|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2008 : 08:04:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
It was William Paley. Hume criticized the design argument.
|
To be fair, Hume died in 1776, while Paley published his watchmaker analogy in 1802. In other words, Paley used an argument that had already been debunked for at least 26 years. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2008 : 13:58:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by the_ignored
It was William Paley. Hume criticized the design argument.
|
To be fair, Hume died in 1776, while Paley published his watchmaker analogy in 1802. In other words, Paley used an argument that had already been debunked for at least 26 years.
|
Thanks. I posted a correction on the other site.
Whoops.
It seems that Hume died in 1776, while Paley published his watchmaker analogy in 1802.
So we were both wrong in a way. Hume was criticizing an idea that was around before Paley even used it. |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2008 : 09:08:06 [Permalink]
|
He's replied again, so this is my reply back: I've not posed it yet because I'm about to go to bed and I'm tired; I have no idea if this is a good replyl or not right now, so I'm hoping a clear head and some others looking over this crap will help me refine it better.
Let me begin by reviewing some aspects of oral debate. Generally speaking:
The debaters are considered to come to the table well informed on the subject matter. |
| Oral debaters meet beforehand and make each other aware of any resources each has produced on the topic. |
Any creation/evolution debate where that has happened??
They make opening statements.
They make rebuttals.
They cross examine each other.
They take audience questions.
They make a closing statement.
They may subsequently publish elucidating info on something they thought was not thoroughly covered during the debate.
The debates are recorded in audio, video and transcribed and the audio, video and transcription are unleashed all over the internet where anyone, from the kid living in their mother#8217;s basement to the scholars, can further elucidate. |
That last though doesn't help too much. Everyone knows in the science community that it takes far longer to correct an "error" in science that's made by the other debater than it is for that person to make that error.
Look up "Gish Gallop" if you don't believe me.
The creationist can spew out many more falsehoods than the scientist can possibly hope to rebut. That's why scientists go for written, published debates and peer-review. Those criteria you list are for better suited for written debates, or for courts of law.
As I said before, it's in those formats that the creationists regularly lose. If they truly had the evidence on their side, that would not be the case.
| And yet, debates are no more supposed to be the last word on an issue anymore than the science de jour. |
Odd then, that you're making such a big deal about them then.
| I wanted to point out that, ultimately, terming Christianity as a rewards and punishment system is fallacious in that it is contrived: since Christianity does not hold to a works based salvation theology it is a misleading oversimplification to refer to it as such. |
Sure, you need "faith" to get into heaven but you've neglected the rewards that believers are supposed to get for their service on earth. You know the verses talking about the various crowns that believers get, the stories told about how "god" will pass their deeds through fire, resulting in ashes for some believers and purified precious metals for others, etc.
Here is a real life disproof of the rewards and punishment argument:
1. The other day a homeless man asked me for money to buy coffee.
2. I do not carry cash and so I offered to buy it for him and bring it to him. I did so (along with something to eat) with my motivation and thinking being simply that a human being was thirsty (and presumably hungry) and I could help, period.
3. Therefore, that my motivation was reward and punishment is fallacious. |
Your individual motive is irrelevent. I'm going by>what your own bible teaches. I'm just going by what they must have had in mind when they talked about rewards and punishments.
| You may argue that 3 is false because my overall motivation and thinking is premised upon a system of rewards and punishment but this is a non sequitur. This is also a presumption based on prejudice whereby you judge the overwhelming majority of the entire planet's population throughout history without having the ability to read minds or motivations. |
Nope. Just based on why the bible keeps talking about rewards and punishments. Besides, isn't the bible's author suppoed to be able to read minds and know their motivations?
| Moreover, let us consider that some people#8217;s motivation is not simply the goodness of their hearts. Let us grant this and say, "Good, at least something is motivating them." It may not be ideal to your standards but why is pure goodness of heart the standard by which you judge all of humanity? And how do atheists escape the charge of not having pure, goodness of heart, motives? |
Irrelevant question.
| No, "the well-being of future generations is not a reason" it is an assertion. The question is why preserve future generations. A reason would be, "The reason that we ought to ensure the well-being of future generations is___________ (fill in the blank)." |
(So the human race can continue and every single sacrifice made by people in the past will not be in vain)
| Likewise, "The reason that we ought to be compassionate is___________ (fill in the blank)." |
(To help lessen the chance that people will be pricks towards us)
| Likewise, "The reason that we ought to be empathetic is___________ (fill in the blank)." |
(see above)
| You are right, if past generations did not care about future generations we would not even be here. And why do you feel that it is important that you, and I, are here? One more or one less bio-organism, who is counting? And if we never were we would never know. |
We wouldn't have that most precious commodity of all; life.
| Sorry, but since non-theism is merely a lack of belief in God, you cannot presume to speak for any other non-theist on any other issue. If you do presume to speak for non-theists then I will tap you as a resource when a non-theists tells me that non-theists agree that they each lack a God belief and cannot be generalized to agree on anything else. |
Most probably would agree with me on that; since I've seen others agree with what I've said. Good grief. Just because atheism is just a non-beliefe in god, it does not mean that some of us can't find anything at all to agree on. I suppose then that you assume that an atheist is speaking for other atheists when he says that we bundle up when it's cold outside too?
And if you presume to speak for all theists, I can use you as a source to refute the claim that xians have a superior morality than atheists; I keep hearing you say over and over that you don't consider the well-being of future generations of people to be a "reason" for acting moral. I'll just tap you as a resource to show that xians do need a god to watch over them, since that's the only "valid reason" for acting moral that they'll accept.
To put this in perspective, you could answer the question I asked last time: Why does god make rules for us then? If he does them for our well-being then you have to explain why when <b>humans</b> do something for our well-being, it's an "assertion" that "doesn't hold water" but when your god does something for presumably the same reason, it's valid.
Are any of the other points about ID that I brought up in the September 20, 2008 9:21 AM post going to be addressed?
| Yes, and they already have been. |
No. You've ignored most of them; the reasons why written debates are superior to oral debates using that Sam Rowbotham guy as an example of the weakness of oral debates to determine scientific claims was ignored.
| To reiterate, "You do it too" arguments may demonstrate hypocrisy but do not disprove my original point. |
No, I'm showing the flawed reasoning you use. I believe that the well-being of future generations is a valid reason for constructing moral laws; you claim it's just an assertion. What would you consider to be a valid reason and why then? Also, try answering my question above please.
FYI, see here for a list of Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated).
They list:
Featured Articles.
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses.
Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses.
Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Academic University Presses.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies.
Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals. |
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
Yeah, about those...
The Bible says that God is love. "Love" is a very confused concept.
Some people think that it is an emotion but it is not just an emotion. For example, people make a commitment to be married for life but then say that they fell out of love. They concluded that once they did not constantly feel goose-bumpy adrenaline spiked emotions the love was gone. Yet, love is a commitment and when those emotions are gone, or are more rare, the commitment remains.
I love my wife and I love chocolate, but these are very different kinds of love.
I love my wife and so I would never hurt her but I love my wife and would hurt someone else if they tried to hurt my wife.
Sometimes love means peace and enjoyment and sometimes violence and war (such as fighting for freedom).
Just as the designer of a car knows what is good for it to function properly (certain sort of gas, oil, lubricants, etc.) so God knows what is good for us. Yet, the car maker also knows that a violent internal combustion is what is required to make the engine run and that lubricating the shock absorbers is required by the very that they are meant to absorb shock. We are built in a certain way to deal with life as it is, the good, the bad and the ugly.
God#8217;s ultimate nature is eternal and unchanging. |
Let's see: in the OT he had pregnant women and babies killed. Now he doesn't. In the OT cripples or deformed people couldn't enter the temple where the so-called "ark" was. In the NT Jesus healed those people.
Sounds like a big change to me. We all know why, of course; changing circumstances, etc. Thing is, isn't your god supposed to be above that kind of thing? The "morality" of the bible is more easily explained by people making up a god and having him make orders that are as ruthless as they needed to survive; other tribes had done it. Your god is supposed to be different, is he not?
When it is say that morality is what it is, is moral, due to God's will what is being said that morality is ultimately grounded in God's unchanging nature.
Thus, the question "Could it have been different" is a non sequitur, it is a category mistake like asking "Who designed the designer" or "What was God doing all of those millions of years before He created the universe." |
Doesn't stop theists from asking what was there before the big bang though. So why is it a non-sequitur?
Here's a question you never really answered, though you did just try to answer the first part I guess: Is something moral because god said it is, in which case it's purely subjective and it could have been different, or does god say something is moral because it is moral? In which case, he just figured it out like the rest of us, and morality is outside of god?
| God reveals His nature, His will, His morals, due to His love for us. |
Good time as any to answer that question I asked above then. Why does he make rules? If it's to help us survive, then why is that all of a sudden a valid reson when he does it, but when humans make rules to help further generations, it's an "assertion" not a reason?
God reveals this in various ways such as written them in our hearts (aka: our consciences), having them written in the Bible (and other texts whose writers discerned from their consciences), and the natural world (natural theology).
We discern these from our consciences, from reading written texts and from the use of our minds in determining between difficult choices. |
So that explains why we have only one kind of bible, with one christian denomination then. Ok.
| From the Bible we also understand that God#8217;s nature is that of relationship since the Bible does not present a "strictly monotheistic" God who needed to create angels and humans for the sake of relationships but who, in the form of the Trinity, enjoyed eternal relationships. Moreover, "strictly monotheistic" gods such as Allah are not relational beings and thus do not care to have relationships with humans but merely dictate dos and don#8217;ts which truly are arbitrary. |
Kind of like the OT god, really. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/09/2008 07:22:59 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2008 : 09:27:46 [Permalink]
|
| I would mention empathy as a natural consequence of our evolution as a social specie. That might help with the bit about the 'assertion'. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2008 : 09:11:39 [Permalink]
|
Well, this is my revised reply:
Thanks for the tip, Simon. I put it in my reply. Though it'll take some digging to find it...
=======
Let me begin by reviewing some aspects of oral debate. Generally speaking:
The debaters are considered to come to the table well informed on the subject matter.
Oral debaters meet beforehand and make each other aware of any resources each has produced on the topic. |
And how many creation/evolution debates where that has happened??
They make opening statements.
They make rebuttals.
They cross examine each other.
They take audience questions.
They make a closing statement.
They may subsequently publish elucidating info on something they thought was not thoroughly covered during the debate.
The debates are recorded in audio, video and transcribed and the audio, video and transcription are unleashed all over the internet where anyone, from the kid living in their mother's basement to the scholars, can further elucidate. |
And how often does that happen exactly for those debates?
That last item though doesn't help too much. Everyone in the science community knows that it takes far longer to correct an "error" in science that's made by the other debater than it is for that person to make that error.
The creationist can spew out many more falsehoods than the scientist can possibly hope to rebut.
Look up "Gish Gallop" on google if you don't believe me.
You've also left out the fact that being able to post things on the net for further review is a new item in oral debates. Creationists were bragging about their oral "victories" long before then.
That's why scientists go for written, published debates and peer-review. Those criteria you list are more easily fitted for written debates, or for courts of law.
As I said before, it's in those formats that the creationists regularly lose. If they truly had the evidence on their side, that would not be the case.
| And yet, debates are no more supposed to be the last word on an issue anymore than the science de jour. |
Odd then, that you're making such a big deal about them then.
| I wanted to point out that, ultimately, terming Christianity as a rewards and punishment system is fallacious in that it is contrived: since Christianity does not hold to a works based salvation theology it is a misleading oversimplification to refer to it as such. |
Sure, you need "faith" to get into heaven but you've neglected the rewards that believers are supposed to get for their service on earth. You know the verses talking about the various crowns that believers get, the stories told about how "god" will pass their deeds through fire, resulting in ashes for some believers and purified precious metals for others, etc.
Since you deny so vigoursly that christianity is based on a rewards/punishment system perhaps you could explain just why the bible has emphasis on just that?
Here is a real life disproof of the rewards and punishment argument:
1. The other day a homeless man asked me for money to buy coffee.
2. I do not carry cash and so I offered to buy it for him and bring it to him. I did so (along with something to eat) with my motivation and thinking being simply that a human being was thirsty (and presumably hungry) and I could help, period.
3. Therefore, that my motivation was reward and punishment is fallacious. |
Your individual motive is irrelevent.
Why? I'm going by what your own bible teaches. I'm just going by what they must have had in mind when they talked about rewards and punishments.
| You may argue that 3 is false because my overall motivation and thinking is premised upon a system of rewards and punishment but this is a non sequitur. This is also a presumption based on prejudice whereby you judge the overwhelming majority of the entire planet's population throughout history without having the ability to read minds or motivations. |
Nope. Just based on why the bible keeps talking about rewards and punishments.
Why do you keep ignoring that fact? In your last post you dodged the issue by talking about how "salvation" is obtained. I was never referring to that.
Besides, isn't the bible's author supposed to be able to read minds and know their motivations?
| Moreover, let us consider that some people's motivation is not simply the goodness of their hearts. Let us grant this and say, "Good, at least something is motivating them." It may not be ideal to your standards but why is pure goodness of heart the standard by which you judge all of humanity? And how do atheists escape the charge of not having pure, goodness of heart, motives? |
Irrelevant question since we never claimed that. What about you people who are supposed to be filled with "the holy spirit"?
| No, "the well-being of future generations is not a reason" it is an assertion. The question is why preserve future generations. A reason would be, "The reason that we ought to ensure the well-being of future generations is___________ (fill in the blank)." |
So the human race can continue and every single sacrifice made by people in the past will not be in vain
| Likewise, "The reason that we ought to be compassionate is___________ (fill in the blank)." |
(To help lessen the chance that people will be pricks towards us)
| Likewise, "The reason that we ought to be empathetic is___________ (fill in the blank)." |
(see above)
| You are right, if past generations did not care about future generations we would not even be here. And why do you feel that it is important that you, and I, are here? One more or one less bio-organism, who is counting? And if we never were we would never know. |
We wouldn't have that most precious commodity of all: life.
| Sorry, but since non-theism is merely a lack of belief in God, you cannot presume to speak for any other non-theist on any other issue. If you do presume to speak for non-theists then I will tap you as a resource when a non-theists tells me that non-theists agree that they each lack a God belief and cannot be generalized to agree on anything else. |
Most probably would agree with me on that point; since I've seen others agree with it. It doesn't mean that all do, or that it's a part of some "atheist dogma", though it does make good sense. Sometimes people go along with something just because of that, you know.
Good grief. Just because atheism is just a non-belief in god, it does not mean that some of us can't find anything at all to agree on.
I suppose then that you assume that an atheist is speaking for all other atheists when he says that we should bundle up when it's cold outside too, as if it's part of the atheists' "creed"?
And if you presume to speak for all theists, I can use you as a source to refute the claim that xians have a superior morality than atheists; I keep hearing you say over and over that you don't consider the well-being of future generations of people to be a "reason" for acting moral. I'll just tap you as a resource to show that xians do need a god to watch over them, since that's the only "valid reason" for acting moral that they'll accept.
Or I could just quote from your "holy book" how witches are supposed to be killed and thus justify some of the worst incidents of the christian dark ages?
To put this in perspective, you could answer the question I asked last time instead of absconding from it: Why does god make rules for us then? If he does them for our well-being then you have to explain why when humans do something for our well-being, it's an "assertion" that "doesn't hold water" but when your god does something for presumably the same reason, it's valid.
Are any of the other points about ID that I brought up in the September 20, 2008 9:21 AM post going to be addressed?
| Yes, and they already have been. |
No. You've ignored most of them; for instance the reasons why written debates are superior to oral debates was ignored.
The example I gave of Samuel Rowbotham, a flat-earther who used to win all his debates, as an example of how useless oral debates can be in settling scientific disputes was ignored.
The fact that Judge Jones was following normal judicial procedure when he read out the winning sides "Proposed Findings of Fact" was ignored.
The fact that at the Dover trial the creationists got kicked was ignored.
The fact that the ID people have promised research and failed to deliver (see the "Stranger Fruit" blog link in earlier post) was ignored...
| To reiterate, "You do it too" arguments may demonstrate hypocrisy but do not disprove my original point. |
No, I'm showing the flawed reasoning you use. I believe that the well-being of future generations is a valid reason for constructing moral laws; you claim it's just an assertion.
Perhaps a biologist could point out empathy developed as a natural consequence of our evolution as a social species. Or, our minds developed enough to realize that we need to make rules to figure out to get along so we don't wipe each other out? (obviously not a perfect mechanism, but no one ever said evolution was "perfect", just "good enough" to work)
I'm going to assume though that those will not be accepted by your as "reasons" either.
What would you consider to be a valid reason and why? Also, try answering my question above please.
FYI, see here for a list of Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated).
They list:
Featured Articles.
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses.
Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses.
Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Academic University Presses.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies.
Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals. |
Yeah, about those...
By the way, why haven't the ID people ponied up the evidence that they promised?
I've posted this before, but since it was ignored, I'll post it again:
So, at risk of sounding like a broken record, let's see what we didn't get from the intelligent design movement this year:
A peer-reviewed paper by Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer ...
Or for that matter, a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing, by any fellow of the DI.
An exposition of Nelson's theory of "ontogenetic depth" (promised in March 2004)
An article by Nelson & Dembski on problems with common descent (promised in April 2005).
Nelson's monograph on common descent (currently MIA since the late 90's).
Funny. That list is identical to what we didn't get last year. Wow. It's like 2007 never happened. |
Who's "absconding" now?
The Bible says that God is love. "Love" is a very confused concept.
Some people think that it is an emotion but it is not just an emotion. For example, people make a commitment to be married for life but then say that they fell out of love. They concluded that once they did not constantly feel goose-bumpy adrenaline spiked emotions the love was gone. Yet, love is a commitment and when those emotions are gone, or are more rare, the commitment remains.
I love my wife and I love chocolate, but these are very different kinds of love.
I love my wife and so I would never hurt her but I love my wife and would hurt someone else if they tried to hurt my wife.
Sometimes love means peace and enjoyment and sometimes violence and war (such as fighting for freedom).
Just as the designer of a car knows what is good for it to function properly (certain sort of gas, oil, lubricants, etc.) so God knows what is good for us. Yet, the car maker also knows that a violent internal combustion is what is required to make the engine run and that lubricating the shock absorbers is required by the very that they are meant to absorb shock. We are built in a certain way to deal with life as it is, the good, the bad and the ugly.
God's ultimate nature is eternal and unchanging. |
You've not actually described what that "eternal and unchanging" nature is like though.
As to "eternal and unchanging": in the OT he had pregnant women and babies killed. Now he doesn't. In the OT cripples or deformed people couldn't enter the temple where the so-called "ark" was. In the NT Jesus healed those people.
Sounds like a big change to me. We all know why, of course; changing circumstances, etc. Thing is, isn't your god supposed to be above that kind of thing? The "morality" of the bible is more easily explained by people making up a god and having him make orders that are as ruthless as they needed to survive; other tribes had done it. Your god is supposed to be different, is he not?
As times changed and farming methods became more efficient, the struggle to survive wasn't as vicious, so many of the harsh measures in the OT were no longer necessary.
Far from being "unchanging", the bible is an excellent example of what an "evolving morality" looks like.
| When it is say that morality is what it is, is moral, due to God's will what is being said that morality is ultimately grounded in God's unchanging nature. |
I've referred to that before.
| Thus, the question "Could it have been different" is a non sequitur, it is a category mistake like asking "Who designed the designer" or "What was God doing all of those millions of years before He created the universe." |
Doesn't stop theists from asking what was there before the big bang though. So why is it a non-sequitur?
Here's a question you never really answered, though you did just try to answer the first part I guess:
Is something moral because god said it is, in which case it's purely subjective and it could have been different, or does god say something is moral because it is moral? In which case, he just figured it out like the rest of us, and morality is outside of god?
| God reveals His nature, His will, His morals, due to His love for us. |
Good time as any to answer that question I asked above then. Why does he make rules? If it's to help us survive, then why is that all of a sudden a valid reson when he does it, but when humans make rules to help further generations, it's an "assertion" not a reason?
God reveals this in various ways such as written them in our hearts (aka: our consciences), having them written in the Bible (and other texts whose writers discerned from their consciences), and the natural world (natural theology).
We discern these from our consciences, from reading written texts and from the use of our minds in determining between difficult choices. |
So that explains why we have only one kind of bible, with one christian denomination then. Ok.
| From the Bible we also understand that God's nature is that of relationship since the Bible does not present a "strictly monotheistic" God who needed to create angels and humans for the sake of relationships but who, in the form of the Trinity, enjoyed eternal relationships. Moreover, "strictly monotheistic" gods such as Allah are not relational beings and thus do not care to have relationships with humans but merely dictate dos and don'ts which truly are arbitrary. |
Kind of like the OT god, really. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/09/2008 09:18:32 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 07:52:46 [Permalink]
|
Well, he's replied again. I know he reads this forum since he's made reference to what I called him in the first post. Whether he comes here or not, I don't know.
Anyway, this is my reply to him:
==========
Mariano said...
| Oral debates are a legitimate form of a particular style of debate and has been for millennia. That you are now asking #8220;how often does that happen#8221; merely demonstrates that you are at the end of your rope and simply grasping at straws. |
No, I'm simply asking you how often, in oral debates between creationists and evolutionists do they go over the format and what they talk about with each other before the debate. I've never heard of them doing that.
Maybe in the other oral debates that have been occuring "for millenia" they've done that, but I notice that you've given no examples.
| Also, your sources go from claiming that ID proponent do not publish peer-review to well, ok, they do#8212;but not enough. |
Actually, you should do a little bit more reading on that site I gave. At least some of the stuff they gave didn't even have anything to do with ID at all, yet the ID people used those papers as evidence of "peer review" for ID.
Also, you should read and see <b>why</b> they say it's not enough. You should remember that post I gave from the "Stranger Fruit" blog in which the guy posted several examples of research that the ID people had promised to do; yet none have ever been done. Just books for the lay public, who on average don't have the knowledge to tell if it's bs or not.
| Interestingly, Michael Behe stated that the reason he did not conduct original research for "Darwin's Black Box" was so that no one could claim that some obscure biologist was performing obscure research but he drew information from well known sources so that anyone could double check his claims. |
He has no evidence, no test, nothing to back his claims up, and when people did double check his claims, he got his rear kicked.
Check out the Panda's Thumb site and put "Darwin's Black Box" in their search engine.
Or same with the TalkOrigins archive.
Even more interesting, go to the Dover trial transcripts and find out that Behe still refused to do any actual research into his own subject matter.
As another example, go to here for an example of where Dembski also refuses to buck up.
| However you wish to weight oral vs. written et al, I find it very, very odd that you, and some scientists such as Gould, opt for court cases. |
Not odd at all; in a court case each side has time to check out the claims of the other side, and to cross-examine the other side. Just like in a written debate.
The court transcripts effectively serve as the written debate itself.
| The very purpose of the court case is to have a judge, a judge trained in law and not in science, decide scientific debates. |
Do you realize how many cases a judge must make a ruling that deals with scientific evidence?
Cases involving genetic tests, DNA tests, paternity suits, environmental hazard claims, etc.
Do you realize that in each of those cases the judge must make a decision based on the science?
| Do you really think it is an argument in favor of a scientific claim that a judge has pronounced on it one way or the other? |
What would you have said if the ID side had "won"? Besides, that's what the transcripts are for!
Also, remember that this judge was picked out by Bush himself and the members of the religious/political right had no problems with him until he handed down a verdict they didn't like. If he had any biases, it would have been towards the ID people in the beginning.
Besides, as you pointed out, the judge was a layman in science, so the scientists there had to explain everything to him so he could make his ruling. That's what can be seen in the transcripts. That's why they're so important.
After all, you ID people are yourselves trying to convince lay people of the truthfulness of ID are you not? The Dover trial is just an example of you people trying, and failing. The transcripts show why.
| What does that say to the legitimacy of Darwinism (I know, I know, what sort of Darwinism? Orthodox, neo or as Vox Day puts it, "few can manage to keep up with adaptive devo punk-echthroi neo-quasi-Darwinism, or whatever the evolutionary biologists are calling this week's spin on St. Darwin's dangerous idea, p. 255 of his free downloadable book "The Irrational Atheist"). |
Maybe if you read about "darwinism" from actual evolutionary biologists instead of idiots like Vox Day you'll learn something about it. They study it, he doesn't.
====
At this point, I should have made a smart remark about how uniform the xian belief is, with only one denomination or something. Meh. Back to the reply.
====
| Is a judges really best suited to determine scientific merit? |
They do so all the time in court cases that involve stuff like: forensic evidence, DNA evidence, environmental studies, product liability cases, etc.
Yet now, all of a sudden, a judge can't determine scientific merit.
You have another problem: If you're complaining that a judge can't determine scientific merit, then why are the ID people trying to get their stuff taught in schools? Don't you think that inexperience schoolkids would be even less likely to be able to determine scientific merit?
| I do recall that a professor of law wrote a book about Darwinism from a legal perspective, his name is Philip Johnson and his book was "Darwin on Trial." |
He did, and I recall that he got trounced for his many scientific errors in it.
Again, go to Panda's Thumb and put "Darwin on Trial" in their search engine, or to TalkOrigins and do the same.
Or you could go http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html">here[/url] for a detailed examination of the man's claims.
| In fact another professor of law, David DeWolf |
Another member of the "Discovery Institute" oddly enough.
I've heard that he's run into trouble with Peter Irons, constitutional lawyer, Harvard Law School grad, Supreme Court bar member, yada ,yada.
And another example, with somebody else.
wrote a book entitled Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision
Actually, Judge John Jones was actually not even interested in the actual scientific issues and actually wanted to avoid an actual trial on the actual scientific issues. He wrote that he would "offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in that hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."
I would recommend that you listen to this interview with the Discovery Institute's Dr. Steve Meyers as he explains why they were not interested in getting involved, etc. his interview begins at 22:25 into the show. |
I would recommend that you take note that your guy DeWolf tried to stop the judge from ruling on the scientific validity of ID in the first place!
Here
| DI fellow David DeWolf filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of pro-ID scientists urging the judge not to rule on the scientific validity of ID or on whether it was essentially religious, arguing that "intelligent design should not be stigmatized by the courts as less scientific than competing theories." DeWolf also authored a brief on behalf of the DI itself that argued that if the judge did rule on that question, he should rule that ID is scientific and not religious. Clearly this was the key to the DI's trial strategy. |
| Yes, believers are said to get "crowns" but please keep reading, what do they do with those crowns? |
So they throw them at his feet? So what? There's still the "honour" of publically getting those crowns in the first place. Besides, do they give back all the rewards they get in heaven? Like the "mansions" that are supposed to be built for them, or the gold, silver, and precious metals that are supposed to represent their works?
| To state that "christianity [sic] is based on a rewards/punishment system" is simply generalized and an incomplete view, a straw man. |
Nope, just based on your bible. Sure, "salvation" itself is not work/reward based, but the amount of rewards one gets in heaven seems to be. Then of course, there is the fear of hell.
| Thus, "3. Therefore, that my motivation was reward and punishment is fallacious" my motivation was empathy and compassion. That you are now, after such vigorously gesticulating about motivations can actually state that my individual motive is irrelevant merely demonstrates that you are at the end of your rope and simply grasping at straws. |
No, I'm pointing out what the biblical authors must have felt about motivations when they wrote about the various awards one gets in heaven.
Your personal experience is irrelevent because I'm basing my belief on the bible itself, and on what the writers themselves must have presumed to say those things, not your own personal motivations.
"the bible keeps talking about rewards and punishments. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?"
| I did not, I specifically addressed that issue. |
No, you bypassed it by claiming that my point was invalid by saying that christianity was not a "works based salvation theology". I never said it was. I was merely talking about the rewards believers get once they're already saved, as a motivator.
| I am puzzled as to how you can claim that I ignored it and follow my quoting my statement on it which I follow with a series of question that you did not address, |
Is it these that I've supposedly "not addressed"?
| "Let us grant this and say, 'Good, at least something is motivating them.' It may not be ideal to your standards but why is pure goodness of heart the standard by which you judge all of humanity? And how do atheists escape the charge of not having pure, goodness of heart, motives?" |
Irrelevant question since we never claimed that. What about you people who are supposed to be filled with "the holy spirit"?
I may not have given you the answer that you're looking for, but that's not the same as not addressing it. We never claimed to be perfect or to be guided by a perfect being. We just try and muddle through as best we can with the knowledge that we have at the time.
That's why laws change over time. For a quick example, check out the differences between the people in the OT and the NT. Not very consistent with those following a "perfect, unchanging god" are they?
| You have now asserted that we ought to ensure the well-being of future generations so that the human race can continue and every single sacrifice made by people in the past will not be in vain. But what is the reason for seeking to ensure such things. In fact, atheist absolutely guarantees you that, in the end, everything that humanity has ever done or will do is, in very fact, utterly and absolutely in vain. |
So we hold it off as long as possible, so what? Yet you say I'm being "selfish" when I say that we try to act to continue our own survival and that of the human race? So either way, you win in your rhetorical game.
Why don't you answer why your god sets up rules for people in the first place, if they're not to help ensure the survival of the people?
Again, it comes down to the same reasons, only you call it "assertions" when non-theists give them. What about when your god gives them? what reasons does your god give for giving people rules to live by? The only reason you give is because he "loves" us, yet if one of us says that we love our children, or humanity in general, you just call it an "authoritarion dogmatic assertion". How's the reason you gave different?
| Your next answer is much more interesting than your previous mere authoritarian dogmatic assertions. |
At least here, you admit that I've answered.
We ought to be compassionate To help lessen the chance that people will be pricks towards us.
| Indeed, I have found this to be the very pinnacle of atheism's amorality: I should not be compassionate because other people are hurting and I should not be compassionate because other people need compassion. No, I should function on absolute selfishness and be compassionate so that other people do not mistreat me. |
Or our kids. There are examples of athiest soldiers and firefighters and such who risk there lives with no chance of "heavenly life" just so that others may live. How's that "selfish and self-aggrandizing"?
Perhaps that's my fault: I should have made that more clear. Well, I have now. I know I mentioned "empathy" in an earlier post...
Besides, what about your reasons for being moral? Earlier above, you were talking about how everything is meaningless in the end if everything perishes eventually anyway.
Are you saying that without "eternal life" as promised in your holy book that there's no reason to live then? Sounds like the bible writers were right about people like you after all. You have your own self-interests at heart in the end after all. Still want to talk about "selfishness"?
| Yet, the main point is clear. You are not functioning on pure motivations nor out of the goodness of your heart but are motivated by your selfishness and self-aggrandizement. You act out of fear of punishment, the punishment that someone may mistreat you. |
Threats of hell anyone?
| Of course, how being compassionate to reduces malice that is coming my way is mysterious. How does my showing compassion to my cousin's roommate's sister-in-law keep a terrorist from blowing me up? |
It does lessen the chance that your cousin will get p*ssed at you in the future; the problem is that not everyone follows that idea. The terrorist for example, is likely a fellow theist of yours who's obeying what he thinks is his gods' moral decrees.
| I discern that you follow some sort of watered down "My Name is Early" style pseudo-karma. |
I'd just have called it "the golden rule".
| Since your answer to why we ought to be empathetic is the same self-serving, selfish, self-aggrandizement as above, the same comments apply. |
Yeah, wanting to see the human race survive, including our kids is really self-serving, selfish, self-aggrandizing, while the thought of eternal life in heaven doesn't motivate you at all, right?
| What makes you think that life (Life in general? Human life, chinchilla life, bacteria life, cucumber life, or what?) is the most precious commodity of all. Sounds like an arbitrary assertion. |
You complain about how selfish I am, then when I talk about how precious human life is in general, you say I'm just making an assertion? Wouldn't a truly selfish person not care about human life in general?
You may call it an "assertion" but I, and I'm sure many others, will call it "reasons". You just don't accept those reasons so you theists can keep on saying stuff like "atheists have no 'reason' to be moral", I wager.
| I actually am attempting to find something that we can agree on but even when we agree I desperately attempt to get you to move beyond mere assertion and give me your reasoning for what we agree on. |
And when I give it, you just say it's more "assertion", while you ignore my questions about why "God" makes rules for people, and my question about what's your god's basis for morality. I at least try to give reasoning for my views on morality, you don't.
| You seem to be condemning that "witches are supposed to be killed": Christians can absolutely condemn such actions but "Christians," how do you justify your condemnation? |
Huh? Your holy book tells you people to kill them. How can you condemn such actions? Non-theists can at least point out the pain and suffering of those women as well as the losses to their families, etc.
| I find it odd that you condemn some OT morals while evolutionarily justifying them. |
Explaining is not quite the same as justifying...at the time, there was no other recourse that I know of other than to have some of those barbaric laws. You people are the ones with the "unchanging" "loving" god who could have helped prevent many of those abuses, but didn't.
| Of course, this is quite logical since you have no viable grounds upon which to condemn anything |
Only after you dismiss every one of my reasons as "assertions". Looks like the wager I made earlier was right.
| and must simply assert morality's evolution (the very thing that disables and discredits your condemnations). It is just like you said then, "the bible is an excellent example of what an 'evolving morality' looks like." |
| Therefore, you have discredited your very own condemnation of anything that has ever been done by Jews or Christians. |
No, I've pointed out that without any actual god to take care of things, people had to muddle through things themselves, without any "God" to give them orders, guidance, or help in taking care of the children of the people that the ancients killed off. In other words, your OT has the people following "god's commands" acting as if there was not actual loving god watching over them. A loving god would not have ordered the death of babies, if such a thing could be prevented would he?
| By "eternal" I meant "eternal." By "unchanging," and note my qualifier "God's ultimate nature is eternal and unchanging" I was attempting to make sure that we did not confuse changing human circumstances with a change within God, or within God#8217;s nature. |
Your "unchainging" god seems to have bent quite a bit to accomodate human nature in the OT...instead of taking care of the babies of their enemies, he had them knocked off. Yet now, the followers of that same god insist that they, and he, are "pro-life".
Since biblical morality is meant for human existence in the material world it presupposes changing circumstances, how could it not.
There simply is no correlation between the wars and various campaigns upon which the Israelites engaged and modern day Judaism or Christianity. |
Is it the same "unchanging" god you worship or not?
| This is because modern day Judaism or Christianity are not a part of the particular covenant which was made between those particular ancient people at that particular time and in that particular locality under that particular ruler-ship. |
And under those particular circumstances. BTW, does that "particular covenant" include the ten commandments that you people are so fond of using even to this very day?
| This does not make a point against the Bible, God or biblical morality |
In terms of consistency it does
| but it does speak volumes about the stunning lack of knowledge that most atheists which I encounter display about the Bible, God, Judaism, Christianity, etc. (this is particularly true of the modern day celebrity atheist activists -- the New Atheists). |
I'm just pointing out that morality evolves; the only thing is that we admit it, you people don't. That's why I'm trying to show you what your own bible is like. It's not a "stunning lack of knowledge at all", we know all about the OT and the reasons you people give to defend those actions. I'm just pointing out that those actions are not consistent with what a "loving" god would have done, since he's now "pro-life" and against abortion, while in the OT he ordred babies to be killed.
| For example, you state that "in the OT cripples or deformed people couldn't enter the temple." This is inaccurate, they could not serve as priests but they could enter the temple and worship at will. True, "In the NT Jesus healed those people" and in the OT as well. |
Lev.21:17-23
| Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. |
"that he profane not my sanctuaries"? It sounds like they couldn't enter the temple to me. Still, even if you're right, it wouldn't change the meaning a lot. If you're deformed, you're not "pure" or "good" enough. In contrast, Jesus himself actually touched and cured those people. Still a big difference in attitude towards cripples from the OT to the NT.
| Asking "Could it have been different" is a non sequitur because of God's eternal and unchanging nature. |
Assertion on your part. The different ways he "acts" between the OT and the NT (and now) is evidence that his nature does change. Non-theists have an explanation, at least, in that as circumstances change, the rules sometimes have to change. What excuse to theists have? Your god is supposed to be above human "morals", and is supposed to be "unchanging", and he supposedly has the power to help prevent those kinds of drastic measures where people can't.
"Here's a question you never really answered, though you did just try to answer the first part I guess"
| Yes, it was answered although perhaps in part only. I'm sure that we can agree that keeping up with questions, answers and also focusing on issues is a bit daunting. I might as well mention that for this reason I do not take your lack of answers on anything to mean that you have no answer, or are purposefully avoiding an issue or anything of the sort, I have been enjoying our exchanges. |
I have not "lacked" for any answer; I've given you answers that you refuse to accept though.
So, "Is something moral because god said it is, in which case it's purely subjective and it could have been different"
| it could not have been different since it is grounded upon God's eternal and unchanging nature. |
"or does god say something is moral because it is moral? In which case, he just figured it out like the rest of us, and morality is outside of god?"
| God says that something is moral based upon His eternal nature which has experienced personal relationships for eternity. |
No it hasn't. Have the angels always been around, or did he have to make them at some point? So the longer one has "personal relationships", the more likely they are to be moral? Huh? Sounds like morality is something that has to be learned from dealing with other people.
| Morality, personality, relation is within God's nature. |
Assertion without proof. So is that just another way of saying that morality is what he says it is then? Or that he just knows which moral rules to pick out because they "feel" right to him. Either way, the question/problem I first posed still stands.
| Since God's nature is relational and loving it is from this that morality proceeds |
Yet if people have relationional and loving "relations" with others you don't accept that as a reason for morality? By the way, how can you show that this statement of yours is anything other than an "assertion"?
| and it is therefore, not "outside" of God. |
Why not? Are you saying that without him there'd be no such thing as morality? People have relationsips and loving too. What makes them any different? Yet when those people give reasons why they care about others, would you accept them? You sure haven't mine.
| This is the point about the God of the Bible being eternally personal and relational - other gods are not and nature is not. |
Nature at least is not, but how is he different from the other gods? The OT has your god acting just like them.
| If God makes rules to help us survive it is because of His love for us |
Yet if an atheist professes to love the human race enough to want to see it continue on, and says that's why we make rules, you label that an "assertion".
| while if nature helps us survive it is because of - unknown. |
So we come up with out own reasons. What's wrong with that?
| God's love is the ultimate premise and His eternal personal relations are what "allows" Him to love us. |
More like the ultimate "assertion".
-------------------------------------------
Reynold my friend, beyond anything that we have been discussing and beyond anything that I have asked you and you have asked me there is one single thing that is immediately more important to me and I am willing to set all other discussions aside to deal with this one issue.
You referred to me as a liar (actually, a "lying git").
This was, in fact, the very premise upon which you, for some reason, decided to start a thread commenting on my comments to your comments.
With no chest thumping or sarcasm on my part I simply ask you to please substantiate your claim. |
Easy. You implied that PZ Myers and others like him were cowardly by "absconding" from a debate. I showed that he was actually interested in participating in an oral debate with creationist Simmons.
I went on to show that compared to written debates, oral debates aren't that very good at showing all the issues and settling things. It's in the written format where everything is laid bare, and everyone can take the time to check the claims that evolutionists (and other real scientists) excel at, and do not "abscond" from.
I pointed out that in the Dover trial, it was the creationist/ID people who were the actual cowards, because several of them never bothered to show up, while the "darwinists" all did.
The point being: It is not the "darwinists" who are cowardly as you keep implying. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/12/2008 08:07:44 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:01:13 [Permalink]
|
He replies. I reply.
=====
Mariano said:
Reynold;
I asked you to substantiate your claim that I lied (a "lying git" as you referred to me) and you have failed to do so. |
Let's see: the "lying git" bit was in reference to your implying that "darwinists" were cowards.
You claim that substantiating your assertions is "Easy" because I "implied that PZ Myers and others like him were cowardly by 'absconding' from a debate."
Not so. Rather, I proved that PZ Myers did abscond from "a debate." |
Yeah, he refused one debate with a person of proven low character, as I showed in my first post here. Besides that, did you take any reasons into account? Instead you went and you said:
| If evolution had not done away with it PZ Myers could have absconded from another debate with his tail between his legs. |
Note the use of the word "another" by you.
| Let us see, thus far, as I can recall from the top of my noggin Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Eugene Scott and PZ Myers flatly refused to debate Creationists. They have provided quaint pseudo-reasons for, at the same time, being alleged champions of reason and science whilst not debating their views against backwards-Bible-belt-fundamentalist-country-hicks. |
You ignored the fact that Myers debated and won against creationist Simmons on a xian radio show, and that Myers was up for another debate.
Your statement above strongly implies that the "darwinists" are cowards. Remember the use of the word "They" in your post.
| They have provided quaint pseudo-reasons for, at the same time, being alleged champions of reason and science whilst not debating their views against backwards-Bible-belt-fundamentalist-country-hicks. |
Any reasons that they gave, you called "quaint pseudo-reasons". Sounds like you're trying to paint them as cowards to me.
| Moreover, you state that it is not the "darwinists" who are cowardly and yet, the premise upon which my post was based is that PZ Myers absconded form a non-evolution, non-Darwinist, non-science debate. |
Let's look at what you said earlier in your post, shall we? I'll bold some words to help you:
| Let us see, thus far, as I can recall from the top of my noggin Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Eugene Scott and PZ Myers flatly refused to debate Creationists. They have provided quaint pseudo-reasons for, at the same time, being alleged champions of reason and science whilst not debating their views against backwards-Bible-belt-fundamentalist-country-hicks. |
I'll note that in Dawkins case, one of those "pseudo-reasons" was that one time when he did give an interview, the footage was cut and spliced to make it seem that he couldn't/wouldn't answer a question posed to him; instead, they cut in footage of him answering a different question. Dawkins answered the question (about genetic information) in his books, and it's even answered in Scienceblogs if you care to do a search on it).
| Now, Dr. Myers has <b>also</b> refused to debate the issue of the existence of god(s). Since he claimed that he only tackles weak arguments for the existence of god(s) because there are no strong arguments, ...SNIP |
. This is referring to the Vox Day debate here, the "premise" of your post, yes?
So your post, though "premised" on Myer's "god" debate with Vox Day, takes a shot at several people who refuse to debate creationists, and it's the same post where you imply that Myers is a "coward". You pretty much all but say that "darwinists" are cowards near the start of your post. Remember your phrase "quaint pseudo-reasons"?
| The Dover trial is irrelevant in claiming that "it was the creationist/ID people who were the actual cowards, because several of them never bothered to show up" because the reason why some did not show up is that they felt that the case was poor and not one that they wanted to support. |
Gee, wouldn't that be a "quaint pseudo-reason", or only if a "Darwinist" were to give it?
On on of the reasons why some felt the case was "poor", from Dembski's blog:
Fortunately, ID is in a much stronger position scientifically than creationism, so the ACLU faces a much tougher opponent than back then (go, for instance, here and here). Unfortunately, members of the Dover school board have, through their actions, conflated ID with an apparent religious agenda. For instance, it doesn't help the ID side that William Buckingham, then a member of the Dover school board, in trying to get the Dover policy adopted, remarked: "Two thousand years ago somebody died on the cross, can't somebody stand up for him?" (Go here.)
If the policy is upheld, it will embolden school boards, legislators, and grass roots organizations to push for intelligent design in the public school science curriculum. As a consequence, this case really could be a Waterloo for the other side. |
The problem: it wasn't just Buckingham that made their case look weak constitutionally, it was the Wedge document and all the documented admissions from the ID people as to what their true motives for pushing ID is that did them in as far as that goes. Point being, even without Buckingham, they'd still have been screwed.
| Dr. Stephen Meyers states this very clearly 22:25 into this interview. There is no legal, logical or scientific requirement to defend that which you consider indefensible. |
Here's another note about why the DI didn't want this case:
Fast forward to the Dover situation. The Dover school board adopts a policy to teach ID in science classrooms, but in doing so at least one member of the board makes it clear that this is being done for explicitly religious reasons. The DI immediately began to distance itself from the Dover policy largely for that reason, knowing that this isn't really the test case that they would want. They know that it's too soon to attempt to mandate the teaching of ID because, at this point, there really isn't any there there. As Dembski notes in the article cited above, "there is still a long way at hammering out ID as a full-fledged research program." Many other ID advocates, like Paul Nelson and Bruce Gordon, have said similar things. But the ACLU files suit on behalf of parents in the district and the TMLC comes riding in to defend them, and now the DI is in a bit of a bind.
On the one hand, they want to defend ID in court as legitimate science. On the other hand, they know that if the school board loses this case - particularly if it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and loses there - it's pretty much the end for ID in public schools. That would set a nationwide precedent that would ban ID from public school science classrooms. So they've had a delicate line to walk, wanting to distance themselves from the school board's policy while still defending ID as valid science and not inherently religious in nature. The TMLC, on the other hand, has been a bit of a bull in a china shop in this case, with their leader, Richard Thompson, issuing a series of vitriolic and bold public statements. So there has been a great deal of tension in this case, both at the core and in terms of tactics, between the DI and the TMLC. And the result now has been the loss of at least two of the top three experts on ID from the roster of witnesses for the defense. |
| Do you understand that even if your "Easy" substantiation is completely accurate that does not prove that I was lying? |
Given the way your're trying to get away with broad-brushing "darwinists" in general as cowards in this very post, and then trying to deny it later on when your own words shoot down your denial, you don't strike me as a very honest person. Either that, or you sometimes don't keep track of what you write. Which is it?
For more info on why the DI people had trouble in Dover: here |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/15/2008 09:04:15 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 07:27:56 [Permalink]
|
His latest reply to me.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 10:27:06 [Permalink]
|
Right. Oral debates are useless. Best speaker, and not the best argument wins. So far, I haven't seen a serious written debate between a creationist and a defender of science. Leveling the playing field means that facts can be checked. And it is the creationists who has so far refused to take part in that kind of debate format.
Tell your friend that SFN would be willing to host an honest structured written debate, with rules agreeable to both parties.
Oral debates are a waste of time. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 10:46:23 [Permalink]
|
I think that it means you won.
Have an internet. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2008 : 20:53:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Right. Oral debates are useless. Best speaker, and not the best argument wins. So far, I haven't seen a serious written debate between a creationist and a defender of science. Leveling the playing field means that facts can be checked. And it is the creationists who has so far refused to take part in that kind of debate format.
Tell your friend that SFN would be willing to host an honest structured written debate, with rules agreeable to both parties.
Oral debates are a waste of time.
|
Done.
My last reply:
======
As Kil said, SFN would be willing to host an honest structured written debate, with rules agreeable to both parties
What would you want to debate about, and with whom?
=======
I've left it wide open. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 09:53:10 [Permalink]
|
| Note that for some reason, Mariano's acting like he's ignorant of this site, even though at the end of one of his earlier posts, he referenced what I had called him in the OP, probably because I had linked to this forum at the beginning of an ealier post of mine before that. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/28/2008 09:57:19 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 00:22:31 [Permalink]
|
Well, it seems he's interested after all.
I told him he can pick the topic and whoever he wants to debate with. He can even pick a topic and invite anyone or everyone to join in.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 08:46:45 [Permalink]
|
Usually, we would pick the person to represent "our side." After all, what if he were to try to pick Jerome?
Let him know that he's free to email me or email Kil to discuss details and get the ball rolling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 09:50:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Well, it seems he's interested after all.
I told him he can pick the topic and whoever he wants to debate with. He can even pick a topic and invite anyone or everyone to join in.
|
Others can comment on debate in a thread for that purpose. But the debate will not be a free for all unless he wants to simply debate in the forum as a regular member.
The debate we envision would be set up with rules agreeable to both sides. It would be a formal debate with opening arguments, rebuttals and that sort of thing. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
False accusation of cowardice against PZ Myers
