1. Comment #56643 by wardsie on July 16, 2007 at 5:55 pm

P Z Myers makes his point very succinctly.

Other Comments by wardsie

2. Comment #56652 by chadcross on July 16, 2007 at 6:51 pm

That first one is pretty funny. The interviewer asks PZ a few times how they can engineer ID to work better for evolutionary scientists. Guess he doesn't understand that it doesn't work that way.

Other Comments by chadcross

3. Comment #56663 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 9:29 pm

"The interviewer asks PZ a few times how they can engineer ID to work better for evolutionary scientists."

No I didn't. It is important to actually listen to the interview. I asked what sort of thing would count as evidence for PZ towards the idea of teleology in nature. The goal of the question was to let PZ show whether or not his own religion gets in the way and influences his thinking as yours appears too.

Other Comments by thesciphishow

4. Comment #56667 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 10:08 pm

His own religion? How can you feign objectivity when you obviously have such a poor understanding of the basics? PZ doesn't have a religion-- he's atheist. If you think that atheism is a religion, you're simply not smart enough or well-informed enough to participate in the discussion.

Of course, your belief in Creationism is evidence enough of that already.


Other Comments by carnitine

5. Comment #56668 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 10:22 pm

And the answer is: Darwin.

Other Comments by roach

6. Comment #56669 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 10:26 pm

"His own religion? How can you pretend to objectivity when you so obviously have such a poor understanding of the basics? PZ doesn't have a religion-- he's atheist."

PZ's atheism is held at least as dogmatically as any religious believer i've ever encountered and it serves the same purpose as a defining characteristic of his worldview. If it is indistinguishable from a religion it is hardly unreasonable to label it as such. After all there are a number of religions with no deities and he certainly has very strongly settled opinions about the "supernatural". Seems like characteristics of a religion to me. Although a pretty sparse and empty one that is usually poorly thought out. But still.

But such self-serving special pleading seems to be just business as usual for a particular breed of atheist.

And if you don't like my voice don't listen. It really is pretty easy. Does it make you feel like a big man to tack a barb on like that that contributes nothing ?

Other Comments by thesciphishow

7. Comment #56670 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Extraordinary claims require extraordianary evidence - Carl Sagan

Since the claims of the worlds religions are backed up by either no evidence or terrible evidence, they can safely be rejected without an appeal to any dogma. Hence, PZ and atheists in general are not a dogmatic bunch.

Other Comments by roach

8. Comment #56671 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 10:43 pm

"Extraordinary claims require extraordianary evidence - Carl Sagan"

This demand is ill defined and only questionably coherent. You need to actually define what you mean by extraordinary in context. Otherwise it is just a worthless platitude.

"Since the claims of the worlds religions are backed up by either no evidence or terrible evidence, they can safely be rejected without an appeal to any dogma. Hence, PZ and atheists in general are not a dogmatic bunch."

That is really funny. Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered.

Other Comments by thesciphishow

9. Comment #56672 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 10:52 pm

"Seems like characteristics of a religion to me"

And you're completely wrong. Atheism is the natural result of rejecting things that are not supported by evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. If that's dogmatic, then so be it, but that means we're also dogmatic about insisting the sun will rise and that water will evaporate if subjected to sufficient heat. That being the case, you've changed the meaning of the word to the point that it would need not have any particular connection to religion.

I'm sure what you wrote makes sense to you, but that's because of your deficiencies brought on by religious indoctrination, not because it is logically sound.

Even the premise of your show is flawed.

Darwin or Design? For one thing, that's a false dichotomy. If evolution is ever proven false (which it won't be; I feel I must emphasize this is hypothetical given current company) it would be because a better, more explanatory theory is found, not because science found Jesus.

The premise is also flawed because "Darwin" is not synonymous with evolution. Darwin got the ball rolling and that is all. He is not an authority, as science has none. If he were magically resurrected today and were yet possessed of the same knowledge he had when he died, he would not even be an expert (Nothing against Darwin, obviously, as I'm sure he'd catch up quickly, but I think my point is clear).

And of course the premise is also flawed because it sets the two alternatives on equal ground. Evolution vs Creationism is no more a controversy than is Gravity vs Magic Juju power.

Your interview with PZ was just another in a long line of pointless attempts to try to transfer responsibility away from those making the claim.

It is you who are making a positive claim, although it's unclear what your claim even is, and it absolutely clear that you have no evidence to back it up. Why is it anyone else's job to give you an idea of what evidence for creationism would look like? Why don't you tell us? It would represent a huge breakthrough for your pathetic little movement if you could do that much.

Other Comments by carnitine

10. Comment #56673 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 10:53 pm

"Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered."

Again, only if you change the definition of "dogmatic" so much as to make the word meaningless.

Other Comments by carnitine

11. Comment #56674 by Happy Hominid on July 16, 2007 at 10:56 pm

"That is really funny. Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered".

They are if you mistake the difference between "dogma" and "passion". People like PZ and Richard can undoubtedly be annoying to believers but to call them dogmatic is a total misuse of the term... just like those that equate science with religion.

It was good to actually HEAR PZ rather than reading him, but I won't bother with the rest of this. I think I'm well beyond it.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

12. Comment #56675 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 10:59 pm

"Atheism is the natural result of rejecting things that are not supported by evidence. Nothing more, nothing less."

That is at best a half-truth. Where "atheism" is a synonym for Metaphysical Naturalism (such as the way PZ himself uses the term among others) it is significantly more than you claim. This sort of linguistic sleight of hand is pretty poor form on your part really. Surely you are smart enough to realise this common synonym.

"The premise is also flawed because "Darwin" is not synonymous with evolution"

Of course it is not. Darwin is short hand for a particular explicitly a-telic account of origins. If you have listened to the whole thing before seeing fit to comment in ignorance you would know this.

Other Comments by thesciphishow

13. Comment #56676 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 11:01 pm

"Again, only if you change the definition of "dogmatic" so much as to make the word meaningless."

Given the word dogma has 4 common meanings

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

And that at the very least PZ's position falls into category 4, there is nothing unreasonable about the use of the word dogma to describe his position. Dictionary.com is your friend for future reference.

Other Comments by thesciphishow

14. Comment #56677 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 11:04 pm

"They are if you mistake the difference between "dogma" and "passion". People like PZ and Richard can undoubtedly be annoying to believers but to call them dogmatic is a total misuse of the term... just like those that equate science with religion."

Not according to the dictionary. So I should assume that according to you using a word in line with its dictionary definition is a misuse of it ? Next time before you accuse someone of misusing a word it is important to actually know what the word means. Try dictionary.com in future.

"It was good to actually HEAR PZ rather than reading him, but I won't bother with the rest of this. I think I'm well beyond it."

Nothing like a mind firmly welded shut. And you objected to my use of the word dogmatic when applied to PZ. Will you object when I apply it to you ?

Other Comments by thesciphishow

15. Comment #56678 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Yes I realize you used Darwin to create a cute, alliterative title. It is nonetheless a mischaracterization.

Please explain how my words were "linguistic sleight of hand." Atheism is not, in fact, synonymous with metaphysical naturalism, but even if it were, which I will even grant you in this case to see where you're going with it, how does that change anything? There's the same amount of evidence for non-divine supernatural elements as there is for the divine -- none.

Other Comments by carnitine

16. Comment #56679 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 11:07 pm

No matter how many times you say "Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered" it won't make it true. Tell us, what belief on insufficient evidence have atheists like PZ adopted to reject the claims of Creationists and Christians or any other religious sect?

I must apologize. I wrongly assumed you have a decent grasp of the English language. It really is amazing that you don't know what extraordinary means. Do you know what amazing means? Or am I just wasting my time here?

Extraordinary means remarkable or phenomenal. Why are religious claims remarkable? Because they fly in the face of everything we have good reason to believe about the nature of our circumstance.

Other Comments by roach

17. Comment #56680 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 11:09 pm

"And that at the very least PZ's position falls into category 4, there is nothing unreasonable about the use of the word dogma to describe his position. Dictionary.com is your friend for future reference."

Before presuming to teach me the definition of a word with which I am quite familiar, perhaps you should consider the context in which it is used.

You are using the word in the pejorative sense, just as "cult" is used almost exclusively in the pejorative. If you insist on using the most mundane of definitions, all religions, political parties, sports teams, and corporations are cults, and any miniscule piece of trivia is dogma. You were obviously not using the term in this way.

Talk about linguistic sleight of hand.

Other Comments by carnitine

18. Comment #56682 by Happy Hominid on July 16, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Dictionary Dot Com may be YOUR friend, but mine is Merriam-Webster

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

You are WELCOME to call me dogmatic. You can call me anything you want.

thesciphishow - If you have listened to the whole thing before seeing fit to comment in ignorance you would know this.

Bush - If you just wait until I finish the war in Iraq then you will see your ignorance in having opposed it.

No thanks. Good night now!

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

19. Comment #56684 by BT Murtagh on July 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm

The SciPhiShow quoth:

PZ's atheism is held at least as dogmatically as any religious believer i've ever encountered and it serves the same purpose as a defining characteristic of his worldview.

But in your interview PZ clearly stated "The existence of a God can't be ruled out a priori" before continuing to explain that there's no supporting evidence, no necessity for the hypothesis, and no method for evaluating the ID position scientifically. He also stated that, while he couldn't think offhand what form such evidence might take, he was open to changing his position should suitable evidence be produced.

That's pretty far from being a dogma.

I thought you did a pretty good interview with PZ (I have only had time to hear that one, but will listen on later); you let him speak at appropriate length to explain his viewpoint, and while you acknowledged up front that you were pretty decided on supporting ID you didn't engage in any of the usual appalling tactics of trick questions and so forth.

Your tone in the interview was polite and respectful, but I'd have to say your comments here are coming off a bit hostile and defensive. I agree with your comment #3 in this thread, by the way; your questions seem to me to have been mischaracterized by chadcross. However, your insistence on characterizing PZ's atheism as a dogmatic religion are even more out of order, IMO.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

20. Comment #56688 by pewkatchoo on July 17, 2007 at 12:37 am

Scippishow
Say something often enough and loud enough and you may even manage to convince yourself of its veracity. However, that does not necessarily make it so.

"Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered."

Only in your own head. Dogmatism can only exist for a proposition that requires faith not for something that does not depend on faith (non-faith). PZ would change his mind immediately if evidence were presented to make him change his mind. This is not an intellectual argument you are proposing here, this is of the same level of a childish "Ah but, what about if.." We are clearly not dealing with ifs and buts. There is no evidence for the god proposition, therefore there can be no dogmatism involved in not believing in one. I don't believe that there are elves at the bottom of my garden. This is not a dogmatic belief. I have never seen any, there are no little unexplainable footsteps in the soil, none of the next door-neighbours cats have ever deposited a half-dead elf on my doorstep. Do you understand the difference between dogmatism and pragmatism? If you don't then we are wasting our time even discussing with you.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

21. Comment #56689 by Enlightenme.. on July 17, 2007 at 12:45 am

M'okay..
More unfinished correspondence with a darwinian heavyweight.

Sciphishing?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

22. Comment #56692 by pewkatchoo on July 17, 2007 at 1:02 am

scipishow
dogmatism = a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Perhaps, but that does not make the atheistic view dogmatic. We have no established opinions or beliefs. What we do have is quite well established scientific facts that fit in with all the current evidence. If the evidence changes then our position changes automatically. Religion does not do this, it requires a significant leap of faith to exist in the first place and never ever changes its position, even when evidence is shoved in its face. Even when the church accepts evolution as fact it still prefaces that acceptance with 'but godstilldidit'.

You really need to understand that this is why we give up with you people. Because you never say anything that we have not heard 1000 times before. You also miss the fact that most atheists have come to an atheistic position after being brought up with religion and have got here after long careful examination of the dogmas that pass for so-called truths. We are well versed in the arguments of the religious and find them very thin and unimaginative gruel indeed.

So what most of us now tend to do is have a quick look to see if there is anything new being proposed (your show for example) and if it is just more of the same old same old then we cut our visit short. This is not a sign of a closed mind, this is a sign that you have nothing new to say. Life is just to short to waste it on endless mumbo jumbo.

If we let you people run things, real human achievement grinds to a complete halt.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

23. Comment #56709 by the_assayer on July 17, 2007 at 2:16 am

thesciphishow, one thing i find in all your creationists is that you think its enough to have a consistent world-view. That it is enough that it makes sense within the premise(like God) you assume to be true. That is not true. I can site many cases where i can picture a consistent worldview and still be quite wrong.
Supoose I belong to a religion which preaches that we all live in the Matrix and that all of us living inside a program. I can also make claims like all the politicians are agents of the matirx and so forth. In my view that would make sense.
COnsider another example. Suppose i believe the earth is inside the belly of a giant octopus. And i say that all these planets and stars are the undigested left-overs in its inside. That would make sense too, in my world-view.
The flat earth theorists do the same thing too. They say that all the scientists are lying to us and that the images of the Earth taken from space are fake. Within their view it makes sense.
Even for you creationists. You people like to believe that every word in the bible is fact and you discount evidence from science by saying that all the scientists are trying to lie to the public in an attempt to bring "not believing in God" as a religion.
The fallacy in all these cases is the same. It is not enough to say that "I live in the Matrix", there should be good evidence that supports the hypothesis. Not realisisng this logic fallacy would mean that our judicial systems would convict innocent people based on the judges personal convictions.

Now does the Bible provide proof for God? It does. It says "God Exists". Right? But using the bible to justify its assertions is laughable. The eivdence for evolution is not of this kind. We have no reason to believe that all the dino bones and all the different species of animals conspired to be in such a way that evolution could be justified. The bones are there and evolution describes its existance beautifully. when evolution failes to fit emperical evidence, we try out other hypothesis like evo-devo.

Naturalism is not a choice, it is the only option for us if our objective is to explain the mysteries of the universe and not explain it away! Religion is explaining away the mystery of our existance by saying that something magical using magical means created the universe. Tell me, what is the difference between saying, "something magical using magical means created the universe" and "I don't know what created the universe"? ...I say none. There is no extra information in the first sentence.

Also bear in mind. Once people say, "Yes God did it", they would not care about mystery any more. 'Cause to them the mystery is solved. I like to be honest about my ignorance about the workings of the world and i like to find out more. To assume that there is no need to look for answers and that instead i should settle for an answer like " God did it", is very naive and close-minded a view about life and its meaning.

We in this forum,or atleast me, reject God because of its poor explanative power. This makes me wonder why do you feel that "God" is an explanation? What is motivating you to defend God?
Is it becasue of your fear about Morality- that without God there would be no absolute standard for morality? Do you really think that in a Godless world, people would just start killing each other becasue of their sudden realisation that the God police is a myth? How would you then justify religious reform movements, like the feminist movement? Doesn't that show that Man can dictate and bring forth new moral rules even if no God stated it in the scriptures. What makes you so confident that humans are just so helpless and immoral without God?

Other Comments by the_assayer

24. Comment #56719 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 3:33 am

Big Yawn for the sciphishow.
Go find me some rabbits in the precambrian and then you may have something worth listening to - oh no, I've admitted evidence will sway me - but I'm supposedly dogmatic and religious - does not compute does not compute -BOOOM!

Other Comments by BillySands

25. Comment #56720 by BicycleRepairMan on July 17, 2007 at 3:34 am

PZ's atheism is held at least as dogmatically....

BEEEP!

The difference between his held opinions, is that , unlike you, he can change his mind. All he asks for is the evidence.

People like you cant, almost by definition, change your minds, even if we gave you a video of evolution happening in real-time(Which is impossible because it takes thousands of years) you would come up with some phony way to "disprove" it, and thus, by default of course, making your extremely unlikely thesis instantly The Truth As Predicted By The Bible

That, you see, is dogma, PZ Myers holds his views based on the evidence available. And the evidence for evolution by natural selection happens to be so strong, it would simply take an idiot to deny it. PZ Myers isnt any more dogmatic then you are a spherical-earth-dogmatist, if some idiot comes an claims its banana-shaped, he should be happy if you even respond to him at all.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

26. Comment #56721 by pewkatchoo on July 17, 2007 at 3:47 am

the_assayer
Excellent stuff. Couple of items in there that I particularly like and will help me to explain my position to my son. I worry a little that I do not give him enough explanation for my position and that he just follows my lead blindly without objectively understanding it, which makes it valueless. This particularly will help.

Naturalism is not a choice, it is the only option for us if our objective is to explain the mysteries of the universe and not explain it away! Religion is explaining away the mystery of our existance by saying that something magical using magical means created the universe. Tell me, what is the difference between saying, "something magical using magical means created the universe" and "I don't know what created the universe"? ...I say none. There is no extra information in the first sentence.

Also bear in mind. Once people say, "Yes God did it", they would not care about mystery any more. 'Cause to them the mystery is solved. I like to be honest about my ignorance about the workings of the world and i like to find out more. To assume that there is no need to look for answers and that instead i should settle for an answer like " God did it", is very naive and close-minded a view about life and its meaning.

Billysands
Billy, Billy, are you alright??? Damn these logicbombs, they get all the good guys.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

27. Comment #56726 by Quetzalcoatl on July 17, 2007 at 4:07 am

Oh no, Billy has exploded!

Regarding the article- I actually find it quite amusing that people ask scientists what they would regard as evidence, rather than actually presenting any. Admittedly I'm not tremendously scientifically literate, but I have yet to hear of ID producing an actual, testable hypothesis with evidence to support it.

Unless you count- "Er, well, you see, some things, they're like....too complex to have been done naturally, so, uh G... THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER did it, you know. Praise the Lord".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

28. Comment #56728 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 4:15 am

Phew, that was a close call guys - dont worry I've not been ressurected or anything like that, I just work next door to the local hospital. As usuall, there is a rational explanation.

Other Comments by BillySands

29. Comment #56731 by Philip1978 on July 17, 2007 at 4:18 am

Sciphishow, I really urge you to stop and think before calling someone like PZ or any other atheists dogmatic or religious. I am convinced there is no god because of good evidence, my opinion like all the others here, was shaped by reason and proper logical thinking. That could all change were we presented with other evidence for god's existence that was reasonable. At the moment evidence for any deity is unreasonable, untestable and more to the point MAN made, nothing more. That is not dogmatic or religious, how can it be when there is no god involved?


pewkatchoo:
Billy is wearing his Lab coat bequeathed to him by the Almighty Quetz, logicbombs simply explode next to Him, he will be fine... wont you Billy...of course, I have Faith, he will be ok...that means he will be...right?....BILLY SPEAK TO US!

Edit: Ahhhh Thank Quetz, for He lives!

Other Comments by Philip1978

30. Comment #56732 by Quetzalcoatl on July 17, 2007 at 4:22 am

Ahhhh Thank Quetz, for He lives!

Indeed. But I am Displeased that Billy is not crediting me with his recovery. Perhaps the Lab Coat needs to be passed on to a more worshipful adherent to the Way of Quetzalcoatl- How about it, Philip?

EDIT- I see Billy is now giving me my due. The Lab Coat shall remain with him. I Bless you all.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

31. Comment #56733 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 4:23 am

BILLY SPEAK TO US!

Go forth and bring me gifts of orange sherbet.

Actually has anyone seen CJ22's new avatar - that does provide some evidence for resurrection - ooh err missus ;-)

But I am Displeased that Billy is not crediting me with his recovery.

Ah The concussion is gone and I now acknowledge quetzdidit. He foresaw it and placed me next to the hospital. By the way, can you fix it for me to meet the model in CJ22s picture - that I may clone her for the good of all mankind - and your glory

Other Comments by BillySands

32. Comment #56737 by Philip1978 on July 17, 2007 at 4:42 am

I could never wear The Coat I am not worthy, Billy's knowledge (that of course you gave unto him too) of how to create Gay Fruit Flies surpasses anything I may conjure up, plus he can clone CJ22's avatar for Your Glory, he is Worthy!

Other Comments by Philip1978

33. Comment #56739 by Quetzalcoatl on July 17, 2007 at 4:44 am

By the way, can you fix it for me to meet the model in CJ22s picture - that I may clone her for the good of all mankind - and your glory

Yes. Be sure to have your Cloning Kit ready. At this stage I would like to place an order for the first ten clones. They will serve as a Harem for my human form. Be sure to remember the Fifteenth Commandment of Quetzalcoatl- always rinse out your Cloning Kit after use. It helps to prevent clone-mould. I Bless you all.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

34. Comment #56741 by Scott McMeekin on July 17, 2007 at 4:47 am

I've only had a chance to listen to the PZ Myers interview (I'm at work and it's lunchtime!), but I thought it was quite a good interview. In difference to any number of aggressively biased ID/faith-based interviewers (Sun go up, sun go down - I'm still talking, and why did I invite you on this program?), Jason at least gave PZ the opportunity to say his piece.

As a newly invigorated atheist myself (I simply didn't think about it before tbh), I always find it a little uncomfortable when ID proponents actually come across as attentive and reasonable (at least in the cordial sense, if not in the content of their discourse) because I can't help waiting for the other shoe to drop. Where's the banana theory? Where's the "a-HA!" moment where they shoot off at some spurious tangent arguing about the definition or context of a word, or suddenly claiming victory where quite the opposite is painfully apparent to everyone else. This didn't happen here, and that's a good thing in my view.

The whole "You're dogmatic. No, you're dogmatic. No, YOU'RE dogmatic" thing lends nothing to the argument, and is simply an exercise in playground chest-beating. The simply fact is that noone can say for sure whether there is or is not a god or gods - I concede that point. As RD has often stated, the fact that we cannot prove or disprove something doesn't make that thing any more probable on its own. I defer to Ockham's razor. Given what we already know and understand about the world and indeed, the universe, is it really within the realms of probability that there is a grand puppet master behind the curtain?

At this point I'm content to sit in the "No" camp, but that's not to say that I wouldn't be astounded if a team of ID scientists published their findings to peer-review, and were lauded on discovering the first solid evidence of divine intervention (or anything divine really - let's face it).

If ID wants to gain any credibility outside of the US method of simply repeating the same tired old debunked arguments, then let them risk exposure in front of peer-review like every scientist on the planet. Prove it.

To put it indelicately, Put up or shut up.

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

35. Comment #56743 by the_assayer on July 17, 2007 at 4:58 am

I was thinking about Death the other day. And I think I found out why Religion scores more brownie points in this department.
To an atheist this life is pretty much it. We see no evidence that suggests that it isn't so. So how would an atheist respond, if i told him "you will die in the next two days"(and suppose i'm a believable source :))? Surely he would not know what to do with his plans for the future also he would not know what death is gonna be like. Would he be aware of his different body parts shutting down? Given the fact that the brain only processes info which can be carried to it through sensory neurons, i doubt if we would know this. Anyway, the atheist will have enough to worry about because he insists on admitting his ignorance.
However, the religious have it all figured out. We die we go to heaven. If we wait for a little while, we will joined by our family there. To be honest, I'm impressed with how well the religious have managed to tackle the fear of death by proposing a self-consistant worldview which we can all believe, only if we stop insisting on evidence.

Also, It is interesting to note that a believer who gives no thought for tomorrow and prepares for death by way of pre-dparture prayers and appeasments, he can manage to get all the psychological advantages of a placebo and die peacefully or atleast something like that. hmmmmmm...

Thoughts?

Other Comments by the_assayer

36. Comment #56747 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 5:20 am

Extraordinary evidence.

A few weeks ago some anglican bishop claimed the UK floods were gods annoyance with the UK over its liberal stance on homosexuality. The problem with that idea is that there have been rain and floods on this planet for billions of years so it doesnt prove that it was due to homosexuals. Extraordinary evidence would be that which couldnt be assigned a natural cause. If instead of storms, lightening bolts flashed down from the sky and hit the butts of ONLY homosexual men the contry over, then you'd start to wonder, but of course that ISNT what happened and instead we get general rain (a bit more than usual) that killed a few random people, who probably werent homosexual.

facetious??? NO, this is the type of extraordinary evidence I require, and it just isnt there. believers may say that is a silly idea (lightening bolts on the butt) and i'd agree with them totally, as it just ISNT going to happen.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

37. Comment #56749 by Yorker on July 17, 2007 at 5:29 am

As soon as I saw an ID'er was responsible for the series I knew I wouldn't listen to them all -- a huge waste of time -- but curiosity alone made me listen to PZ. The comments of "thesciphishow" here have confirmed my original decision; the usual old story, a deluded person unable or unwilling to accept the fact of evolution staring him in the face who tries pathetic "word-wangling" as a means of bolstering up a groundless position.

The vast majority here would change their minds in the light of compelling evidence; his kind never will, they fear the truth; they can't accept that "god magic" won't save them from non-existence when they die. I won't address this religite directly since it's 99.999999 percent certain that he'll be unable to present me with evidence against evolution, or indeed, even a half decent argument so why waste time with something we've all heard many times before. Additionally, I suspect this fellow is teetering on the brink of "trolldom" right now; I wouldn't want to encourage him!

Other Comments by Yorker

38. Comment #56750 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 5:45 am

dogmatic.

we think of this word as something negative. sciphishow provides a dictionary definition to say that evolutionists are dogmatic. By that definition then yes. But by that definition a cancer surgeon who suggested that the ONLY way (at present) to get rid of a particuar tumor is by surgery (and not by sleeping over a toad) is also dogmatic, by not walking over a cliff edge because i KNOW im going to go down is also dogmatic.

for me one of the key problems with creationists (and they are everywhere round here) is that they know next to nothing about evolution (as it currently stands)and their own beliefs are a hotch pox mix anyway (as if there is no evidence you can say whatever you want and not look a fool as such). I was talking to an aquaintence generally about selective breeding, he thought it was amazing how you can modify the form/behaviour of a creature and then went on to say '...and that just shows that darwins theory was a load of nonsense'. I think he expected me to laugh and slap him on the back in agreement but I said that it actually demonstrated it very well (variable offspring, selection, traits passed on to offspring, change in gene frequency = evolution)anyway i didnt take it any further but he had this shocked look onhis face, manybe i was the first person he'd encountered who disagreed that AS demonstated evo (it certainly doesnt falsify it as he thought!!!).

Other Comments by phasmagigas

39. Comment #56752 by karlobarlo on July 17, 2007 at 5:47 am

To the sciphishow- you replied to most of carnitine's post but unsuprisingly not to his most important question! Why is it everyone else'd job to tell you what evidence for Intelligent design would look like? WHY DID YOU CONVENIENTLY FORGET TO ANSWER THIS PART??? People like you can talk round and round in circles, pointing out irregularities in everyone elses position but when it comes to justifying your own, you have nowhere to go........and I love it! It is very very simple debating one of you! Can you please explain why the intelligent design movement, that which makes strong claims that there is eveidence that the world has been designed, has never published a scientific article in any peer reviewed journal detailing their evidence??????????????? Please answer this simple little question!!!!!!!!!

Other Comments by karlobarlo

40. Comment #56754 by jeepyjay on July 17, 2007 at 5:51 am

In response to "the assayer"'s comments: why should anyone "fear death"? Everyone is going to die sometime, it's a fact of life.

As Mark Twain pointed out, he was dead for milions of years before he was born and that didn't bother him!

The only thing to fear is a painful dying, not death itself, which is just cessation of conscious existence.

I'm not afraid of death. In fact I'll probably be quite happy to welcome it when it comes, because it's been a bit of a pain and struggle being alive.

I'd just like to have time be able to complete some of my projects before I go. If I'm diagnosed that I'm going to die in two days time, well I'll just have to try to put at least some of my affairs in some sort of order in the time available, or else leave the mess for others to sort out.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

41. Comment #56757 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 6:00 am

talking death and belief more generally its 'amusing' that ive seen on several occasions believers struggling with the death of a loved one (naturally) but what I find interesting that they are the ones who find that 'things just dont make sense'. they are right, in a universe with a loving god it just doesnt make sense that a four year old girl should suffer a dreadful disease and then die from a fall down the stairs. It makes total sense (as such) if there isnt a god.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

42. Comment #56758 by karlobarlo on July 17, 2007 at 6:10 am

its my first post here, just wanted to share a thought. I was raised Catholic, in Northern Ireland, but have been an atheist since about the age of 16. I studied A level RE and history at University! What convinced me that the whole notion of God was entirely ridiculous was biblical criticism itself and the historical basis of Christianity! When debating the religious I find that my arguments from these have the most impact! I have only recently strated reading Richards books and others on evolution and they close the deal against religion as far as I am concerned!

Other Comments by karlobarlo

43. Comment #56762 by Yorker on July 17, 2007 at 6:23 am

35. Comment #56743 by the_assayer

As a young man I rarely thought about death but now I'm in my sixties it enters my thoughts frequently. I'm aware my body is running down, aches and pains come for no apparent reason and the urge to consider how much time is left is inescapable. However, as a lifelong atheist I can honestly say that I don't fear death; naturally, I hope the process of dying won't be a long and painful business but that's all that concerns me.

The extremely unlikely possibility that an afterlife where I will rejoin loved ones and friends exists, is certainly appealing and to a shallow-thinking religite, it seems to be a foundation of their delusion since they think it's true. I think you're probably right that some sort of placebo effect is at work here; what interests me is what they would do if they could be actually convinced it's not going to happen? I suspect that most would be able to handle it quite well; they might even scold themselves for needing the placebo in the first place! Sadly, I'm convinced there will always be those, for whom religion is not just preferred, but needed; I pity them, they waste part of the only life they're ever going to have.

The concept of heaven, hell and soul, has always amused me since I was about twelve years old, I simply couldn't understand how people could believe such nonsense. Perhaps being raised in a non-religious family and living in a rural area where death in animals was a common sight, had some effect on me. As for dead people, I saw my first one at age fifteen and have seen quite a few since then, it's unmistakeable, not at all like sleep, nowadays when someone dies – as a friend did recently – I never view their bodies, I prefer to remember them as they were in life; when they existed.

Hell is obviously a ludicrous idea designed to cruelly threaten children and keep uneducated people in line, Heaven is the carrot. I like E.O. Wilson's thoughts on it: after the first few trillion years, it's going to get pretty boring!

Other Comments by Yorker

44. Comment #56763 by the_assayer on July 17, 2007 at 6:23 am

hmmm... i disagree jeepyjay. Sure death is a natural thing and we don't know any way of beating it at present. However, I do find it a sad thought that i'll not be around when they plan the first manned mission to extra-solar planets. I find it sad to think that I might die not knowing what initiated the big bang(maybe thats the wrong question to ask). I feel sad thinking that i can't continue living with people that I love. Ofcourse All these things are fears that I can't resolve at present. But does that mean these thoughts shouldn't matter?
You did make an interesting point about leaving stuff for others to sort out. I think that does partly make death sound less limiting on ones freedom, but then again not being able to continue my experiences as "ME"-in whatever limited form you can define the conscious "ME"-
is still a limitation.

Other Comments by the_assayer

45. Comment #56767 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 6:49 am

yorker I quote you "As for dead people, I saw my first one at age fifteen and have seen quite a few since then, it's unmistakeable, not at all like sleep, nowadays when someone dies – as a friend did recently – I never view their bodies, I prefer to remember them as they were in life; when they existed'

when one of my grandparents died I remember my familiy (who are typically british in that they arent religious but not atheist either, you know the sort, dont really ponder on it too much) in a state of denial suggesting my grandparent was but sleeping (and religious ideas flit around at the time), I never agreed with them as my own private thoughts were fully immersed in reality, the body was so different than anything in life. I feel religion is a type of denial, maybe the ultimate denial, like pretending everything is fine when it isnt, and ironically its not being in denial that makes me enjoy life more, well as far as i can tell.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

46. Comment #56768 by the_assayer on July 17, 2007 at 6:49 am

Let me put it this way. If we are given a choice between eternal life and death within 20 years, I think we all would choose eternal life. This shows that however hard we try to treat death as natural or even a good thing, eternal life is always more appealing. Now comes the major question. Is eternal life an option? I think its reasonable to say that we will find anti-aging treatments within the next 500 years. Do you feel less privilaged(like me) thinking that you can't avail that service now? Now don't think I'm a total pessimist. The time that we live in now is extremmely interesting. We are exploring very interesting subjects like Consciousness(something I have a special liking to) and so on. Yet.... I find the idea of all this coming to an end quite saddening.Hmmmm.... Probably I'm straying from the subject of this thread???

Other Comments by the_assayer

47. Comment #56770 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 6:58 am

extraordinary evidence.

Heres a thought experiment to see whos dogmatic or not.
we make a time machine, go back in time, past 6000 years to reveal what really happened back then, do we see adam and eve and around that time do we see all species created after the earth somehow quickly forms or do we just keep going back without witnessing any creation and see events as predicted by evolutionary thoery/geological evidence. Ok, now this is about biblical literalism but as we know creationists are a varied buch so its hard to please all but seems the literalists are the most dogmatic so this is for them.

Question to biblical literalist: if we go back in time and see evo DID happen, would you accept its validity?

Question to evolutionist: if we go back in time and see adam and eve and noah and all that (ie special creation etc) would you accept that evolution didnt happen?

well as im in the second camp id be happy to say that I was wrong and the bible was right after all. How many literalists would accept they were wrong on witnessing evolution, ah of course, god would be visually tricking them to 'test the faith'.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

48. Comment #56772 by the_assayer on July 17, 2007 at 7:02 am

phasmagigas brings up an interesting point. There are quite a lot of the half-hearted believers. Who are too iffy to be called believers. I mean, we do not call a person a communist if he thinks that Karl Marx had some nice stuff to say. It takes an extra bit of conviction closing in on dogmatic certainity for that person to merit such distinction. Also there are many who follow a syncresis of religions, combining beliefs from different faiths sometimes even those which are contradictory. In India (my place) this is quite common.

Other Comments by the_assayer

49. Comment #56785 by birdflusurvivor on July 17, 2007 at 7:59 am

Although the interviewer's points about dogmatism and the burden of proof are ill conceived (more so in the forum than the actual interview [Let's call my sixth grade math teacher dogmatic as he refused to give partial credit for my supernatural calculations]) the more salient point is in regard to the interviewer's position generally.
The interviewer was decent enough to acknowledge his bias before the first session began, but a deeper problem quickly became obvious. When he offered the desperate "what if ID is RIGHT?!" in response to the assertion that ID wasn't science, the interviewer's slant was made clear; "If I can't prove that ID is science than, perhaps I can otherwise cast doubt on evolution."
Too often in these kinds of debates IDers respond to the rejection of one claim with another that is wholly irrelevant to the point they were trying to originally make. This desperate grasping for legitimacy kills their already moribund position.

Other Comments by birdflusurvivor

50. Comment #56808 by ross on July 17, 2007 at 10:52 am

After listening to five of these, I have to comment that if the IDers are so concerned about finding the truth, they should just let science get on with it. If indeed there were such an intelligence out there, busy meddling with our DNA and cosmos (an idea that seems infantile to me), then if anyone is going to find it, it will be real scientists, not armchair amateurs like Salvador Cordova. Nick Matzke's account pretty much proves the scientific checks and balances, and shows professional integrity even when trying to come up with answers against the ID group.
All in all, I'd say that these interviews are an excellent resource for looking at both camps.
And Jason Rennie does provide links to several excellent anti-ID resources.

Other Comments by ross