Best debate so far...

[wiki trix]

The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CnZ3n8I5b8

More debates should be done like this (not so stupid religious guy)

[jillery]

Yeppers. In fact, my initial impression is the roles are somewhat
reversed, with Michael Ruse appearing as a dowager fuddy duddy and Fuz
Rana appearing as a modern academic.

For those put off by a lack of description, from the About:

***********************************************
Published on May 17, 2013

Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question "Are
natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity
of the cell?" Moderated by Craig Hazen, and recorded live at the
University of California, Riverside.

Sponsored by Biola University's Christian Apologetics Program, The
Well Christian Club at UCR, and Come Reason Ministries
**********************************************

For those put off by the length of 2.5 hours, the first 10 minutes are
pure introduction and promotion. The debate itself lasts until 1:47.
The remaining 40 minutes are filled with Q&A from the local and
Internet audiences.

The video captures issues raised in T.O.

Michael Ruse is a self-identified agnostic and professional
philosopher, and Fuz Rana is a self-identified professional biochemist
and Old Earth Creationist. It would be interesting to read comments
from resident members of these "kinds" 8-)

[Robert Carnegie]

> Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question "Are
> natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity
> of the cell?"

And, are they?

[TomS]

"On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:55:21 -0700 (PDT), in article
<d1de2946-ff9f-4c18...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie
stated..."

I am confident that natural processes are sufficient to explain the
origins and the complexity of cells. As sufficient in explaining those,
as any explanation is sufficient.

And, offhand, I can't think of any explanation for anything, which is
as sufficient as that, and which does *not* involve natural processes.

But the question is not about "cells", but "the cell", and I guess that
that is a synecdoche for something like "the first common ancestor of
cells". In which case, who knows even whether there was such a thing?
And I also have more puzzles about the question. Are they asking about
presently known natural processes?


--
---Tom S.

[wiki trix]

The answer is "not yet".

[jillery]

Watch the video.

[Robert Carnegie]

And for that, I should sit and watch with eyes turning square
for two hours?

But, I suppose you were inviting us to appreciate the debating,
not the answering.

[jonathan]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ro0s89kbolne89q3...@4ax.com...

I don't have to, if it's a good quality objective debate
the answer must be "not sure".



"THEIR height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



The source of all order and life is a Mona-Lisa smile, an
elegant cloud of complexity/uncertainty.



s

[jillery]

Think of it as a journey, not a destination.

[Kalkidas]

No, they're not.

[shane]

Gee, if only they had asked you, the entire debate would have lasted 5
seconds and entire branches of science could be shutdown because there
is just no point any more.

But wait a minute, didn't some wise person suggest something along the
lines that the knowledgeable are always unsure, and the ignorant always
so confident. Ahhh, perhaps that is the reason for your confidence.

And may I congratulate you on the succinctness and thoroughness of your
supporting arguments. So many on your side of the debate are not
prepared to actually post all the material they have, and yet here you
apparently have done so in full. Bravo, Sir.

As your response obviously requires that a non-natural component is
required, I am reminded that you did not respond to my question in a
previous thread about how prepared you are to accept non-materialistic
explanations for events/things, so I'll ask again.

You arrive home, and discover that all your finer items and valuables
are gone.

Is your first thought:
a. A god/other supernatural entity, did it for mysterious reasons of
their own--unfathomable to me--but lets face it everything is gods/
other supernatural entity's, anyway, so I never really deserved to keep it.
b. I've been robbed!

I await your response with interest, although I won't be surprised if
you elect not to. No-one that I have asked the question of, who claims a
belief in the non-material/supernatural, has yet answered, for some reason.

Please note that if you do respond there will be some follow up
questions along the lines of how one decides which explanation one goes
with at any given time.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 09:53:35 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
> On 19/06/2013 07:33, Kalkidas wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>> Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question "Are
> >>> natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity
> >>> of the cell?"
> >>
> >> And, are they?
> >
> > No, they're not.
>
> Gee, if only they had asked you, the entire debate would have lasted 5
> seconds and entire branches of science could be shutdown because there
> is just no point any more.

But, see how long it took him to come up with that answer.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:53:35 +1000, shane <rema...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>On 19/06/2013 07:33, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question "Are
>>>> natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity
>>>> of the cell?"
>>>
>>> And, are they?
>>
>> No, they're not.
>>
>
>Gee, if only they had asked you, the entire debate would have lasted 5
>seconds and entire branches of science could be shutdown because there
>is just no point any more.

Correct. All the branches of false knowledge which are based on false
premises like "natural processes are sufficient to explain the origin
and the complexity of the cell" should be thrown out.

>But wait a minute, didn't some wise person suggest something along the
>lines that the knowledgeable are always unsure, and the ignorant always
>so confident.

Are you sure of that?

>Ahhh, perhaps that is the reason for your confidence.

>And may I congratulate you on the succinctness and thoroughness of your
>supporting arguments. So many on your side of the debate are not
>prepared to actually post all the material they have, and yet here you
>apparently have done so in full. Bravo, Sir.

Thank you.

>As your response obviously requires that a non-natural component is
>required, I am reminded that you did not respond to my question in a
>previous thread about how prepared you are to accept non-materialistic
>explanations for events/things, so I'll ask again.
>
>You arrive home, and discover that all your finer items and valuables
>are gone.

How would it be determined that something is "mine"? Who or what is
the "me" to which you refer?

If you could help me out on that account, I will try to answer your
question.

[shane]

On 20/06/2013 00:44, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:53:35 +1000, shane <rema...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2013 07:33, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question "Are
>>>>> natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity
>>>>> of the cell?"
>>>>
>>>> And, are they?
>>>
>>> No, they're not.
>>>
>>
>> Gee, if only they had asked you, the entire debate would have lasted 5
>> seconds and entire branches of science could be shutdown because there
>> is just no point any more.
>
> Correct. All the branches of false knowledge which are based on false
> premises like "natural processes are sufficient to explain the origin
> and the complexity of the cell" should be thrown out.

How can any premise be judged as false unless it is investigated? and
thus the necessary investigation is based on the premise. It seems you
lack any understanding at all about how knowledge is acquired outside of
your own methodology which seems to be based entirely on whether you
like something or not.

>> But wait a minute, didn't some wise person suggest something along the
>> lines that the knowledgeable are always unsure, and the ignorant always
>> so confident.
>
> Are you sure of that?

Did my statement sound sure?

>> Ahhh, perhaps that is the reason for your confidence.
>
>> And may I congratulate you on the succinctness and thoroughness of your
>> supporting arguments. So many on your side of the debate are not
>> prepared to actually post all the material they have, and yet here you
>> apparently have done so in full. Bravo, Sir.
>
> Thank you.

You're more than unusually welcome. It's refreshing when people show the
complete lack of substance to their argument, and it is to be
congratulated when they do so.

>> As your response obviously requires that a non-natural component is
>> required, I am reminded that you did not respond to my question in a
>> previous thread about how prepared you are to accept non-materialistic
>> explanations for events/things, so I'll ask again.
>>
>> You arrive home, and discover that all your finer items and valuables
>> are gone.
>
> How would it be determined that something is "mine"? Who or what is
> the "me" to which you refer?

By the normal methods, receipts, documents, in some cases possession of
the item(s), your response when someone else makes use of it or takes it
out of your possession.

I never referred to a "me". My post was directed toward a "you". The
particular "you" is an entity posting under the name of Kalkidas on the
t.o. newsgroup. What "you" are is becoming more an more apparent.

> If you could help me out on that account, I will try to answer your
> question.

I doubt your sincerity here, and will therefore pre-emptively add your
name to the list of people who espouse supernatural explanations only
when it suits them, and are just as materialistic as the most die hard
materialist when it could cost them to be true to their supernatural
beliefs.

However, you may yet surprise me. I try to retain the hope that some
super-naturalist is prepared to stand up for their beliefs in an all
encompassing manner, not just a self serving one.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Maybe they don't wish to waste time answering silly questions.

[Malte Runz]

"shane" skrev i meddelelsen
news:lPKdndp_tNn88V_M...@westnet.com.au...

(snip)

> I doubt your sincerity here, and will therefore pre-emptively add your
> name to the list of people who espouse supernatural explanations only when
> it suits them, and are just as materialistic as the most die hard
> materialist when it could cost them to be true to their supernatural
> beliefs.

Kalki D is already on my list of theists, who refuse to answer my question
about Gods ability to overrule the laws of nature.

>
> However, you may yet surprise me. I try to retain the hope that some
> super-naturalist is prepared to stand up for their beliefs in an all
> encompassing manner, not just a self serving one.

Not this particular one. He's as spineless as they come.

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[jillery]

If you haven't yet watched the video cited by the OP, you might find
it worthwhile. Fuz Rana gives a crediable performance, and doesn't
run away from the issues.

[Kalkidas]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:43:41 +1000, shane <rema...@netscape.net>

wrote:

>On 20/06/2013 00:44, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:53:35 +1000, shane <rema...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/06/2013 07:33, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question "Are
>>>>>> natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity
>>>>>> of the cell?"
>>>>>
>>>>> And, are they?
>>>>
>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, if only they had asked you, the entire debate would have lasted 5
>>> seconds and entire branches of science could be shutdown because there
>>> is just no point any more.
>>
>> Correct. All the branches of false knowledge which are based on false
>> premises like "natural processes are sufficient to explain the origin
>> and the complexity of the cell" should be thrown out.
>
>How can any premise be judged as false unless it is investigated? and
>thus the necessary investigation is based on the premise. It seems you
>lack any understanding at all about how knowledge is acquired outside of
>your own methodology which seems to be based entirely on whether you
>like something or not.

The premise that "natural processes are sufficient to explain the
origin and the complexity of the cell" has been thoroughly
investigated and found to be false. "Natural processes" are neither
necessary nor sufficient to explain the origin of complex specified
information processing systems.

>>> But wait a minute, didn't some wise person suggest something along the
>>> lines that the knowledgeable are always unsure, and the ignorant always
>>> so confident.
>>
>> Are you sure of that?
>
>Did my statement sound sure?

Is irony not your strong point? Odd, since you make liberal use of
sarcasm.

>>> Ahhh, perhaps that is the reason for your confidence.
>>
>>> And may I congratulate you on the succinctness and thoroughness of your
>>> supporting arguments. So many on your side of the debate are not
>>> prepared to actually post all the material they have, and yet here you
>>> apparently have done so in full. Bravo, Sir.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>You're more than unusually welcome. It's refreshing when people show the
>complete lack of substance to their argument, and it is to be
>congratulated when they do so.

Thank you.

>>> As your response obviously requires that a non-natural component is
>>> required, I am reminded that you did not respond to my question in

>>> previous thread about how prepared you are to accept non-materialistic
>>> explanations for events/things, so I'll ask again.
>>>
>>> You arrive home, and discover that all your finer items and valuables
>>> are gone.
>>
>> How would it be determined that something is "mine"? Who or what is
>> the "me" to which you refer?
>
>By the normal methods, receipts, documents, in some cases possession of
>the item(s), your response when someone else makes use of it or takes it
>out of your possession.

Who or what is "someone else"? You keep using personal pronouns, and I
am just trying to find out what your understanding of "person" is. To
what do the personal pronouns you use refer exactly?

>I never referred to a "me". My post was directed toward a "you". The
>particular "you" is an entity posting under the name of Kalkidas on the
>t.o. newsgroup. What "you" are is becoming more an more apparent.
>
>> If you could help me out on that account, I will try to answer your
>> question.
>
>I doubt your sincerity here, and will therefore pre-emptively add your
>name to the list of people who espouse supernatural explanations only
>when it suits them, and are just as materialistic as the most die hard
>materialist when it could cost them to be true to their supernatural
>beliefs.

It is rather amusing when people like you can dish out sarcasm but
can't take it.

>However, you may yet surprise me. I try to retain the hope that some
>super-naturalist is prepared to stand up for their beliefs in an all
>encompassing manner, not just a self serving one.

Again, what is that "self" you refer to?

[Malte Runz]

"jillery" skrev i meddelelsen
news:aj46s8tevhjvj8g1u...@4ax.com...

I was brought up in a non-religious family, and Denmark is as atheistic as
anyone could wish for. I guess I'm just not open minded enough to even
consider the idea of nature having been designed and created by a
supernatural deity.

I might have look at the video, but I'm not sure I'll watch the whole 2½
hours. For me the question has been settled a long time ago.




--
Malte Runz

[Ray Martinez]

Michael Ruse writes:

"I have no religious beliefs whatsoever...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/the-catholic-church-why-r_b_532987.html

Where did you obtain the idea that Ruse is Agnostic?

Ray

[....]

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Michael Ruse is a self-identified agnostic and professional
>>
>> philosopher,
>
>Michael Ruse writes:
>
>"I have no religious beliefs whatsoever...."
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/the-catholic-church-why-r_b_532987.html
>
>Where did you obtain the idea that Ruse is Agnostic?

He said so in the video. That's what "self-identified" means.

[shane]

Maybe, but how is that relevant here? I would have thought that
explaining the rationale behind when supernaturalism applies and doesn't
apply would be of the utmost non-silliness to those who espouse its
existence.

[shane]

Here, in the real world? Cite please.

> "Natural processes" are neither
> necessary nor sufficient to explain the origin of complex specified
> information processing systems.

Would you like some dressing on that salad, it looks a bit naked as it is.

>>>> But wait a minute, didn't some wise person suggest something along the
>>>> lines that the knowledgeable are always unsure, and the ignorant always
>>>> so confident.
>>>
>>> Are you sure of that?
>>
>> Did my statement sound sure?
>
> Is irony not your strong point? Odd, since you make liberal use of
> sarcasm.

Was it even irony, as my statement was in no ways expressing confidence
in the matter.

>>>> Ahhh, perhaps that is the reason for your confidence.
>>>
>>>> And may I congratulate you on the succinctness and thoroughness of your
>>>> supporting arguments. So many on your side of the debate are not
>>>> prepared to actually post all the material they have, and yet here you
>>>> apparently have done so in full. Bravo, Sir.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> You're more than unusually welcome. It's refreshing when people show the
>> complete lack of substance to their argument, and it is to be
>> congratulated when they do so.
>
> Thank you.

You're more than unusually welcome. It's refreshing when people show the
complete lack of substance to their argument, and it is to be

congratulated when they do so.ou're welcome.

>>>> As your response obviously requires that a non-natural component is
>>>> required, I am reminded that you did not respond to my question in
>>>> previous thread about how prepared you are to accept non-materialistic
>>>> explanations for events/things, so I'll ask again.
>>>>
>>>> You arrive home, and discover that all your finer items and valuables
>>>> are gone.
>>>
>>> How would it be determined that something is "mine"? Who or what is
>>> the "me" to which you refer?
>>
>> By the normal methods, receipts, documents, in some cases possession of
>> the item(s), your response when someone else makes use of it or takes it
>> out of your possession.
>
> Who or what is "someone else"? You keep using personal pronouns, and I
> am just trying to find out what your understanding of "person" is. To
> what do the personal pronouns you use refer exactly?

Who or what is "you"? Kalkidas keeps using personal pronouns, and shane
is just trying to find out what Kalkidas' understanding of "you" is. To
what do the personal pronouns Kalkidas uses refer exactly?

>> I never referred to a "me". My post was directed toward a "you". The
>> particular "you" is an entity posting under the name of Kalkidas on the
>> t.o. newsgroup. What "you" are is becoming more an more apparent.
>>
>>> If you could help me out on that account, I will try to answer your
>>> question.
>>
>> I doubt your sincerity here, and will therefore pre-emptively add your
>> name to the list of people who espouse supernatural explanations only
>> when it suits them, and are just as materialistic as the most die hard
>> materialist when it could cost them to be true to their supernatural
>> beliefs.
>
> It is rather amusing when people like you can dish out sarcasm but
> can't take it.

Who or what is "you"? Kalkidas keeps using personal pronouns, and shane
is just trying to find out what Kalkidas' understanding of "you" is. To
what do the personal pronouns Kalkidas uses refer exactly?

>> However, you may yet surprise me. I try to retain the hope that some
>> super-naturalist is prepared to stand up for their beliefs in an all
>> encompassing manner, not just a self serving one.
>
> Again, what is that "self" you refer to?

Who or what is "you"? Kalkidas keeps using personal pronouns, and shane
is just trying to find out what Kalkidas' understanding of "you" is. To
what do the personal pronouns Kalkidas uses refer exactly?

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:ae7dd96b-fd6c-4b6e...@googlegroups.com...

If it is possible to be agnostic it must be posible to be a Gnostic as well?
Buy you equate agnosticism with atheism, don't you?


> Ray
>
> [....]
>

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 09:53:35 UTC+1, Shane wrote:

> You arrive home, and discover that all your finer items
> and valuables are gone.
>
> Is your first thought:
>
> a. A god/other supernatural entity, did it for mysterious
> reasons of their own--unfathomable to me--but lets face

> it everything is gods/other supernatural entity's, anyway,

> so I never really deserved to keep it.
>
> b. I've been robbed!

Can't it be both a and b? Job was robbed! Amongst other things.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job>

It doesn't have to be the god himself mysteriously transporting
your property elsewhere. Gods sometimes move in unmysterious
ways, and they don't have trouble finding terrestrial accomplices.

Having said that - yes, you probably wouldn't think of the
theology first.

Although there are interestingly contradictory "Christian"
traditions where you depend on God to make you rich -
and non-Christian ones, of course. But the Christian
"bonus culture" ones are odd, because it doesn't seem to be
what Jesus had in mind, going by most of what he is meant
to have said about material wealth. Anyway, if that /was/
your belief, then God taking your stuff away would be a
puzzler. Job talked around that for a while, I think...

[shane]

Yes it can be both. However, I asked for which explanation was thought
of first. ISTM that most people who espouse supernatural explanations
for things, pretty much always do it after looking for a natural
explanation, which seems weird to me. Having grown up in fundamentalism,
and remained with it for an embarrassingly long time, I can recall that
supernatural explanations were pretty much always second, particularly
when something ostensibly negative happened.

Its all very god of the gapsish, and I still want to find someone who
always thinks supernatural first, for even mundane matters, such as the
person who pushed in front of them in the queue, the person who in not
picking up after their dog leaves a message that our supernaturalist
steps in etc.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

I had this rather strange idea that the total absence of religious beliefs
is a perfect definition of agnostic.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

It's very simple, supernatural means " attributed to some force beyond
scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (OED). Your failure to grasp
that basic principle is the reason for you asking silly questions, if
something has a natural explanation backed by evidence then it simply is not
supernatural.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:37:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

>Ray Martinez wrote:

>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:32:58 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

<snip>

>>> Michael Ruse is a self-identified agnostic and professional
>>> philosopher,

>> Michael Ruse writes:
>>
>> "I have no religious beliefs whatsoever...."
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/the-catholic-church-why-r_b_532987.html
>>
>> Where did you obtain the idea that Ruse is Agnostic?

>I had this rather strange idea that the total absence of religious beliefs
>is a perfect definition of agnostic.

And I had the strange idea that religious belief, per se, is
not an issue for agnostics; that the basic issue is the
agnostic's contention that it's impossible to *know" whether
a particular religious belief is correct. Specifically, per
the OED, "a person who believes that nothing is known or can
be known of the existence or nature of God". Belief and
knowledge are not synonymous, and agnostics, both theistic
and atheistic, recognize that fact.

Someone with "no religious beliefs whatsoever" is an
atheist, of the "weak" variety.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Arkalen]

I'd say everyone who's thought things through even a little bit agrees
it's "impossible to *know*" something (usually for a value of "know"
that comes down to "100% certainty", which interestingly isn't a
standard that's used for anything other than religious beliefs).

If all agnostics do is recognize that belief and knowledge are not
synomymous that robs the word "agnostic" of all meaning. Or
alternatively it implies that anybody who doesn't choose to identify as
an "agnostic" *does* think belief and knowledge are synonymous, which is
not the case.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 21 June 2013 16:18:38 UTC+1, Shane wrote:
> ISTM that most people who espouse supernatural explanations
> for things, pretty much always do it after looking for a natural
> explanation, which seems weird to me. Having grown up in fundamentalism,
> and remained with it for an embarrassingly long time, I can recall that
> supernatural explanations were pretty much always second, particularly
> when something ostensibly negative happened.
>
> Its all very god of the gapsish, and I still want to find someone who
> always thinks supernatural first, for even mundane matters, such as the
> person who pushed in front of them in the queue, the person who in not
> picking up after their dog leaves a message that our supernaturalist
> steps in etc.

Fictional full-time religious people - priests and monks
and nuns - seem to me to be quite thorough in recognising
a religious dimension in everyday life. Rather Brown,
the Catholic detective, for instance. But of course there
is a writer taking care to make them do that. In real
life, I don't know.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 21 June 2013 19:19:15 UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
> If all agnostics do is recognize that belief and knowledge are not
> synomymous that robs the word "agnostic" of all meaning. Or
> alternatively it implies that anybody who doesn't choose to
> identify as an "agnostic" *does* think belief and knowledge
> are synonymous, which is not the case.

I think that what matters to gods will be whether you
act and think as you would do if you were confident of
their non-existence, which is a practical measure of
your respect for them - and that that's what we need a
word for.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

You need to keep in mind that what you grew up in was very much a minority
of Christian belief and practice, largely (though not entirely) associated
with a particular area of the USA.

> I can recall that supernatural explanations were pretty much always
> second, particularly when something ostensibly negative happened.
>
> Its all very god of the gapsish, and I still want to find someone who
> always thinks supernatural first, for even mundane matters, such as
> the person who pushed in front of them in the queue, the person who
> in not picking up after their dog leaves a message that our
> supernaturalist steps in etc.

Fair enough, I guess having a conversation with somebody who is convinced
that are Napoleon could actually also be very interesting.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Specific words like this are always difficult to pin down but I tend to
think of an atheist as somebody who specifically rejects the existence of a
God; a person having no religious beliefs is not necessarily rejecting God,
they could easily be in the 'don't know' - and even the 'don't care' -
group. Anyway, whatever the specific definition, Ray is totally off beam in
his suggestion that an agnostic must have religious beliefs.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:19:15 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote in
talk.origins:

Agnosticism is an attitude about the ability to know about gods. It is
consistent with the orthodox Christian doctrine, as a response to the
Gnostic heresy, that this is a matter of faith, that you cannot have
knowledge about gods.

[alias Ernest Major]

Agnosticism has several different meanings

strong agnosticism - "can't know" whether there is a god.
weak agnosticism - "don't know" whether there is a god.
apatheism - "don't care" whether there is a god.
ignosticism - god is a "meaningless" term.

Someone with a "total absence of religious beliefs" would be a weak
atheist, and could be one of several categories of agnostic in addition.

--
alias Ernest Major

[shane]

Thousands, if not millions of supernaturalists would disagree with your
closing comment. Apparently, supernatural entities can produce events
that are indistinguishable from natural ones. Just look at the 'blame
the gays, liberals, jews, democrats, etc.' that goes on every time there
is a natural disaster in the U.S. So I'm interested in how a
supernaturalist decides if god spirited off their goods, or if a thief
took them, when the only evidence you have to work with is that your
goods are gone?

[jillery]

If one asserts there are supernatural causes and natural causes, then
specifying a means of distinguishing them is a necessary argument to
support said assertion. To simply assert that X has a natural cause
and Y has a supernatural cause is simply begging the question. Those
who make a habit of begging the question are likely to label necessary
arguments as silly.

[jillery]

In this specific case, @ 2:20:25, Michael Ruse says that he's a
non-believer, an agnostic rather than an atheist, and he's a
non-believer because he can't reconcile the problem of evil with a
Judaeo-Christian God.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Whatever the numbers, they are a small minority.

What I'm saying nis nothing new, by the way. Here's what one of the most
influential ever supernaturalists had to say long before modern science had
even been thought about...

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the
stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he
hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn."
(St. Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" [De Genesi ad Litteram],
408)

> Apparently, supernatural entities can produce
> events that are indistinguishable from natural ones. Just look at the
> 'blame the gays, liberals, jews, democrats, etc.' that goes on every
> time there is a natural disaster in the U.S.

Do you pay attention to or get excited about kooks in any other branch of
life?

> So I'm interested in how
> a supernaturalist decides if god spirited off their goods, or if a
> thief took them, when the only evidence you have to work with is that
> your goods are gone?

Perhaps the official position of the Catholic Church might help you:

"If, then, apparent contradiction [between science and the Bible] be met
with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and
commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable
meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be
carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and
the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth
cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made
either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical
discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then
suspend judgment for the time being."
(Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 1893)

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/22/13 2:05 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> shane wrote:
>> On 22/06/2013 02:35, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>
>>> It's very simple, supernatural means " attributed to some force
>>> beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (OED). Your
>>> failure to grasp that basic principle is the reason for you asking
>>> silly questions, if something has a natural explanation backed by
>>> evidence then it simply is not supernatural.
>>
>> Thousands, if not millions of supernaturalists would disagree with
>> your closing comment.
>
> Whatever the numbers, they are a small minority.

I don't believe that for a minute. Most people I know attribute
supernatural agency to certain fortuitous happenings, such as finding a
parking space, having their estranged son call, or being able to quit
smoking. Given that most people in the country (probably in the world)
pray for such occurrences, I expect the majority would also say, when
such occurrences happen, that there was some supernatural involvement.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:48:50 +0100, the following appeared

That is what has come to be known as a "strong" atheist. The
basic meanings of both "atheist" and "agnostic" are in the
words.

> a person having no religious beliefs is not necessarily rejecting God,
>they could easily be in the 'don't know' - and even the 'don't care' -
>group. Anyway, whatever the specific definition, Ray is totally off beam in
>his suggestion that an agnostic must have religious beliefs.

Of course he is; Ray has many strange and unique ideas
regarding the meaning of words.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:00:21 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us>:

Yep.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:19:15 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com>:

That's correct, and would be relevant if the definition of
the term included "100%", which it doesn't.

>If all agnostics do is recognize that belief and knowledge are not
>synomymous that robs the word "agnostic" of all meaning.

Nope. The agnostic restricts his claims to the existence and
nature of God.

> Or
>alternatively it implies that anybody who doesn't choose to identify as
>an "agnostic" *does* think belief and knowledge are synonymous, which is
>not the case.

No, it's not. Nor did I imply it is.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 04:23:09 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I'd say that, based on those statements, he is actually a
weak atheist. An agnostic, having no hope of understanding
the nature (and therefore motivations) of God, or even of
His existence, would probably acknowledge that such
reconciliation is impossible. Agnostics aren't
"non-believers"; they hold the philosophical belief that
knowledge of God is impossible, not that belief is
incorrect. It's not a scientific position, but then, no one
claims it is.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/22/13 2:05 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> shane wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2013 02:35, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple, supernatural means " attributed to some force
>>>> beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (OED). Your
>>>> failure to grasp that basic principle is the reason for you asking
>>>> silly questions, if something has a natural explanation backed by
>>>> evidence then it simply is not supernatural.
>>>
>>> Thousands, if not millions of supernaturalists would disagree with
>>> your closing comment.
>>
>> Whatever the numbers, they are a small minority.
>
> I don't believe that for a minute. Most people I know attribute
> supernatural agency to certain fortuitous happenings, such as finding
> a parking space, having their estranged son call, or being able to
> quit smoking. Given that most people in the country (probably in the
> world) pray for such occurrences, I expect the majority would also
> say, when such occurrences happen, that there was some supernatural
> involvement.

Funny how I mix a lot with people of very clear religious beliefs and I
can't think of any of them who would fit what you are describing. You, as
far as I can figure out, probably don't mix so much with people of such
beliefs yet you apparently meet many who behave as you describe, I'm sure
there's a rational explanation of some sort for that :)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <o9nas8t57rakrsdfq...@4ax.com>,

Hmm, perhaps he should try believing in Ganesh.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 23 June 2013 11:26:39 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <o9nas8t57rakrsdfq...@4ax.com>

> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In this specific case, @ 2:20:25, Michael Ruse says that he's a
> > non-believer, an agnostic rather than an atheist, and he's a
> > non-believer because he can't reconcile the problem of evil with a
> > Judaeo-Christian God.
>
> Hmm, perhaps he should try believing in Ganesh.

Why "should" he do that? Has anybody, including Ganesh,
offered a good reason to do so?

I do have a very vague idea that in the course of worshipping
Ganesh you may receive cake, or similar goodies, but I
don't know. And it might be the major selling point.

[Mark Isaak]

Well, my first search for actual data found that, in 2003, 42% of
Americans engaged in petitionary prayer, which is essentially asking for
supernatural involvement in natural occurrences. So not exactly a
majority, but not a small minority either.

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/8944/war-changed-prayer-habits-many-americans.aspx>

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

You think they were making petitionary prayers to find parking spaces?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

P.S. Be very, very careful about extrapolating American religious practices
to the rest of the world.

[shane]

A small minority can still do a lot of damage.

> What I'm saying nis nothing new, by the way. Here's what one of the most
> influential ever supernaturalists had to say long before modern science had
> even been thought about...
>
> "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
> and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the
> stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
> eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
> the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he
> hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
> disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
> presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
> topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
> situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
> it to scorn."
> (St. Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" [De Genesi ad Litteram],
> 408)

Sort of irrelevant to the discussion as my aim was not the
supernaturalist claim per se, so much as how it was decided that in this
particular case the natural explanation was insufficient, leaving only a
supernatural conclusion.

>> Apparently, supernatural entities can produce
>> events that are indistinguishable from natural ones. Just look at the
>> 'blame the gays, liberals, jews, democrats, etc.' that goes on every
>> time there is a natural disaster in the U.S.
>
> Do you pay attention to or get excited about kooks in any other branch of
> life?

Again irrelevant. There are myriad things that I do and do not get
involved in. It's all somewhat arbitrary, as I have no doubt it is in
your life as well. But yes, I do try to be aware of kookery in all its
many forms.

>> So I'm interested in how
>> a supernaturalist decides if god spirited off their goods, or if a
>> thief took them, when the only evidence you have to work with is that
>> your goods are gone?
>
> Perhaps the official position of the Catholic Church might help you:

Doubtful as I seem to recall that Kalkidas is not a catholic.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

This particular exchange started in response to your comment:

"No-one that I have asked the question of, who claims a belief in the
non-material/supernatural, has yet answered, for some reason."

If you were only addressing Kalkidas or targeting only a minority of
religious believers, then your statement should have been a bit less
sweeping.

[Mark Isaak]

Among other things.

Some (many?) of the 58% who did not engage in petitionary prayer would
also attribute natural events to supernatural causes. In the parking
space example I know personally, the person attributes his ability to
find parking spaces not to prayer, but to having a "mojo". The
supernatural need not come from God; it also includes such things as
healing energies and lucky charms and rituals. Belief in such things
is, I understand, very common.