451. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93512 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:16 am

gmork.

its interesting that when one reads the transcribed section one immediately sees the zero relation to the question. it has some meaning within its own somewhat bizarre context but it still sounds like something sylvia browne would make up, but thats it. the closest he gets to the topic is something like 'god is outside of the universe and he created it' which doesnt even take us BACK to the initial question!!

well, thats how it reads to me.

so in a nutshell hes basically bullshitted his way after the question and many may wonder if he made a valid point or not before we get to the next question......

so he avoided that question and the one about evidence for god in part 14. i think this debate seriously needs dissecting for future reference.

if dinesh was more honest and said something like 'i dont know the origin of god if there is one' i'd be more willing to listen to him again but his deliberate? obfuscation makes me distrust him.

452. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93505 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:00 am

excommunicate.

in my example the creationist doesnt know what evo so I agree theres no debate to be had but what i consider to be dineshist (dishonest) is the fact that i then say that his position is wrong (actually i would have to modify the creationist question to 'there is no proof for evolution') because of that, his position could actually be right (by chance).

i agree that its important to be the teacher at that point and of course in practice if i was thrown that question i would actually present some examples.

453. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93500 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 9:42 am

with the point about scandinavian secularism and advantages compared to the USA, dennet speaks first, then dinesh totally ignores the point and talks about neitzsche suggesting that a society cannot cut its roots (christianity) without killing the branches, he says this despite the obvious examples of the nordic countries seemingly contradicting this. its almost like hes saying neitzsche is an atheist, he believes this so it must be true from your point of view yes???? next question........

454. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93495 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 9:28 am

i just may try and watch the debate again and see if i can tease out fallacies (including any that dennet may include).

I'm sure somebody out there will have already catalogued every falsehood just for the hell of it.

Im interested in that tactic that dinesh uses when instaed of answering the question he throws questions back at the students, i cant remember the details but what he seemd to do was change the premise and get them to agree with that with a 'yes' upon which he had 'won' his position. I also need to see that bit about parsimony, the student asked about proof for god, dinesh asked for proof of parsimony??? (i was distracted here and didnt get back to it) as such, and as the student couldnt find a proof then dinesh sat down, without answering the question, can anybody verify what that was about?? (its in part 14), am i seriously missing his point or was that the most unscrupulous part of the whole debate.

a dinesh tactic seems to be something like this:


A creations says to me 'there is no proof for evolution is there?'

I answer with 'so just what is evolution according to scientists?'

creationst 'er, it says we changed from monkeys and the eye just cant form like that'

me 'ah, see you dont even know what it is so how can you possibly understand the proofs, see how creationists are wrong'

i win and walk away........

is that an example of dineshing maybe??

455. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93438 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:43 am

i feel a dinesh /harris debate could work well, i think harris would be very careful to show any shortcomings in dinesh's arguments before making any actual rebuttal. the debate format has to severly change though, it needs to be a discussion. the dan/din (din!) debate had dan fail (if i remember correctly) to point out that regimes didnt murder because they were atheist, thats an important point and as its one of the main falsehoods presented it should always be dealt with.

456. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93432 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:33 am

It would be wonderful if he could be converted.

even though he wasnt absolutely clear on this (and he didnt answer dans question) but at least hes not a creationist, well not in the traditional sense. I think dinesh could spend some time with christians explaining (loudly)to them that they dont have to actually have to be fundamentalist biblical literalists to believe in god. Belief in an unknowable deity is one thing (and many people say they believe but dont really give it much tought) but an active rejection of evolution is very different.

457. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93425 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:23 am

as a kid in the UK we had (comparative) religious education lessons a few times a week, as far as i know its still law there to teach RE in schools. i always found it a highly lackluste affair but for sure I agree with its inclusion in the school system, im not sure what it includs today but id like to see a great swathe of belief systems introduced, including some now extinct and rare indigineous examples to ensure that the 3-4 big ones dont completely dominate the proceedings.

458. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93424 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:16 am

i wonder which of these two would dinesh prefer to be dropped into (via the magical hand of god perhaps).

1)a 'fundamentalist' atheist gathering at a rural building in spain or

2) a 'fundamentalist' islamic gathering in a rural building in pakistan.

id be interested to know his answer and why.

i know that spain/pakistan are not equivalent but i felt that its more likely that in pakistan fundamentalists were less likely to be constrained than in spain, sure the atheist meeting could be in pakistan too to be even.

459. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93070 by phasmagigas on December 2, 2007 at 5:54 am

I think you meant to say something else, and I think you may be right... What you seem to have meant is that the majority of people on earth are too stupid to think for themselves, or do the intellectual leg-work to come to the realizations that intellectual atheists have come to...

i learned something by listening to dinesh. His delivery style (irrespective of what he says) is akin to a preacher (as many have said) and in his talking to a church congregation for eg he would have an audience sat looking and shouting words of agreement and the occasional halleluja, most if not all in agreement although one could bet a lot of them wouldnt actually be listening properly, just agreeing.

Its easy to throw this same accusation at an atheist crowd when listening to a popular speaker but im not sure that they are equivalent.

I noticed that dinesh on a few instances got a slight rise, a laugh from the audience and at this he would say 'alright' and enjoy the fact that his point had caused a reaction, as a preacher he would be saying 'alright' a lot more, im saying this as i felt that he was more concerned with making himself feel good than actually throwing honest ideas across.

Now this is all somewhat ad hominem but i think theres an important distinction between speakers who genuinely want to confront issues and thosewho are up there to make themselves feel good and wrile up and audience, listening to dinesh was more like listening to ted haggard (ignoring the content of their messages) enjoyng whooping up an audience.

Does whooping an audience make their message wrong? of course not but I reckon theres a difference between the honesty and motives of whoop speakers and non whoop speakers.

maybe we could get dinesh to whoop talk evolution in the bible belt, before you know it they would all be believing in evolution too!!

460. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92948 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 7:59 pm

"What if you're wrong?"

Our duty is to be honest. If we're honest but we're wrong, would anyone here condemn us?

if there is an afterlife (i suppose that tallies with god somewhat) I will at least know ive been wrong, if there isnt then believers will never know they are wrong. Im quite happy knowing that i can at least be shown to be wrong.

461. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92886 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Ok that was just really painful (Literally for D'Souza, stop yelling!).
I don't think either of them did particularly well or really even tried to stick to the topic.

i didnt feels dans rebuttals were particularly effective and dineshes ended up being rants about atheist regimes at almost every opportunity.

can a debate about an unknowable, invisible supernatural entity ever be any good? im not sure it ever can anymore than a debate about those equally unknowable subgods like cthulhu to warm us up for the main one.

what was that business on parsimony? did dinesh really do what i though he did? was he not supposed to get shouted off stage for that or something??

462. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92859 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 3:47 pm

part 12 7mins 30. dinesh shouts it would be ignorant to say something is 'just there', should this not apply to his god to.

aside from what he says i find dinesh very difficult to tolerate with his incessent shouting and pointing.

463. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92855 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

part 11. dinesh is asked about pascals wager and the issue of multiple belief systems. dineshes answer is that he should study the belief systems and figure out which one is carrying the truth. Now thats a bit tricky for the average person as there are practical considerations like flights to obscure tribes to ensure youve covered all bases.

Dinesh sneakily introduces scientific ideas into the pot (to equivocate science and religion)saying that just because some dont accept say darwin that you go out looking for the truth, the difference here though is that accepting scientific propositon xyz or not doesnt apparently land you in a pit of fire.

464. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92806 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:55 pm

dinesh parades the false notion that pol pot etc killed because they were atheists, this is ridiculous, is there any evidence anywhere that anybody has ever killed another because they were atheist? There is however lots of examples counted daily where one person will kill another primarily based on their acceptence of a god and what they believe its requirement of them is.

the fact that he then suggests that atheists should share the responsibility of 'atheist' dictatorships is preposterous.

465. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92797 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I wanted to mention that I was at the debate and thought the Dennett did not prove his point.

I felt that to, im not sure that is actually important, when challenging the notion of an all powerful supernatural deity it is impossible to show it is in actual fact a human construct (in the same way that cthulhu may or not be), dennet knows this and i think the point he makes by displaying the various religions is to introduce the notion that how people interpret god (irrspective of its existence) is instrumental to how they act and if there are various ways of behaving how god wants then maybe this will lead ultimately to questioning the validity of one and alls religion and ultimately god/s it/themselves.

466. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92789 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm

ignoring the content of the debate for now dinesh sounds just like a preacher, in front of an unsophisticated audience he would have hands waving and cheers of agreement. Does dinesh always shout at his deliveries? when he starts equating faith in god with faith in knowing how a relationship will progress (so you have to make a rational decision to take the leap)he sounds like hes actually begging for people to agree with him. This led to pascals wager at which point you see how unsophisticated an audience he must usually get, im trembling in my boots as i write, where the wager is brought up the bottom of the blackmail barrel is being struck, a perfect antidote for naughty children.

467. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92734 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 10:57 am

Fair comments steve.

public forums are a fantastic exercise in free speech and banning is a last resort, id like to think that reasoned exchanges might help someone see their misunderstandings. Remember, ruht initially came here questioning evolution which is fine (for what it was worth i did give at least one fairly lengthy post on his evo comments) but now its fragmented into the equivalent of a sandwich board preacher sermon.

To my mind its comments like this that are not really helpful

There is nothing more sobering and final than to experience God in the supernatural. All who do so are never the same ever again, and they have this 'edge' over all who foolishly claim he doesn't exist.

its the kind of thing a heroin user might say in relation to a non user who thinks they 'know a good time without drugs'

and then this

Dawkins, unfortunately for him and those who follow him, is a fool, and I don't say this rudely (intentionally rudely) or to provoke anything, but simply as a matter of fact statement. He's just another in a long list of fools since the beginning of creation who have filled their time and ego with silly, vain things while living in rebellion against the Creator. Soon all of his books and efforts will be nothing but dust; eternity takes it all away and it is forgotten by truth and those living in truth.

well what can i say to that? naive, deluded, mentally ill, a troll or teenage angst? i dont know.

468. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92716 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 9:58 am

i can deal with individuals like revcort who is a sincere enough guy, when he started posting scripture (for eg) he quickly realised that it is a childish, pointless and plain ridiculous tactic for any reasonable adult to do, revcort at least realised there was a lot he didnt know and that he needed time to read up on evolution etc.

This site is for reasoned discussion, the troll we have here isnt providing that, i have flagged the posts already i suggest others do so, i would like to see this troll banned, anybody feel im being unreasonable?

469. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92568 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 7:26 pm

its 12.05 past midnight here in manchester uk.
just waiting for my lovely wife to come home from her works do, as we say in the north.
just having my last freezing cold guiness, then wait for her smile. look forward to saturday night food and wine with good friends and fun.
we free thinker`s have the best of time`s. hope you agree, and take care and good luck to dennet. ollie

right now im in the rather cold midwest of the USA but i'll be back 'up north' for a few pints of warm beer over the festive season!!

470. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92470 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

annabanana

Also, Phasmagigas, I think you're being very harsh with the stereotype you're creating in your hypothetical dialogue. I can think of two people right off the top of my head who are creationists, but pretty intelligent (other than the creationist part, of course). One is a veterinarian and the other one of the brightest electrical engineers I've ever met. Both of them are armed with the argument that radiometric dating can't be counted on, etc. These arguments hold slightly more water than those like "the Bible says so". If everyone that were a creationist were simply undereducated, our problem would be far simpler, but unfortunately there are a good many of that percentage that are actually educated. How do we change their minds?

im not sure im being harsh, the majority of creationist ive met have a very poor understanding of evolution, to the point where they have no idea what it is. Sure there are intelligent creationists out there but as for any of their intelligent arguments, well, they can all be refuted. Now if they know something that most working scientist dont know about radiometric dating then they should doing research and showing how the radiometric dating is wrong (and i bet if it wasnt for the contention of evo there would be no single person questioning the valididty of radiometric dating in as far as its other uses go). education is key but that isnt enough, all kids learn some evolution in school, this debate is going to go on for centuries but luckily as the evidence and exploratory techniques increase the gaps in knowledge will decrease and only the most ignorant sufferers of congnitive dissonance will be left shouting goddidit. (I hope in the future there will be a book akin to the ancestors tale but that will be a more technical version, almost like a massive database showing a massive selection of species and how their genomes are related and giving very specific examples and evidence of divergence.)

otherwise intelligent scientists who deny evolution in favour of special creation (somewhat different than the more reasonable position of theistic evolutionists)are suffering congnitive dissonance, the science framework that they use everyday is rejected because of a few words in genesis, that is something i genuinely cannot understand. A veterinarian who sees the similarity between man, cat and dog but who rejects common descent is not doing it on the basis of evidence but adherence to scripture.

its important to note that creationists irrespective of inteligence have a vested interest in WANTING creation to be true, if its true they feel it means they also will go to heaven if they are good. I as an accepter of evolution dont WANT it to be true, in fact id be happy if there was a creator who would give me an afterlife, it just so happens that the evidence points to it being a very likely account of the development life on the planet (heck, and i dont need to tell you that) and as it stands is way more intellectually engaging than any notion of creation.

creationists need to realise that darwin didnt set out to disprove creation or seek another explanation anymore than somebody who goes out grocery shopping and finds a really great deal on a TV set in the said shop that cannot be ignored.

471. Fear of Barbara Forrest

Comment #92358 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 10:42 am

can you imagine it:

1) give a detailed explanation of the processes that led to the diversity of life on planet earth.

Gawd did it.

A+, well done johnny!!

472. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92348 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 10:26 am

What they really need to do is to find out how many people correctly understand evolution.

I would be willing to bet that 100% of those that don't "believe" in evolution don't have a correct understanding of it.

thats an understatement, most of them wont have a clue over and above something like 'its that thing that says we come from slime, and that means we's all act like monkeys' and unfortunately thats about as far as youd get from maybe 90% of those that dont 'believe' it, which offers some hope as of course we dont all act like monkeys, but we do act as apes.

when somebody bring it up as an argument i will ask them something like 'so, irrespective of your acceptence of it or not, just what do scientists mean by evolution?'

Its a good starting point as immediately you will get an idea of what you are dealing with and it also makes them realise that they know very little.

Ive found the best way to deal with creationists is to let them ask questions(and they will have a lot, remember they usually know sweet FA), i dont ask them questions if possible.

they will ask things like 'how come theres no half creatures' and 'how come theres monkeys still' what i then do to the best of my ability is literally draw out quick family trees and say 'this is what the theory shows, and evidence includes....' i never get into a shouting match, theres no need, and as for me not asking questions, well what would i ask 'so how did god decide upon where to put which kind', 'why did god give spiders 8 legs and insects 6' , the best question i will throw is 'i wonder why god gave us and chimps such a lot of shared dna? there must be a good reason'

473. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92335 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 10:07 am

the ebay seller of the mohammed bear is putting themselves at risk, and of course that is the problem and thats in part why this website exists.

474. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92301 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 8:54 am

albacore, i dont use the word believe for evo, i use the word 'accept'. heres a useful link:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm

475. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92298 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 8:51 am

i wonder where that puts the US in terms of a superstition leaugue table, on par with Haiti perhaps? its funny how an technologically advanced environment doesnt necessarily correspond with an equivalent leap in rationalism or progressive thought.

476. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92266 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 6:50 am

I don't think Gillian Gibbons will be in danger when she gets back to the UK. The good thing about the issue is that many leading Mohammedans here have said publicly how ridiculous the whole thing is. Indeed, I think a group went/are going to Khartoum in her support.

I wouldnt be to sure. of course there are a good proportion (and i would hope the vast majority)of UK muslims who will see this as grotesque as anybody but there will be stirrings within young males who will now be suggesting that she should be killed, fear of reprisal keeps most from causing harm but of course we all know that they only answer to one authority. All i can hope is that Gibbons gets out of sudan as soon as possible.

477. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92251 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 6:22 am

as soon as i read about the teddy bear story i foresaw the consequences, i knew that many would want this lady killed, and i was right.

The problem is even once she gets back to the UK she is going to come under threat from islamic people there, as there WILL be muslims in the UK who will want her dead. This whole fiasco is almost the perfect example of why books like TGD and GING were written.

It perfectly demonstrates the type of behaviour that religion can trigger. Its notions of unquestioned authority, what is right/wrong and its ability to move a violent mob, as hitchens says 'religion poisons everything'.

I wonder if these marches will erupt into some local civil breakdown? i wonder what the body count will be at the end of all this? if this cannot demonstrate the malign affect that religious beliefs can have on people (after the naming of a toy) then nothing will.

Its nothing more than an excuse for men behaving badly, we see it worldwide (lynchings, football hooliganism, inquisition all of which have religious underpinnings, football fanatacism is I suspect a type of secular religion)

478. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92240 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 5:58 am

a sad story. the boy chose to die apparently because he believed some lies, a great shame he was told them in the first place.

seems a bit odd though that a 14 year old (and as an individual he seemed to be in a highly compromised situation)is deemed old enough to decide to die but not old enough to choose to purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

479. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91443 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2007 at 10:26 am

its this type of thing that prompts books like TGD to be written in the first place.

Im starting to feel that religious beliefs are a bit like a cage an animal finds itself in and doesnt even realise its not supposed to be there.

480. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91343 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2007 at 5:18 am

young muslim men in the UK do what many young men in the west do, the rebel against something.

For a non muslim male this might last a few years and centers around rejecting authority it may be violent or simply means he uses drugs for a few years or just wears clothes different to his parents. Either way when he looks back he might consider those behavious a bit juvenile and foolish.

The difference with muslim males is that they are reacting against authority and the general populace who do not share their religion, and as it is religion that defines most of them (and i challenge you to ask a muslim male 'who are you?' and not have 'muslim' mentioned very quickly) with its innate unquestioned authority and its acceptence by peers and importantly the older section of a community and you have an extended rebellion that has no aspect of wrongness attached to it, somehow its connection to divinity makes it absolutely justified.

An american family member of mine spent time in the UK and spent time daily within a large muslim community area and I was actually afraid for that person, i advised them to not advertise their nationaily to loudly and I felt quite sure i wasnt being overly cautious.

481. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91172 by phasmagigas on November 27, 2007 at 1:07 pm

so could this be the the millenium generations 'texas chainsaw massacre' or 'cannibal holocaust', basically the film your parents really didnt want you to see. If christian parents tell their kids that they are 'not going to see this movie because {insert various reason}' i wonder just what the outcome will be??

Anyway, not quite equivalent as there was good reason for kids not to watch cannibal holocaust, im not sure compass will leave any 8 year olds traumatised for a week, could damn their souls though.

482. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90897 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Creationists believe that the created kind possessed at creation all genetic information for rapid speciation to take place. The global flood created an 'empty' world where rapid speciation could take place as isolated communities lost genetic information, lost the ability to breed with other members of their kinds and developed into new species. Further creationists point to operational science to support their views as rapid speciation is observable. This is natural selection

this is quite interesting:

http://jeffthefish.com/2007/11/16/noahs-ark-vs-math/

so creationists now actually admit that evolution happens, well thats a start, all the ones ive spoken to said evolution didnt happen and that it was a complete lie!!

and i thought that i read that microevolution happens but macro doesnt, so how do we get from the initial 2 say stick insect 'kinds' and then within 4000 years get this:

http://www.biol.pmf.hr/e-skola/odgovori/odg-slike/odg327.jpg

or http://www.galapagos.dk/pic/dyr_extatosoma_2.JPG

without 'macro' evolution or even in the ape family, this:

http://www.uen.org/utahlink/activities/uploads/3817_a_orangut.jpg

or this:

http://www.uglybabycontest.com/images/photos/ugly-baby-gabriel.jpg

483. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90890 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I wonder how well you understand the creationist position

which one? i didnt realise there was 'the' creationist position.

484. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #90888 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 3:19 pm

devolved

If you are unable to provide examples of increases in genetic information then the entire evolutionary argument falls over.

if you cant get your car started in the morning then the argument that it can normally move falls over, however if it were shown that people and monkeys shared no more DNA with each other than either does with dandelions and dragonflies then the evolution argument wouldnt fall over, it would be totally trounced (unless we got the taxonomy REALLY wrong).

Antibiotic resistance is an example of a trait resulting from the loss of genetic information. The accidental duplication of genes doesn't help either. The accidental duplication of genes doesn't help either. Get the point?

maybe you get the point now
maybe you get tje point now

485. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90685 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2007 at 6:00 am

in terms of psychology i wonder if this is less to do with wanting truth and more to do with belonging to a specific group.

Its a bit like supporting your local football team for no better reason than everybody around you does so irrespective of the teams performance or character of its players. some football fans are passionate or indeed fanatical to the point of obsession and i wonder if there is a similarity.

its easy to observe belonging and ritual all tied together, i see it at UK football matches, droves of families in 'colours' heading to the stadium, muslim men in droves and traditional dress walking to mosque, I see it here in the states, a local jehova church has people in their what i assume are best clothes (a uniform as such) heading for their sessions, in all cases theres a kind of strange solidarity that i simply do not connect with. i wonder if the same happens with these flood geologists, once the notion has entered their minds (presumably in childhood) they fixate on it and join their group only to fuel their beliefs.

486. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90534 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:38 pm

You made an honest mistake, and changed your mind, and said so. That is a decent way to behave.

:) funnily enough when i first read the article I was going to reply with a simple 'and...' as it seemed to say so little other than science is faith, and just how many times have we heard that without any type of elaboration, little more than your BS is no better than my BS.

when i read a couple of posts i saw the name davies and then thought 'the scientist?' then on going back i saw that the article continued, then read quickly then realised i had to zap my post as it was inappropriate by which time id seen your post and then i thought 'jees, i sound like a bloody caveman' a bit like reading only 'i love eating beef' and missing the whole sentence 'i love eating beef textured soy burgers as im a strict vegan'.

487. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90530 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:30 pm

There is no sensible comparison between faith and science, and at this point just comparing the two makes it harder for society to be free. Writing an article for the NY times about how scientists have "faith" in their work is a blatant attack on naturalism

as i mentioned earlier, articles like this can be used in a very unspohisticated way to undermine evolution for example, questions in 'deep' physics are one thing but relatively observable phenomena like evolution do not need to be weakened. Weve seen the results of quote mining and down right lies that creationist will pedel and when this potentially hits education there is some concern. Im not saying this article will do that but in the same way that i initially misread it some could deliberately misuse it on a scientifically illiterate audience.

488. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90520 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm

steve99

I think I have finally had it with this site.

I mean, to be honest, what is the point? Rather than discussing ideas, threads seem increasingly to be filled with political ranting, religious trolls, and now (the last straw for me), a series of frankly outrageous attacks on a scientist who has world-wide respect, and that (I would hope) will shock many who read this site.

steve, i hope you dont actually sign off for good, you are one of those who make excellent contributions. I actually spent this morning with my initial 'bloody idiot' comment in my head and felt quite foolish in 1) not reading the intro paragraphs carefully and 2)failing to see the article continued.

Paul for sure is a respected writer (i only read fifth miracle so far). FRom my skim this morning of the first paragraphs i assumed a religious apoligist who was basically saying science is equivalent to faith and no matter how deep we delve we still see this faith stand up, i read it to mean 'it still stands only on faith no matter what we learn' whicg of course could push a few buttons.

Even if people eventually find that 'laws' do evolve then these will be incorporated into physics too.

anyway i digress a fraction. stay put steve, nobody is perfect, not even the disbeleivers :)

489. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90454 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:27 am

True, but what Davies is saying is that some scientists are kind of assuming 'there are laws' in an axiomatic and unquestioning way, and this can in some senses be like the unquestioning way people assume God as axiomatic.

i guess that those who can genuinely ponder the origins of the laws are perhaps waiting for the right time, once we (they) have a better idea of how and when the laws did/do/will operate then it will be easier to establish why. For sure scientists have to assume the laws are there (and in that sense it could be a type of very practical faith)but only in the same sense in that every time you take a step you assume that you will not fall down into the void.

i can see a slight danger that articles like this one could be hijacked by full on faithheads and pass on the science is a faith to others.

there is a difference here between 'faith' in universal laws being present (even if locally they vary) and faith in the traditional sense. if i throw a ball up, i know its going to come down, not through having faith in (local?) laws but by evidence, having seen balls only ever come down. traditional faith is a faith that god is there but also more importantly how he works and as we know once could pray to god all day that the ball stays up but it really just isnt going to do so.

490. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90451 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

steve, yes i blundered, i thought the snippet was the entire piece!! then i read the whole lot and hey presto the authors meanings become realised.

edit, a case of my not looking before leaping and in my defence i deleted my post before i even saw steves wrist slap :)

491. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90450 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:18 am

i dont really understand the authors point. accepting a framework of physical laws even if as yet their reason is unknown isnt faith, the laws are apparently there. To suggest this is somehow equivalent to faith in a universal ceator which may or not be there seems quite different even if this notion of god is way different from one that doesnt like people to work on sundays.

492. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90442 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:05 am

493. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90342 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 11:36 am

i feel its time to flag a teenage troll, i for one will not feed the troll from this point......even if i get drunk later

494. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90303 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 6:44 am

I was trying to use the term 'believe' in the sense of 'have faith in', but I accept what you are saying

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm

this is useful

495. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90300 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 6:25 am

I have no idea what you mean by "odds like that", but we believe in evolution as against life being made by an intelligent being not just because evolution is far simpler, but because we have actually seen evolution happen. Lots of it. And not just with bugs, but with large organisms. We have seen new species form. We have seen animals adapt to changing environment. We don't really 'believe' in evolution any more than we 'believe' that the Earth is round - it is silly to talk about possible 'belief' in evolution when it happens all around us.

steve 99. in the course of any conversation on evo i always ensure i use the word 'accept' over believe , believe has become one of those words oft overused these days, i blame oprah, same with joy, love(unconditional), praise.

496. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90298 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 5:39 am

Tell that to those who have experienced him in the supernatural.

How do you handle all of the firsthand witness reports of things like near-death experiences and other such 'phenomena?' Are all of these people lying?

lying? no. the brain is a master of simulation but not perfect (excuse my use of the word perfect) it simulates the world around us as appropriate for our survival.

We can 'imagine' things that seem peculiar or unexplained but that is no evidence whatsoever for divine experience.

We all have moments of 'simulation malfunction' I saw what i thought was a daddy long legs spider on my wall recently, for a split second i actually saw a spider in detail, it wasnt, it was a bit of fluff on the wall that was moving in a way similar to a spider (air currents), my brain so expected a spider that it actually formed the image of one and i saw it, another split second later extra info (visual info of the fluff) allowed my brain to reinterpret it and update the image for the fluff it was. Experiences like this are enlightening as to how we can be deceived, i could have said 'oh, a spider turned into some fluff, god is here' but i choose a more likely explanation, indeed if i told friends and neighbours id just seen a transubstantiation of spider to fluff they would rightly see me as a bit crazy. A good demonstration of the brains ability to simulate what isnt there when smebody takes an LSD trip.

(interestingly when i was abroad i once saw some assassin bugs that im convinced were mimicking old bits of cobweb and moulted spider skins, you know how little bits of old web and egg sacs kind of blow in the breeze under overhangs, they were almost transparent, with a fuzzy integument and moved in a way that made them look like a bit of web in the breeze. When i first saw them I honestly thought they were old discarded exoskeletons and webbing just hanging there, maybe i have too much imagination but a good disguise for sure!!)

Combine that with so-called 'coincidences' with what is written/prophesied in the Bible to the things that absolutely have happened on the earth as prophesied in the Bible, and there is much evidence.

general biblical prophecies have been debunked for years, general prophecies generally (like in news papaer horoscopes-ok so mini prophecies)have been debunked as having no basis for serious consideration.

And how about the pathological evidence? when you see a spark plug, do you think it came about through evolution, or intelligently made? if a simple device like a spark plug is intelligently made in your eyes, why is not something as complex as a DNA chain or an eye or a brain, etc., not intelligently made in your eyes?

I think you are misunderstanding the word pathological here. Ruht, you are making the classic mistake of seeing a spark plug as designed (as it was) and then transferring that design to all complex objects. watching dawkins (yes dawkins, he is a good explainer) 'growing up in the universe' is a good starting point to get a grasp of 'designed or not' and even if you decide to disagee with it entirely at least you will have done what we all hav edone here, and that is at least try to understand other possible explanations, for most here simply saying 'god did it' just isnt a fulfilling or detailed enough explanation, ID (as it stands) doesnt add anything either. the said video is free and linked from this website, you may be suprised that dawkins doesnt shout and bang darwins book on his pulpit saying 'this is true because my book says its true'.

As your own guru Dawkins said inadvertently, the chances for evolution, as proven so far, are 1-infinity. With odds like that, why is it that you nevertheless believe in evolution, seeing how the chances for all of the life on this planet being made by an intelligent being are far better?

another misconcption ruht, most here do not see dawkins as a guru, that is a religious mind imposing its own failings onto others (the need for some type of guiding force/person), its common for the religious to put non believers into a religion of their own with gurus/leaders/doctrines/dogmas/scriptures.

1-infinity, just what the hell are you talking about???? the rest of what you said re odds of evo vs creator becomes meaningless.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in God; meaning what you believe is more of a 'religion' than the belief in God, from that aspect.

once again the classic case of evo is a religion 'your BS is as bad as my BS'. Funny how faith suddenly becomes something to not be aspired to when the 'faith' is evolution. ruht, faith is believing in something without evidence, remember darwin didnt set out thinking 'im going to show that god didnt create the world' he thought god did (as far as i know) he examined what he saw around him and it simply told a different story, thats how science works, the evidence points to a conclusion.
proponents of creation establish their conclusion first and fit their beliefs and even try to bend evidence to fit, one look at 'answers in genesis' leaves you in no doubt of this. Imagine what a dreadful place we would live in if law was applied in this way. Its the equivalent of the verdict being made at the beginning of a trial and having the evidence explained in a way so it fits the verdict (or indeed having no evidence whatso ever).

"Mr jones, at the beginning of this proceeding we find you guilty, witness x please tell me how you know Mr jones is guilty"

"I witness x 'know' he guilty as he was in the vicinity of the murder 4 weeks before the murder'

"good enough for us methinks, off to the gallows Mr jones"

or of course:

judge "Mrs sparrow, at the beginning of this trial you are innocent of murder, witness y, tell us what you know"

witness "i witness y found mrs sparrow bloodsoaked, holding a dagger in the chest of her husband, she was yelling 'you evil adulterer' and spitting on him'

judge "well its quite clear that she was cutting some potatos and slipped on her apron and fell against her husband, as for witness y's testimony, he must have imagined the spit and her shouting, mrs sparrow you are free to go"


ok, i have too much time today!!

497. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90297 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 5:01 am

ruht,

you are coming across as a serious troll.

throwing scripture around is ineffective, it would be as ridiculous as me joining a christian forum and throwing around quotes from the 'origin of species' shouting 'dawkins says...' and expecting people to take me seriously.

Unfortunately unless your arguments become significantly more sophisticated you are either going to be ignored or barred (the darwin conspiracy police are everywhere) or have each and every point you make sliced, diced and thoroughly consumed.

498. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90295 by phasmagigas on November 24, 2007 at 4:49 am

rhut:

If it's truly a "ridiculous statement," then tell me what I mean by "the cat is green."

now youve backed out of the evolution debate you have resorted to playing word games.

Your argument goes something like this: 'if you dont know what I mean by the 'cat is green', then it shows the bible is unknowable by natural man and proves there is a god'

non sequiter.

499. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90255 by phasmagigas on November 23, 2007 at 7:40 pm

The proper interpretations of the Bible have been deliberately hidden to the natural man, so as to make it impossible for the natural man to interpret it with his own natural abilities.

an intersting assertion, so an UNnatural man can understand the bible with his unnatural abilities, so maybe genetically engineered individuals could do this by being 'unnatural' or even gay people as ive heard christians calling them 'unnatural'.

well a ridiculous statement requires a ridiculous comment!!

500. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90254 by phasmagigas on November 23, 2007 at 7:33 pm

And God wrote the Bible this way intentionally.

so that people could interpret it any way they wished, nice people can do nice things from the scriptures like make cakes for sunday school outings and nasty people can kill, rape and pillage after reading them and its all mean old gods fault!!

Ruht, your initial points on evolution allowed at least some answers, please continue with those rather than this tomfoolery.