951. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76070 by Quine on October 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Duff: I'm going to yell at them.

If you do that, it will help them continue the stereotype of Atheists as servants of Satan. You should not judge the value of standing up and giving rational argument by the perceived disagreement you get back. The fact that an Atheist does get up and provide rational thinking in a polite posture cuts against what they have been taught. This causes unconscious problems for them that help start the process of change of long held prejudice. Yes, the "debate" part of the debate was silly, but thousands of Christians listened to an Atheist on their radios for the very first time in their entire lives. I will bet in many cases, he was not what they expected. Not yelling at them is one of Prof. Dawkins greatest weapons.

952. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75829 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Afterwards, the Christian broadcasters I was listening to remarked that they had heard some ideas that they had never considered, and were going to have to go think it over. This broadcast is going to cause substantial cognitive dissonance even in those who will pipe up a knee-jerk dismissal of what Prof. Dawkins has said. Furthermore, preachers across the country are going to want to come out with denunciations that will just end up exposing their flocks to more cracks in the foundations of their faith.

953. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75819 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Just to have Prof. Dawkins speaking on Christian radio with its target audience is great.

954. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75809 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Keep trying, BigJohn, I am listening to it, and it is great.

955. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75804 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Hi CHeard,

I have had this question about Genesis Chapter 6 that you probably know very well. Here is how it starts from the recent Robert Alter translation:

And it happened as humankind began to multiply over the earth and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were comely, and they took themselves wives howsoever they chose. And the Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in the human forever, for he is but flesh. Let his days be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were then on the earth, and afterward as well, the sons of God having come to bed with the daughters of man who bore them children: they are the heroes of yore, the men of renown.

Where did this last part come from? It seems completely unconnected to all the rest of the scriptures. We have no information about these "sons of God," no idea who were their mothers, why they found the daughters of man so comely, and why none of their descendants (God's grandchildren) were worth saving with Noah? This disconnectedness continues as all these were wiped out in The Flood.

956. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75535 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 12:33 am

It is fine for some to hang back and take some kind of rationalist position, but also, some need to be an advanced guard that will take the heat for standing up and saying they do not believe in gods. Those folks are going to be called Atheists, anyway, so they might as well take it on and wear the Big Scarlett Letter A. Those who take the heat, are also in a position to keep the heat on the absurdities of religion.

Exploring what is going on in your own head need have no more to do with religion than crawling around exploring caves. Sam or others can go have these experiences, but I wish he would spend more time relating the way religion has traditionally hijacked these mental states to con folks into believing in the supernatural.

957. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75127 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm

BAEOZ, in the general case of ontological arguments, I would tend to agree. In this case, the argument has a pivotal, but undefined, "positive properties" component. Most (especially kids) would say your banana split has its own special positive properties. However, some might be allergic. In this case, we would have to delve deeper (perhaps at the local soda fountain) to see if "desire" as an abstract ideal for the banana split (that you can't really have because you are allergic) is sufficient to establish the aforementioned positive properties.

958. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75120 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 9:32 pm

I also admire Kurt Gödel's work in mathematics. However, you are referring (I believe) to unpublished theological work. To my reading, his argument would work just as well when you substitute "Santa Claus" for "God" given that most kids consider Santa to have "positive" properties.

959. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75113 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Robert_OBrien, are you going to argue divinity from incompleteness?

960. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75111 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 8:58 pm

BAEOZ:Russell, are you inclined to do some philosophical grunt work against god touting philosophers?

Bertrand Russell went there, did that. Before Dawkins bothers to get out of bed to debate any theologians, they (the believers) need to come up with something that B.R. (may his Teapot forever orbit) has not already deflected right into the ditch of philosophic history.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

961. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74650 by Quine on September 29, 2007 at 8:07 pm

It is essential not to engage on the subject of "good or bad" but, as others have noted, to hold only to what is true.



"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet (Act II, Sc. II).

962. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74243 by Quine on September 27, 2007 at 11:31 pm

It's not nasty, just a question. [looks back and forth at his shoes, shuffles, whistles a bit]

963. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74236 by Quine on September 27, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Excellent reading list, CHeard. It sounds like a class I would throughly enjoy. Be sure to ask the students about what constitutes the self, and how modern research information about the biochemical processes of memory formation and access apply to the self. Also, ask if nonexistence can be properly evaluated against a hypothetical afterlife (even one where somehow those chemical memories stay with whatever is the successor of you). After all, it is not really possible to think of what nonexistence would be like when there is no neurological equipment running to have that "like" experience.

Perhaps it is just as well I am not in your class, as I suspect I would have a hard time restraining myself from asking more questions than the situation resources could allow.

964. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74142 by Quine on September 27, 2007 at 11:45 am

While continuing to watch the fight over on the Register Forum, I am encouraged by the information that is pouring in from the non believer side. Perhaps it is the culture of the local community that the Christian apologists are quick to post ridiculous retorts that then allow the rationalists to pour in yet more actual knowledge. Those there who are following this must be getting exposure to ideas they would have not often seen in school.

And there are the zingers to enjoy, such as this one, today, from the poster DuckPhup:

It is up to the intellectually-honest inquirerer to judge the reliability and veritas of sources based upon their credentials (PhD in ancient history and ancient languages from Columbia has more value than a PhD in Theology from Bob Jones University, for example, when evaluating the evidentiary value of historical source documents.) and the quality of their scholarship... NOT the web page that they appear on.

Anyway... having a Ph.D in Theology is rather like having a Doctorate of Teletubby Anatomy, a B.S. in Warp-Nacelle engineering, or an advanced degree in 'Republican Ethics'.

965. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73960 by Quine on September 26, 2007 at 10:54 pm

As Dr. Benway says, no irrationality is necessary, in fact, just the reverse. Just as you can't disprove that little elephant, you can't prove that the god Baal isn't about to return from a long vacation on another world, and resume some major smiting right here. The same is true for every other deity that every human civilization has ever worshiped. However, based on all we know about how the world works, and human psychology, it is clear that the idea that someone made up the story about the elephant in Northern Bright's refrigerator is so tremendously more probable than the actual existence of the elephant, that rationality will go with the former.

If we had tangible evidence of the elephant, or the pending return of Baal, it would be different. But, we do not. Not for Baal, or any other god.

966. Alex the Parrot

Comment #73935 by Quine on September 26, 2007 at 4:22 pm

I can't believe you've gone 15 posts about a Dead Parrot without ...

Because, he is a very beloved ex-parrot.

967. Alex the Parrot

Comment #73930 by Quine on September 26, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Here is an excellent article in the Boston Globe that talks about the usefulness of the study of bird intelligence in relation to evolution and the human brain. Of course, Alex is mentioned.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/16/eggheads/

968. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73851 by Quine on September 26, 2007 at 11:04 am

I am continuing to watch the debate at the Des Moines Register Forum on this. Today's postings are going up at:
http://forums.dmregister.com/viewtopic.php?t=49845&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

justaperson posted this rather nice reply:


Believers in the special creation of humans often, as I wrote earlier, reject as demeaning or undignified the notion of evolution from "lower forms" of life.

I ask myself, why don't I have a problem with the notion that our ancestors were something other than Homo sapiens? Think of it this way: I am (as are you) the product of a long line of incredible success stories--every being alive today has beaten the odds, and all their ancestors beat the odds against being born. The failures were the ones who were born and died without reproducing. We evolved into the creatures we are as a result of successful adaptation to our surroundings. All our ancestors, human and nonhuman, did the same thing. We were good at living. Who wouldn't want to be part of that kind of success story? Who wouldn't want to be a part of the greatest saga in earth's history? When you think of it that way, we are pretty darned special. That on an insignificant ball of rock going around a very average star on the edge of one of a gazillion galaxies separated by unimaginable distances, we were the fortunate ones who developed the ability to take all this in and ponder it. That is one hell of a story!

Live well,
jp

969. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73672 by Quine on September 25, 2007 at 7:35 pm

I do believe the question was asked why no one else noticed this event...

And then there were the great civilizations in South America who did not notice that the sun did not come up the next day. That would have been kind of a big thing in their religion.

The point is that the myth was written when the world was generally thought to be flat, and the sun something that actually traveled through the sky. These more complicated questions would not have come up to bother the author. Had the writer of the legend known the true earth-sun relationship, he might have just chosen something with less cognitive dissonance, like giving the opposing army a bad case of hemorrhoids as he did to the Philistines in 1st Samuel chapter 5.

970. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73650 by Quine on September 25, 2007 at 5:51 pm

You do realize that for the sun to stand still in the sky the earth would have to stop rotating? If that happened, you, the wind, the oceans, and broken off tops of mountains would keep heading east at about 1000 mph (near the equator, less as you go north or south). Waves of this would circle the globe becoming hotter as all the kinetic energy went to grinding the surface (and everything on it) to steaming mud, and you would not be reading these words.

971. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73623 by Quine on September 25, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Dianelos, I invite you go to the RD Forum philosophy section and read the "consciousness" threads that have been running for years. It is true that coming up with a third person description of first person subjectivity is unsolved, but many of us are not willing to concede that it is unsolvable while research in the area keeps fitting pieces into the puzzle.

972. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73616 by Quine on September 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

The word "credo" comes from Latin and translates "I believe." To write "Atheist Credo" is a contradiction in terms because we Atheists do not believe. To try to float the canard that Atheists have a "belief in disbelief" just keeps the old stereotype going that the 'True Believers' are idiots.

973. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73583 by Quine on September 25, 2007 at 11:09 am

I find the debate going on at the Des Moines Register Forum over this article very interesting. Some posters jumped in early on the side of the students, and then some came in and started posting rationalist positions. Next some fleas jumped in and it shifted to a full religion debate with all the usual refs to Hitler, Stalin, etc.

However, it is gratifying to see the rationalist positions, which question the assumptions of the public, put up on the Register's web in a community that would not comfortably see the Register publish them. This indicates that the writings of Dawkins, Harris, et al. are soaking into the US heartland.

974. Root and Branch

Comment #73371 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Yes, I focused on the "that/which" problem and forgot to remove the commas. The original use of the commas strengthens the idea that the author was trying to imply that all bacteria do not have sex. If you want information about that subject, just google "bacterial sex" and you will find many pointers.

975. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73356 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 8:40 pm

While I was reading some of the comments at the Des Moines Register for this article, I came upon this one that is just too good to miss:

If your still silly enough to think the Bible was meant to be taken in a literal manor, then rebut these passages,

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

Edit: They are really going at it on the Register Forum. Check out this page:
http://forums.dmregister.com/viewtopic.php?t=49845&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

976. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73343 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 7:42 pm

I sent them the following:

Dear Ms. Smith,

After reading Megan Hawkins' article in the Des Moines Register of 9/22, I am writing to you to express my extreme dismay that an instructor could have been dismissed for holding the opinion that the story of "Adam and Eve" was not literally true. Not only do most theologians take this position, but nearly all anthropologists, archaeologists, and of course, biologists and geologists. I am sure you would not wish to continue the sinking into ignorance that has plagued the United States in the last few years, and hope that it turns out that the publicized firing was not for this reason (that is to say, lack of).

Yours truly,

977. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73325 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Someone has misinformed you.

Have you read Walter Isaacson's recent book on the life of Einstein?
http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738
It is truly excellent, and he goes into quite a bit of depth about this.

978. Root and Branch

Comment #73304 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Bacteria, which don't have sex, probably pass genetic material from one to another, quite indifferent to who is descended from whom--from one species of bacterium to another.

This is either gramatically malformed or informationally incorrect. Had it said, "Bacteria, that don't have sex, ..." it would be fine, because some bacteria do not have sex. However, the sentence as written states that no bacteria have sex, which is incorrect.

I remember years ago in microbiology class when the instructor (a Sister of the Immaculate Heart) was explaining the way E. coli connects its "Type F" pili together, through which to pass DNA for sexual recombination. Someone in the class asked her, "Why do they call them 'Type F'?" and she started to speak, but then suddenly froze and turned bright red. The class started to laugh, and then she did, and then someone asked "What other kinds of pili are there?" After she dried her eyes, she said "Thank you."

979. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73198 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Ever notice that each religion will (mostly) withhold action when called a "fairy tale" by all other religions, but when someone from the rational world does so, there is hell to pay?

980. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73176 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 11:05 am

Nitpicking over grammar and spelling on internet fora is either an occupational hazard for English teachers or the past time of old foggies ...

See the excellent Grammar Girl podcasts at:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/default.aspx

981. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73169 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 10:31 am

The young Einstein was rebuffed by the establishment of physics only to find himself, later in life, becoming the establishment and resisting the new young guys of quantum. The irony of this was not lost on him, and I also think he felt it ironic that he could not do anything about it. However, it should be noted that his objections were very beneficial to the development of QM, to which he also added parts.

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

Comment #72918 by Quine on September 23, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I posted this link on another thread, but as it specifically answers the "flood" I thought I should post it again here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQhVjGy6ME

The guy just goes out and collects some fossils in plain view on the ground and shows that the organization completely refutes the whole "flood" idea. So simple.

983. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72868 by Quine on September 23, 2007 at 9:34 am

-- what do I say if I am in court, and asked if the testimony I'm about to give is "the truth, the whole truth (etc. etc.) - SO HELP YOU GOD?

This has happened to me. In the USA you can tell the court clerk that you want the non-religious form and he or she will leave the deity off the end. I did have to stop the clerk, one time, in a deposition and make her drop the religion, which was embarrassing. I always object to the use of Bibles in court because I do not think it is fair to have the jury see all these other witnesses get up there and take an oath on the Bible when I do not do so.

We had a case one time when expert technical witnesses were coming in from India and other countries with various religions, and they did not know they could decline the Bible part. They just swallowed and went through it. After the case, I wrote the judge a letter to let her know what was going on in her court of which she (perhaps) was unaware. I always worry that my stand in court will be used against me.

984. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72763 by Quine on September 22, 2007 at 7:52 pm

You would think this would be enough to tear religion apart, but unfortunately it isn't enough.

Sadly, not. Go listen to the cognitive dissonance program Point of Inquiry did at:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=121

However, in the case of Bill Maher, he may be at the right time and place to jump on the shift caused by Dawkins, Harris, et al. The difference is that he is not just poking fun at religion, he really means it.

985. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72723 by Quine on September 22, 2007 at 12:57 pm

103. Comment #72620 by Dianelos Georgoudis on September 22, 2007 at 12:45 am
Quine (post 96, or #72602):

As I wrote in post 97 I personally believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. ...

I suspect that belief will turn out to be supported by evidence, and you are correct that using the anthropic principle alone to justify the belief would beg the question. What you misunderstood was Dawkins' point in the section on the planetary version of the anthropic principle that starts at the bottom of page 134 of TGD and runs through the middle of page 141. If you read the whole section you will see that RD has not made the case that the anthropic principle implies naturalism, but just allows it (i.e. removes counter argument). He makes the case that either the wide adaptive power of natural selection or the anthropic principle implies "We live on a planet that is friendly to our kind of life, ..."

He does, also, spend some time arguing that the anthropic principle is misused by religious apologists against naturalism. That it is not a case against does not necessarily imply it is a case for, if you know how to reason.

986. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72610 by Quine on September 21, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Just tell'n it like it is.

987. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72602 by Quine on September 21, 2007 at 9:28 pm

For example Nagel makes it pretty clear I think that contrary to what TGD tries to convince its readers the argument from design is alive and well, because natural evolution requires the existence of the first replicator and nobody has really any idea how something as complex as the first replicator has appeared on Earth…

Abiogenesis: The Final Frontier

Well, so the earth was not flat, and in fact, rotates while going around the sun, and is waaaaaay more than 6000 years old. Angels don't push the planets around in their orbits. Mental illness is biological not demonic possession and Darwin sets the ball rolling on an explanation of the origin of species that is turned into a slam-dunk by DNA sequencing. Where do we now find the goal posts? That's right, they have been driven all the way back to abiogenesis, and are digging in.

But don't cheer too soon; it is a good place to make a stand because whatever replicator came before single celled organisms left no fossils. Yes, imagine not being beat up all day with those f@#$'n fossils! And not knowing anything about what the first replicators were, the bar can be set up at the complexity level of the modern bacterium, which simply could not have happened by chance.

Get used to it; it is all you are going to hear for awhile. However, as time goes on, we will understand that precursor replicators can be simplified. For example, the prion that causes BSE is a replicator, but is only a shape that can replicate its shape in the context of the protein that it misconfigures. The evolution of precellular replicators will be a huge area of study, primarily explored with the biggest supercompters as time goes on.

That we don't know the exact nature of what came before cells just puts us in the position we were in with respect to DNA before Watson and Crick. We know what we are looking for, and will find out more as time goes on. It does not mean some deity did it.

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

Comment #72601 by Quine on September 21, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I wish I could send each of these people a copy of Edward Humes' excellent book Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
http://www.amazon.com/Monkey-Girl-Evolution-Education-Religion/dp/0060885483
which documents the whole Dover fiasco, complete with profiles of the idiots who started it. I would love for them to consider what their profiles will look like in the next book if they go ahead with this nonsense.

989. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72516 by Quine on September 21, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Steve99: Another possibility which I rather like is that larger brain size became subject to sexual selection... like the peacock's tail.

Yes, this is a subset of "competition with each other" as well spelled out by Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine.

Also, to explore your universe, you need a big organized population in order to have enough extra resources to devote to science, and the idea that competing with each other to do it is desirable. All reasonable without recourse to the supernatural.

990. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72384 by Quine on September 20, 2007 at 11:29 pm

how are we so good at discovering remote properties of the universe since there's presumably no evolutionary benefit to this skill?

I find this argument very weak. It is possible that the evolutionary pressure to larger brain for language and tool making came mainly from competition with each other. In that case, the capabilities that arise would be applicable to a wide range of problem solving. So called "rocket science" came from a long history of weapons technology in which populations with more advanced weapons passed on more of the same.

991. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72371 by Quine on September 20, 2007 at 9:41 pm

As Dr Spock would have said `It's God Jim but not as we know it'.

Hat's off to you, mmurray

[but I think that was Mr. Spock]

992. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72361 by Quine on September 20, 2007 at 8:17 pm

If you haven't seen it, catch this BBC program on the ID Dover Trial (on youtube in 5 pieces):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnIoXPLMdo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajcKn-qO3g8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsrmlST5sP4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTAC3h6gbKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqSgr-Jladk

993. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72265 by Quine on September 20, 2007 at 3:28 pm

The Revcort Algorithm:

1) Type a bunch of random scripture into the discussion.
2) Watch the people waste their time trying to educate you.
3) Don't bother to think.
4) GOTO step 1.

994. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72238 by Quine on September 20, 2007 at 2:57 pm

antialiasis,
Very nice comment. One of the things going on out there is that the theologians are calling Dawkins down for going after the "sky daddy" deity that they don't study. However, what the theologians study is not what the public worships. That is why you do not have to study theology to brush aside what people actually worship. Meanwhile, the theologians are going around in circular arguments not based on evidence, and coming to untestable conclusions that the public could never properly evaluate, anyway. (And thus keep their jobs going.)

995. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72212 by Quine on September 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Michael Behe continues to try to infect others with his personal case of Irrefutable Perplexity, the condition that prevents him from using his brain to develop any actual knowledge.

996. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72104 by Quine on September 20, 2007 at 10:45 am

revcort,

Scientists knew species evolved before Darwin, they just did not know how it worked. Darwin and Wallace
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_14
realized that the process of natural selection could do it given a supply of random mutations. No biologist today looks at the fossil record and doubts evolution, even the ones who argue over the details of the process.

[Edit: revcort, spend 9 min and listen to some real scientists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k
Also, here is a home video of a man just going out and picking up a collection of fossils that tell the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQhVjGy6ME
I stop religious people when they talk about "belief in evolution" and tell them that "belief" is not needed, you can go out and check it.]

997. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71736 by Quine on September 19, 2007 at 2:51 pm

In discussions with Christians I often ask them why Jesus did not tell the folks around him that plague is carried by fleas on rats, given that he could see the millions who would be killed by this in the coming years, or just germ theory for that matter. And if he had told us that e=mc^2 it would have saved the souls of almost all future scientists. To my surprise, I just saw the latter argument used in this rather nice two part video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E

998. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71696 by Quine on September 19, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Quine: "The piece from Josephus is not just 'controversial' it is completely bogus. See:
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/march/barker.php"

If I were you, I'd at least search IIDB (http://www.iidb.org) for "Josephus" before making such a sure pronouncement.

Do you have something specific?

999. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71681 by Quine on September 19, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Yes, but "some vague Deist type God" is useless to control other people's lives.

1000. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71641 by Quine on September 19, 2007 at 11:54 am

This person could be employed in a medical insurance company who decides whether or not to pay for your medical treatment ...

I have wondered if some people with medical histories indicative of a "life of sin" get turned down for payment because it is obvious that their current malady was sent from (insert deity of choice here) to make them change their ways.