151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163205 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 4:15 am

Comment #163184 by Egomaniac

While I believe in evolution, I also find it to be astoundingly difficult to believe that the first form of life could have assembled itself randomly.

How the first form of life arose is only a tiny part of what the ID brigade are really critisisng, If that's all you have difficulty with then you can still understand from that point onwards everything works very well with evolution.

As for my first post -- well, I wasn't saying that you all are my intellectual inferiors... but some of you clearly presume that I, and people like me, are beneath you

You know fullwell i said your post sounded like you thought you were 'moraly' superior to us as you would never think you were superior to anyone.

Everyone is superior to someone else in one way or another. If someone here thinks they are superior to an ID supporting, lying, unreasonable film producer in those areas then there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean you are just better than them full stop. Just in the areas mentioned.

I'm sure there are aspects about other people that you don't like and know you don't do it because you think it is not as good to do it. Like lying to sell something, mollesting children, having the arrogance to think you know better than 99% of the scientific community about an issue of scientific fact, to name a few. And if you witness someone else displaying or doing any of those things then you are justified in being superior about it and condescending about it.

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163167 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #163162 by Egomaniac

Is it really the typical behavior of a person who is not bitter towards another person to criticize every little detail about them?

It wasn't every little detail it was a few obvious facts that were very annoying. Bitterness is not the only thinkg that might trigger the response. Perhapse irritation, anger, wanting to make sure his readers no exactly his faults. Bitterness is just one reason sommeone might do as you say.

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163158 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

Comment #163150 by Egomaniac

If you allow the theoretical existence of a being that could create matter out of nothing, and could create a soul (which is a necessary component of an afterlife), I think you have to concede that this being would also likely be able to create and manage an afterlife, correct?

This just says if god can create a soul he can supply an afterlife. but doesn't say why a soul can't exist without god and there-for can't have an afterlife.

[EDIT] oh steve beat me to it

154. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163148 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 3:08 am

Comment #163137 by clearmind

Most of what you just wrote clearmind is, im sorry to say, completely incomprehensible.

However i can see you are still going on about evolution - I reponded to your brilliant critique of evolution over on the 'Religious education as a part of literary culture' thread. Why dont you go and read it and respond.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2469,Religious-education-as-a-part-of-literary-culture,Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion,page3#comments

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163130 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 2:53 am

Comment #163115 by Egomaniac

"He [Ben Stein] certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough."

He's reviewing the film and like any bad film it will get bad reviews. After the way RD was treated being tricked into it by the man he's being 'condescending' about isn't a bad thing - he deserves whatever RD says about him. He is famous for having that voice anyway. He clearly shows a lack of reasoning skills by drawing comparisons with Nazi germany etc. And he clearly has a lack of scientific knowledge as demonstrated by his allegence to ID. This is a non point.

"I thought this movie would be good for a laugh, but apparantly [sic] not."

You really should name who it is. But what's wrong with this - he is stating that from the info given it is apparently not worth seeing for a laugh. It is not condescending to find it funny to watch some non scientists running around thinking they've found some great contraversy within science when they haven't.

Condescension is not always a bad thing if the target of the condescension is deserving of it and probably far more than condescension.

I think your attitude in your first post below indicated that you were looking down on the atheists for not being as moraly exemplary as you who would never do that to anyone.

Bravo, my fellow atheists! Let's all give ourselves a big pat on the back for our intellectual superiority over the masses of peons that share our meaningless existence, yet like to delude themselves into thinking life is about anything more than self-praise and the belittling of inferiors!

They are not inferior completely or any less deserving of human rights, they are just demonstrating a complete lack of reasoning skills while at the same time thinking they are. They are making a judgement on scientific issues with absolutely no scientific knowledge, thinking they know better than 99% of the scientific community, thats arrogance, they made no effort to try and understand where the ID ideas fall down - they just lied and tricked their way into people like RD's time and made a film like this. This deserves condescension anyway. Try and defend their point instead of just coming out with holier than thou ad homs like that.

156. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163105 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 2:05 am

That's so funny.

Who made it though, was it an RD.net production?

157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162673 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 8:00 am

Comment #162661 by brother john

1st you say this:

I don't agree with your first sentence. Empathy - the desire to understand, to get inside the skin of, to feel as the other feels, to see from their point of view and experience - I think the driving force of that desire is, actually, the thing we call love. It is a respect, a care for the other. Theree is no empathy without what I believe amounts to love.

then you say this:

There can be empathy without love of that person, but there can't be love without empathy.

It seems to me that you contradict your self there a bit. I think love these days is a broad term. There could well be more fitting words other than love to be the 'driving force' of empathy if it even needs a driving force.

158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162664 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #162661 by brother john

On the other hand if we live life SOLELY according to reason, what do we get? A cerebral human being, lacking those other qualities that go to make up what we would call "a really human human being"

I don't think anyone lives only by reason, you combine it with any number of other things. If you mean we shouldn't ALWAYS use reason then i would have to disagree with that. Try and think of a situation where using reason and logic was not good.

159. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162582 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 5:07 am

Comment #162576 by epeeist

This will probably make it around the 119'th time that he has been told this. His reaction is the same every time, he sticks his fingers in his virtual ears and goes 'La La La'.

What you will almost certainly see next is a post full of words in capitals accusing me (at least) of bad mouthing him. This will be almost completely incoherent (as opposed to his normal incoherence).

I know, sadly true - I am just very persistent. Let's see what he does next, if anything

160. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162578 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 5:01 am

Comment #162039 by clearmind on April 16, 2008 at 3:17 am

They evolved and evolved and evolved into many animals with different DNA codes, no accident, no clashing or no miscalculationsamong the amino acids and DNAS, THANKS TO unconscious BLIND BLIND WATCHMAKER

If you are trying to say that there were no errors when the DNA of a parent is passed onto the offspring and that is what evolution requires us to accept then that demonstrates an amusing lack of knowledge of the subject you are critisising.

The process of evolution would not work if there were no mistakes when the DNA is passed on, it is by those mistakes that the offspring is slightly different from the parent. A lot of the time those mistakes result in hideous deformities or illnesses or a quick death. But others lead to some kind of usefull difference that makes that individual better at something than it's competition.

This process doesn't need a 'seeing designer' in order to work. If you are saying god did it or does it then you have to explain why so many children die instantly or in the womb due to some genetic cock up and why have we all got a coccyx, etc. You can't have it both ways.

161. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162572 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 4:49 am

Comment #162039 by clearmind on April 16, 2008 at 3:17 am

Evidence symptom again. I already proved that evolution idea is just an idea that is refuted by Logic. You are telling us that a simple computer you are using to write on this web page should have a designer but your best computer like brain CAME FROM A WORM.

The computer cannot reproduce there for how could it not have a designer. You are not comparing like with like. If computers reproduced, and each time they did the offspring was slightly different from the previous one then we wouldn't be so quick to say it must have a designer.

The human brain came from a nearly human brain. The nearly human brain came from a nearly, nearly human brain, etc, etc. And it did it through the process of evolution. If you don't understand evolution then just say that you haven't read any books on the subject and admit your ignorance on the subject. Why keep making yourself look silly?

162. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162518 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 3:29 am

Egomaniac

If you believe that we are here for no reason, where is the meaning in your existence?

Why should their be 'meaning in my existance?' or anyone's existance. It's a question that doesn't need to be answered, it doesn't make sense.

Individualy everyone has a reason they want to go on living and fill their life with whatever makes them happy.

To word that issue as 'what is the meaning in you existance' just sounds like something that someone would say if they thought the world revolves around them, or that the universe was created with you in mind.

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162503 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 3:16 am

Egomaniac

Bravo, my fellow atheists! Let's all give ourselves a big pat on the back for our intellectual superiority over the masses of peons that share our meaningless existence, yet like to delude themselves into thinking life is about anything more than self-praise and the belittling of inferiors!

So you are looking down on people here for doing that are you? Or do you really think it is ok?

Why don't u quote a sentence written by someone you don't like and say what you think of that sentence?

An please do explain how you can look down on other people for looking down on other people.

164. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162448 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 1:55 am

If all the groups of animals were created as they are by an intelligent designer, what then are IDiots proposing actualy happened?

Did that first bird/reptile/mammal/human just appear suddenly as an adult? If so what would that look like?

Or did they grow from a baby animal? In which case what fed it? and did the baby animal just appear suddenly?

Or did it grow from the feet up, Like a picture loading slowly on an old computer? and only when it was all there was it alive and aware.

Anyone got any idea?

165. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162270 by phatbat on April 16, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Having watched that discussion between RD and Lawrence Krauss, i think the image of all the Scientists appearing in one room on the side of proper science in comparison to the tiny amount of credulous scientists fighting for ID would be fantastic.

Then let the ID curmudgeons present their arguments and then just let the other side smack them down one after another and have it recorded to remind everyone how silly it all is.

That would be a great idea to end it once and for all.

166. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161383 by phatbat on April 15, 2008 at 8:25 am

Kardashovel

But it was pretty clear to me that He was not me, even though he spoke in my inner voice.

Do you think when schizophrenics hear voices it is not clear to them that the voice is someone else? If you knew the voice was yours it wouldn't be much of a problem for anyone would it?

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161327 by phatbat on April 15, 2008 at 7:08 am

Kardashovel:

why would an alien species care about the mundane details of my business?

Why would anything or anyone then if an alien wouldn't be interested?

What makes you think you can comprehend the mind of an alien (that reminds of another argument i've heard before but i can't think what it is, hmmmm)

168. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161203 by phatbat on April 15, 2008 at 3:00 am

Clearthinker:

I know personally at least 12 lecturers or post doc biologists who do not buy into every aspect of evolution. Should they be fired?

It would entirely depend on which aspects of evolution they didn't buy into and the reasons they give for not buying into them.

If there reasons demonstrate a complete lack of scientific method or principles and show them to be bad scientists then they probably should. Just like in any other job if someone displayed qualities which make them bad at their job then they can be sacked.

Tell me David is this point sinking in yet?

169. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161193 by phatbat on April 15, 2008 at 2:44 am

Clearthinker.

I am not saying that all atheism leads to such disasters as Nazism. Although I do work on the maxim that you shall know them by their fruits. So far the only societies in the world that have claimed to be atheist have not been an inspiring example.

This issue is dealt with quite ably by a simple understanding of the difference between an 'ought' and an 'is'

There are many good people in the world and there are many bad people in the world. There are obviously good atheists and bad atheists, and there are good theists and bad theists.

Being an atheist doesn't have any 'ought' in it. It just means you haven't seen any evidence for the existance of any gods and thus respond to this lack of evidence in the same way anyone else would about any other issue. From this position you can then go on to align yourself with a whole range of possible ideoligies as you see fit.

Now in your post you say that not all atheism leads to Nazism. Exactly!! in no small part because there is nothing in atheism that contains any instructions or 'ought to do's' whatsoever. It is just the lack of belief in one more god than you. So what is the common factor or factors that do lead to Nazism and other such evil ideologies grabbing hold of people.

Perhapse the religious nature in people who are so willing to believe in things without any evidence. The fact that a lot of Hitler's minions were christian didn't seem to stop them carrying out Hitler's orders.

If you are claiming that atheism as an idea is somehow to blame for anything then you still haven't made any case for this.

If you are claiming that Atheism was incidental in such catastrophies then we have no disagreement.

Now, as for your sympathy for intelligent design:

Has evolution moved from being science to being a philosophical/political position? Are evolutionists so doctrinaire that anyone who dares question is discriminated against? Perhaps the makers of Expelled are making it all up - but I am intrigued that this website and others have gone into emotive hyperdrive - no less than seven articles on the film. Anyway perhaps someone could answer the main accusation of the film. I would not have believed it until I started getting letters and e-mails from scientists who requested that I do not use their name because they feared for their careers and their jobs.

Science doesn't need to be a philosophical/political position in order to provoke an emotive response, it just needs to be something important to people. I can't understand why you would need someone else to point this out. Or are you just saying you can't understand why it is important to certain people that there is a film about to come out that critisises said people using dishonest methods and making dishonest claims. I mean look at the christian response to the God delusion, including from yourself. That constitues more than 7 posts on a website and Richard Dawkins didn't use any dishonest methods or dishonest claims.

People aren't descriminated against for questioning darwinian evolution by natural selection. They may be descriminated against for coming to conclusions that darwinian evolution is worng and ID is correct without actualy presenting any scientific reason for this other than - 'I just can't understand how that could have evolved'

If your job is a scientist and you start doing things unscientificly then you will be discriminated against because of that. It's called not being a very good scientist. They just won't stop going on about it. They have been allowed to present their case and failed dismally to show any evidence for their claims. So be very careful calling this expelled for questioning.

Perhapse you can ask some of your correspondents for the evidence and experiments they have carried out that make their case for ID but have not been allowed to get out into the public domain. Then take this evidence to a scientist and ask them to explain to you what's wrong with it?

Whether or not the particular people in the film who claim to have been 'expelled' actualy were, is being or has been investigated on the following site (as linked to by this site already)

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

As you can imagine it takes quite a bit of time to go and investigate each claim.

Being pedantic over what constitutes the heart of expelled sounds a bit like clutching at straws. What does it matter. The fact is, to deal with each of the individual 'Scientists' is not something that most people would have time to do, and since they know it is being investigated by the linked site then this issue is something to get on with now. It seems your point would be made void merely by calling the article 'One of the simple falsehoods at the heart of expelled' or 'One of the simple falsehoods contained in expelled'. It doesn't seem worth raising as a point to be honest.

170. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154679 by phatbat on April 3, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Why does it even have to be balanced?

Is Robertson saying that every time RD speaks in public now it has to be balanced with someone of a different opinion.

He might have a point if this was a debate between RD and someone else who shared his view but that would be ridiculous.

Come on Robertson stop making a fool of yourself please.

Actualy carry on it gives us more ammo.

171. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #154579 by phatbat on April 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Well i guess that means we have reached an impass then. Maybe someone else will be able to see what you mean.

Anyone?

I don't think there is anything more to say - unless you work out a way of making your point understandable in a different way to the way you have up till now.

best

172. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #154048 by phatbat on April 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #154033 by jac12358

Well, if you can do that AND you correctly interpret it and the supporting aruments, then yes, this is possible. The whole REASON I go on at tortuous lengths because it is evident to me when an idea is clear to me and the response I get (if any) clearly shows me that the reader is not getting it.

Then perhapse you need to make your points a lot more clearly, cause if we have misunderstood, you still haven't been able to explain it so we can understand you.

I don't think my argument was that he specifically was, but that in a sense we all are, and I was attempting to "lift the burka" of illusion. I did read and address some of his theories and writings, so whoever claimed I did not is wrong

you may well of read and addressed them but only to then use the old 'that's not my free will argument' about it as i stated before.

Until you refute each of the logical fallacies I pointed out and you merely state flatly that they are ALL wrong without giving any reasons, then I am not the one at a loss for intellectual capabilies. Please, let us not resort to ad hominem attacks and impugn intellectual integrity with unsubstantiated proclomations of self-appointed smugness.

We have refuted your logical fallacies in the many posts already up, we are now flatly saying they are wrong because you haven't made the detailed argument again - why should we give the detailed responses again?

It hardly counts as an adhominem attack when the very issue on the table right now is whether your points made any sense and whether or not they have been dealt with already by us. You do seem to rate the value of your arguements a lot higher than they deserve. They just don't hold water, as shown by the multitude of posts made in opposition to your propositions so far (meaning im not just declaring this now).

173. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153982 by phatbat on April 2, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #153951 by Steve Zara

Occasionally it is possible to pick a single phrase which summarises the whole of an argument:

and it is the FAITH in their existance which is identical.

I agree - Jac seems to think that if you believe something or assume something without absolute proof then that is no different to believing something without any evidence for and a lot of evidence against.

So i guess the reason he is caught up in this problem of seeing atheists as being hypocritical is that he just doesn't value evidence at all, only proof matters.

That means this is just a case of differing priorities then.

Comment #153945 by jac12358

I disagree. You have said "well they are flawed - well THAT was easy!" which I suppose is similar to Steve's criticism of me saying "burden of proof!" as not being a fair criticism. So I offer there is a double standard at work here: one of you suggest a flaw with only one of several of my arguments/points and say the discussion is over and I've been "defeated" on ALL points,

That was easy indeed- the bits that took the effort were the responses people have given to your points which actualy deal with the basic premise of each of your very long posts. The fact that these long posts are reducible to very small points is not our fault. Perhapse you need to learn how to get your point accross in a more concise manner to avoid this dissapointment.

You've simply turned my allegation that many of you don't read or understand most of my posts onto me that I am the one not reading and understanding.

You simply accused us of not reading or understanding your posts before we accused you of not understanding how our responses DID deal with the flaws in your logic.

This paragraph is telling, so bear with my response: you say I have no argument because you say "we have established we don't believe in free will" and so therefore my argument is pointless because we are all in agreement. (Actually, it is NOT pointless because our agreement with my premise allows the rest of my argument to follow.) However, I think others, like Steve, would disagree with you since he argues that we DO have free will (as defined by Dennett), and so since we aren't talking about THE SAME THING my point is invalid. Did you see that? "we believe what you are saying about free will, therefore invalid" and "we disagree with your definition of free will, therefore invalid!" Talk about having one's cake in eating it too. Agree or disagree with me, it matters not. FABULOUS!

This paragraph exemplifies the problem that a lot of what you write - i am really struggling to understand or take anything from it - it doesn't make sense to me - you need to re word this.

People could spend time block quoting your paragraphs and saying this doesn't follow from previous point or this doesn't make sense. But you write such massive essays that it would just take too long. If you want to adapt to debating in this format you need to cut out the chaff to avoid having bulks of your posts ignored. People will tend to pick out the main point they feel you've gone wrong on and deal with that.

As god, according to many of them, is "personally revealed," then it is no longer tethered to the minutae in one book, especially if they haven't even read it. If the god exists only in their mind then how can a book about a god that doesn't exist describe the one in their mind? Simply attacking the book does not attack (all of their) mental delusions.

Well then the said theist should not claim any kind of special qualities for the said book and should then actualy define what their god is and how it was revealed and then an atheist might begin to argue with that premise.

The success of my argument does not rest on free-will not having a central and universally accepted dogmatic text.

If your point is that athists are being hypocritical for believing free will and still critising theists, then the success of your argument DOES rest on whether the definition of free will (or whatever you would prefer to label it) the atheists are working on is one backed up by any evidence. But what you did was refuse to discuss the other definition saying it was an example of a 'Not my god' response. This is plainly a bad analogy because there isn't a standardly recognised atheist position on free will (but there is i think for christians) to which you can say we are wriggling out of. You just assumed what we all thought and came out with your point.

If your argument is not the hypocracy thing then i would suggest you need to explain (concisely) what your argument is as it seems to have missed us all.

Which point? One or all concerning free will? Or did you mean the similarity of nonexisteng things?* Or did you mean global warming / light pollution? Or did you mean the child abuse claim criticism? Or did you mean the santa claus analogy (separate post)? Or did you mean the application of faith by people to anything being the same phenomenon regardless of the thing one has faith in or the appropriateness of having faith in it?

maybe you need to just start with one argument or proposition and try and deal with that. my memory tells me that all these things were introduced to make your point that everyone believes in things without proof (like freewill) so we are all hypocrites for critisising theists. I think they were all dealt with but because your logic works differently to most other people on here you didn't notice that the counter arguments of others did infact deal with this issue that there are fundamental differences between freewill and God, Global warming and God.

Again you might get a more satisfying debate if you stick to single propositions and then move onto others and also write smaller posts each time.

On this point I never elaborated (imagine that!) the illusory difference of nonexistant things. Much fuss has been made that free will is not the same as god because one is a THING and one is an ABILITY. I did address this a couple posts ago (unresponded to thus far) concerning how they ARE the same, or co-entangled within the same closed system and inseparable. Previously I also pointed out that WHAT they are does not matter because neither is proven to exist, and it is the FAITH in their existance which is identical. Even pointing out the difference between, say, telekinesis (an ability) and the FSM (a thing). What I'd like to clarify is that they are identical in the sense that, both not existing, they are the same. There is no difference between a nonexistant Glomp and a nonexistant Mipple. Whether we imagine a difference or not is unimportant. The ONLY difference is in the NOTION of them, but their nonrealities are identical. I am not here interested in notions but the realities - the truth - of things. And so is Dawkins.

Steve pointed out quite well - most of this paragraph wasn't needed. Like you say you have already said that you think having faith in things is always identical, And others have already said that they are not. The reason you don't agree is that you don't seem to rate evidence FOR something as making any difference to the reasonableness of believing in it. This is where i feel you declare yourself out of the realms of sensible discussion and enter the realms of the ridiculous.

I suspect I should lay low for a while. I do think I should take more time to compose and revise my posts to avoid so much misunderstanding. I do feel obligated to address all comments pertaining to me, if only to maintain integrity but as an example. If not, then I'd be as guilty as those who do not read and respond to my posts or parts of them. And, of course, the debate gets so complex and unweildy that it is hard to track all of the variables and who said what.

Exactly, but you don't need to lay low.

Now i know this was a long post but you did ask for it and lets hope i won't need to do it again.

174. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153744 by phatbat on April 2, 2008 at 1:29 am

Comment #153612 by jac12358

I think Jac you must have a far higher regard for the validity of most of your typing.


And by extension I might assume that you are implying that as a result yours in relation is thus held ever so slightly higher in regard by yourself?

What i was actualy implying was that most of what you say rests on a prior fallacy which others have countered rather easily. There would then be very little point in continuing to deal with each point seperately as they don't even come into it if the basis of all the paragraphs are flawed.

The points I am making are rather large points of the "elephant in the room" variety. That everyone blindly ignores them, or diminishes them via proclomation (as you have) does not impress me as either respectable arguments in themselves or respectable positions to take.

Wait, lemme try what you suggest: "everything you say is bullcrap." Hey, that was kind of easy! Saves time too, and I didn't have to trudge through your posts explaining yet again things you are unable or unwilling to understand. Thanks for the tip!

You may feel that you have come up with some good ideas which deserve discussion and everyone here has given very easily understandable counter arguements everytime which deal with your position. The fact that you don't understand how those responses deal with your point is something i guess we'll all have to live with.

Ah! Then if we DO agree that THAT sort of free will does not exist, just like a certain type of god against which Dawkins argues does not exist, then my points are valid! We DO believe in something that probably does not exist

If the point you are talking about here is that us atheists are hypocrites for believing in free
will and critisising theists. Then no, your point is not valid as we have established we don't believe in free will. It seems you are still hung up on the fact that what we DO think represents our will isn't free will at all. We AGREE WITH THAT. It definiitely is not free will in the classical sense. It seems you would be satisfied if it just had a different name. The definition of free will that we think represents our condition is not the same as truely free will but it has been referred to as free will for a long time as Steve and Mphil said.

This is not the same position as theists saying 'that is not my god' because what Dawkins and others have been critising is written down in various holy books that thoses theists definitely do say represents their god, and is spouted from the mouths of evangelical types and moderate types all the time. None of us have any problem seeing what Dawkins is arguing against as something we have all witnessed in religious people. So they can't just say 'that's not my god' and if they do we ask them to define what is their god and then deal with whatever they say.

Now people who would claim to believe in free will don't have a central bible or holy book equivalent with which you can say 'arrrrr well this newer defintion of free will isn't the free will in this book'. you haven't quoted any atheists describing their version of free will and then argued against that description.

Instead you have come hear with your fixed idea of what free will is and found that the version of free will we think represents our condition is actualy quite different to what you thought, and all, it would seem, is needed for you to be happy is to call it something other than free will.

So i say again - I think your point is invalid and you should admit it.

175. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153577 by phatbat on April 1, 2008 at 3:33 pm

I think Jac you must have a far higher regard for the validity of most of your typing. Also you take a very long time to say apparently very little.

It takes so long to go through everyone of your posts and fallacy seems to follow fallacy. So people will tend to focus in what seems to be an original fallacy you are making before you even get to the others.

Perhapse you can try and post your points a bit more concisely otherwise what you have got is what you will get again.

Try and give a point you feel hasn't been dealt with yet. But i don't see your problem as it has been established that your issue with atheists has shown to be unfounded as the atheists don't (just like you) believe in free will as you first thought.

176. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153541 by phatbat on April 1, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Jac wrote:

Phatbat, I don't know how I missed this one:


But we don't, like you, believe in the Free will you are talking about, and we don't, like you, believe in God.


I made the mistake of reading this so you were equating the difference in free will definitions with god definitions, but you've made the incorrect assumption that I believe in god. I don't know where you got this. I never stated anything like it. In fact I've stated my agnosticism quite plainly in more than one post. (I mean, in the very comment you respond to I state that god is an unproven entity, so why would I believe in it???)

So finding this mistake was very informative. It shows at least one clear case where someone is clearly not reading my posts or not understanding them and drawing incorrect conclusions. This may not disprove any of your arguments, but it shows me that at least in this case I can't trust your analytical abilities and can ignore anything critical you have to say about my arguments, especially those without supporting evidence.

I think you need to re read my quote in all that.

I know you don't believe in god and that you don't believe in free will - my sentence said that like you in these respects we don't either - which means that your criticism of us atheists is invalid as you are arguing with people who agree with your stance.

The reason no one is taking apart evrything you write is that your entire posts seem to all hang off singular particular issues which are the things that people here have been dealing with.

177. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153253 by phatbat on April 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

Jac12358 wrote:

The parallel IS NOT between god AND free will. The parallel is one of the pervasive human belief in the existance of god and free will. What connects them is not what they ARE but that they are both unproven "entivents" (permit me to enter my own jargon here).

But we don't, like you, believe in the Free will you are talking about, and we don't, like you, believe in God.

178. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153240 by phatbat on April 1, 2008 at 9:15 am

Bonzai wrote:

That is why your attempted parallism between God and "free will" falls apart.

I think this is a major problem for Jac - he seems to suffer from 'Faulty Analogy Syndrome'.

179. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153175 by phatbat on April 1, 2008 at 7:03 am

jac12358

You seem to have missed the fact that regardless of whether Steve Z and Mphil are aware of other accepted and well used definitions of free will, they have agreed with you that your definition of free will, which you want to stick to, is not something they hold to.

You said that you doubt its existence, Steve doesn't believe in your definition either. Mphil considers it definitionaly impossible (i would tend to agree with that too).

Now if you don't want to engage about the other definitions of free will then that is fine, but it does mean you have to accept then that if there is only one definition of free will you must have got your initial accusation wrong which was that atheists are hypocritical for believing in free will and then criticizing theists for believing in god. You have come here and not found any atheists that believe in your definition of free will. I suspect most people in fact would find they don't believe in it either once they have had the chance to read about it or listen to this conversation.

So i would propose you have been defeated.

If however you want to GO BACK on you statement that we cannot simply change the definition of free will from the classical one that you recognise then you can possible carry on laboring away at your initial challenge. But i would then have to disagree with your challenge that you can't then compare belief in god with the amended definition of free will as it seems to me there is a lot more in the way of evidence that it does represent the way things are as Mphil has stated above. Where as with God it is not required to explain how or why anything works and as Steve Zara said is an optional extra added onto the end of a system that already works fine without him.

So which is it, are you going to accept that everyone so far has agreed that your definition of free will is indeed not believable and there fore your accusation doesn't stand up or are you willing to get into a discussion about the other definitions.

I personally hope you take the first option.

180. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151626 by phatbat on March 29, 2008 at 4:38 am

Fantastic.

I wonder how long it will be before a fellow pro evolutionist comes on and complains that PZ and this site still won't let this all drop - obviously completely missing the potential danger a movie like expelled represents to the minds of the religiously indoctrinated.

181. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150192 by phatbat on March 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Disgusting.

In England you can be prosecuted for not taking your pet to the vet if it is in need of medical attention and suffering at all. Even if it only has skin iritation!!

I thought USA had similar laws. It's utterly amazing that as soon as the object of the suffering is a child suddenly it becomes a grey area.

Proof surely that prayer does nothing - This situation looks even worse for an omnipitant God that also loves us. He didn't just not save a girl who was being prayed for, he was not saving a girl's life who's life was only at risk BECAUSE of the ambiguous, scant, un-future proofed information he decided to disseminate in the middle east 2000 years ago. You'd think he would have felt some responsibility for the predicament the girl found herself in.

But then again it makes complete sense if God wasn't there or doesn't answer prayers.

182. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143642 by phatbat on March 14, 2008 at 9:05 am

In May of 2007 I went to L.A. to debate Sam Harris, and then two days later I went to San Francisco to debate Christopher Hitchens. Up until that point, I hadn't paid much attention to the work of the New Atheists. After reading what they had written and walking away from these debates, I was appalled at how what they had done for the secular left was to embrace the same kind of bigotry and chauvinism and intolerance that marks the radical Christian right. I found that in many ways they were little more than secular fundamentalists.

In other words - after getting beaten unexpectedly in a couple of debates. He decided that if a group of people are very anti fundamentalist but also think that religious moderation is partly to blame for the widespread religious fundamentalism. Then that group must be kind of fundamentalists too.

Complete nonsense - He fails, just like everyone else who tries this one, to say what we are fundamentist about.

Well, not Harris. Harris is just intellectually shallow.

That'll be why Sam Harris actualy explains his points in a very reasoned manner as opposed to Chris Hedges who just decides we're fundamentlist and doesn't explain what about.

His point seems to be that if you can find a similarity between 2 groups of people then they are basicaly the same. like for example, all religious fundamentalists are religious, so is Chris hedges and all other religious moderates so there fore they are the same. Or what about Nazi's hated Jews, so do Palestinians so there fore they are the same thing.

I think we need a bit more meat on the bone.

183. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142463 by phatbat on March 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Does anybody remember 'This Morning With Richard But Not Judy'? If not - check for clips on youtube.

That was full of sketches that openly poked fun at the Christian faith, and went out every Sunday morning for weeks. Did that one pass them by?

Yeah i remember - absolutely hilarious - they're all on youtube see these ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IAwHTzrHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtrlZn_H5g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBzavvUIAR4

We have Stuart Lee to thank for them (of Jerry springer the opera fame)

He's a bloody good stand up comedian too

184. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #141025 by phatbat on March 9, 2008 at 5:17 pm

I'm sorry jac12358 but let me get this straight.

You acknowledge that in issues of scientific controversy you accept that both sides have evidence for them. You also, hopefully, acknowledge that experience and common sense lead us to trust scientists' recommendations about things. And if you have a lot of scientists saying one thing and some scientists saying another and you're gambling with the planet it is probably best to gamble on the side with the most scientists (at least if you're wrong you haven't lost your environment, or probably haven't)

So you probably agree with all this so far.

You also accept that believing something because the evidence compels you to do so is different from believing something despite the evidence against or without evidence at all.

But somehow, forgive me if you have already given up this point, you are still asserting that believing things that scientists tell us is basically the same as theists' belief in their God which has no evidence for AND some evidence against.

The reason i said don't bring up the GW thing again was cause it has no relevance to the fundamental point that belief without evidence is not the same as belief without absolute proof or complete consensus among all scientists.

And for the record i am also unconvinced as to whether we are speeding up global warming - no one has made the case convincingly but in the absence of such consensus the only logical course of action is to assume it is true and act accordingly.

So i agree, it does require a level of belief in global warming which is greater than we would like, but at least there is evidence for it which is why it is not comparable with faith in God/religion/fairies.

It just feels like you realise this point and then instantly forget it when you formulate your response. If you do succumb to this point then does this not deal with your criticism of 'The God Delusion'?

185. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140656 by phatbat on March 8, 2008 at 8:36 am

Oh yes - i only meant its similar in that the indoctrination of this stuff at such a young age can lead to a very upsetting time in adulthood for those of us blessed/cursed with strong logic circuits who start to break away from it. In our two cases for 2 similar but also different reasons.

In your situation one might be tempted to say is it really a good loving relationship if one party requires the other to believe in god in order for their love to be recieved. I'm sure you've probably had that discussion though and i know it doesn't really help the situation.

186. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140634 by phatbat on March 8, 2008 at 5:27 am

I sad story.

Mphil - i too find my self in a similar situation with my girlfriend, she finds it hard to let go of the belief in the afterlife and seeing her loved ones again which has led to many tears when ever she approaches the subject in her mind. I feel she has a lot of dissonance which for now she lives with. Its very sad.

On another note - whenever i read Irate Atheist's posts i have just realised i read them in Dougal's voice (due to the avatar) in my head. Hilarious.

187. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #140630 by phatbat on March 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

Jac12358

I think your mild criticism of TGD seems to rest upon your conflation of 2 or 3 of the definitions of faith.

Max D brought your attention to it:

Pascall's wager, as Juxtamonkey pointed out, enjoys not a scintilla of evidence in favor of the bet. Not. One. There is room to debate the evidence on the global warming issue. Are we looking at the data right? A wise betting man only bets on a horse with good chance to win.

And then you even acknowledged it:

I'll grant you that in the GW issue there is AT LEAST evidence for both parties. Unlike the god situation, where there is none, this is a good situation.

But then you seem to move on as if it hadn't just rebuked your entire first point of which the global warming thing was only a small part.

If you use the word faith to mean - what you need to plug the gap between having evidence for something, even a lot of evidence for something, and absolute proof then this bears no comparison with the definition of faith as being what you need in order to believe in god, cause you can't use evidence to believe cause there isn't any (unless you change the definition of what evidence means).

So in a God believing faith situation, faith is used as an alternative to evidence, and when you try to start your car, your faith in it starting is based on evidence and just carries you that little bit further to belief.

In reality i don't actually go out to my car believing it will start or not believing it will start - i just expect it to, subconsciously. If you stopped me just before getting into my car and asked me to bet if i thought it would start i probably wouldn't, as it could quite easily not start. Believing or having faith in this sort of thing is just not what anyone normally spends any waking time actually actively believing.

I suspect if we had a different word to discriminate between these 2 different types of faith you wouldn't have raised the point.

This is a separate point now, when people defer to scientists, whether men, etc it is because of the scientific process and also the enormous conspiracy that would have to be engineered in order for them to pull the wool over our eyes, but in general their data is available to scrutiny and this adds to its believability. Sometimes things turn out to be wrong and things are corrected, but science is single-handedly responsible for all the advancements human beings have made and that lends a lot of credibility to trusting in it to keep doing the same. Then you compare this to theists deferring the knowledge to priests and theologians:

In both of these perspectives one can see how a religious person can view the-man-in-the-proverbial-white-lab-coat on par with their priest, minister or preacher, who has "done his homework."

But all the priests and theologians can do when they do their homework is spend time reading the bible/Qur'an/etc. And then spend hour after hour trying to make the logically contradictory make sense through acrobatic re-interpretations just so it doesn't seem so ridiculous. They aren't actually discovering any evidence for anything. As you say - one can see why they defer this knowledge to them but then this is why you get a book like the 'The God delusion' and 'End of Faith' to bring attention to it.


Can you please acknowledge these points as i feel you more or less ignored the first one before. Or please say why you disagree. And please don't mention global warning again as it is irrelevant to this point.

Cheers

188. How to abandon your God

Comment #139483 by phatbat on March 6, 2008 at 12:47 am

Maybe it's not about abandoning God at all, and instead merely broadening your definition of the divine

Since God is almost never properly defined by the likes of McGrath and the actual half thinking theists that exist - I think i'ts fair to say that God is probably a gas or a particle or perhapse a wave or some energy.

Either way god is our ignorance of the answer to the 1st cause problem.

I'm going to start worshipping waves though now. To believe it's not a wave, is just as much a leap of faith as i'm making you fundamentalist atheists you.

;)

189. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138449 by phatbat on March 4, 2008 at 10:59 am

OMG WOW:

Among the stories that surround him is one that he wrestled with the devil in his monastery cell. Padre Pio is also said to have predicted future events, to have been seen in two places at once, and to have been able to tell people their sins before they confessed them to him.

Finaly evidence of the miraculous - there just can't be any other explaination other than they were miracles.

What are we all going to do now?

190. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #138217 by phatbat on March 4, 2008 at 4:33 am

Brilliant debate - Sam Harris has a great tallent for cutting straight to the quick of the fallacy.

This format suits the reasonist far better than the verbal debate format.

Bravo

191. Fleabytes

Comment #135730 by phatbat on February 29, 2008 at 8:36 am

Artful dodger:

Don't you understand what a metaphor is? Or do you think that when the Bible says that the trees and mountains "clap their hands" that Christians take that literally too? Maybe some do, but that's their problem. A lot of Christians don't understand what metaphor is either.

By the way, what timedoes the sun rise in your part of the world? Sorry I should have said "at what time does the sun become visible due to the earth turning on its axis?"

So here we are at the 'dont you know what a metaphor is' point in the bible debate.

The problem with your point bodger is that you compared it with a metaphor which is obviously a metaphor as mountains and trees don't have hands. Lots of other metaphors have made it into common speech like the one you used about the sun rising.

Now that is entirely different from saying that the other things are metaphors, in fact the only reason you are saying they are metaphors is because other wise the bible would contradict itself all over the place.

The fact is, by saying that God fashioned the earth and fixed it still is something that would make complete literal sense if the person writing it thought that the earth was completely still and thought that God was real and had created the earth. There is absolutely no reason to think that it was written to be taken as a metaphor and every reason to presume that it was written to be taken as literal fact by the author. Just like the 6 days of creation not literaly meaning days or even the order being correct but that it was a metaphor for the importance of each of the things in the order stated.

Now tell me how this doesn't fit in with the definition of gullable?

192. Fleabytes

Comment #135636 by phatbat on February 29, 2008 at 7:02 am

Artful dodger wrote:

Would you really say that he has been nastier than some of the other people here have been to him?

.

You seem to be missing the point. A lot of the things said back at DR have been quite harsh observations about his character. But these have been in response to his prior bad form. It's not a case of us or him being nastier. Instead its a case of he chose how he was going to be - using insinuated insults and veiled insinuations like when he tried to insinuate that Paula's article had been left off the front page because the site was embarrassed about it or didn't like it. And then acts all supprised at the fact people call him out. He then says i only asked a question. But he didn't just ask a question, he asked a question and then added some unrequired words afterwards that contained the insult.

It's talking like this that gets people's backs up.

As for the rest of the way he talks and argues is what makes a lot of Atheists resent religion in the 1st place. It gets a free ride of not only acceptability but of people actualy thinking the religious white noise sounds like quite nice well meaning stuff. Saying that little children are born polluted by sin and only through Christ can they be saved otherwise they'll be tormented for eternity after their deaths, but God loves them all really.

I'm sorry but this stuff can't just be concidered ok because it's what people have always believed - it's time to call a spade a spade.

I presume you don't find it offensive because you are a christian, but maybe, if you're not one, it's because you, like most other people, have got so used to hearing it said with a smile on the face that you don't think about what it is they are saying with such confidence. I'm telling you from experience that children have nightmares about hell and grow up confused not knowing how to work out whether something is right by themselves, like that Pmurdoch that was on here yesterday (if he wasn't a theist plant.

My only supprise is that you are not more disgusted by what the Christians would have you believe.

193. Fleabytes

Comment #135446 by phatbat on February 29, 2008 at 1:29 am

Black wolf wrote

but man needs to be free (because God loves him so) to choose, he needs the ultimate choice to redeem himself, by accepting Christ

This is no doubt the most popular justification.

But what about those people who are born without the mental faculties to even understand what anyone says, let alone understand the concept of a God and salvation and heaven and hell. They obviously weren't given the free will to choose christ were they.

This (amongst many other things) is why i think it is a bit stupid to believe this stuff, because there are so many contradictions against these tenets that the only way to keep believing it is to say these things that logicaly don't marry with the belief, are obviously part of some divine plan by god for some godly purpose that is far beyond our comprehension. Which then begs the other question of what about the mans soul, does he get a free pass at salvation? I guess we'll have to just take that on faith cause otherwise it would mean god wasn 't very loving and we know that that is obviously not true cause of all the evidence for it.

go figure

194. Fleabytes

Comment #135134 by phatbat on February 28, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Hmmm I'm a little suspisious of Pmurdoch too - he just seems to be coming out with textbook theist critisisms of atheism as if they were the naive puzzlements of a 19 year old student.

appologies pmurdoch if my suspisions are incorrect.

but about your post:

Comment #135037 by PMurdock on February 28, 2008 at 1:20 pm

But how do we decide what the right goals for our lives are? You say 'better with the ladies', but is that the goal? How do I even know whether bedding a lot of ladies is a good thing? It feels good, yes, but is it right? How would I know that?

Also, can I pursue any goals I want, or do I owe something to humanity--if so, what?



Can i ask what you attribute to the fact you are 19 years old and still don't know yourself how to decide what is right and wrong - as above:

"but is it right? How would I know that?"

What i mean is - has it been due to your parents bringing you up this way or maybe your school or your community in general.

From my own experience I can't imagine that anyone i have ever known of my age group (here in England) would have ever said those words at the age of 19. Perhapse when we were very young children.

The fact you have said this at 19 would seem to say a lot about you.

What do you think?

195. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132860 by phatbat on February 25, 2008 at 10:06 am

One issue is of course what quality/qualities would the god have to have in order to qualify as god.

It could conceiveably be a race of physical beings or a Gas maybe.

If it is what the Christian in this article imagines God to be then evidence of the existance of something fitting that description is fairly easy to imagine:

IF you could capture on film from many different sources a massive bloke in the sky telling the viewer the grid reference for a place where burried under many metres of rock was a fossil of a never before discovered creature with a description of this creature. Then for him/her/it to say that he/she/it was God.

That would be pretty much proof nevermind evidence but it wouldn't make me start practicing a religion as he didn't say anything about that stuff.

To imagine something that would just constitute evidence for God would be a little easier to imagine.

196. Fleabytes

Comment #129784 by phatbat on February 19, 2008 at 3:15 pm

a comment on the final few lines of letter 6 review:

"The point is: regardless of what you believe, such a being is simply impossible, and Dawkins' argument explains why. That is simply not how the universe works. Complex beings do not just exist â€" they evolve. Simply repeating your mantra of what you believe â€" the magic wand argument â€" does not remotely address the challenge issued by Dawkins here. The God you believe in is simply impossible. This won't stop you believing in him â€" but the simple fact of your belief does not constitute any kind of argument against the impossibility of its being based in reality."

Although i agree with your point, I've always felt that the 'ultimate 747' argument is really a rebuttle of the prior 'airplane in a scrapyard' argument. Meaning, it's not just saying that for god to just spring into being all of a sudden is highly improbable. It's saying:

'if the universe can't just exist without cause then there is certainly no way that God can'

I know it's almost the same thing and i appologise if i misunderstood but i feel that approaching it in this way you are analysing the prior argument for God and showing it to be illogical. Rather than using it as an argument against God which the fleas seem to be treating it as.

Brilliant read so far though Paula - this certainly saves me reading them which i was starting to think i might do until now.

Thank you

197. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #128067 by phatbat on February 16, 2008 at 2:42 am

Wow Steve Zara i had no idea that the warp drive concept was that far along (all be it a long way off). but if there is one thing the future of our species depends on it is the ability to make it to another planet quite fast.

Theoreticaly speaking, how fast would it go and what's the 0-60 on one of those, i bet its better than a Veyron.

Steve what do you do for a living?

198. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127215 by phatbat on February 15, 2008 at 3:55 am

Henri Bergson:

'Two points:
- Religious people do value truth. It's just that they do not know what it is, they do not want to know as it may not be to their advantage. So they cannot admit it.'

But in the post i was responding to you wrote:

'Can you prove that truth has a value?

If not, why value it? If not, it would simply be a matter of your preference over others and thus not be an objective maxim that you could say others ought to follow.

And you cannot say that truth has value as it satisfies curiosity or helps people, as that would simply postpone the question by questioning the values of satisfaction and help.

So does this theist-atheist battle simply come down to suppression of those that think differently?'

The last paragraph suggests that the theist is not valuing truth and the atheist is.

If you are now saying that they both do value truth so what was you intital point?

199. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127193 by phatbat on February 15, 2008 at 3:08 am

Henri Bergson

'Can you prove that truth has a value?

If not, why value it? If not, it would simply be a matter of your preference over others and thus not be an objective maxim that you could say others ought to follow.'

It seems you agree with Richard on this point to be honest. If someone wants to admit that they don't care what is true, that they just want to believe or be told something that makes them feel good or whatever other utility something might have then that is fine - but don't start trying to argue that it is true, or arguing that by saying it's not true you are somehow doing wrong.

If these people don't find truth important or of value then why don't they admit it and then we can move on - but what you get is something like what we heard on the debate - 'its a different kind of spiritual truth'

Its the kind of response you expect if the person saying it has just been forced to recognise that actualy she does care about whats true but for some reason has this contradictory belief in her head that she can't quite get her head around. Such is the power of the indoctrination of faith as a virtue at a young age.

'Another related question: is falsity not sometimes preferable?'

Somepeople might think that is true - but i wish they would bloody well admit that was what they were intending and then we could debate that.

200. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127148 by phatbat on February 15, 2008 at 1:45 am

'If you have never heard of Natural Selection (and many in the world haven't)'

This is true but if you have heard of natural selection and you know that the vast majority of the scientific world agrees that it is true, then to believe that we were all created like this is surely ridiculous, not only because there is no evidence for it but also because there is evidence against it.

This, i think, is why if a tribe of people who have been living in the jungles of south america were to be discovered today we wouldn't say they were ridiculous for believing they were created or that God makes them sick or causes earth quakes.

But for people who have had the benefit of an education in the western world and a lot of the eastern world too, who beleive that the laws of nature have been suspended undetectably just because someone says so is surely ridiculous. I think gullible is also apt here.

Thoughts?