Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Its you talking bullcrap - XXL size. Freedom of relgion necessarily also means freedom from religion for those not inerested. Else we are talking about religious dictatorship that enforces religion even on people not wanting to have something to do with it.

Nonsense. Freedom of speech and expression is just that. If you or any one else does not like it, walk away, close the door, or hit the off button.

Your freedom ends where you start damaging mine. So do your religion, if you want that, in a way that others must not be bothered by it. Keep your religion to thyself.

See above quotes from the law makers.

You just illustrated the bigotry that religious people time and again show: a heavy bias to claim freedom for religion, but not caring for the right of to others to be free from religion.

You know that is kinda funny coming from a guy who thinks nothing of giving his opinion time and time again. Do you enjoy a special status?

If you claim your religion's freedom is to rip the heart out of other people and sacrifice it to your deity, you will nevertheless get locked in a psychiatry for lunacy, or thrown into jail for murder.

Don't be ridiculous.

You ARE free to be religious.

You are free to be an Atheist. What would you say if I told you to be quiet about it? Keep it to your self be cause it bothers me. Freedom of expression is a tricky concept isn't it?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

...and considering Skybird said nothing to the contrary...

You are kidding aren't you?

[frau kaleun]

I think if you are going to compare "freedom of religion" with "freedom of speech" there's an important point to consider.

We may have freedom of speech and be free to express our opinions and say what we like, but we don't have freedom from the consequences of exercising that freedom. If we say something that someone else finds offensive, they are going to be offended. Claiming "freedom of speech" doesn't change that fact. If we say something other people think is stupid, or misguided, or claim that something is fact without evidence to back it up, we can expect some people to exercise their own freedom of speech and call us out on that.

Same goes for freedom of religion IMO. Sure we are free to believe what we believe, but we are not free to express it openly in the presence of others without risking the possibility that they will disagree and say so, or think we're foolish or deluded and say so, or ask for some kind of proof that's more substantial than "because God/scripture/my pastor says so." Those are the consequences of expressing one's beliefs in the company of those whose 100% agreement with those beliefs hasn't already been confirmed.

Having the freedom to do, say, or believe something doesn't exempt you from the consequences of exercising that freedom. And that's where I see a problem sometimes - and not just in the area of expressing one's religious beliefs, but other things as well. "But I have freedom of speech! I have freedom of religion! I have freedom to express my religious beliefs!" Well, sure, but other people have just as much freedom to disagree and say so. The fact that it's someone's cherished religious beliefs that are being disagreed with, or held to a scientific standard if being put forward as "science," doesn't change that.

Just my two cents anyway.

[Skybird]

U Crank, I think you will have a great time if you become a Muslim and move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. There they have the kind of religious freedom that you propose.

And btw, I AM silent about "my atheism" as long as I do not run into another debate on religion claiming special right and freedom for itself - at the cost of those not wanting to have anything to do with it. that in a thread on religion you have opinions pro and against,m should not surprise you. If this were a thread on cuisine and cooking recipes, you would get these instead.

I am also not making a fuss about me breathing air. Only when I run into somebody trying to hold my nose and mouth shut and threatening to hinder me breathing freely, I become aggressive. Very.

Your freedom ends where you start to consume mine. Your belief must not be of anybody's concern, you have no right to demand that others have to accept limitations so that you can do what you want. The medieval has had religion unchained, controlling state politics and cultural life. It was hell. They call it the dark age not only due to the lack of candles. We must not want religious dictatorships again. Where there is religion reigning, there is the end of free speech, free opinion, freedom in general.

Frau Kaleun also is right on the mark with her notes.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

I think if you are going to compare "freedom of religion" with "freedom of speech" there's an important point to consider.

We may have freedom of speech and be free to express our opinions and say what we like, but we don't have freedom from the consequences of exercising that freedom.
Same goes for freedom of religion IMO. Sure we are free to believe what we believe, but we are not free to express it openly in the presence of others without risking the possibility that they will disagree and say so, or think we're foolish or deluded and say so, or ask for some kind of proof that's more substantial than "because God/scripture/my pastor says so."

Having the freedom to do, say, or believe something doesn't exempt you from the consequences of exercising that freedom.

I would whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. Completely. It is the risk of freedom of expression and to think other wise would be foolish.

But would you have it any other way? I would rather be free to say what I wish than be forbidden from saying it.

[Platapus]

Well written Frau Kaluen.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

U Crank, I think you will have a great time if you were Muslim living in Saudi Arabia or Iran. There they have the kind of religious freedom that you propose.

And just would that be? I don't think I have suggested any 'kind of religious freedom'. Can you be more specific?

Your freedom ends where you start to consume mine.

I would never do that.

Your belief must not be of anybody's concern, you have no right to demand that others have to accept limitations so that you can do what you want.

I have never done that.

We must not want religious dictatorships again.

Do you know of any Democratic nations that are in danger of becoming one? Yours maybe? Mine isn't.

Where there is religion reigning, there is the end of free speech, free opinion, freedom in general.

No doubt, but where there is "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general" there is almost always freedom of religion. Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by u crank

I would whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. Completely. It is the risk of freedom of expression and to think other wise would be foolish.

But would you have it any other way? I would rather be free to say what I wish than be forbidden from saying it.

I'm not saying that I would have it any other way, I'm simply saying that when "non-believers" talk about not wanting special exemptions for religious speech, this is often the kind of thing they're talking about: people who not only want the freedom to express their religious beliefs, but the freedom to be exempt from an open expression of disagreement with those beliefs, or from the fairly predictable consequences of stating something as a universal truth that simply cannot be backed up by anything other than "because I believe it."

Someone (may have been you) mentioned how it would feel for an atheist to not have the freedom to say out loud in public that he is an atheist. Well, probably it would feel lousy, and for much of western history it could have had very dire consequences indeed and in some places still does -but as Skybird already noted most atheists don't make a point of publicly announcing their disbelief on a regular basis, in the average social interaction it typically only happens in response to someone else bringing the subject up for discussion. Many times in my own experience it does not happen at all even in those circumstances, because depending on the company the non-believer may well decide that it's just not worth the trouble it would cause if they didn't keep their mouths shut. If they do not keep their mouths shut, however, they can't be singled out as the cause of the trouble just for taking part in the discussion.

In the realm of science it's even trickier, because science has definable standards. "I believe in God" vs. "I don't believe in God" is one thing and everyone may agree to disagree and part friends. But "I believe the Bible and have the science to back it up" is another thing entirely, if they can't back it up according to the standards that apply to scientific investigation they are not exempt from criticism because religious belief is also involved. But for some of those people, attacking the 'science' is treated as an attack on their religion - which it very well may be, but IMO by putting their religion on the same battlefield with questionable science to stand against a common foe they pretty much asked for it. You know what I'm sayin'? It's like suddenly shoving a toddler onto the front lines of a raging conflict and then screaming "Baby killer!" at your enemy when the kid takes a bullet.

The thing is - most atheists and agnostics have no need or desire to proclaim their doubt and disbelief without provocation because they have no interest in converting anyone else to it, as long as religious belief disguised as science or law or something else of a secular nature is not being forced on them by others. In contrast to that, for many religious people - and in the US, at least, for many Christians in particular - proselytizing for their beliefs is so built into the system as something that must be done that doing it is sometimes confused with just having those beliefs.

And that's the problem. If someone wants to believe every last word of the Bible is literal truth, hey, whatever. When they want to PROVE that it is with questionable science as a justification for teaching it in science class and someone finds that objectionable on scientific grounds, when they want to stop me on the street to share their faith and I refuse to stop what I'm doing and listen to their testimony, when they want to proclaim that their beliefs are universal truths and other people state their disagreement or ask for verifiable evidence that this is so - they are not "victims" of anything. But some of them want to be treated as such.

I'm NOT saying that this is going on in this thread, because to be honest I haven't read every page and every post. I'm just saying that this is what I see in my own experience.

[NeonSamurai]

Ugh multi-quote so this is going to be long... sorry...

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

There are many people I respect, but just because one of them likes someone else doesn't mean much to me.

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.

Ah you hit on the biggest conundrum of all in philosophy of science. You can't have evidence with out a theory or hypothesis as you can't identify it as being evidence without the theory saying it is. This is where genius lies in science, being able to develop a theory out of the endless facts and thoughts.

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.

I am really not sure where your argument lies here. A lack of evidence is not proof, it is simply a lack of evidence. this does not mean you should therefore believe the theory (I would argue that you should not fully believe any theory, as they are all likely wrong). It only means you cannot rule the theory out, so your theory of blue men may be true as we don't know the oceans very well, but it may not be very probable (something else we can't calculate either).

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?

People believe things for all kinds of foolish reasons without being rational about it in the slightest. Proof doesn't really exist, the truth is unknowable. The atheist asking for proof is a hypocrite as he has no proof for his stance either, and they also proclaim that they posses the truth. By your logic, would they also not have to present evidence that they speak truth as well? Like I said, a lack of evidence is not evidence itself.

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.

Absolutely, in this case there is very strong evidence from multiple sources that the world was not created 6000-10000 years ago. Evolution has not been proven true, and never will be. It just has not been proven false as of yet. Cherry picking is a big problem with many who support creationism, they pick and choose what evidence to include in their "testing" and what they do not, this is a key reason why it is not scientific, even though the young earth theory could be considered a scientific theory as it is testable and refutable.

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.

I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

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.

As I have written several times now evidence neither proves nor points to theories. Given how infinitesimally small our knowledge of the universe is, it is utter hubris on our part to claim such.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

Not to completion, although my mother did. I myself couldn't finish it. I know my mother thought very negatively about it, and she and I tend to think alike on such matters. She raised me and my sister with the freedom to choose religion or ignore it, and the home was religion free. I also have great respect for her opinions as they are generally very well thought out. My view is based on what I read of his work, and my mother's criticism of it.

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 thing that I tend to hate most is hypocrisy in people, and I feel that many atheists tend to be rather hypocritical as do many theistic people. As much as many atheists like to proclaim their view is not belief based, it is. Their belief is not grounded in science as they can't disprove god. Most Atheistic attacks center around religious conundrums and obvious errors.

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 bring my own thoughts to the table, not anyone elses' without my own careful thought on the matter. I am also neither pro nor anti faith directly, though I do find blind belief in anything very worrying (be it religion or politics or whatever.

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.

Several of his arguments I don't entirely disagree with; I consider the biblical god to be extremely unlikely (but not impossible). I do find his strong assertion that god(s) in any form do not exist at all period to be arrogant, as he is asserting knowledge of something he cannot possibly posses, just like many theists do.

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?

His arguments at best are philosophical, not scientific, as they are entirely logic driven. The idea that he can calculate probabilities from his twin hypothesis is beyond laughable as he has absolutely nothing to measure them by or calculate them on. Also Occam's Razor does not demand that explanations must be simple, just that the simplest explanations are often the best to examine first. As for his last statement, I fail to see what that has to do with the possibility of a creator existing.

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.

I thought you would know me better than that by now, when have I ever just randomly thrown propagandists into the mix?

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.

There are plenty of scientist out there who are very well respected and influential, who don't know the first thing about how it all really works (in fact I would say large swaths of the scientific community don't understand it very well). I've known a few myself. Your quote suggests he doesn't really, since he was going with the need for scientific "proof". As if science actually "knows" anything (I call that arrogance on the part of the scientist). Their theories are just somewhat more objective and rigorous.

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.

I was not comparing their styles so to speak, more the arrogance of the absolute natures of their positions, and how I feel it mirrors many on the other side of the equation. This is what I mean by hypocrisy. I also think he has it totally backwards, being comfortable with not knowing is a good thing, it leads to open-mindedness, humility, and caution. The problem with both sides is, both are convinced they know, and both are wrong. Being a skilled debater also does not make his arguments more correct either.

As for the second part of his book, does he really think humanity needs religion to act like total <insert censored word here>? Blind faith in anything is bad (even blind faith in science). People will do all kinds of horrible unspeakable things to each other over any old excuse, often because of difference. We are generally not a very nice species, and not having religion wouldn't have changed much. We could come up with another excuse to do utterly nasty things to each other.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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

Simple really, if you disagree with a theory, you are the one that needs to show it false. A tested theory is no more valid than an untested theory. You can test a theory millions of times and not have it fail, but it doesn't mean it won't fail on the next test. This is why I say the burden of disproof lies with the critic. A honest theoretician or experimenter will try their best to disprove their own theories, but I honestly suspect that many scientists don't try very hard. Publishing results is what gives you your livelihood, and disproving your own theories will lead you to starving.

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.

I'm going to pull out the dictionary as I don't think you are using the words theism, atheism, and agnosticism quite right.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

So like I said, theism and atheism are both faith (belief) based and not entirely logical. Agnosticism is I don't know.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

.....I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.....

I think I understand you better now. I have no problem saying that God is the reason behind what I, or science as I'll side with, cannot explain. It is as valid as any other descriptor by all means. I just don't buy the grumpy father figure, full of righteous, nearly drunken anger management problems God. I don't respect that behavior in anyone, you see?

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Simple really, if you disagree with a theory, you are the one that needs to show it false. A tested theory is no more valid than an untested theory. You can test a theory millions of times and not have it fail, but it doesn't mean it won't fail on the next test. This is why I say the burden of disproof lies with the critic. A honest theoretician or experimenter will try their best to disprove their own theories, but I honestly suspect that many scientists don't try very hard. Publishing results is what gives you your livelihood, and disproving your own theories will lead you to starving.

No sir. You are quite wrong about that and that is not an opinion. You are correct that it is simple as there is one rule, and one rule only, for fair and reasonable discussion that being;

If you make a claim or statement of fact, you inherit the burden of proof required to support that claim.

Consider someone who had never heard of or read about god until you told them your theory about it (for the purposes of disambiguation you should use hypothesis to distinguish between the deeper overarching scientific definition of Theory) and they refused to believe you until you provided some convincing corroborating evidence, or simply tell you 'Well I don't think so.' why should they then have to prove your claim wrong? why must they accept your hypothesis unless they can produce proof of its fallacy? are they being hypocritical? If what you say is true, why do we not compile encyclopedias of facts by the premise that they cannot be proven false? All are strictly rhetorical - they don't, they don't, no and that would be insane.

To take a real world example, in a court of law the accused need not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove the defendants guilt.

If you deny the responsibility of this, or to attempt to shift that burden, you should not take umbrage if people either ignore or refuse to grant respect or equal status alongside a falsifiable tested scientific Theory for your claim, as you have offered no supporting case for it. You should also be aware that proof burden shifting is a starkly obvious logical fallacy and a serious reasoning error so expect to be called on it each and every time.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I'm going to pull out the dictionary as I don't think you are using the words theism, atheism, and agnosticism quite right.

Since that is an accusation of improper word use, I plead innocence. For my defense, please explain the contradiction between my description of atheism and your dictionary definition 2a, because I say my description is sound. Disbelief is simply a refusal to believe, and the reason for my disbelief in the existence of deities is because I have heard neither convincing evidence nor sound reasoning in support of their existence.

Again with theism, how is my description in contradiction with your dictionary definition?

With agnosticism, your dictionary appears to be limited to definitions involving god.

ag·nos·ti·cism (g-nst-szm)n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism

So my statement that agnosticism is a position on knowledge stands. The defense rests.

Who will be the jury? I recommend Sailor Steve be the judge.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

So like I said, theism and atheism are both faith (belief) based and not entirely logical. Agnosticism is I don't know.

Belief is neither equivalent to nor a function of faith. Belief with good reason and disbelief in the absence of good reason for belief are both entirely logical positions. Since atheism can be defined as the latter as I have demonstrated above, it may not always be entirely logical, but it certainly can be.

[Skybird]

Rejection of a belief is not a belief. It is rejecting a given a belief, and the act of believing itself. Atheism is no religion. When somebody refuses to drive in a car or walk outside on the street, you cannot somehow argue that nevertheless he participates in public traffic while truth is he sits at home and has not left the house.

Atheists refuse to share beliefs in deities. Simply this, not more, not less. Some think there is/are no god(s). Others simply do not care for dealing with the question in the first, are simply uninterested.

Agnosticism: to know that one cannot know the final truths about things existing, life, universe, deities. That is the basic idea. It is a form of scepticism that does not dare to take any position pro or against deities existing. To me, it is indifference, maybe even a form of intellectual cowardice that does not want to call itself atheist for whatever a reason. But while not all atheists are agnostics, all agnostics in the end are atheists, if you think it to the end. That's why I do not see myself as agnostic, though i say myself that as human beings we cannot think (and thus: know) outside the tracks the define what "human" is. I know we cannot gain absolute knowledge. We can increase and foster our understanding of the world, life, things, ourselves. But we cannot gain a total, final, absolute knowledge. For that, we would need to be the entire universe itself, not just a part of it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."

You just advocated for the first steps towards it, and spend a whole posting to deny that. All what you implied and posted, says "religious people's practice first and unlimited, all others have to live with it and have to step back where they fell affected".

That is religious tyranny, plain and simple. Of course you will continue to claim the opposite you are meaning/saying/thinking, I know I know. But you contradict yourself.

I'm not caring for the parties you tthrow in your household. But when the noise becomes such that me and nweighbvours cannot sleep, cannot live our own life without needing to realise your party day in day out, cannot play pour own TVs and radios without simultaneously participating in your show, then I come over and kick you around until you stop messing up our lives becasue you want to have party "your style".

It may be your house. Your house and property has borders beyond which you have no right to annoy people. I do not care for the colour on the walls in other people's houses, nor do I usually care for what the believe in, or not, and why, as long as they do not damage other humans (including their children). But when people run around and tell everybody day in day out that the colour of their walls is so wonderful and why one does not do it like them, too, and that public buildings should be painted like that, too, then it starts to become a problem for everybody else.

Keep thy religion to thyself. There it must not concern anybody else, there you can believe as often and strong and long as you want, nobody will care. And that is how it should be, and that is how you are free and the others as well. Where your religion claims it must be aggressively spread and offensively preached, it becomes an aggressor and invader. And that is where tolerance ends and the boots start kicking religious butts - in self-defense. We must not want our freedom from religion sacrificed for your religion. Build a club house, have a chart at the entrance inviting people to come in and check you out, if that is what you want. That'S the non-invasive, civil, polite way to do it. Walking from door to door in start preaching and missionising, already illustrates the basic aggressive attitude behind that religion that wants to claim more and more for itself. First the privacy of others. Than laws and rights. Then others freedoms. Then the school'S curriculum. Finally the policy of the state.

I'm even willing to call to arms to prevent that happening once again, if needed.

[Skybird]

Neon,

a theory somebody disagrees with must be proven wrong by this somebody only if it is a qualified theory by scientific standards indeed. If it is no theory but just hear-say or imagination or arbitrary claim put into the world by somebody, then the burden of evidence is not on the one saying that it is drivel, but the one claiming in the first that this drivel is true and a "theory". You put something into the world nobody every has heard of or has seen and witnessed - you show your claim that it is out there is true. Not the other has to prove that you are telling nonsense. The burden of proof is on YOU. When I claim Obama is a Martian, I have to prove it - you must not disprove me. When I claim the Earth'S core is hollow, and in reality the grass is blue and the sky is green and there are intelligent invisible marshmallows flying over the summer meadow, then I have to prove my claims to be true - nobody has to take it upon him to disprove me. And when I say there is a big cosmic superman floating over the water, then I have to prove that claim to be true - I have no right to expect to be taken for real as long as nobody has disproven my claims. All these examples are no hypothesis I set up - they are claims. Speculations. Products of my fantastic, chaotic imagination, basing on nothing. Jules Verne based on more ground than I do here. So, the described brilliant outlets of my sparkling intellect are no hypothesis. And certainly no theories.

Claiming God exists, is no theory. The burden of evidence is on those claiming he does exist.

At best you can make "God exists" a hypothesis to work with. And that is what Dawkins did. He then set a second, alternative hypothesis, "God exists" not, and compared the probabilities for both being true by using several different perspectives and approaches on things.

I would not even go so far to say "God exists" is a hypothesis. Even formulation a hypothesis - the pre-stage of a theory that so far has not even seen the very first stage of evaluation and testing - needs something causal justifying it. Often that is the observing of a natural phenomenon, or an event. You then, without having any further information, think and say "could it be that what I have seen is because of this and that causal link/factor?" And then you start to verify or falsify your first guess. Sometimes, this leads to evidence hardening the hypothesis, and you then formulate a theory. Sometimes you need to alter the hypothesis first. Sometimes you just have to kick it into the garbage bin. There is a condition for formulating hypothesis, obviously. They must be, like theories, of such a kind that you can work on them to prove or disprove them, even if the work is far-reaching and needs insights from mother branches and is a long-termed project. Physics and astronomy come to mind. A hypothesis or theory not allowing that, is speculation, is claim. And claiming you can just everything, infinitely, endlessly, since you must never justify it by reason, logic, causal work, or anything.

As far as I am concerned, "God exists" is not even a hypothesis, and Dawkins used it as that probably only for pragmatic purposes on behalf of the design of his book's structure, he wanted to give it a reason-based approach, and for that some basis of a minimum standard was necessary. 'To me, the claim is less than a hypothesis - it is a speculation. Imaginative, wild, unfounded, and for its chance of actually being true completely depending on random chance. "It'S not a god, its flying pink elephants on Ganymed" already is better than that, because actually you can fly to Ganymed and check the place for pink flying elephants. Already a hypothesis in science must fulfill basic criterions to be seen as a hypothesis. Amongst that is that, like a theory, it can be tested. A hypothesis gets pragmatically formulated to have a theoretic construct one can work with and work on. That'S why in German the talk often is of "Arbeitshypothese" (working hypothesis). Its the more precise full name of "hypothesis".

Dawkins said it himself, one of logic's dilemmas is that the nonexistence of something cannot be proven with logical means. Its like you also cannot do divisions by zero. That'S why he said you cannot say God does not exist, and so he says: God most likely does not exist. The probability is such that I think it just does not justify to take the possibility for real.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I'm even willing to call to arms to prevent that happening once again, if needed.

As if any army ever in the history of man would have you.

Keep thy religion to thyself.

Freedom of religion does not mean to hide it from your sight. Either be a part of society or leave it.