount of evidence for this than there is for any gods that one can dream up - i.e. none.

bgbarber

8th March 2010, 04:08 PM

bgbarber
The example of two dimensional beings who cannot comprehend a third dimension ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland : http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html ) was once put to me as a means to spur me think about what we don't or can't comprehend. Perhaps a being with the capacity to comprehend and move in four spatial dimensions (please take it as read that in each case, the beings experience another dimension linearly in the same way that we experience time) could observe and intercede in our three spatial dimensions. Such a being would be indistinguishable from a god.
That's fine. God-like beings could exist and could, to us, appear omniscient and omnipotent. But being able to imagine a mechanism by which a god could exist is different to having evidence that they do. There could be any number of unimaginable mechanisms by which a god could exist and affect our universe, but so far I haven't come across evidence to suggest that they do, so conceding they could isn't that big a deal.
I have already outlined what evidence I would require to make me go back on the decision to call myself an atheist here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2156
It's not a lot more than many religions claim to be able to provide but whenever I examine the evidence put forward it turns out to consist of anecdotes and wishful thinking.
Have I satisfied your request for an allowance for the possibility of a god?
Where do you plan to take the discussion from here? Are you working toward a point or is posting here sufficient to make you feel you've pleased your god regardless how little headway your suggestions make?

I have some direct questions for you:
Do you believe in the Abrahamic god and the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Do you believe the Earth is less than ten thousand years old?
Do you think atheists are closed minded?
Answering those will keep me from having to infer information from your posts.

Videos from 10thdim have been helping me get to grips with the dimensionality the physicists I work with have been jabbering about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

WLB

Thank you for responding in a mature manner and giving some sort of argument. The ability to discuss and reason without being constrained by the same thought processes and "rules" that define a belief makes for new discovery.

To answer your questions:

1. Do you believe in the Abrahamic god and the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
In a nutshell I would say I lean towards yes. Do I question this? - everyday. I am not a literal believer in the Bible. It has some important messages.

2. Do you believe the Earth is less than ten thousand years old?
Absolutely not. Around 11 thousand (just kidding!!)

3. Do you think atheists are closed minded?
If you mean all atheists - absolutely not. I would debate that some of the base assumptions around arguments sometimes are not properly thought out so I enjoy challenging these assumptions. Within any movement or school of thought there are radicals and moderates and different interpretations of the belief - God help us if Fred Nile ever becomes PM. :-)

bgbarber

8th March 2010, 04:13 PM

Don't you think your response, which is below, contradicts your initial statement a little...?Let's try this again... What do you think excites atoms causing them to move?

Heat? ..or a supernatural fairydust? What makes you think it has to be a "who"?And that would have 'what' to do with the price of eggs?

Did you not just say you were going to "highlight current scientific debate"?

I was kinda alluding to the observer effect at the quantum level. The act of observation changing the result of the experiment. I mentioned this in one of my prior posts. I find it fascinating (although I do not profess to understand it)

bgbarber

8th March 2010, 04:15 PM

This is probably the most offensive of all the piffle this evolutionary throwback postulates. Are you implying sir, that because I am an Atheist, I have no meaning or purpose in my life?

I have many reasons to get out of bed in the morning, the main one being that The Master (a.k.a. the Spawn of Satan a.k.a. the Cat) does her whiny bitch routine at 06:00. Try and sleep through that.

You only have one life - make sure you make the most of it.

No - not all all - I do not know you. If you have taken offence than that is not what was intended.

Worldslaziestbusker

8th March 2010, 06:35 PM

1. Do you believe in the Abrahamic god and the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
In a nutshell I would say I lean towards yes. Do I question this? - everyday. I am not a literal believer in the Bible. It has some important messages.
. :-)

Leaning toward yes?
Sounds like you need to do some hard thinking. Do many gods accept ambivalence as a form of worship?
While I realise all but the most fundamentalist postions are technically agnostic, fence sitting is unsatisfying and leads to piles and ridicule (for being wishy washy - only mean people ridicule those afflicted with piles). I did the reading and thinking necessary to help me make a choice I can defend with confidence.
Where to from here for you?
WLB

Darwinsbulldog

9th March 2010, 11:24 AM

Yes, you have a point here, that due to the inherent limitations of the 'tools' we use and the five senses we have, that reality could very well be far grander than anyone could imagine. However, to infer from this fact that there not only is a god, but that this god must also be tyrannical misogynist of the Bible, is an assumptive leap that even Superman couldn't perform.

Why gods anyway? Why not imagine that we are nothing more than characters playing a role in an elaborate alien computer simulation (like the films Matrix and Thirteenth Floor postulate) and that our reality isn't real after all? There is the same amount of evidence for this than there is for any gods that one can dream up - i.e. none.

Yes and no. We can imagine [a little] that a bee's world view [of nature] is different than ours because it uses compound eyes and can see into the ultraviolet. Bats can echo-locate, and dogs can smell thousands of smells more than we can. So, by understanding that the limitations of our senses can limit what we can perceive is, in a way, true. But we can extend our senses with instrumentation like: telescopes, microscopes, Geiger counters, X-Ray machines, and so on.

The "Matrix" et.al. does lead us to ponder if we are seeing all that there is to see, but I don't think that a good scientist has ever claimed that our perception of nature is perfect. Yes, we can, at times, be fooled. For a while at least.

But this does not mean that we cannot improve our perceptions, it only means that our perceptions may be limited to some extent. The discovery of the non-visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum is evidence of this. There really are X-Rays and radio waves, and they do obey the same rules as visible light.

So while we can be alert to hints of something that may be beyond our senses or instruments to detect, we need not be obsessed with disappointment that we may never glance all of reality. We may indeed get as close as makes no difference. The challenge may be in actually knowing when we actually get there.

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 04:28 PM

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 05:20 PM

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak;
a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,
capriciously malevolent bully.
-- Richard Dawkins

if anybody is poking the beehive - it is the quote above guys from Mr Dawkins -C'mon. A little perspective here. - You cannot go around publicly stating as such without the expectation of a rebuttal - in anyone's belief system - it is pretty insensitive to people who belive in such a god (even if you think it is silly belief).

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 06:55 PM

errr... I made no claims as above in both your posts. If I reversed the quote to include humanistic behaviour of a atheist you revere I can only speculate it may get an emotional reaction or motivate some sort of counter argument.
My argument was using Mr Dawkins quote to counter arguments of why I would come to a public forum to argue / discuss elements of atheism and what people believe to support atheist argument. Personally I believe Mr Dawkins is the protagonist to an extent that over extends his school of thought.

This is an atheist forum (which I have been frog marched to fantasy Island) that is also a public forum. To criticise me for having the audacity to challenge and argue I make no apologies for.
If you read my posts I make no personal judgements or accusations. I hope I would receive the return in kind.

Atrax Robustus

10th March 2010, 07:21 PM

My argument was using Mr Dawkins quote to counter arguments of why I would come to a public forum to argue / discuss elements of atheism and what people believe to support atheist argument.

errr, I suspect that you might have taken the attachment in Mr Black's signature block to heart. Mr Black - like anyone here, can change what appears in their signature block at will - and Mr Black changes his very regularly.

Darwinsbulldog

10th March 2010, 07:25 PM

Oh dear, I am such a barbarian, unclothed and wifout sig! :eek: Maybe after the conf.......

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 07:26 PM

Frogmarched? Get over it, Butthurt-chan. This is the way things go: the members want atheist/atheist dialogue, and we don't exclude believers, choosing to allow discussion with them to take place in FI.

Do you demand to go into the women's facilities at work or school? There are boundaries and you are a most demanding guest.

Your "argument" was unclear. Still, you talked about a rebuttal, and I gave you something to rebut or butt out.

"Do you demand to go into the women's facilities at work or school?" - I might.

"This is the way things go: the members want atheist/atheist dialogue, and we don't exclude believers, choosing to allow discussion with them to take place in FI" - I agree it would appear it is the way things go here.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=747748&l=536a43c792&id=653579907

Darwinsbulldog

10th March 2010, 08:03 PM

"Do you demand to go into the women's facilities at work or school?" - I might.

"This is the way things go: the members want atheist/atheist dialogue, and we don't exclude believers, choosing to allow discussion with them to take place in FI" - I agree it would appear it is the way things go here.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=747748&l=536a43c792&id=653579907

From my experience, it is women who barge into the inner sanction of maleness-the male bog, in an imperious manner. [Well, I suppose if the sit-downs are not used as much, then why not. ] :D:D

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 08:17 PM

errr, I suspect that you might have taken the attachment in Mr Black's signature block to heart. Mr Black - like anyone here, can change what appears in their signature block at will - and Mr Black changes his very regularly.

Not taken to heart - used as an example to illustrate that "ego" and emotional outbursts occur on both sides of debate. To be emotional and be aware of them is human is it not and means there is some passion and care behind argument - no?

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 08:18 PM

From my experience, it is women who barge into the inner sanction of maleness-the male bog, in an imperious manner. [Well, I suppose if the sit-downs are not used as much, then why not. ] :D:D

Who said I am male?

Darwinsbulldog

10th March 2010, 08:22 PM

In Copenhagen I had a female come up on my right [rather nice looker too] and use the urinal trough. To her credit, she was rather good at it, I was more worried about the back-splash from a dude on my left! :D:D

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 08:26 PM

You did. That Dawkins cartoon you tried to post comes from the account of a man whose first name is known to anybody who visits it.

I do not want to go off topic - but Goats and Irreverent Mr Black's are whatever they want to be online. - honesty prohibits me from continuing to deny - yes - male I am.

bgbarber

10th March 2010, 08:32 PM

That's fine. Perhaps if you stop trying to argue for its own sake, we might even get some dialogue going.

Hang on - I have attempted to be as clear as I could in all of my arguments. Which one is unclear and I will answer as directly as I can?

Worldslaziestbusker

11th March 2010, 06:51 AM

I do not want to go off topic - but Goats and Irreverent Mr Black's are whatever they want to be online. - honesty prohibits me from continuing to deny - yes - male I am.

Conceding something this irrelevant to the matter of whether or not gods exist counts as honesty? Was there a point to this? Is there a point to anything you've posted?
I've tried to engage but beyond confirming that you believe in God (sort of) and conceding your gender you never even try to take the discussion anywhere.
You've had plenty of time and opportunity to post something to make me think but you haven't managed to get far beyond making me think you're a git. Open minded potential convert for the taking and you've waffled about whether or not you are male as though that was the clincher in a rather disingenuous attempt to point out closed mindedness among atheists, and even that failed.
WLB

Lag, log, stationary...

wearestardust

11th March 2010, 12:15 PM

Still waiting for an answer to this:

Are you trying to say: "our perceptions of reality are constrained by the limitations of our perceptual tools"? If so, that is entirely uncontroversial. I have said this before, IN CAPS. You might as well be inviting discussion on the wetness of water. I am not sure how this admits of god.

I ask because what you have actually written is something different, but unclear. First, you are suggesting that reality is something constructed. Fine, but a difficult position to hold if one is a theist (ie it is difficult to hold that god is a subjective reality, but not objectively existent, and still be a theist like the theist on the clapton omnibus). Then you talk about reality being defined by "the tools". What tools? What do you mean? And as I already said in this para, this viewpoint seems to be inimical to the idea of existence of an externally and objective god.

So please be clear about what you mean - or, alternatively, clearly write what you mean, and we may be able to have that reasoned discussion.

or this

What on earth do you mean? This is too coded. Please explain. (I know what the brain in the vat analogy is, btw, I just have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to get from it)

by the way:

This is an atheist forum (which I have been frog marched to fantasy Island) that is also a public forum. To criticise me for having the audacity to challenge and argue I make no apologies for.

I can't speak for others but my criticism is not because you are challenging anything, it's because you are writing reams of content-free text.

Hang on - I have attempted to be as clear as I could in all of my arguments. Which one is unclear and I will answer as directly as I can?

This raises one of those epistemological questions that vex philosophers: given you have not actually put forward any arguments, what can we say about their clarity?

Peter A

11th March 2010, 01:45 PM

Yes and no. We can imagine [a little] that a bee's world view [of nature] is different than ours because it uses compound eyes and can see into the ultraviolet. Bats can echo-locate, and dogs can smell thousands of smells more than we can. So, by understanding that the limitations of our senses can limit what we can perceive is, in a way, true. But we can extend our senses with instrumentation like: telescopes, microscopes, Geiger counters, X-Ray machines, and so on.

The "Matrix" et.al. does lead us to ponder if we are seeing all that there is to see, but I don't think that a good scientist has ever claimed that our perception of nature is perfect. Yes, we can, at times, be fooled. For a while at least.

But this does not mean that we cannot improve our perceptions, it only means that our perceptions may be limited to some extent. The discovery of the non-visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum is evidence of this. There really are X-Rays and radio waves, and they do obey the same rules as visible light.

So while we can be alert to hints of something that may be beyond our senses or instruments to detect, we need not be obsessed with disappointment that we may never glance all of reality. We may indeed get as close as makes no difference. The challenge may be in actually knowing when we actually get there.

Yes, I know what you mean and I agree, but when I mentioned the limitations of our five senses I had in mind something more along the lines of our inability to detect light and other EM radiation if the entire human race had only four senses (no sight) rather than our five. How does one explain the concept of colour to someone who has been blind all their life? Even if one could explain the concept of colour, they still could never experience it the way a person with sight can. Even though I can't think of any examples at the moment, it is entirely feasable that there may exist a creature somewhere (on another planet, perhaps?) that has an extra sense that can detect an aspect of the physical universe that we can't in a manner similar to the way we can so readily detect light waves with our eyes. A sixth sense, so to speak.
DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting that there may be some truth, or evidence, to support some of the more, 'unusual' shall we say, claims that have been made to support the existence of supernatural powers.

As for 'The Matrix', I think that this film is partly responsible for the current ready acceptance of such doubtful notions as the 'Multiverse', a notion for which there is not only no evidence whatsoever, but, even in theory, there can be no possibility of any evidence ever being brought forth to support it. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and as such should be placed alongside other, equally dodgy, ideas. This is one of the (many) problems with the God Hypothesis, for this entity has been virtually defined out of existence by His (or Her) supporters. Ask any two believers to define 'God' and you are guaranteed to get different answers, but even if such an abstract idea could be defined properly, I can't for the life of me think of how we could actually test the idea. Same for the 'Multiverse'.

Perhaps if we had a hypothetical sixth sense - a sense that would allow us to 'see' parallel universes - that would be very helpful.

bgbarber

11th March 2010, 09:05 PM

Conceding something this irrelevant to the matter of whether or not gods exist counts as honesty? Was there a point to this? Is there a point to anything you've posted?
I've tried to engage but beyond confirming that you believe in God (sort of) and conceding your gender you never even try to take the discussion anywhere.
You've had plenty of time and opportunity to post something to make me think but you haven't managed to get far beyond making me think you're a git. Open minded potential convert for the taking and you've waffled about whether or not you are male as though that was the clincher in a rather disingenuous attempt to point out closed mindedness among atheists, and even that failed.
WLB

Lag, log, stationary...

If a definition of a git is somebody that challenges thinking and points out the logical flaws of being locked into a paradigm of thinking that defines the universe only by its current understanding and ability to perceive it - than I am a git, actually more succinctly “I think therefore I am”.
I have stated before I do not believe all atheists are close minded. I suspect like any belief, there are those that follow blindly however for reasons untold, and it is good for the soul to debate concepts.
To stifle debate on the grounds the argument does not conform to a set of rules of a particular belief system is intellectually naive at best and dangerous at worst.