Have we become alt.atheism?
VBM
devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
or a person of faith.
So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
alt.atheism?
Here are some quotes:
But then, what makes this forum now anything more than alt.atheism?
This is, or at least was, Talk Origins, in which the matter of debate was
the evidence for and against the various origins questions, and worldview
issues were respected and we stayed on the topic of discussion.
Here are some quotes:
"First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis
can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found
that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that
appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be
disproven."
"There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind
evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God,
especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people
have this narrow of a view of God."
"There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution.
Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery
of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one
within evolution."
"While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is
frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God
in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in
the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in
the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to
observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe."
Do you know where those are from?
Inez
wrote:
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> alt.atheism?
>
> Here are some quotes:
>
> But then, what makes this forum now anything more than alt.atheism?
>
> This is, or at least was, Talk Origins, in which the matter of debate was
> the evidence for and against the various origins questions, and worldview
> issues were respected and we stayed on the topic of discussion.
I guess I'm against the limitations you suggest there. If we're
really going to have a discussion about evolution VS creationism,
doesn't part of that have to be an examination of creationism, which
is going to get heavily into worldviews? And why should I respect
someone's worldview if I find it silly or even harmful? Perhaps I'm
missing your point.
Shane
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
Those that go head to head with snex soon learn that the
fruits of fundamentalism are not restricted to the
religious. Try avoiding the loons, on both sides, and there
are still a lot of origins based posts here.
> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> alt.atheism?
No. Are you aware of the reason for t.o.? Hint: it is not
just to discuss origins.
[...]
VBM
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ae02a8b-5b07-438e...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The point is that people from different worldviews, even ones you may find
silly or harmful, happen to accept the same scientific evidence as you do.
So, ultimately, it is not the worldviews that are at issue, but what you do
with them. You can not say a person disbelieves evolution beceause they DO
believe in the supernatural, since millions who DO believe in the
supernatural also believe in evolution. The reason creationists disbelieve
in evolution is because of the way they read the Bible, and because of a
fear that evolution = atheism (something which no one here seems intent on
correcting them about, but instead just seem to reinforce this false
dichotomy). It is not about the science really, as I think most here
gather, but it is not really about the worldview either. It is about some
misconceptions in the middle that need to be addressed.
TO used to be a very different place.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
>
> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> alt.atheism?
Well, since creationism, as an, uh, "alternative scientific view" is
now dead as a mackerel, and since all the, um, "serious" creationist/
IDers have fled the field in terror to hide in their private little
cloistered shelters, and since the only, uh, creationists left in
public forums like this one are the nuttiest of the nutty (like Ray
and Glenn), and since the only thing the nuttiest of the nutty WANT to
talk about is "Jesus blah blah blah God blah blah blah Bible blah blah
blah atheists blah blah blah", that doesn't leave much hope for any
real discussion of creation, uh, "science", does it . . .
Alas, the "creation science" debate is over. It's BEEN over for years
now. The war between the evangelical theists and the evangelical
atheists, however, is eternal and never-ending. It is, of course, also
boring, repetitive and utterly useless. So I don't bother with it.
I'm just here for the entertainment value. I enjoy yanking the
creationuts' chains and watching them howl madly.
In any case, the entire _raison d'etre" for t.o. is to give all the
kooks someplace to blather without infesting all the REAL science
groups. Kind of like a "cockroach motel" for the house of science.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
VBM
"Shane" <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1ijrek6yr3n8h$.8z70oqvt2wm8$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:05:39 -0800, VBM wrote:
>
> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
quickly
> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
accept
> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does
not
> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
at
> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
atheist/agnostic
> > or a person of faith.
>
> Those that go head to head with snex soon learn that the
> fruits of fundamentalism are not restricted to the
> religious. Try avoiding the loons, on both sides, and there
> are still a lot of origins based posts here.
Point taken.
> > So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> > alt.atheism?
>
> No. Are you aware of the reason for t.o.? Hint: it is not
> just to discuss origins.
>
> [...]
"The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for
discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins."
From the TO FAQ
Also:
Don't assume that all people who accept evolution are atheists. [TS, PN]
A wide variety of religious beliefs is held by scientists in general, and
many of these beliefs are held by those on this group. Among the variety of
beliefs, you might even find one much like yours. The many religious
scientists on this group are likely to be offended when someone makes
blanket statements regarding "atheistic evolutionists" or the like. Always
keep in mind that evolution is not the same as atheism, and atheism is not a
necessary result of acceptance of evolution.
VBM
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81e11ec2-cee3-4de8...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ah, that is very likely.
But is it necessary for so many to lower themselves to the same tone?
wf3h
wrote:
>>
> The point is that people from different worldviews, even ones you may find
> silly or harmful, happen to accept the same scientific evidence as you do.
> So, ultimately, it is not the worldviews that are at issue, but what you do
> with them. You can not say a person disbelieves evolution beceause they DO
> believe in the supernatural, since millions who DO believe in the
> supernatural also believe in evolution. The reason creationists disbelieve
> in evolution is because of the way they read the Bible, and because of a
> fear that evolution = atheism (something which no one here seems intent on
> correcting them about, but instead just seem to reinforce this false
> dichotomy).
This is incorrect. i've pointed out numerous times to ray martinez,
inter alia, that many xtians do accept evolution and believe in god.
his view is that he's the current gatekeeper in the world for deciding
who is/isn't xtian...a position many creationists seem to think they
hold
Cheezits
> But then, what makes this forum now anything more than alt.atheism?
If you have to ask, then you must not read either group.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
VBM
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:3830dd85-2d08-46b0...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Right, I am not sure which part of the above you thought was incorrect.
Christians can and do accept evolution all the time, so the Christian
Worldview itself is not the stumbling block here. It is other things, like
an overly literal reading of the text, or the false equation of evolution =
atheism that drives many Christians into the creationist camp.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> The reason creationists
> disbelieve in evolution is because of the way they read the Bible, and
> because of a fear that evolution = atheism (something which no one
> here seems intent on correcting them about, but instead just seem to
> reinforce this false dichotomy).
What are talking about? People try to correct that nonsense *all the
time*.
Mark VandeWettering
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
I must point out that this diatribe seems a little disingenuous, since it
was your original posting which interjected religion into this discussion.
There are many theists in this forum, many of whom have thoughtful, reasonable
things to say about evolution: indeed, many have helped me develop a
reasonably informed notion of it. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the
science of evolution and _intellectually_ where arguments of creationism
go completely off the rails. But frankly I'm a little suspicious of
the kinds of minds that argue for rationality in one domain, but accept
irrationality as the norm in another. That's not to say that the
people aren't good people, or they don't mean well, or that they aren't
comforted by their beliefs. I just view the influence of irrational
belief as more pernicious than they do.
Mark
Inez
wrote:
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I agree with your first sentence but disagree with your second. Some
people on here have a worldview that does not allow them to accept
scientific evidence. Often part of this worldview is that evolution
is the product of a vast conspiricy of scientists to make everyone's
kids atheist.
I agree that there are theistic evolutionists on this board. Most of
them argue on the evolution side and rarely bother to bring up their
religious views, so no one much argues with them.
> You can not say a person disbelieves evolution beceause they DO
> believe in the supernatural, since millions who DO believe in the
> supernatural also believe in evolution.
Some do, some don't. There is not a uniformity of worldviews among
religious people.
> The reason creationists disbelieve
> in evolution is because of the way they read the Bible, and because of a
> fear that evolution = atheism (something which no one here seems intent on
> correcting them about, but instead just seem to reinforce this false
> dichotomy). It is not about the science really, as I think most here
> gather, but it is not really about the worldview either. It is about some
> misconceptions in the middle that need to be addressed.
>
I think you're wrong about this, at least for a large number of
creationists. I've seen many many threads attempting to reconcile
religion and evolution and never seen one of them convince anyone.
Not all Christians have the same worldview, and some Christian
worldviews are just not compatible with science or evolution.
> TO used to be a very different place.
I'm sure you're right about that.
Shane
> "Shane" <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1ijrek6yr3n8h$.8z70oqvt2wm8$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:05:39 -0800, VBM wrote:
[...]
>> No. Are you aware of the reason for t.o.? Hint: it is not
>> just to discuss origins.
>
> "The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for
> discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins."
>
> From the TO FAQ
>
> Also:
>
> Don't assume that all people who accept evolution are atheists. [TS, PN]
> A wide variety of religious beliefs is held by scientists in general, and
> many of these beliefs are held by those on this group. Among the variety of
> beliefs, you might even find one much like yours. The many religious
> scientists on this group are likely to be offended when someone makes
> blanket statements regarding "atheistic evolutionists" or the like. Always
> keep in mind that evolution is not the same as atheism, and atheism is not a
> necessary result of acceptance of evolution.
It also attempts to keep the loons away from the serious
science groups by actively feeding them here. If it is
serious science you want, then you will get it here and all
it requires is for you to ignore the loons.
Mark VandeWettering
Well, what good is that if they still do silly or harmful things?
If they don't do silly or harmful things, then why should I bother getting
them to accept the same scientific evidence as I do?
> So, ultimately, it is not the worldviews that are at issue, but what you do
> with them. You can not say a person disbelieves evolution beceause they DO
> believe in the supernatural, since millions who DO believe in the
> supernatural also believe in evolution.
And I'm skeptical of their perceptions as a result. And I would further
submit that _I should be_.
> The reason creationists disbelieve
> in evolution is because of the way they read the Bible, and because of a
> fear that evolution = atheism (something which no one here seems intent on
> correcting them about, but instead just seem to reinforce this false
> dichotomy).
That you can find a personal spot where you feel comfortable in balancing
your irrational beliefs doesn't mean that I should accept them, nor does
it imply that anyone else should join you at the same pivot.
> It is not about the science really, as I think most here
> gather, but it is not really about the worldview either. It is about some
> misconceptions in the middle that need to be addressed.
>
> TO used to be a very different place.
I've been here for quite some time. While some individual luminaries have
appeared, I think that it is much the same as it was ten years ago. If
you'd like to argue that the rhetoric has become harsher, I might be convinced,
but it would be hard to argue that part of the cause must rely on the
legal challenges that various creationist groups have mounted to try to
subvert the Consitution's protection of freedom of religion.
It's a popular Christian activity (among certain populations anyway)
to cry that they are the minority in a country which is growing
increasingly godless and immoral. Yet by most objective measures (say,
crime levels, and teen pregnancy to pick two), Americans are living more
morally than they did 40-50 years ago. They'll argue that back in 'the
good old days', people were better, when for the most part women were
chattel, and racism was the norm.
Mark
VBM
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfpfjp9.1...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
> On 2008-01-23, VBM <v.mca...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote:
>
> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
quickly
> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
accept
> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does
not
> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
at
> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
atheist/agnostic
> > or a person of faith.
>
> I must point out that this diatribe seems a little disingenuous, since it
> was your original posting which interjected religion into this discussion.
But that is the point, and one you still don't seem to get. I did not
interject religion into the discussion at all. I discussed religious
aspects of the issue directly TO my fellow Christians, and not in ANY way
seeking to argue in favor of those positions generally or advocate a
Christian worldview. I was not speaking to a non-religious person and
saying "here is what this discussion should be about". I was talking to
fellow Christians, saying "listen, just because we all believe the same X,
does not mean we have to act like Y."
Then a number of folks jumped in and wanted to debate about whether the X
was a reasonable position.
>
> There are many theists in this forum, many of whom have thoughtful,
reasonable
> things to say about evolution: indeed, many have helped me develop a
> reasonably informed notion of it. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the
> science of evolution and _intellectually_ where arguments of creationism
> go completely off the rails. But frankly I'm a little suspicious of
> the kinds of minds that argue for rationality in one domain, but accept
> irrationality as the norm in another. That's not to say that the
> people aren't good people, or they don't mean well, or that they aren't
> comforted by their beliefs. I just view the influence of irrational
> belief as more pernicious than they do.
But isn't that aspect of the discussion more for alt.athiesm than
talk.origins, especially given TO's attempt (back in the day, at least) to
make sure it was clear that there was nothing incompatible between evolution
and Christianity.
VBM
> > TO used to be a very different place.
>
> I've been here for quite some time. While some individual luminaries have
> appeared, I think that it is much the same as it was ten years ago. If
> you'd like to argue that the rhetoric has become harsher, I might be
convinced,
> but it would be hard to argue that part of the cause must rely on the
> legal challenges that various creationist groups have mounted to try to
> subvert the Consitution's protection of freedom of religion.
Exactly, and it is that which I was arguing against.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
> But is it necessary for so many to lower themselves to the same tone?
You will find, in time, that the evangelical fundies and the
evangelical atheists aren't really all that different from each
other. Just opposite sides of the very same coin.
And, I should probably point out, I have been a Buddhist/Taoist for
many many years, and I do not assert, and do not accept, the existence
of any god, gods, goddesses or any other supernatural entity of any
sort in any way shape or form whatsoever.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnfpfjp9.1...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
>> On 2008-01-23, VBM <v.mca...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
> quickly
>> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
> accept
>> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does
> not
>> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
> at
>> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
> atheist/agnostic
>> > or a person of faith.
>>
>> I must point out that this diatribe seems a little disingenuous, since it
>> was your original posting which interjected religion into this discussion.
>
> But that is the point, and one you still don't seem to get. I did not
> interject religion into the discussion at all.
Uh, yes, you did. It is essentially a missive to your fellow theists
chiding them for holding unscientific views because such beliefs are in
conflict with _your personal_ conception of what is rational for them to
believe. Given that your own views are constructed on an equally unstable
foundation, that seemed a little odd to me.
> I discussed religious
> aspects of the issue directly TO my fellow Christians, and not in ANY way
> seeking to argue in favor of those positions generally or advocate a
> Christian worldview. I was not speaking to a non-religious person and
> saying "here is what this discussion should be about". I was talking to
> fellow Christians, saying "listen, just because we all believe the same X,
> does not mean we have to act like Y."
Well, I'd merely respond that you don't get to dictate who responds to
your postings and how they respond to them. You seem to be trying to say
that I shouldn't be expressing my opinion of what you said because you
weren't talking to me. Well, I think that's absurd.
> Then a number of folks jumped in and wanted to debate about whether the X
> was a reasonable position.
So, if you don't want to deal with that issue, don't respond to it. I
merely raised the possibility that you might wish to consider that your
own position contains more than a shred of hypocrisy in that you are asking
for other people to change their worldview, while trying to preserve your own.
Note: I made no such plea to anyone to stop being a creationist. I might
point out (sometimes unkindly) that their ideas are nonsensical, but I wouldn't
presume to tell them what they should or shouldn't do. If my worldview is
really better, they will come to their own conclusions, and even if they don't,
it's not my job to police them.
>> There are many theists in this forum, many of whom have thoughtful,
> reasonable
>> things to say about evolution: indeed, many have helped me develop a
>> reasonably informed notion of it. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the
>> science of evolution and _intellectually_ where arguments of creationism
>> go completely off the rails. But frankly I'm a little suspicious of
>> the kinds of minds that argue for rationality in one domain, but accept
>> irrationality as the norm in another. That's not to say that the
>> people aren't good people, or they don't mean well, or that they aren't
>> comforted by their beliefs. I just view the influence of irrational
>> belief as more pernicious than they do.
>
> But isn't that aspect of the discussion more for alt.athiesm than
> talk.origins, especially given TO's attempt (back in the day, at least) to
> make sure it was clear that there was nothing incompatible between evolution
> and Christianity.
I don't post to or read alt.atheism. If you wanted to talk about the
religious basis for your beliefs, why didn't _you_ post to alt.atheism or
some other more ostensibly religious newsgroup?
I participate in this forum because I am fascinated by the things that
people irrationally believe in the face of all contrary evidence. This
applies to UFOs, to Noah's Flood, and indeed, to religion of all kinds.
If you'd like to confine your discussions to evolution, I could certainly
do so, but if you are going to criticize your Christian brothers for
believing something that you think is absurd, I think you need to develop
a bit thicker skin when someone else proposes that you might be better
to clean your own house of irrationality before working on someone else's.
Mark
VBM
Oh, I agree, but many of the responses were as if I had presented "X"
propositionally and evangelically, rather than just incidentally to my
fellow Christians.
>
> > Then a number of folks jumped in and wanted to debate about whether the
X
> > was a reasonable position.
>
> So, if you don't want to deal with that issue, don't respond to it. I
> merely raised the possibility that you might wish to consider that your
> own position contains more than a shred of hypocrisy in that you are
asking
> for other people to change their worldview, while trying to preserve your
own.
>
> Note: I made no such plea to anyone to stop being a creationist. I might
> point out (sometimes unkindly) that their ideas are nonsensical, but I
wouldn't
> presume to tell them what they should or shouldn't do. If my worldview is
> really better, they will come to their own conclusions, and even if they
don't,
> it's not my job to police them.
And, if you look at my post carefully, I was not asking anyone, even my
fellow Christians, to change their worldview either, which is where I
disagreed with snex. I was not asking them to believe anything different
about creation or the Bible (although I have those discussions elsewhere
very often), but merely to reconsider how they define science and what to
expect of it. This does not effect their worldview of supernaturalism, or
even their literal interpretation.
> >> There are many theists in this forum, many of whom have thoughtful,
> > reasonable
> >> things to say about evolution: indeed, many have helped me develop a
> >> reasonably informed notion of it. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the
> >> science of evolution and _intellectually_ where arguments of
creationism
> >> go completely off the rails. But frankly I'm a little suspicious of
> >> the kinds of minds that argue for rationality in one domain, but accept
> >> irrationality as the norm in another. That's not to say that the
> >> people aren't good people, or they don't mean well, or that they aren't
> >> comforted by their beliefs. I just view the influence of irrational
> >> belief as more pernicious than they do.
> >
> > But isn't that aspect of the discussion more for alt.athiesm than
> > talk.origins, especially given TO's attempt (back in the day, at least)
to
> > make sure it was clear that there was nothing incompatible between
evolution
> > and Christianity.
>
> I don't post to or read alt.atheism. If you wanted to talk about the
> religious basis for your beliefs, why didn't _you_ post to alt.atheism or
> some other more ostensibly religious newsgroup?
But, I didn't want to talk about the religious basis for my beliefs, I never
brought that up. I am willing to discuss it (as you have seen) but that was
not what the post was about in the least.
> I participate in this forum because I am fascinated by the things that
> people irrationally believe in the face of all contrary evidence. This
> applies to UFOs, to Noah's Flood, and indeed, to religion of all kinds.
> If you'd like to confine your discussions to evolution, I could certainly
> do so, but if you are going to criticize your Christian brothers for
> believing something that you think is absurd, I think you need to develop
> a bit thicker skin when someone else proposes that you might be better
> to clean your own house of irrationality before working on someone else's.
But where did I, in that post, criticize them of holding absurd beliefs? I
just asked them to reconsider what role science has in the search for truth.
John Harshman
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
>
> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> alt.atheism?
No. Or at least not entirely. There is way too much argument about
atheism here. Part of the problem is the small cadre of atheists who
think that every argument against creationism must be an argument
against god, or who post evidence for atheism in an off-topic newsgroup.
And part of the problem is the somewhat larger contingent of
creationists who equate atheism with evolution. Ray does this, McCoy
does this, and Pagano does this. Other creationists and IDiots merely
suppose that evolution predisposes to atheism and so is evil, whether
true or not (and therefore must not be true, because god wouldn't allow
an evil doctrine to be true).
I agree that we could do with a lot less argument about the existence of
god here. Sometimes it's appropriate, but much less often than it appears.
No, but I don't much care either.
Andre Lieven
> On 2008-01-23, VBM <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote:
>
> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> > or a person of faith.
>
> I must point out that this diatribe seems a little disingenuous, since it
> was your original posting which interjected religion into this discussion.
>
> There are many theists in this forum, many of whom have thoughtful, reasonable
> things to say about evolution: indeed, many have helped me develop a
> reasonably informed notion of it. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the
> science of evolution and _intellectually_ where arguments of creationism
> go completely off the rails. But frankly I'm a little suspicious of
> the kinds of minds that argue for rationality in one domain, but accept
> irrationality as the norm in another. That's not to say that the
> people aren't good people, or they don't mean well, or that they aren't
> comforted by their beliefs. I just view the influence of irrational
> belief as more pernicious than they do.
Bingo. Thats a post of the month worthy statement.
Andre
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> VBM wrote:
> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> > or a person of faith.
>
> > So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> > alt.atheism?
>
> No. Or at least not entirely. There is way too much argument about
> atheism here. Part of the problem is the small cadre of atheists who
> think that every argument against creationism must be an argument
> against god, or who post evidence for atheism in an off-topic newsgroup.
I would dare suggest that the volume of off topic " god/jesus is
lord ! "
crap far, far outweighs the volum of non evolutional science atheism
stuff here.
> And part of the problem is the somewhat larger contingent of
> creationists who equate atheism with evolution. Ray does this, McCoy
> does this, and Pagano does this. Other creationists and IDiots merely
> suppose that evolution predisposes to atheism and so is evil, whether
> true or not (and therefore must not be true, because god wouldn't allow
> an evil doctrine to be true).
>
> I agree that we could do with a lot less argument about the existence of
> god here. Sometimes it's appropriate, but much less often than it appears.
If apo, Glenn, et all, stopped spamming t.o, then your comment might
carry some water.
Andre
coaster
wrote:
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote in message
If you would indulge me in a theory about that I do have a thought.
Rhetoric from both sides increases as the scale tilts to one side or
the other. The fact is secularism is spreading, but I would argue,
not without a cost. That cost being increased rhetoric and action by
religious fundamentalists which, due to human nature, encourages
reprisal from vocal secularists. Now I'm not saying religious
response to the spread of secularism is responsible for violence. I
wouldn't take it that far. But if the discussions on this board and
others have indeed become more heated over the years, then it is at
least a plausible if not likely reason. That would mean, of course,
that there wouldn't be anything to argue against. Not successfully at
least.
SortingItOut
wrote:
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
He was addressing your claim that no one here seems intent on
correcting the idea that evolution=atheism, a claim which caught my
eye too. I've seen this corrected probably hundreds of times...of
course it usually falls on deaf ears.
John Harshman
> On Jan 23, 9:58 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> VBM wrote:
>>> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
>>> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
>>> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
>>> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
>>> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
>>> or a person of faith.
>>> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
>>> alt.atheism?
>> No. Or at least not entirely. There is way too much argument about
>> atheism here. Part of the problem is the small cadre of atheists who
>> think that every argument against creationism must be an argument
>> against god, or who post evidence for atheism in an off-topic newsgroup.
>
> I would dare suggest that the volume of off topic " god/jesus is
> lord ! "
> crap far, far outweighs the volum of non evolutional science atheism
> stuff here.
Feel free to perform a test. I don't much care about the results. "Mikey
did it too" or even "Mikey did it first" is not a valid defense.
>> And part of the problem is the somewhat larger contingent of
>> creationists who equate atheism with evolution. Ray does this, McCoy
>> does this, and Pagano does this. Other creationists and IDiots merely
>> suppose that evolution predisposes to atheism and so is evil, whether
>> true or not (and therefore must not be true, because god wouldn't allow
>> an evil doctrine to be true).
>>
>> I agree that we could do with a lot less argument about the existence of
>> god here. Sometimes it's appropriate, but much less often than it appears.
>
> If apo, Glenn, et all, stopped spamming t.o, then your comment might
> carry some water.
Do I have to turn this car around?
Bodega
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:05:39 -0800, VBM wrote:
> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> > or a person of faith.
>
> Those that go head to head with snex soon learn that the
> fruits of fundamentalism are not restricted to the
> religious. Try avoiding the loons, on both sides, and there
> are still a lot of origins based posts here.
>
> > So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> > alt.atheism?
First you say the debate is between theists and atheists, and then,
in contradiction, you say there is no room for theists in these
mystery discussions. Seems a wee bit fuzzy.
If you're trying to equate science with atheism, well, no comment
needed.
eerok
Certainly when rationality is called for, nothing else will
do, but is every problem we might encounter and every question
we might ask amenable to rational analysis? For example, what
is life for? How many rational answers are there to that
question? If there's more than one, then which is the *most*
rational? Is there even a sliding scale? Should we aspire to
find the single most rational answer to even the most personal
question? If so, then what is the rational reason to elevate
rationality itself above the host of possible subjective and
emotional answers? IMO, it's really a can of worms.
On a good day we can be rational enough to deal with what's in
front of us, but our neurological gear, for better or for
worse, is a mare's nest of impulses and intuitions. We don't
just think -- we also feel. I don't see the point in
pretending that at certain times and in certain contexts this
is never the larger part of our experience.
I see religion as a cultural-specific scratch to an itch that
is not necessarily shared by all. Nothing wrong with it if
it's handled well. Nothing wrong with skipping it, either,
which is my personal choice.
That being said, attacks on science motivated by polemical
stubbornness are of course misguided: when the point is to be
objective (as with science), you need to be as rational as
possible. But there are also times when objectivity is not to
the point at all, when one must choose what's of personal
value amongst somewhat fuzzy and shifting possibilities, and
in this context I have no problem with other-minded people
when they are adequately safe and sane.
That's what VBM is getting at I think: respect in the face of
difference. There's an arbitrary aspect to our lives that we
get to determine for ourselves. In fact I *demand* it for
myself ... and I'd be a sad hypocrite not to honor the same
for others.
I think that's what this is about.
--
"It is not enough to conquer; one must learn to seduce."
-- Voltaire
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(snip)
> He was addressing your claim that no one here seems intent on
> correcting the idea that evolution=atheism, a claim which caught my
> eye too. I've seen this corrected probably hundreds of times...of
> course it usually falls on deaf ears.
On both sides.
Of course, the ideologues on both sides WANT "science" to equal
"atheism". Just as the ideologues on both sides also want "religion"
to equal "fundamentalism".
As I said before, the two extremes simply aren't that different. Both
sides want to claim that science proves their religious opinions
true. Both want to assert that "scienec" is incompatible with
"religion", and anyone who claims to have reconciled the two is either
deluded or lying. Both want to conclude that the Bible MUST be taken
literally. Both want to claim that fundamentalism is the ONLY
religious view, and all others are either dishonest or stupid. Both
want to maintain that if ANY of the Bible is wrong, that means ALL of
it is wrong. Both won't rest until the whole world accepts THEIR
particular religious opinions and no other. Both are intolerant
evangelical pricks who, in general, simply aren't nice people to be
around.
Same bird, same squawk, different feathers.
I find it sad that the whole creation/evolution "debate" inevitably
degenerates into the "theism vs atheism" Holy War. But I find hope in
the fact that this generally happens only when the actual "creation/
evolution" debate is dead in the water -- and at that point, I'm only
here for the entertainment anyway.
When the creationists once again become an effective political
movement, then the whole unending Holy War between the two camps of
fundamentalists will once again be ignored by everyone, and will once
again fade into the background.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <13pfec9...@corp.supernews.com>):
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
>
> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> alt.atheism?
>
There are several evangelical extreme atheists on t.o. I have kill-filed
them, because I find them tiresome. (Yes, snex, that would include _you_.
Don't bother to reply, you're kill-filed.) There are several evangelical
extreme theists, mostly deep-fried fundie Xians of one sort or another, on
t.o. I have filtered their posts in big bright colours so that I can be sure
to spot them whenever they post, because I find them amusing. (Ray-ray and
nameless are prominent members of the Hall of Clowns.) The only difference
between the two extremes is the total and complete lack of entertainment
value on the one hand and the vast store of belly-laughs on the other. They
share the same mind-set. (Yes, snex, I just said that you're as bad as
nameless... except that you're not worth reading because you're simply not as
funny as he is.)
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> That's what VBM is getting at I think: respect in the face of
> difference. There's an arbitrary aspect to our lives that we
> get to determine for ourselves. In fact I *demand* it for
> myself ... and I'd be a sad hypocrite not to honor the same
> for others.
>
> I think that's what this is about.
Indeed.
The one glaring characteristic of fundamentalism, in all its forms, is
an inherent inability to tolerate anyone who disagrees with one's pet
ideology. For some people, it is apparently not even enough to be an
a-theist --- one must be sufficiently zealous in one's ANTI-theism,
too.
Sad.
They have turned themselves into the very thing they are fighting.
And if they ever get near political power, I will find myself fighting
against them just as hard as I fight against the Religious Right. And
for much the same reasons.
Fortunately, the evangelical atheists make up just a tiny minority of
the population (smaller even than the creationists), and don't have
enough supporters to get themselves elected dogcatcher in Podunk,
Illinois. So all they can do is talk. Endlessly.
My opposition to them has always been based on political tactics (the
creationism/ID fight being, above all, a political fight). Atheists
and agnostics of all sorts make up, at most, 15% of the US
population. Since about half the US population rejects creationism
and has no gripe with science, that means the vast majority -- over
two out of three -- of the people who are against creationism and
support evolution are theists, not atheists. In a political fight, we
need the support of those anti-creationist theists. We simply will
not win without them. Under those circumstances, it simply doesn't
help us to have the evangelical atheists engaging in an irrelevant
religious war with our own supporters. In a political fight, we
attack the ENEMY. Attacking people WHO ARE ON OUR SIDE is . . .
well . . awfully stupid.
But, now that the political fight over creationism/ID is over, there's
no point to it anymore. The Holy War between ideologue theists and
ideologue atheists will never end. So I'm happy to sit back and let
the cats and dogs yowl at each other. As long as it isn't impacting
the political fight, it's just a harmless exercise in rhetoric.
(shrug)
And for all the evangelical atheists out there who now have their
panties all atwitter at me (just like the fundies, they don't take
criticism very well), let me point out that I do not assert, and do
not accept, the existence of any god, gods, goddesses or any other
supernatural entity of any sort whatsoever.
So spare me your sermons.
snex
quit lying flank. none of us "fundamentalist atheists" think science
equates to atheism or any of the other crap you spew. what we think is
that you cannot claim to be pro-science while at the same time
accepting conclusions about reality that have absolutely no support in
science. science does not allow for such things.
snex
why do you think religion is in any way equipped to answer the
question "what is life for?"
AC
>
> "Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5ae02a8b-5b07-438e...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> wrote:
>> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
> quickly
>> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
> accept
>> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does
> not
>> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
> at
>> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
> atheist/agnostic
>> > or a person of faith.
>>
>> > alt.atheism?
>> >
>> >
>> > But then, what makes this forum now anything more than alt.atheism?
>> >
>> > This is, or at least was, Talk Origins, in which the matter of debate
> was
>> > the evidence for and against the various origins questions, and
> worldview
>> > issues were respected and we stayed on the topic of discussion.
>>
>> really going to have a discussion about evolution VS creationism,
>> doesn't part of that have to be an examination of creationism, which
>> is going to get heavily into worldviews? And why should I respect
>> someone's worldview if I find it silly or even harmful? Perhaps I'm
>> missing your point.
>
> silly or harmful, happen to accept the same scientific evidence as you do.
And there are plenty with different worldviews that reject science.
> So, ultimately, it is not the worldviews that are at issue, but what you do
> with them.
That, my friend, is a load of bollocks. A Biblical literalist who insists
on a 6,000 year old Earth is not simply doing something different with a
world view, he has a world view all his own.
> You can not say a person disbelieves evolution beceause they DO
> believe in the supernatural, since millions who DO believe in the
> supernatural also believe in evolution. The reason creationists disbelieve
> in evolution is because of the way they read the Bible, and because of a
> fear that evolution = atheism (something which no one here seems intent on
> correcting them about, but instead just seem to reinforce this false
> dichotomy). It is not about the science really, as I think most here
> gather, but it is not really about the worldview either. It is about some
> misconceptions in the middle that need to be addressed.
You're sore from your battles with snex. I don't know why you just don't
ignore the guy, rather than condemning the inhabitants of an entire
newsgroup because he gets on your nerves.
>
> TO used to be a very different place.
It did? When? The only difference now is that trolls and Creationists are
dumber and/or less amusing.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
AC
You're confusing *your* form of Christianity with many others. Some have
very obvious theological issues that make accepting evolution impossible.
And in a way, you're committing the same fallacy that your Creationist
counterparts are, assuming that your take on Scripture is the right one.
AC
VBM <v.mca...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote:
>
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:81e11ec2-cee3-4de8...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 23, 5:05 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
>> wrote:
>> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
> quickly
>> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
> accept
>> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does
> not
>> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
> at
>> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
> atheist/agnostic
>> > or a person of faith.
>> >
>> > So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
>> > alt.atheism?
>>
>>
>>
>> now dead as a mackerel, and since all the, um, "serious" creationist/
>> IDers have fled the field in terror to hide in their private little
>> cloistered shelters, and since the only, uh, creationists left in
>> public forums like this one are the nuttiest of the nutty (like Ray
>> and Glenn), and since the only thing the nuttiest of the nutty WANT to
>> talk about is "Jesus blah blah blah God blah blah blah Bible blah blah
>> blah atheists blah blah blah", that doesn't leave much hope for any
>> real discussion of creation, uh, "science", does it . . .
>>
>> Alas, the "creation science" debate is over. It's BEEN over for years
>> now. The war between the evangelical theists and the evangelical
>> atheists, however, is eternal and never-ending. It is, of course, also
>> boring, repetitive and utterly useless. So I don't bother with it.
>>
>> I'm just here for the entertainment value. I enjoy yanking the
>> creationuts' chains and watching them howl madly.
>>
>> In any case, the entire _raison d'etre" for t.o. is to give all the
>> kooks someplace to blather without infesting all the REAL science
>> groups. Kind of like a "cockroach motel" for the house of science.
>
> Ah, that is very likely.
>
> But is it necessary for so many to lower themselves to the same tone?
Good grief. You show up here every few months, pontificate, then disappear,
and then you tell us that we're all atheist Christian-baters.
Give it a rest. Most of spend a good deal of our time reiterating
"Evolution != Science".
Just because you have a fight with snex doesn't give you license to tar the
rest of us with that brush. Snex is an idiot whose entry into a thread
usually means its collapse into a long series of un-snipped one-line replies
amounting to "is so... is not".
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 9:58 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> VBM wrote:
> >>> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> >>> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> >>> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> >>> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> >>> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> >>> or a person of faith.
> >>> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> >>> alt.atheism?
> >> No. Or at least not entirely. There is way too much argument about
> >> atheism here. Part of the problem is the small cadre of atheists who
> >> think that every argument against creationism must be an argument
> >> against god, or who post evidence for atheism in an off-topic newsgroup.
>
> > I would dare suggest that the volume of off topic " god/jesus is
> > lord ! " crap far, far outweighs the volum of non evolutional science
> > atheism stuff here.
>
> Feel free to perform a test. I don't much care about the results.
You made the first affirmative claim. Thus, you bear the first burden
of
proving it. I have AbZero obligation to rebut... nothing.
> "Mikey did it too" or even "Mikey did it first" is not a valid defense.
In your view. Too bad you cannott *make* it stick on anyone else,
eh ?
Since fundy fuckwittery is the basic path into ID/creationism, it *is*
on
topic here, when it comes up.
> >> And part of the problem is the somewhat larger contingent of
> >> creationists who equate atheism with evolution. Ray does this, McCoy
> >> does this, and Pagano does this. Other creationists and IDiots merely
> >> suppose that evolution predisposes to atheism and so is evil, whether
> >> true or not (and therefore must not be true, because god wouldn't allow
> >> an evil doctrine to be true).
>
> >> I agree that we could do with a lot less argument about the existence of
> >> god here. Sometimes it's appropriate, but much less often than it appears.
>
> > If apo, Glenn, et all, stopped spamming t.o, then your comment might
> > carry some water.
>
> Do I have to turn this car around?
You can try. But, thats it.
Andre Lieven
If *you* wish to claim otherwise, that burden of proof is all
*yours*...
> For example, what is life for?
Nothing. It is to be livd, but thats an after the fact choice.
> How many rational answers are there to that question?
See above.
> If there's more than one, then which is the *most* rational?
Any that are based on invisible sky fairies are *not at all* rational.
> Is there even a sliding scale?
No.
> Should we aspire to
> find the single most rational answer to even the most personal
> question?
Absolutely.
> If so, then what is the rational reason to elevate
> rationality itself above the host of possible subjective and
> emotional answers?
Because rationality *works*.
> IMO, it's really a can of worms.
No.
Far too many people commit self confusion over basic things,
most often because the basic answers are not the ones that
they WISH were true. Tough.
> On a good day we can be rational enough to deal with what's in
> front of us, but our neurological gear, for better or for
> worse, is a mare's nest of impulses and intuitions. We don't
> just think -- we also feel.
And, a good lie value is that whenever a feeling pushes us away
from our rational thought based decision makig, the results are
highly likely to be Bad.
> I don't see the point in
> pretending that at certain times and in certain contexts this
> is never the larger part of our experience.
Neither do I, but I don't " pretend ".
> I see religion as a cultural-specific scratch to an itch that
> is not necessarily shared by all. Nothing wrong with it if
> it's handled well.
Utter irrational bollocks.
> Nothing wrong with skipping it, either, which is my personal
> choice.
I would say that, upon consideration, there is nothing right with
NOT skipping it.
> That being said, attacks on science motivated by polemical
> stubbornness are of course misguided: when the point is to be
> objective (as with science), you need to be as rational as
> possible. But there are also times when objectivity is not to
> the point at all, when one must choose what's of personal
> value amongst somewhat fuzzy and shifting possibilities, and
> in this context I have no problem with other-minded people
> when they are adequately safe and sane.
If they kept out of matters of science, facts, and reason, I would
hae no immediate issue with them. But, from 9/11 to all the insane
Florida school boards officials who kee claiming that evolution
isn't fact, well, its *the Believers* who made their religions a part
of OUR business. Go yammer at them to keep to themselves.
> That's what VBM is getting at I think: respect in the face of
> difference.
Religion, for all it's long history of pure evil, a history that is
still quite true today, deserves NO " respect ".
> There's an arbitrary aspect to our lives that we
> get to determine for ourselves. In fact I *demand* it for
> myself ... and I'd be a sad hypocrite not to honor the same
> for others.
Then, tell the Believers to do the same. Its NOT atheists trying
to make them teach Evolution in their churches...
> I think that's what this is about.
Thats OK, you're allowed to be wrong.
Andre
Ray Martinez
It should be pointed out that Lenny Flank is an admitted neo-Marxist.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:05:39 -0500, VBM wrote
Experts like Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and Saddam Hussein agree:
censorship works.
I have noticed that it is evolutionists who use the killfile option.
It is important to note that we would not know this unless they told
us. They tell us because they hope others will agree and killfile the
same person. Killfile is for persons like Dale Kelly (Creationist) or
Matt Giwer (Evolutionist): both are prime examples of trolls/rotten
persons. Killfile is not to block your senses from legitimate voices
no matter how much you disagree with their views. Although I could not
disagree with a person anymore that I do with a person like Snex, who
represents a mainstream Richard Dawkins type of voice, it is morally
wrong and reprehensible to killfile and thus censor his voice. The
propensity of evolutionists to practice and encourage others to engage
in killfile-censorship reflects a Third World mind. But since we can
safely assume that these minds were educated in latter half 20th
century America and Europe, where did they get the idea that
censorship is a legitimate reaction?
I cannot answer this question. I can only remind the audience that the
experts listed above agree: cenorship works.
If Snex or Dale Kelly or Matt Giwer or myself is censored
("killfiled") then quite possibly you are next. Educated persons know
that the preceding point corresponds to long held and accepted Western
legal thought: consenting to rights infringement eventually threatens
your own.
"The price of freedom is association with nuts" (= persons who abuse
freedom).
Persons who have admitted to using killfile that I know of: J.J.
O'Shea; "Dr" John Wilkins.
Ray
Andre Lieven
Bingo. And, the point deserves to be repeated that the present state
of affairs is NOT due to Atheists running around, demanding that
Atheism be enforced ino Churches.
I would say that most Atheists support rational science, because
atheism suggests that reason should trump irrational beliefs.
But, while its *possible* that all atheists are science appreciators,
its NOT possible to say that all scientists are, or have to be,
atheists.
Andre
Andre Lieven
It is on such specific questions that we find that religion CANNOT
address any such life issues with anything but made up stories, and
made up conclusions.
That the Universe is *really big*, and doesn't seem to care about us,
or any life, one way or the other, seems " cold " to some folks.
But, all religion has really to offer on such issues is a crutch, one
that ROBS people of their ability to stand and walk without it.
One might as well demand that hospitals allo people to spend years
in chronic care beds just because they want to...
" First, do no harm " is a philosophy that should be applied to ANY
life value system. And, depriving people of their ability to stand on
their
own two rational feet is a great harm. Not all comforts are good for
you, thats why we don't tend to let kids decide that a pound of
gummibears are a heathy and nutricious dinner, either.
Andre
gregwrld
Speaking of irrational, you take the cake...
gregwrld
Kermit
Ah. As usual, you express simplistic and incorrect views. J.J. not
wanting to read everything is hardly censorship. Like many of the more
traditional fundamentalists, you think that free speech means you have
the right to make everyone listen to you. You don't. Unlike J., I
don't find you amusing so much as I do fascinating, in a horrid, car
wreck sort of way.
>
> I have noticed that it is evolutionists who use the killfile option.
Yes. The preferred method of Creationist websites, OTH, is simply to
"disappear" any contrary or critical posts, with no subsequent mention
of them. Unlike the robust dialogs we have here.
> It is important to note that we would not know this unless they told
> us. They tell us because they hope others will agree and killfile the
> same person. Killfile is for persons like Dale Kelly (Creationist) or
> Matt Giwer (Evolutionist): both are prime examples of trolls/rotten
> persons.
I agree on these particular fellas. However, killfiling is a personal
choice, not censorship, and can certainly be used for anyone who is
tiresome or otherwise unpleasant.
> Killfile is not to block your senses from legitimate voices
> no matter how much you disagree with their views. Although I could not
> disagree with a person anymore that I do with a person like Snex, who
> represents a mainstream Richard Dawkins type of voice, it is morally
> wrong and reprehensible to killfile and thus censor his voice.
Killfiling is not censorship. You will notice that your posts is here,
not gone. You are arguing, not cowed into silence by threats, nor
silenced by being physically removed and constrained.
> The
> propensity of evolutionists to practice and encourage others to engage
> in killfile-censorship reflects a Third World mind. But since we can
> safely assume that these minds were educated in latter half 20th
> century America and Europe, where did they get the idea that
> censorship is a legitimate reaction?
I was wondering where you got the idea that a few individuals
killfiling on an open forum is the preferred methods of third world
dictators?
Are you dead yet? Your family? Has your orchard been bulldozed, your
boss intimidated into firing you?
It is typical of the Creationist mindset to equate the horrors of
finding someone who disagrees with them - or worse, offers refuting
data - with torture, murder, threats, and false imprisonment.
>
> I cannot answer this question. I can only remind the audience that the
> experts listed above agree: cenorship works.
>
Yes, I suppose that *would explain why we cannot see your post here.
> If Snex or Dale Kelly or Matt Giwer or myself is censored
> ("killfiled") then quite possibly you are next.
If I threatened folks, cross-posted to multiple newsgroups, or
spammed, yes, I would be next.
> Educated persons know
> that the preceding point corresponds to long held and accepted Western
> legal thought: consenting to rights infringement eventually threatens
> your own.
I'm sorry; where was your right to be heard by everybody established?
>
> "The price of freedom is association with nuts" (= persons who abuse
> freedom).
>
> Persons who have admitted to using killfile that I know of: J.J.
> O'Shea; "Dr" John Wilkins.
I'd respond, but your post has been censored, and I can't read it. It
must have been a good one.
>
> Ray
Kermit, who has thought of killfiling the boring ones, but so far has
simply skipped over them.
Rodjk #613
Agree. Good point, both of you.
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
> On Jan 23, 3:06 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5ae02a8b-5b07-438e...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jan 23, 2:05 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
> > quickly
> > > > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
> > accept
> > > > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does
> > not
> > > > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
> > at
> > > > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
> > atheist/agnostic
> > > > or a person of faith.
>
> > > > So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> > > > alt.atheism?
>
>
> > > > But then, what makes this forum now anything more than alt.atheism?
>
> > > > This is, or at least was, Talk Origins, in which the matter of debate
> > was
> > > > the evidence for and against the various origins questions, and
> > worldview
> > > > issues were respected and we stayed on the topic of discussion.
>
> > > really going to have a discussion about evolution VS creationism,
> > > doesn't part of that have to be an examination of creationism, which
> > > is going to get heavily into worldviews? And why should I respect
> > > someone's worldview if I find it silly or even harmful? Perhaps I'm
> > > missing your point.
>
> > silly or harmful, happen to accept the same scientific evidence as you do.
> > So, ultimately, it is not the worldviews that are at issue, but what you do
> > with them.
>
> people on here have a worldview that does not allow them to accept
> scientific evidence. Often part of this worldview is that evolution
> is the product of a vast conspiricy of scientists to make everyone's
> kids atheist.
>
> I agree that there are theistic evolutionists on this board. Most of
> them argue on the evolution side and rarely bother to bring up their
> religious views, so no one much argues with them.
>
> > You can not say a person disbelieves evolution beceause they DO
> > believe in the supernatural, since millions who DO believe in the
> > supernatural also believe in evolution.
>
> religious people.
>
> > The reason creationists disbelieve
> > in evolution is because of the way they read the Bible, and because of a
> > correcting them about, but instead just seem to reinforce this false
> > gather, but it is not really about the worldview either. It is about some
> > misconceptions in the middle that need to be addressed.
>
> creationists. I've seen many many threads attempting to reconcile
> religion and evolution and never seen one of them convince anyone.
> Not all Christians have the same worldview, and some Christian
> worldviews are just not compatible with science or evolution.
>
> > TO used to be a very different place.
>
I have not seen much of a change in T.O. in the years I have been
here.
It has always been a cesspool.
Rodjk #613
Andre Lieven
Thank you. We do our best... <g>
Andre
noctiluca
Yes, that's it. Prove Lenny's argument wrong by calling him a liar.
> none of us "fundamentalist atheists" think science
> equates to atheism or any of the other crap you spew. what we think is
> that you cannot claim to be pro-science while at the same time
> accepting conclusions about reality that have absolutely no support in
> science. science does not allow for such things.
"You cannot claim to be pro-science" while also "accepting conclusions
about reality that have absolutely no support in science."
Am I correct in assuming that by a "reality that has no support in
science" you mean theism?
Am I further correct in interpreting the first part of your response
above to mean "none of us "fundamentalist atheists" think science
equates to opposition to theism (i.e., - reality that has no support
in science)?"
Putting these together, then, haven't you essentially opined that:
"None of us think science equates to atheism, what we think is that
science equates to atheism?"
RLC
snex
flank is lying. he has been repeatedly corrected on this matter, and
he cannot point to a single instance where anybody equates science to
atheism.
>
> > none of us "fundamentalist atheists" think science
> > equates to atheism or any of the other crap you spew. what we think is
> > that you cannot claim to be pro-science while at the same time
> > accepting conclusions about reality that have absolutely no support in
> > science. science does not allow for such things.
>
> "You cannot claim to be pro-science" while also "accepting conclusions
> about reality that have absolutely no support in science."
>
> Am I correct in assuming that by a "reality that has no support in
> science" you mean theism?
theism currently has no scientific support, as well as thousands of
other claims that people believe.
> Am I further correct in interpreting the first part of your response
> above to mean "none of us "fundamentalist atheists" think science
> equates to opposition to theism (i.e., - reality that has no support
> in science)?"
science does not a priori rule out intelligent universe creators. it
might even be possible to scientifically examine any, if they exist.
what science DOES NOT DO, however, is allow the conclusion that they
DO exist merely because nobody has DISproven them yet.
>
> Putting these together, then, haven't you essentially opined that:
> "None of us think science equates to atheism, what we think is that
> science equates to atheism?"
since science disallows conclusions until evidence supports those
conclusions, lack of belief in gods is the only *current* view
amenable to science. this will change as soon as anybody brings forth
the evidence of gods, which science does not a priori exclude.
>
> RLC
The Last Conformist
> But, while its *possible* that all atheists are science appreciators,
It's a logical possibility, but it's certainly not *true*.
John Harshman
No, my claim was not quantitative. I just said "part of the problem". It
might indeed be that testifiers for Jesus are more common, but that's
not relevant to my claim.
>> "Mikey did it too" or even "Mikey did it first" is not a valid defense.
>
> In your view. Too bad you cannott *make* it stick on anyone else,
> eh ?
How old are you, exactly?
> Since fundy fuckwittery is the basic path into ID/creationism, it *is*
> on topic here, when it comes up.
You are part of the problem.
>>>> And part of the problem is the somewhat larger contingent of
>>>> creationists who equate atheism with evolution. Ray does this, McCoy
>>>> does this, and Pagano does this. Other creationists and IDiots merely
>>>> suppose that evolution predisposes to atheism and so is evil, whether
>>>> true or not (and therefore must not be true, because god wouldn't allow
>>>> an evil doctrine to be true).
>>>> I agree that we could do with a lot less argument about the existence of
>>>> god here. Sometimes it's appropriate, but much less often than it appears.
>>> If apo, Glenn, et all, stopped spamming t.o, then your comment might
>>> carry some water.
>> Do I have to turn this car around?
>
> You can try. But, thats it.
This being usenet, all I can do is shame those who misbehave. This being
usenet, many posters are without shame, and so my actions may be
ineffective.
VBM
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:83ef6b54-b712-4b38...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Could a scientist be a theist, then, or must they be agnostic if not
atheist? If they were a theist, would you call them a scientist who is not
pro-science?
eerok
> On Jan 24, 2:56 am, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> why do you think religion is in any way equipped to answer
> the question "what is life for?"
That's the kind of question that religion was always meant to
answer. It works adequately well for some people -- a simple
matter of observation.
What's the objective answer to that question?
Once you put a value on something, you've stepped away from
objectivity, don't you think?
snex
religion has always given objective answers to the question, so that
right there should indicate to you that religion aint the tool for the
job.
noctiluca
> On Jan 24, 2:20 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 9:20 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 24, 7:13 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 23, 11:45 pm, SortingItOut <eri...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > quit lying flank.
>
> > Yes, that's it. Prove Lenny's argument wrong by calling him a liar.
>
> flank is lying. he has been repeatedly corrected on this matter, and
> he cannot point to a single instance where anybody equates science to
> atheism.
Well, what Lenny actually said was that both sides "want" science to
equate with atheism, and that both sides think science is incompatible
with religion. The former obviously expresses an argument he is
putting forth and is therefore not a lie but an opinion. And the
latter, as a generalization about those groups to whom he is
referring, seems a pretty solid premise.
And both observations were well supported by your comments that
directly followed (and follow here) which equated being pro-science
with atheism.
> > > none of us "fundamentalist atheists" think science
> > > equates to atheism or any of the other crap you spew. what we think is
> > > that you cannot claim to be pro-science while at the same time
> > > accepting conclusions about reality that have absolutely no support in
> > > science. science does not allow for such things.
>
> > "You cannot claim to be pro-science" while also "accepting conclusions
> > about reality that have absolutely no support in science."
>
> > Am I correct in assuming that by a "reality that has no support in
> > science" you mean theism?
>
> theism currently has no scientific support, as well as thousands of
> other claims that people believe.
>
> > Am I further correct in interpreting the first part of your response
> > above to mean "none of us "fundamentalist atheists" think science
> > equates to opposition to theism (i.e., - reality that has no support
> > in science)?"
>
> science does not a priori rule out intelligent universe creators. it
> might even be possible to scientifically examine any, if they exist.
> what science DOES NOT DO, however, is allow the conclusion that they
> DO exist merely because nobody has DISproven them yet.
As fine an example of hand-waving as I've ever seen. I accept all of
it, and would be whisked away in a cloud of blissful agreement had I
not a point to make, one that you have so far ignored.
> > Putting these together, then, haven't you essentially opined that:
> > "None of us think science equates to atheism, what we think is that
> > science equates to atheism?"
>
> since science disallows conclusions until evidence supports those
> conclusions, lack of belief in gods is the only *current* view
> amenable to science. this will change as soon as anybody brings forth
> the evidence of gods, which science does not a priori exclude.
All of which means: "What we think is that science equates to
atheism." It's okay to admit it. In fact taken from a certain limited
perspective I don't disagree.
What I do disagree with is your willingness to go beyond what is a
strictly circumscribed approach for understanding empirical reality
(science) by suggesting that one "cannot claim to be pro-science"
while also "accepting conclusions about reality that have absolutely
no support in science." This notion is foolish in concept and made all
the more ludicrous by the numerous real world individuals we can cite
whose existence contradicts it (e.g., Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala,
Francis Collins, not to mention our own Reverend Doctor with whom
you've been conversing).
It is another example of a fundamentalist (and in this case - atheist)
mindset which is incapable (apparently) of recognizing nuance in the
arguments about religion, subtleties which include,
- that one can defend the right to believe without personally being a
believer (or a double-agent)
- that one can defend the rationale behind believing without
personally being a believer
- that one who accepts some limited form of irrationality (a believer)
need not express irrationality in their life comprehensively (a
related concept here being the notion that we all harbor some personal
bit of irrationality - mine being an intense dislike of sweet
potatoes)
- that the way forward may include some sophistication of rhetoric,
some recognition of the difficulty in relinquishing comforting
concepts, some acceptance that people are neither bad, nor inferior
for believing differently, and a whole lot of realizing that progress
will come in increments - not in response to silly strawmen and
gratuitous condemnation.
RLC
shipmodeler1
"In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
quickly
devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
accept
the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There
does not
seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
at
all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/
agnostic
or a person of faith.
So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset
of
alt.atheism?"
You are not alone in that assessment although I would have said
Atheism vs. Christianity. The "big dogs" on this forum deal harshly
with any expression of faith, whether in doubt of evolution or not.
Over the past couple of years I've watched this place degenerate into
a battleground between crypto-atheists and religious whack-jobs, but
at least it's entertaining.
VBM
"shipmodeler1" <rog...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6a578982-ed91-413f...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I just jumped backed into it, so it was a surprise for me, not having seen
the trip downward.
What is odd is that the TO FAQ is so strong on the idea that evolution is
perfectly compatible with religious belief.
David Iain Greig
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not. There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
>
> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> alt.atheism?
Hey don't look at me.
--D.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
And, depriving people of their ability to stand on
> their
> own two rational feet is a great harm.
Hmm.
I'm curious --- when you chose your partner in life (girlfriend,
wife, whatever), did you make that decision rationally and logically?
Or did you make that decision irrationally and emotionally?
Since there is absolutely no logic in "love", and no scientific way to
decide "who should I love?" (indeed, there is no scientific way to
even demonstrate the EXISTENCE of "love"), I'm a little curious as to
(1) why you allow your own self to fall off your "rational two feet"
in some matters but not others and (2) how you manage to successfully
compartmentalize the two.
Or, are you, after all, like Spock and have you attained the Kohlinar
of total logic, utterly untouched by irrational emotions . . . . . . ?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Marxist, Ray -- not "neo". Just "Marxist". Not "Leninist", not
"Maoist", not "Trotskyist". Just "Marxist.
Indeed, if you want me to be more specific, it's "syndico-Marxist".
And proudly so.
But it's nice to see that Ray isn't QUITE as goddamn stoopid as I
thought he was. He *IS*, after all, it appears, capable of eventually
noticing something that is right there in front of his face in every
single post I make. At least after a while.
:)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hey Ray, don't you have a scientific paper you should be working on,
or something . . . ?
(snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA HA HA
HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
snex
> On Jan 24, 1:21 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> And, depriving people of their ability to stand on
>
> > their
> > own two rational feet is a great harm.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I'm curious --- when you chose your partner in life (girlfriend,
> wife, whatever), did you make that decision rationally and logically?
> Or did you make that decision irrationally and emotionally?
one might ask the same about the foods you eat. when you choose
whether or not to have dessert, and what to have, do you make that
decision rationally or non-rationally? certainly what you have a taste
for is non-rational, but most people are aware of nutrition and health
concerns over dessert foods. people are able to override their non-
rational desires by imposing rational constraints, and if they use
logic and evidence when determining those rational constraints, they
are often left the better for it. anybody who obeyed his non-rational
whims 100% of the time would not live long.
>
> Since there is absolutely no logic in "love", and no scientific way to
> decide "who should I love?" (indeed, there is no scientific way to
> even demonstrate the EXISTENCE of "love"), I'm a little curious as to
> (1) why you allow your own self to fall off your "rational two feet"
> in some matters but not others and (2) how you manage to successfully
> compartmentalize the two.
im not sure why you assume andre lets himself to do any such thing. if
i fell in love with a woman who could not stop having unprotected sex
with other men, i would use my rational faculties to realize i should
not be with her.
>
> Or, are you, after all, like Spock and have you attained the Kohlinar
> of total logic, utterly untouched by irrational emotions . . . . . . ?
false dichotomy.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > It should be pointed out that Lenny Flank is an admitted neo-Marxist.
>
> automatically be wrong on anything else he says, right?
Well not only am I not wrong on anything "else" -- I'm not wrong in my
political view, either. (big fat grin)
As an aside, a disproportionate number of prominent biologists have
been Marxists -- Gould, Lewontin, Maynard Smith, Oparin, Haldane, and
others.
My hypothesis is that this is a result of Marxism's emphasis on
"dialectics", in which everything is interelated and is both a cause
and an effect at the same time -- a view that is probably pretty
useful in biology and ecology.
Ray, of course, is still fighting the Cold War (heck, he's still
fighting the Enlightenment), and probably thinks biology is all a
commie plot, anyway. (shrug)
Frank J
wrote:
> In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to quickly
> devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not.
I have been complaining about that for years. It's not new, at most a
bit more frequent as the Internet's audience has increased. But it
plays right into the hands of the anti-evolution activists. Even as
they pretend that it's all about the science (it would help if they
actually had some) they play right along and welcome a "worldview"
debate, as it frees them from describing just what their designer did,
when and how.
> There does not
> seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> or a person of faith.
Well, if there shouldn't be a discussion of atheist and fundamentalist
worldviews, then in all fairness, there shouldn't be a discussion of
worldviews like yours and mine, which see no conflict between God and
evolution.
A little bit of each is unavoidable, but I wish that more effort is
given to getting various "kinds" of anti-evolutionist to describe
their "theories", and heaven forbid, debate their internal
differences. Or at least show the lurkers how they like to evade the
hard questions.
>
> So, my question is, whether talk.origins has simply become a subset of
> alt.atheism?
>
> Here are some quotes:
>
> But then, what makes this forum now anything more than alt.atheism?
>
> This is, or at least was, Talk Origins, in which the matter of debate was
> the evidence for and against the various origins questions, and worldview
> issues were respected and we stayed on the topic of discussion.
>
> Here are some quotes:
>
> "First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis
> can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found
> that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that
> appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be
> disproven."
What's wrong with that? The YEC and OEC versions can be falsified
easily. Which is why the "don't ask, don't tell" IDers like to
"distance themselves" from them. But I do think that one ought to
describe the "what happened and when" in more neutral terms. There's
no need to refer to Genesis, or God, by name, or even that "a designer
did X" rather than "X occurred." Even the IDers a shrewd enough to
avoid that.
>
> "There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind
> evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God,
> especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people
> have this narrow of a view of God."
And even if one believes that they have such a reason, there's no
reason to drag it into the discussion.
>
> "There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution.
> Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery
> of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one
> within evolution."
>
> "While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is
> frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God
> in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in
> the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in
> the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to
> observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe."
>
> Do you know where those are from?
The specific wording in the last one is familiar, so I guess I'll find
out in one of the replies.
But again, I do hope that TO regulars can bring themselves to
discussing more of the cold, hard science. And I don't mean the same
old long-refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," but exactly what the
anti-evolutionists propose instead, and how they plan to test it.
Scientists can't resist describing their own science instead of
quizzing the "alternatives". And many of them can't resist getting
dragged into a philosophical discussion. But in each case they're
"taking the bait." Something anti-evolution activists "stay up nights"
to avoid.
Frank J
> On Jan 24, 5:17 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:05:39 -0500, VBM wrote
> > (in article <13pfec94sk96...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
> > > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and accept
> > > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews at
> > > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are atheist/agnostic
> > > or a person of faith.
>
> > > alt.atheism?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"I, (state your name), promise not to killfile Ray because the longer
we keep him here, the later it will be before we see the paper that
will once and for all refute all creationist positions other than
Ray's own."
Wonder if I can get 800 "Steves"? ;-)
eerok
> On Jan 24, 2:50 pm, eerok <krke...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> snex wrote:
[...]
>> > why do you think religion is in any way equipped to
>> > answer the question "what is life for?"
>> That's the kind of question that religion was always meant
>> to answer. It works adequately well for some people -- a
>> simple matter of observation.
>>
>> What's the objective answer to that question?
>>
>> Once you put a value on something, you've stepped away from
>> objectivity, don't you think?
> religion has always given objective answers to the question,
> so that right there should indicate to you that religion
> aint the tool for the job.
Well, religions typically purport to give absolute answers,
which is not quite the same thing. If at the end of the day
one has no pressing need to embrace the conceit of feeling
connected to anything absolute, then true enough, religion is
most likely not the compelling choice.
I think you're making a mistake by tarring all theists with
the same brush, though. Some revel in absolutism. Others
connect to a belief system that resonates for them (and why
wouldn't it, since most religious choices are interwoven with
the surrounding culture?), which amounts to "this is what I
choose to guide my life" rather than "this is absolutely true
for everyone." There's a sliding scale here.
It wouldn't hurt you to try to see more shades to things.
But let me back up a bit to what I see as a clue to our
divide. Going by your statement above, you seem to think that
religion claims to be objective; that is, that it usurps the
domain of "things that properly pertain to methodologies of
objectivity" -- such as science. On the other hand, I see
religion as a different domain entirely -- one that largely
gets messy at the borders.
The upshot is that you want to simply dismiss all religious
claims, and I want to look at the specifics of each claim,
since there are some that I frankly don't care about.
Anyway, you blew off a question that I thought was
interesting: what is the objective, rational answer to the
question "What is life for?"
VBM
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c1c4ffbf-e46c-422d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 23, 5:05 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> wrote:
> > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
quickly
> > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
accept
> > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not.
>
> I have been complaining about that for years. It's not new, at most a
> bit more frequent as the Internet's audience has increased. But it
> plays right into the hands of the anti-evolution activists. Even as
> they pretend that it's all about the science (it would help if they
> actually had some) they play right along and welcome a "worldview"
> debate, as it frees them from describing just what their designer did,
> when and how.
Exactly. I once wrote a bit called "Strange Bedfellows" in which there is
this strange symbiotic relationship between the militant YEC and certain
atheists who both insist that evolution = atheism, each for their own
agenda.
>
> > There does not
> > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
at
> > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
atheist/agnostic
> > or a person of faith.
>
> Well, if there shouldn't be a discussion of atheist and fundamentalist
> worldviews, then in all fairness, there shouldn't be a discussion of
> worldviews like yours and mine, which see no conflict between God and
> evolution.
I agree, but if you have been following some of the other discussions, I
have been told that, because my own beliefs involve theism, then I am also
"irrational" and I have no place criticizing a YEC for their views. That is
where it gets silly.
All of those quotes are from the Talk Origins FAQ.
Frank J
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
>
Worse than that, he's an Ascottist.
Mark VandeWettering
> On Jan 24, 1:21 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> And, depriving people of their ability to stand on
>> their
>> own two rational feet is a great harm.
>
>
> Hmm.
>
> I'm curious --- when you chose your partner in life (girlfriend,
> wife, whatever), did you make that decision rationally and logically?
> Or did you make that decision irrationally and emotionally?
>
> Since there is absolutely no logic in "love", and no scientific way to
> decide "who should I love?" (indeed, there is no scientific way to
> even demonstrate the EXISTENCE of "love"), I'm a little curious as to
> (1) why you allow your own self to fall off your "rational two feet"
> in some matters but not others and (2) how you manage to successfully
> compartmentalize the two.
I find this example to be a perfect illustration in what is wrong with
irrational thinking. People don't think their emotions are subject to
some kind of rational analysis, so they decide to spend their lives with
people for whom they might have some attraction, but who, for whatever
reason you can imagine, have no possible means to actually make them
happy and fufilled individuals. They say things like "love knows no logic"
or "the brain can't find what the heart wants".
Like most other bits of irrationality, this one is just nonsense. The
damage done? Lots of really unhappy people.
Mark
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Can you, um, give us an example of the logical rational scientific
algorithm and calculations that we can use to pick our mate, without
all those pesky irrational emotions poking their way in . . . . ?
By the way, is "happy" or "unhappy" rational, logical, scientific
states of mind . . . . ? Or are they irrational, illogical, emotional
states of mind . . . . ? Or is one, uh, rational and logical, and the
other one ain't . . . . ?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Since fundy fuckwittery is the basic path into ID/creationism, it *is*
> on
> topic here, when it comes up.
Indeed. Quite right.
You, uh, DO know the difference between "religion" and
"fundamentalism" though . . . right . . . . ?
eerok
> On Jan 24, 1:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> It should be pointed out that Lenny Flank is an admitted
>> neo-Marxist.
> Worse than that, he's an Ascottist.
Well, they're marginally less silly-looking than bow ties.
snex
if any intelligent universe creators exist, then they are objective
beings. all theists claim that at least one intelligent universe
creator exists, and therefore are making objective claims which are
unevidenced.
>
> Anyway, you blew off a question that I thought was
> interesting: what is the objective, rational answer to the
> question "What is life for?"
why do you assume there is one, or needs to be one? why do you assume
the question even makes sense? dont you think you should first resolve
these problems before asking the question?
Mark VandeWettering
Nobody is 100% rational, but that hardly is a reason to toss any kind of
pragmatism away is it? If you are attracted to someone but they cheat
on you, or are abusive, or addicted to alcohol or drugs, or whatever,
you are really saying that you should "listen to your heart" and stay
with them? That's the best possible course of action?
Mark
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
> have been told that, because my own beliefs involve theism, then I am also
> "irrational" and I have no place criticizing a YEC for their views. That is
> where it gets silly.
Wanna hear REALLY silly? **I** have been criticized because, even
though I don't believe in any god or gods, I'm not sufficiently
condemnatory towards those who DO, and I am therefore "enabling the
fundies", and I am therefore "just as bad as the creationists". (That
was in PT, for anyone who wants to look it up.)
The last time I heard "reasoning" like that, I was in a room full of
Maoists. (The nutty Leninists, by the way, are also very similar, in
their own way, to both the fundie Christians and the evangelical
atheists.)
But if you REALLY REALLY want to hear something silly, ask one of your
questioners why THEY persist in irrational, non-logical unscientific
thinking. For instance, ask them how they chose their partner. Did
they do it rationally and logically, calculating measurements and
putting them through impersonal algorithms? Or did they use
irrational emotions?
Or ask them to simply use the scientific method (or the iron laws of
logic, or whatever they want to call it) to demonstrate that "murder
is wrong".
They'll fall all over themselves.
The SILLIEST answer I ever got to this question was that, since
science can't answer the question "is murder wrong", then ***IT REALLY
ISN'T A QUESTION***. To ask "is murder wrong", I was told, is "no
different than" asking "how does a weekdoodle gujmplit on a dertup on
Tuesdays?"
There is no limit to the idiocy that some ideologues will resort to,
in order to protect their cherished religious opinions from being
criticized. (Heck, the evangelical atheists even get their panties
all in a knot if you CALL their opinions "religious" -- they hate the
WORD even more than they hate the CONCEPT. Quite irrational and
emotional, don'tcha think?)
Same bird, different feathers. (shrug)
I don't generally call myself an atheist. I don't generally call
myself ANYTHING (although I did study Tantric Buddhism, Taoism and Zen
for 3.5 years and hold a license to teach Tantra -- with Buddhism, Zen
and Taoism all being non-theistic viewpoints, I suppose it's arguable
whether or not they are "religions"). I'm never really sure what to
call myself. I'm certainly not a theist, since I don't assert or
accept the existence of any god, gods or goddesses. I *could* just
declare that I simply don't know whether there actually are gods or
not, and call myself an agnostic -- but since so many people on both
sides of the question DO claim to know (with certainty), I'm not
comfortable with that either.
There are two reasons why I don't call myself an atheist, though: the
first reason is that I don't DENY that there are gods or goddesses --
I simply don't care whether there are or not. Makes no difference to
me whatsoever. Couldn't care less. If there are, that's nice. If
there aren't, that's nice too. Doesn't change my life either way. I
think it's rather a stupid issue to wage warfare over.
But the primary reason why I don't refer to myself as an atheist is
because that term would associate me with some people -- I refer to
them in this thread as "evangelical atheists" -- who I would, uh,
rather not be associated with. I don't like them any more than I like
the fundies, and for much the same reasons.
So call me whatever you like. It doesn't matter to me. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Let me get this straight --- you choose your partners based on . . .
pragmatism?
Wow, you must be an awful lot of fun at parties, huh.
If you are attracted to someone but they cheat
> on you, or are abusive, or addicted to alcohol or drugs, or whatever,
> you are really saying that you should "listen to your heart" and stay
> with them? That's the best possible course of action?
Um, what if your heart says "run like hell" . . . . ?
Oh, and you didn't give me that, ya know, logical rational scientific
algorithm that we can use to take some measurements, calculate some
formulas, turn a few knobs, and out pops the correct rational logical
answer to the question "who should I choose as a partner".
Ya know, the rational method that allows us to do away with that whole
"compartmentalizing" thingie, and allows us all to do away with
irrationality once and for all, and attain a Spock-like state of
logical Kohlinar.
Any time you're ready . . . . . .
(opens popcorn)
This should be good . . . . . .
snex
wrote:
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
you have a place to criticize anybody you want for whatever reason you
want. so do creationists, of course.
the issue is not whether you have a place to do so, the issue is
whether you are being a hypocrite for doing so. since your own savior
(and the savior of creationists as well) specifically preached against
hypocrisy, i doubt many of them will overlook your blatant use of it.
<snip>
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> It wouldn't hurt you to try to see more shades to things.
Fundies, of all sorts, have exactly that problem . . . . .
They are all binary. Black or white. With them, or against them.
> Anyway, you blew off a question that I thought was
> interesting: what is the objective, rational answer to the
> question "What is life for?"
And how can we demonstrate the validity of that answer, whatever it
is, using the scientific method? Or "logic". Or "kohlinar". Or
whatever the heck one wants to call "rationality".
Alas, the evangelical atheists make the very same mistake that the
fundies do, and for the very same reason. They both want to treat
their SUBJECTIVE answers to questions like that, as if those answers
were OBJECTIVE, and valid for everyone.
They're not.
And their SUBJECTIVE answer isn't any more authoritative than mine, my
next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my
pizzas.
snex
perhaps you should tell us why you think comparing subjective desires
to claims about the existence of objective beings that created the
universe and want us to stop masturbating is an apt analogy?
your marxist buddy stephen j gould already explained this to you.
science addresses objective matters (including hypothetical
intelligent universe creators and what they want us to do with their
genitals). anything else that talks about such things is out of its
magisterium.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Worse than that, he's an Ascottist.
Nuh-uh ------ I got nothing against Scotts.
;)
John McKendry
<snip>
> Oh, and you didn't give me that, ya know, logical rational scientific
> algorithm that we can use to take some measurements, calculate some
> formulas, turn a few knobs, and out pops the correct rational logical
> answer to the question "who should I choose as a partner".
That would be useful, but what I'd really pay money for is the
algorithm that answers "who should choose me as a partner?"
Because I've never had the luxury of being the one making the
decision.
John
snex
> On Jan 24, 7:15 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> wrote:
>
> > have been told that, because my own beliefs involve theism, then I am also
> > "irrational" and I have no place criticizing a YEC for their views. That is
> > where it gets silly.
>
> Wanna hear REALLY silly? **I** have been criticized because, even
> though I don't believe in any god or gods, I'm not sufficiently
> condemnatory towards those who DO, and I am therefore "enabling the
> fundies", and I am therefore "just as bad as the creationists". (That
> was in PT, for anyone who wants to look it up.)
>
> The last time I heard "reasoning" like that, I was in a room full of
> Maoists. (The nutty Leninists, by the way, are also very similar, in
> their own way, to both the fundie Christians and the evangelical
> atheists.)
>
> But if you REALLY REALLY want to hear something silly, ask one of your
> questioners why THEY persist in irrational, non-logical unscientific
> thinking. For instance, ask them how they chose their partner. Did
> they do it rationally and logically, calculating measurements and
> putting them through impersonal algorithms? Or did they use
> irrational emotions?
flank apparently doesnt know the difference between "irrational" and
"non-rational." i guess they didnt teach that distinction in buddhism
school. next time go to a real college dr flank.
>
> Or ask them to simply use the scientific method (or the iron laws of
> logic, or whatever they want to call it) to demonstrate that "murder
> is wrong".
"murder is wrong" could be rephrased as "i should not murder." id like
to hear the phony dr flank's rationale for making sweeping
generalizations about what the behavior of others should be. perhaps
he fancies himself a tyrannical dictator like his hero stalin?
<snip>
John Wilkins
'Course not. D_G doesn't exist, so how could we look at you?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Frank J
>
> news:c1c4ffbf-e46c-422d...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 23, 5:05 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net>
> > wrote:
> > > In numerous discussions I have been having, the issue always seem to
> quickly
> > > devolve down to a question of worldview, whether you are a theist and
> accept
> > > the supernatural or whether you are an atheist, and do not.
>
> > I have been complaining about that for years. It's not new, at most a
> > bit more frequent as the Internet's audience has increased. But it
> > plays right into the hands of the anti-evolution activists. Even as
> > they pretend that it's all about the science (it would help if they
> > actually had some) they play right along and welcome a "worldview"
> > debate, as it frees them from describing just what their designer did,
> > when and how.
>
> Exactly. I once wrote a bit called "Strange Bedfellows" in which there is
> this strange symbiotic relationship between the militant YEC and certain
> atheists who both insist that evolution = atheism, each for their own
> agenda.
And that symbiotic relationship always helps the anti-evolution
activists. They always start out Dawkins-bashing, but when you dig
deeper, you'll find that their voodoo doll is Ken Miller.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > There does not
> > > seem to be any room in the discussion for those with theist worldviews
> at
> > > all, since every debate just boils down to whether you are
> atheist/agnostic
> > > or a person of faith.
>
> > Well, if there shouldn't be a discussion of atheist and fundamentalist
> > worldviews, then in all fairness, there shouldn't be a discussion of
> > worldviews like yours and mine, which see no conflict between God and
> > evolution.
>
> I agree, but if you have been following some of the other discussions, I
> have been told that, because my own beliefs involve theism, then I am also
> "irrational" and I have no place criticizing a YEC for their views. That is
> where it gets silly.
And foot-shooting. Even OECs have refuted YEC nonsense. Those who say
that OECs and TEs have no place criticizing YEC are playing right into
the hands of the "don't ask, don't tell" IDers, who discourage
"critical analysis" of anything but the caricature of "Darwinism."
Yeah, I saw that in another reply, and did a big "D'Oh!"
wf3h
wrote:
>
> Right, I am not sure which part of the above you thought was incorrect.
> Christians can and do accept evolution all the time, so the Christian
> Worldview itself is not the stumbling block here. It is other things, like
> an overly literal reading of the text, or the false equation of evolution =
> atheism that drives many Christians into the creationist camp.-
i have to admit creationism was one of the factors that destroyed my
christian faith.
John McKendry
I would have thought that "murder is wrong" could be rephrased
as "nobody should murder". Otherwise we would have no explanation
for why people accept that it's OK to arrest people who are suspected
of murder, put them on trial, and lock them up if they are
convicted. Most people who approve of locking up murderers would
probably be surprised to hear that their acceptance of the practice
puts them on a par with Stalin.
But I suspect you realize that "nobody should murder" is, as
Lenny suggests, not an assertion you can prove with logic, and
you think you can get away with claiming that "I should not
murder" is just an opinion and not something you need to prove.
Philosophers before you have tried to sustain your position
and failed. I don't think they tried name-calling, though.
John
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Blah blah blah.
I notice you didn't answer the question.
So I'll poke you again.
And you will, on cue, howl again.
(poke)
snex
"i should not murder" is quite subjective. it is nothing more than an
opinion, and does not require proof. if you think otherwise, provide
your case.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(blathering ignored)
I, uh, don't see any rational logical algorithm here for determing who
we should choose as a partner, snex.
Why not?
Do you make that decision, uh, irrationally . . . . . ?
snex
since you asked a loaded question, i am under no obligation to play
your stupid game. heres a hint reverend: i have never made the claim
"murder is wrong." so quit lying about what my position is.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
By the way, snex, just for you:
*ahem*
LENNY IS A
COMMIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE'S A COMMIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMIE COMMIE COMMIE COMMIE
COMMIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feel better now? Or do you want to howl some more.
(Wow, you're almost as much fun to poke as Ray is.)
snex
youre right. you dont see one. what you do see is why your entire post
is a strawman argument. but go ahead, ignore the fact that youre a
fucking blowhard full of logical fallacies. im sure the rest of TO is
impressed.
John McKendry
Does it ever seem almost too suspiciously convenient to you, how
you never have to prove anything? How your position is self-evidently
true, but everyone else has to provide evidence? No? Didn't think so.
But I'll give you "I should not murder" is an opinion. What about
"nobody should murder"? Just an opinion?
John
snex
maybe its convenient because im on the right track, and the rest of
you are just making shit up and pretending its true? if you werent
making shit up and pretending it were true, you could back it up the
same way we back up things like evolution.
>
> But I'll give you "I should not murder" is an opinion. What about
> "nobody should murder"? Just an opinion?
>
> John
simple rule: if youre using the word "should" in relation to the
behavior of people, youre dealing with an opinion.
if you had a desire to murder, and you were reasonably confident that
you could get away with it, it seems to me that the best course of
action is to get on with the murdering.
John McKendry
> On Jan 24, 9:07 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> But I'll give you "I should not murder" is an opinion. What about
>> "nobody should murder"? Just an opinion?
>>
>> John
>
> simple rule: if youre using the word "should" in relation to the
> behavior of people, youre dealing with an opinion.
>
> if you had a desire to murder, and you were reasonably confident that
> you could get away with it, it seems to me that the best course of
> action is to get on with the murdering.
The parallel between you and the Christian fundamentalists is now
complete; both of you hold that without the fear of punishment there
is nothing to prevent people from committing the most horrendous
crimes imaginable.
I wonder whether even your supporters here would agree with you.
Sam Harris doesn't:
"One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering
the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of
nature: there is no secular basis for morality. Raping and killing
children can only really be wrong, the thinking goes, if there is a God
who says it is. Otherwise, right and wrong would be mere matters of
social construction, and any society would be at liberty to decide that
raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun.
In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than
Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him.
It is simply amazing how widespread this fear of secular moral chaos is,
given how many misconceptions about morality and human nature are
required to set it whirling in a person’s brain. "
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3
You might want to read the rest, to see how a semi-rational
humanist accounts for the fact that people have a reliable
moral sense. Unfortunately, he does in the end have to fall
back on such insubstantial notions as "love is better than hate
for living happily in the world", which he is brave enough to
call "an objective claim about the human mind, the dynamics of
social relations, and the moral order of our world".
John
Mr D.
news:13pi2nnjrh5cs72@corp.
>
> What is odd is that the TO FAQ is so strong on the idea that evolution is
> perfectly compatible with religious belief.
>
It's not odd: it's what's called 'appeasement'...
M.
snex
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:17:36 -0800, snex wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 9:07 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> But I'll give you "I should not murder" is an opinion. What about
> >> "nobody should murder"? Just an opinion?
>
> >> John
>
> > simple rule: if youre using the word "should" in relation to the
> > behavior of people, youre dealing with an opinion.
>
> > if you had a desire to murder, and you were reasonably confident that
> > you could get away with it, it seems to me that the best course of
> > action is to get on with the murdering.
>
> The parallel between you and the Christian fundamentalists is now
> complete; both of you hold that without the fear of punishment there
> is nothing to prevent people from committing the most horrendous
> crimes imaginable.
if you had a desire to murder, and you thought you could get away with
it, why would you not murder? what would stop you? if you havent asked
yourself these questions honestly, then it just proves my point that
fear is what controls you. you fear the results of an honest
introspection such as this.
>
> I wonder whether even your supporters here would agree with you.
> Sam Harris doesn't:
> "One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering
> the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of
> nature: there is no secular basis for morality. Raping and killing
> children can only really be wrong, the thinking goes, if there is a God
> who says it is. Otherwise, right and wrong would be mere matters of
> social construction, and any society would be at liberty to decide that
> raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun.
> In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than
> Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him.
sam harris is a humanist. i am not. i would even go one further and
say that even if a god did exist and gave us moral instructions, that
would still not make morality in any way objective. it would just
increase the likelihood that you would get caught to 100%. it
certainly would not remove your desire to murder.
>
> It is simply amazing how widespread this fear of secular moral chaos is,
> given how many misconceptions about morality and human nature are
> required to set it whirling in a person's brain. "
the reason why secular moral chaos is not an issue is that 1) most of
us have no desire to murder, and 2) feel confident that we *would* get
caught if we did. yet people still do murder. if morality is this
objective thing like fathers and humanists alike claim it is, why do
people murder at all? have we just not reached them with the silver
bullet logical argument that its wrong to do so? can you even
construct such an argument that doesnt require agreeing with premises
that not all humans will ever agree to?
>
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris...
>
> You might want to read the rest, to see how a semi-rational
> humanist accounts for the fact that people have a reliable
> moral sense. Unfortunately, he does in the end have to fall
> back on such insubstantial notions as "love is better than hate
> for living happily in the world", which he is brave enough to
> call "an objective claim about the human mind, the dynamics of
> social relations, and the moral order of our world".
love is better than hate for living happily in the world only for
those of us in the meaty part of the bell curve. what about the
others? do they just not count, because *you* say so?
>
> John
snex
> "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote in message
actually, its a strawman. evolution is indeed perfectly compatible
with religious belief. *anything* is perfectly compatible with
religious belief, because religious belief is just arbitrary bullshit.
noctiluca
> "VBM" <v.mcalis...@premium6.geo.yahoo.akadns.net> wrote in message
Actually, it's more like an appreciation for both the strengths and
the limitations of science, as well as a rejection of facile arguments
that actually blur the distinctions between science and religion.
And the labeling of this approach as "appeasement" is what's called
knee-jerk naivete.
RLC