If you take offense at anything I have said, then tell me what exactly and why. If you'd noticed, my stated concerns include all people, religious or not. As you state you are religious, I would appreciate any counter argument you may have to offer.

^This. "We want to seriously and open-mindedly debate."

No, Mr. creationist, you want that NOT. You want to sneak in through the backdoor where at the front door you got rejected.

To debate something seriously and openmindedly demands a.) an object deserving that, and b.) open mindedness of the talking sides. In case of religious believers, the latter must be put into question, since they do not want to allow getting convinced by evidence, proof or argument. They want to get away with strawman arguments of their own, hilarious claims and playacts by themselves, and ridiculous construction of their think tanks that claim to be "evidence".

Steve may call it politeness to play by these rules and endlessly discuss this Serious and open-minded. I call it avoiding the necessary confrontation, and a distorted sense of tolerance and a perverted desire for harmony where harmony is not justifiable.

Creationists come with something, which indeed i not just another repetition of the same old claims once again, and it gets tested in the scientific process, and if it stands the test - THEN we politely, seriously, open-mindedly discuss that proof and what it means for the established theories of how life emerged and unfolded on earth. Doing so without that proof given first - is appeasement.

Huh? :-?

You compare apples with oranges.

If I go and tell people: "Creationists are idiots, no offense", and leave it to that - then it is an offense.

If I go and say "creationists claim this and that, it has been proven wrong by this and that so many times, and still they repeat it, making themselves look like dogmatic fools", then this is something different.

And yes, of course people have the right to be held responsible for what they say (or believe in). So if you defend something that does not stand the test of reasonable analysis by scientific methods, just repating it endlessly nevertheless, then this makes oyu look like a parrot, and if you give reasons as aerguments that so very very very often have already been proven wrong, then this allows conclusions on your intellectual state of mind. - And then it may be justifiable to shportcut the long drama and avoid the endless useless propaganda march, and just tell somebody: "You believe that? Idiot. Leave me alone."

Because the problem at the root of the problem is: try to make an idiot aware of what an idiot he is! :haha:

No respect where no respect is due. Inflationary distributing respect, devalues it. That is my view on it all. Creationists, believers and all the like have to earn people's respect instead of demanding to get a free ride for nothing. Until they understand that, its better if them and people not wanting to share their believes, stay separate, everybody for himself. So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

What in those five words exactly is it that you do not understand?

Perhaps they understand that just because you are allowed to provoke by one moderator's word doesn't mean that you should do so or that it would contribute to anything.

Comments like these help creating the idea:

Quote:

In fact when people like me decide to point certain things out about it, I am called an 'ignorant atheist' and/or otherwise actively discouraged from speaking my mind. It's OK to ridicule politicians or celebrities, it's OK to berate people behaving badly, but religious texts are off limits for simple criticism? No. No more special treatment. This world does not owe that book or any other immunity.

As rhetorical questions those do not work. If they were true, this discussion wouldn't have gone on for 18 pages and counting.

I can comment on that if you can first show me where I implied it's unreasonable, or took any side for or against religion at all.

Very fair point. My approach was definitely flawed, and thank you for succinctly pointing that out. Here I should point out my admiration for the lack of response, :oops:

Well in my defense the 1st was a statement of fact as referenced in this thread and for the 2nd would you deny that proponents of scripture as well as a good deal of non religious people often demand special treatment for the meanings or historical/existential validity of the stories contained within it? like not being able to poke fun or criticise and being chided for it?

It is not my failing if I find your beliefs or views or statements amusing, contemptible, or inspirational. If it is OK to criticise or poke fun of Stephen King or his books, then it is OK to do the same with scripture and its writers, that is all. When it comes to ID, Creationism, etc. it is based on scripture, or at least assuming the truth of the premise of it. Since I neither assume that truth nor completely deny it, depending on the idea itself I may be more or less confident about the fallacy of it, so in order to have a discussion about it the proponent must first concede that they similarly do not know either way and that they are merely more or less confident of its truth.

Like I said, I don't think of myself as a particularly critical thinker, I just do my best. I fail from time to time, nay, often. Nobody's perfect and I try to make amends after the fact. I know from my previous posts it might not sound like it, but I harbor no specific hatred, or antagonism towards religious people, I simply firmly disagree with many of the interpreted morals in scripture, such as homosexuality being a 'sin', the subjugation of women (how can you interpret the 'good' morals in that?) and would go as far to say I think it should probably have an age rating attached to it. That or a careful edit. It's been done many times before as I understand it.

Were they published today can you imagine the outcry from large numbers of people within society? Myself included.

Again you are correct, and I think you answered that already in your first post. I was under the mistaken impression since various commentators on this thread had not been reproached for some pretty insulting generalisations depending on your point of view that it was either personal against me, or personal for him, and made a generalisation of my own. That and I think it polite to answer any reply. Shall I delete the whole thing then? why not.

I never implied that you implied that. It was a question. I wanted to know what you think. In your opinion am I being unreasonable in the relevant statement?

You have to realize that human knowledge is always evolving. Religions were early attempts by man to explain his environment.

The Big Bang Theory is the most logical explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, but we could easily be in a situation 50-100 years from now where a better explanation is found.

In your defense, such comment could have been aimed at other people as well and I'm hardly innocent of poking people every now and then myself. But as our old president used to say: ”If someone is trying to provoke you, don't get provoked.” It rarely leads to anything, aside from the petty satisfaction that lasts, according to my experiences, for whole 10 seconds.


I see so many people demanding special treatment to their favorite ideology that I really can't decide anymore which ones of them are religious and which are not.

Personally I try to give religions the same treatment as, say, vegetarians: I respect that some people find them important in their life and if I criticize them for something, I try to be constructive about it instead of just pointing finger and laughing at them. If they are constructive about it, we are going to have a discussion. If they are not, then I haven't really ever seen the point of trying to convert a brick wall. And I have had many more discussions with the followers of scriptures than with the vegetarians.

That's no special treatment, but simple civil discourse. Also when I say I'm critical towards something, it means by my definition that I must also be critical towards what I believe to be true. That includes my current beliefs and values regarding religions.



I fully agree with the sentiment, but would again stress that if you are going to poke fun of anything, then be a fair player and poke fun of yourself every now and then too. If you've read my AARs at the General Games section, for example, you know that I love taking potshots at academics and I've written a whole story making fun of a stereotypical Finn.

It's not because I'd want to use them later for argument and say ”look at this”: it's simply because I love laughing at myself every once in a while. This is something that the most loud mouthed ”critical” (in varying contexts) people, in my opinion, seem to often be incapable of.


That's sounds like a healthy attitude. It's difficult to have a discussion about anything if the other party just wants to convert you. Been there, done that.


You didn't (at least to me) come across as someone harboring hatred towards anyone. Simply as someone who perhaps was starting to take this a little too seriously.


Fair enough: as I have said above, your goals don't seem too unreasonable and you don't seem like an unreasonable fellow yourself. But it seemed to me that you were getting a little anxious about it and that's not a good foundation for convincing people of your viewpoint. I know it's easy for me to say, being a third party observer here, but you can obviously convey your viewpoints well enough without resorting to low tricks.

This is exactly why I do not like either Hitchens or Dawkins, not only are they so blind and arrogant to see that their positions are also faith based. They don't even understand basic scientific principles.

You don't need evidence to prove something, evidence cannot nor will not prove anything. The only single thing that evidence can do is disprove something. The concept that you need evidence to prove something is utter hogwash in science, I can propose any scientific hypothesis I like so long as it remains scientific, in that it is refutable or that there is a way of showing that my hypothesis is wrong. So no the burden of proof does not rest with religion, the burden of disproof lies with atheists. Or it would anyhow if either was a scientific hypothesis/theory which neither is.

Just as much as the theists have no proof that god exists, atheists have no proof god does not exist either. Both positions are faith based, both sides believe something is true and neither has any evidence to show the other side is incorrect. The only logical answer to the question if you really want to be scientific is "I do not know" aka Agnosticism.


Well that is quite debatable, as again, proof does not exist. As I said above, evidence does not prove things, it just fails to show a theory/hypothesis to be wrong. Same goes for testing theories. This is how science progresses, as it refutes old theories with new evidence, and is forced to come up with a new theory.

It would be more accurate to say, that a theory requires some testing that does not disprove it ;)


I am well aware of that yes :) I also have zero doubt that the big bang theory will be refuted as it is too seriously flawed in my opinion. I fully expect all our scientific theories to eventually be refuted as none of them are "the truth".

In this particular case I'm only concerned with the rules we play by here.

I completely agree. I like being polite, and I like debating things. I don't expect everyone to feel the same. My comment to Sammi only concerned the rules here.

Sammi, you're doing fine.

You sound like my old maths teacher of many many years ago.
I think that was about a theory too.

As the positive proposition is that of the theists, it is their burden of disproof if you like, not sure quite how you worked the switch around there. And you cannot propose a Theory which is an explanation of falsifiable facts, if you do not have them. [edit2] Upon re reading your post you do clearly state that the religious ideas are unscientific but I didn't miss it did I, - ninja edit :cool:

As (A)theism is a lack of belief which is dissimilar to belief, Am I to be defined as an (A)trainspotter and an (A)tennis fan, as well as all the other things I am not? Atheism simply means I am unconvinced by each and every argument and their sum total I have ever heard for theism.

Theism or religious belief is a position that requires a complex personal construction of varying degrees of imagination about metaphysics, oft containing contradictions to established scientific facts. This is very difficult for discussion as the facts have already been shown to be falsifiable, and everyone is encouraged to repeat or renew the process. The facts may be false of course and we still might never know, but until this is demonstrated we will remain more confident that the fact is true.

As both are words describing ones position of belief, neither are mutually exclusive with Agnosticism which is a word describing ones position on knowledge.

This is why I say, doubt is the most redeeming feature of humanity. I always retain doubt in absolutely all things - I am 99.9^10% sure the sun will come up tomorrow, but I can easily imagine a whole bunch of vastly unlikely scenarios in which it wouldn't. This is also why I challenge the very idea of faith in religion, which is held up as the primary virtue. Faith can be virtuous when it is in people and the good in them, but with religion it comes startlingly close to voluntary gullibility. This is not an insult- it is how it appears to me, and I hope if someone has a measured response they will say it. Doubt has been keeping cautious people (as well as a lot of not so cautious people as a by product) alive since people were people or before, not to mention animals. The lack of doubt regarding the safety of human competition in the environment has led to the extinction of entire species in relatively recent history.

[edit] I should add, faith in governments or nations appears to me to be indistinguishable from faith in religion.

Thanks Steve - you're a gentleman to me I appreciate it. :salute:

I'll agree about Hitchens, but then I'm biased, having a great distaste for his style. Where Dawkins is concerned, no less a scientific authority than Neil DeGrasse Tyson would disagree with you. That he respects Dawson and his opinions carries a lot of weight in my book.

I disagree to a point. Evidence is not proof. On the other hand proposing something for which there is no evidence is not science at all. You need evidence to have a hypothesis in the first place.

Yes you can. I have often proposed the hypothesis that there are little bug-eyed blue men from Atlantis living in the ocean. There is no proof for this, nor even the slightest bit of evidence. The only proof I have is that you can't disprove it. Based on that alone you should believe me, because I say it is so.

Not so. You don't have to prove anything to me, but if you want me to believe you then you suddenly do. If a believer wants his faith to spread, then he needs to provide something that will convince his listeners. The atheist, on the other hand, merely needs to ask for that proof. He doesn't have to disprove anything, any more than you have an obligation to disprove my little bug-eyed blue men. If I want you to believe it then I have to show some evidence. If I don't care whether you believe it or not, then why would I tell you about it at all?

Very true. When it comes to the origins of the earth it becomes a different story. Creationists want their faith to get equal time in schools with the Theory of Evolution. To do this they attempt to bring down Evolution by finding flaws in it. What they fail to do is to apply the same tests to their own version. Therefore they want a faith-based conception with no evidence to back it up at all taught equally with a valid and accepted scientific theory. In this case the burden of proof is very much on them.

And that's where I ended up, though I don't like that label. Where God, or any supernatural being is concerned, there is no evidence, one way or the other. None at all. The question for me is this: Is it more logical to believe in something for which there is no evidence, or to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I have ended up with the conclusion that the rational answer is the latter.

My only question here is whether you stole my philosophy or I stole yours. I used to be a believer, and the thing that led me to my present postition was doubt. I've been wrong so many times about so many things that I realized I could be wrong about my faith as well. Other things led me to stop thinking about it at all, and when I did I tried to believe again, but had too many doubts. I tried to be a devout Atheist, if you will, but knew I could be as wrong about that as well. At that point I started asking questions, and the more questions I asked the less answers I had.


Again I agree. I put my take on it into a song I wrote a few years ago.

Nope. All the universe was compressed into a single point, the singularity, which then expanded. Whether you think it sounds too incredible to be true doesn't really matter, what's important is the evidence -- and it points towards the so-called "big bang". Which of course wasn't an explosion at all, despite the misleading name of the theory.

I was brought up firmly agnostic, neither position on belief was encouraged or discouraged, for which I am grateful. Over my 34 years I have phased in and out of entertaining various metaphysical imaginations, none bearing any resemblance to any religion or scripture, apart from the soul concept, which between the ages of 11-16 I was more than confident in the truth of it. In those time I had a worldview roughly along the lines of a bad cosmic joke, that nothing that gradually evolved could become so ludicrous and contrary.

As you are agnostic, I feel comfortable relating one of my imaginations that stuck with me for a long time after the accidental death of a close school friend when I was 12. It was the first time I'd experienced that total numbing of emotion that occurs when a psychologically traumatic event is first felt, possibly as a shock absorbing mechanism. I cried for days but I felt nothing. It was a truly bizarre experience for me. The phrase 'I think therefore I am.' is more accurate if think is changed to feel. Anyway, after about a week, the emotions started to surface again one by one. Anger at the lorry driver and a furious desire to know the exact circumstances of his death came first, then later that week of course the grief set in, not having said goodbye etc. and upon learning the circumstances (like the trucker had his own 9 year old son in the cab with him, it was a complete freak accident on a warm sunny day, the truck was passing on the opposite lane and for some eternally unknowable reason Stanley on a bicycle suddenly swerved right out in front of him.) all anger and fury at the driver immediately melted into real pity for him and his son. I heard he stopped working and acquired an alcohol problem for a while but happily not too long, and with not much damage.

Now the first part of my imagining stems from a dream I had shortly thereafter. I was in the house I grew up in, and Stanley was there. Only he was all busted up in my imagination from being squashed by a truck. I said something like, 'Woah, Stan. You look awful, are you Ok?' to which he replied 'I feel [expletive] awful, what you think?' I felt another pang of grief and woke up. I thought for a few days about the feeling of his presence and at that time I was pretty convinced his soul had actually visited me, for which I was grateful, but a bit bemused about the circumstance of the dream. It wasn't very nice. Then a week later on the dot, I had another dream.

If you have read the 'Winnie the Pooh' books then you'll know about the final goodbye tea party at the end of the final book, in a light fir tree wood with a late afternoon sun shining through underneath the branches. A long wooden table with 2 long benches and a chair at either end. Symbolically this story is about Christopher Robin growing up, and leaving behind his childhood fantasies of talking stuffed pets, who are all the guests at his meal of honour. In my dream I was in the place I had imagined from my childhood reading. Stanley was there, absolutely back to his old self, smiling, mischievous. My parents and sister were also guests as were his parents and brother. I had such a warm feeling, it is very hard to describe, but without any doubt I knew that this was Stans goodbye tea party. I remember no more, but I will never forget what I do remember about it.

When I awoke from this dream, the grief was still there, but somehow inhibited. It had the edge taken off. The funeral was bloomin' tragic, inevitably under the circumstances. the hymns in the church had just about everyone in uncontrollable tears. Over the subsequent years I mused on my dreams and my boosted conviction in the concept of the soul, and I came to the imagination that -

Imagine that there are an infinite number of alternate dimensions or realities co-existing simultaneously, but crucially each and every soul exists in all of them. When you make choices you step into realities limited by your choices. When in one reality a soul is subjected to an unnatural or unfortunate death, its experience is immediately and seamlessly Shifted into a reality where its choices did not lead inadvertently to its death. I had personally had a few real experiences that did not immediately occur to me that I was inches, or seconds, from my own painful death until afterward, and this seemed to support my imaginary world.

The implications of this metaphysical fantasy are quite profound. Every living thing gets to live a full natural life, without ever experiencing the pain of a premature or unnatural death. Maybe the last transference leaves you in heaven, I don't know. I have never liked the concept itself alongside hell, and I firmly believe that the scriptural meaning of these are symbolic descriptions of life in reality. Now, disregarding my lack of need for heaven, is that not a nice comforting thought? I don't often tell people about that as to my mind it would appear quite irrelevant to them being based on my own unfalsifiable experience. Of course I do not believe it now, I never truly did. It still brings me comfort to remember though. My current conclusion on the whole matter is that my subconscious mind built those dreams for me, in order to heal the grief wound. It didn't quite work the first time, so I got another, much more powerful and vivid one.

When I was 22, I read and re read Catch 22 - alongside Slaughterhouse 5 and found my favorite books of all time. Shortly after I met the first person in my life that would simply not entertain the concept of the soul, under any circumstances. That was intriguing to me as it seemed so rare, and at first I could not understand how anyone could deny the existence of souls. That was the start of a gradual slide to where I am now, with no conviction in metaphysics at all, a few old comforting imaginations, and no weight on my back.

So we came to similar conclusions after having life experiences half a world apart I guess. As a born agnostic and grown atheist if you will, I assume our experiences are markedly different. If I may ask, did you find any part of your transition unpleasant in any way, and how long did it take you?

It would gladden me to hear that you did not suffer.

Those are groovy lines Sailor Steve, I am a singer/guitarist myself of sorts though I tend to (not always) play covers. The best lines I ever came up with were;

Born with vision, learn to be blind.
Born to freedom, become self confined.
Lose the way, find it hard to find,
A little peace of mind.

Born to passion, gives way to lust.
Born to love, betrays mistrust.
All I am is worth my weight in dust.
Do what you must.

Not much I grant you, but I like it.

P.S. sorry for the text explosion I don't quite know how I became so verbose. I really enjoy discussions on this forum, like no other.

Again you are absolutely right.
I am not so great at laughing at myself admittedly, it always comes off a little forced. I am fully aware that people may find me or my views amusing or silly, however, and I genuinely am glad of it if it brings them any from of happiness. To critically analyse myself, I would say the silliest characteristic I posses is that of a 'drama queen' :wah: - I feel therefore I am, and my emotions are often severe. This results in me getting rather too involved in things as you pointed out, and I can see the amusing side. I had a very hard time learning to develop relationships with women, as I would tend to profess my bare feelings totally and immediately, which generally is a very scary prospect I imagine for a girl expecting a night of fun. I often wondered as the years ticked by, whether or not you could become ill through lack of sex, - well you know you hear these stories about celibate priests. I often despaired that I would die alone and childless... but as John Cleese once said, 'It's not the despair. I can take the despair, It's the hope...':har:

Nowadays I don't particularly worry about any of that. In view of my recent experience I think dying alone would be acceptable, and possibly the least I could do to spare my friends and family the stress of it all.

I think about the Japanese concepts of Bushido, how death is immediately accepted and welcomed from the moment you enter your masters employ, and how having a graceful, honorable death was something to think about and prepare for, since it defined your status upon reincarnation. I would not go that far, I appreciate the beauty of achieving nirvana at the heightened sense at the moment of death, but I like humour better. If I could make someone laugh through the event of my death, I would be truly proud (were I still alive) and if I can die hearing that sound, I will have had my cake and eaten it. That or if I managed to rig some Wallace and Gromit style contraption that automatically tidied my own body away and left nothing for anyone else to clean up.

Neon,

have you ever actually read Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?

I would agree that Hitchens is the more aggressive of the two, he is more polemic and he did not hide that that was what he wanted to be - which does not mean that his intellectual arguments are weaker for that reason. They are not. The videos that occasionally were linked here by me or others, showed that.

The book by Dawkins I have read myself - and in parts twice. I am aware of the criticism and attack against him, Google easily finds you plenty of that stuff. But since I know the book quite well, I know how intentionally misleading, demagogic and often simply wrong these criticisms are, especially when they come from pro-church/faith/God/religion activists of any kind, and that should not be of surprise to anyone. Often the claims are simply wrong and can easily be shown wrong by just referring to the book itself. Sometimes it is blatant lies told about the book, and what should have been said in there.

I also fail to see Dawkins to be arrogant, he certainly is no in the book, and by the many videos I saw him appearing in on youtube, I must say that mostly he usually speaks very calm and friendly, witty and humorous, and very much british gentleman-like. That must not mean there may be films where he bites like a rabid dog. But I am not aware of these, I have not seen them, if they would exist.

And finally, his scientific standards. Well, the book on God is very rationally arguing, and very scientific in approach, forming two hypothesis (God exists, God exists not), and then comparing what can be found about their probabilities of being true. The formulation that God most likely does not exist, is by Dawkins. He does not say God exists, he says that the matter is scientific for two reasons: first, that is showing in his approach, and second, because religion has played such a suppressive role in trying to prevent science producing insights into life and cosmos that the church did not like. What he finally concludes, is this: the probability for a godf existing, is so small that it does not jusatify to take it as a possibility he wishes to seriously deral with, and also, according to Ockahm'S razor that demands to keep explanations as simple as possible, God also is not needed for explanations. Dawkins asks at one point whether it really would be less pleasuring to enjoy the beauty of a blossoming garden if not assuming that there are fairies living in the underground there?

So when you base your assessment on just some propagandists throwing mud at the man without knowing how he has structured the book and how he argues there, you necessarily must consider him to be violating scientific standards, and I can only recommend you then start to care a little bit for his book itself instead, to get your facts right.

BTW, his early book on genetic evolution (The selfish gene) is today seen as an academic standard work, the university of Oxford installed a new chair just for him to mediate science better to a wider public ("public understanding of science"), and beside writing many books he assisted media and government as scientific advisor. He is often referred to as one of the most influential biologists of modern times.

Before you start to attack him over his standards, make sure you really got your acts together properly. Chances are he easily outclasses you, me, or anyone here. I have seen him doing that in many discussion fora on stage, friendly, calmly, elegantly. I can understand if somebody does not like Hitchen's determined cavalry charges, although they are well founded as well, but Hitchens and Dawkins really were two very different men. One should not try to compare the two.