DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[yorkshirelad]

I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.

it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!

As a believer, I don't think that I have ever tried to convince others of the existance of God. I also find it annoying when people of different faiths and denominations of Christianity try to evangelize to me. Now that the atheists are in the evangelism business, it seems I have nowhere to hide.

 

[celtic_crippler]

it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!

As a believer, I don't think that I have ever tried to convince others of the existance of God. I also find it annoying when people of different faiths and denominations of Christianity try to evangelize to me. Now that the atheists are in the evangelism business, it seems I have nowhere to hide.

I've been guilty of using the "Easter Bunny analogy" as well...

It wasn't my intent to belittle or insult, but to make a point. I can understand how that could be offensive; however, and I apologize.

This is a passionate topic and it can get pretty heated. But I want to be clear that I'm not trying to intentially insult anyone.

Point taken. :asian:

 

[yorkshirelad]

I've been guilty of using the "Easter Bunny analogy" as well...

It wasn't my intent to belittle or insult, but to make a point. I can understand how that could be offensive; however, and I apologize.

This is a passionate topic and it can get pretty heated. But I want to be clear that I'm not trying to intentially insult anyone.

Point taken. :asian:

Again, for the umpteenth time my Thanks isn't working, so i'll say it here...........Thanks mate

 

[Andrew Green]

it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position.

All those atheist campaigns say basically the same thing "God probably does not exist"

At no point has any atheist ever told a believer they will burn in hell for their beliefs, most Christians don't either. But if you look at who is trying to force a belief on any given God, it's not the people that don't believe in any of them.

I would argue that there is more basis for claiming that religious people have tried to force out belief in God(s) then atheists. Just not the one they believe in. But heresy as a crime is a religious thing.

There are many Gods out there too choose from, if you don't believe in any of them they are all on equal ground, if you believe in only one of them the other Gods are seen in a different way.

Now, if you have a look at the things that have lead to this "atheist uprising" it's really not got a lot to do with belief in God. It has more to do with religion being taught as science (Intelligent design), science being rejected or ignored because it conflicts with religious ideals (stem cell research, global warming, etc.). It has to do with wars that have been framed by many as religious, people putting faith in "faith healing" and not allowing their children to have proper medical treatment in favour of prayer.

Belief in God is really not the core issue for most, it is the rejection of science, reason and common sense in favour of faith.

 

[elder999]

Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!

Works really well on me... :lfao:

 

[Ramirez]

it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!

As a believer, I don't think that I have ever tried to convince others of the existance of God. I also find it annoying when people of different faiths and denominations of Christianity try to evangelize to me. Now that the atheists are in the evangelism business, it seems I have nowhere to hide.

I really don't care what you believe Holmes, I really only care when the believers start trying to force their beliefs on others, as in say teaching creationism in the science class.

Actually I am a strong believer in religious freedom , which is why I support a secular state, it is the only way to guarantee religious freedom.

 

[elder999]

All those atheist campaigns say basically the same thing "God probably does not exist".

"And 'religion' is a waste of time, at best, and the cause of the world's ills at worst," in the case of R. Dawkins, anyway.....

 

[Omar B]

it's funny that it is the atheists here who have been so ardent in forcing their position. The deity cannot be proved either way, so the best way to deal with the believer is to be somewhat demeaning. Believe me references to the easter Bunny ect are used for the purposes of making the believer seem unintelligent or just plain stupid. Please don't try to deny it Omar!

It was not my intent man. I used the Bunny because people get mad when I use god. It's simply there as an analogy rather than using a god or gods from any given religion.

 

[celtic_crippler]

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

Sometimes I feel like I must be posting in a foreign language. Is that not what I said?

Evidence is not proof. Are you asserting that you can prove the Easter Bunny does not exist?

Ev-i-dence {noun} something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The fact that when mommy and daddy stop providing you with an Easter Basket should be enough, but I suppose you could hide out and wait for a giant rabbit to come hopping down the bunny trail the night before could do the trick.

If you do not accept that as evidence then so be it.

That is a faith. Much like religion. It's a personal belief that you cannot substantiate.

I can't stop you from believing that the world started with just two people and that they were kicked out of a magic garden because they listened to a talking snake. But I can prove that snakes don't talk and I think science and history back up the fact that the world didn't just appear after 6 days with a single man... However... the fact that God supposedly created Eve out of Adam's rib may support that he endorses cloning and stem cell research.

As long as you're not trying to convince me of that there's no issue though.

To be fair, anyone who says that the Christian bible is literal and anyone who doesn't believe it is just plain wrong is also engaging in an act of faith, because they cannot substantiate their belief, either.

I'd call that "faith" because it can be. See above. Believing in something even when all the evidence points to something different is "faith."

First, I am not asserting the existence of any deity at all. I know full well that such an assertion could never be proven, and if I assert it, the burden is on me to prove it.

Exactly. But I could have sworn you were endorsing the existance of "God". My bad.

Second, it doesn't matter which deity I am referring to. Any theory of the literal existence of a deity is unfalsifiable. It can neither be proven nor disproven. As such, it is beyond the realm of science. This does not make it real, nor does it make it unreal. It makes it unknown.

Yeah it does. Because examples from religeous texts can be falsified and provide evidence against that particular diety's existance.

I'm listening.

Are you? See above.

I agree with that statement. You seem to often see it as 'forcing others to accept their beliefs' when they point out that their beliefs cannot be disproven, however. I don't really see it that way.

Perception is reality, but that's not how I see it. As I recall, earlier in this thread you were the one that started pointing fingers and telling people you disagreed with they were wrong. Even when they, unlike you, provided sources and evidence for their opinions.

It goes to the basis of knowledge and faith.

What is a fact? In absolute terms, it is what YOU can prove. One might suspect that it is what can be proven by others, but then I could 'prove' something and tell you I proved it. Would you believe me? What if I were a scientist? What if I were 100 scientists? 1,000?

So the 'fact' of facts is that at some level we take the work of others to be true, even if we have not performed the work to create the proof ourselves. I call that faith, of a certain kind.

You and I (and probably everyone here) believes that oxygen exists and we need it to survive and it can be frozen and so on and so forth.

Please note that I do not dispute that oxygen exists.

However, with the exception of some scientists here, what do we personally know and can prove about oxygen?

I can read about it. So many protons, neutrons and electrons. A certain atomic weight. It has certain properties.

But how do I know that's what I breathe? I read that somewhere else. I believe it. But I've never tested the air, I've never done the analysis. All of my knowledge about oxygen is second-hand.

I am not suggesting that oxygen does not exist. I'm not suggesting that there is a giant conspiracy to lie to everyone about what oxygen is. I'm pointing out that what we personally 'know' about oxygen is second-hand and limited, based on trust in our system of information, the statements of others, and our ability to draw general conclusions about these things.

That is not the same as having done the work ourselves. We accept the 'obviousness' of oxygen, but in reality, we are basing our belief in a trust in our systems of information. In reality, you cannot see it, touch it, weigh it, measure it, it has no odor, and we cannot sequester it on our own. We have to trust in what we are told.

Knowledge is a very sticky word. The main difference between knowledge and faith is that knowledge is justified true belief, whereas faith is simply belief, whether justified or unjustified, true or false. However, we only know that oxygen is real because we believe the many information systems that surround us that tell us it is - for those of us who have not done the actual experiments ourselves, that is.

If knowledge often relies upon what we presume to be real - like oxygen - then it is not that far removed from what some people presume to be real - like their religion. These are points on a line, not sides of a coin.

That's a stretch...

If you want to put forth the effort, you can find out for yourself that oxygen exists. No amount of effort will prove your Christian God, or any other of man's invention, is real. Whereas I can point to parts of religious text and disprove what it says with both science and history.

For example: It's not only improbable, but practically impossible for one man to gather every species of animal on the planet and shuffle them into a boat to ensure their survival. How did he get the polar bears? The penquins? The American wild-cat? They didn't even know America existed at that time...

If you want to believe that, fine. But if you expect me too you have to produce some proof.

 

[elder999]

No amount of effort will prove your Christian God, or any other of man's invention, is real.

Prove to whom?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sometimes I feel like I must be posting in a foreign language. Is that not what I said?

I get the same feeling sometimes. Perhaps it is what you said - if so, forgive me. But what I seemed to be reading is that a person who believes (in or against a deity) has the burden of proof. My point is a bit more subtle - that they do not have the burden of proof unless they intend to prove it to others, not to believe it themselves. One can believe in whatever they wish with no proof whatsoever. If they tell me that what they believe is true (there is a God, there isn't a God) and they want me to believe it too, then they have engaged the requirement to provide proof.

Ev-i-dence {noun} something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

Evidence helps establish proof, but it is not proof. All proof contains evidence, not all evidence is proof.

The fact that when mommy and daddy stop providing you with an Easter Basket should be enough, but I suppose you could hide out and wait for a giant rabbit to come hopping down the bunny trail the night before could do the trick.

That would prove the existence of the Easter Bunny, but if he never shows, that doesn't prove he doesn't exist. That's why the concept is unfalsifiable. One simply cannot prove the Easter Bunny does not exist.

If you do not accept that as evidence then so be it.

It would be evidence if I waited and he did not show up, yes. It would not be proof.

I can't stop you from believing that the world started with just two people and that they were kicked out of a magic garden because they listened to a talking snake. But I can prove that snakes don't talk and I think science and history back up the fact that the world didn't just appear after 6 days with a single man... However... the fact that God supposedly created Eve out of Adam's rib may support that he endorses cloning and stem cell research.

You can indeed prove that snakes cannot talk. You can indeed prove that the world was not created in six days, and etc. One minor quibble - many geneticists seem to think that there was a literal 'Eve' if only in the sense that our DNA seems to show we're all descended from a single female at some point in the past. Genetic evidence seems to also support a 'choke point' in history in which humanity was reduced to at most a few thousand individuals, and we're all descended from them.

That does not disprove the literal truth of the Bible. A person intent on countering your arguments would say that you did not prove THAT snake could not talk. You did not prove that a 'day' that the Bible talks about during the creation was a 'day' now.

I'm not arguing those points, however. I happen to agree with you that the Bible is not literally true. However, I do not think anyone can prove that the Bible is or is not literally true. One has to make their own decisions - and evidence does indeed play a significant role in it, just as you say.

I'd call that "faith" because it can be. See above. Believing in something even when all the evidence points to something different is "faith."

Earlier I pointed out that at one time, the British Academy of Science stated categorically that rocks do not fall from the sky. All evidence said they did not. All learned men said they did not.

Now, rocks either fall from the sky or they do not. Right? And you and I would say that rocks do fall from the sky.

So, if a lay-person back then saw a rock falling from the sky and believed their own eyes, were they engaging in faith? The learned men of that time would say YES. We would say NO. But the belief of the man who saw the rock fall from the sky cannot be both YES and NO. It has to be one or the other. So did they engage in faith or did they not engage in faith?

That is why I say that faith has nothing to do with the literal facts. Faith is internal to the person. I say that the person who saw rocks fall from the sky when all science said it was not possible was engaging in faith, because they were acting in accordance with their own beliefs. I cannot not go back and revise history and say they were not engaging in faith because now we know they were right. They did not know they were right, and what they believed is dead and buried with them. I can't change their beliefs now any more than I can change how tall they were.

Exactly. But I could have sworn you were endorsing the existance of "God". My bad.

I believe in the existence of God as part of my Catholic religious beliefs. I know that God can be neither proven nor disproven to exist.

Yeah it does. Because examples from religeous texts can be falsified and provide evidence against that particular diety's existance.

Even if you can falsify a text, that does not falsify the existence of the deity in question. Evidence against? OK, you said you could provide evidence against, and I accept that.

If you want to put forth the effort, you can find out for yourself that oxygen exists. No amount of effort will prove your Christian God, or any other of man's invention, is real. Whereas I can point to parts of religious text and disprove what it says with both science and history.

That much is true, to some extent. There are also parts of the Bible that have been proven true - historically - after initially being declared untrue. Cities that were said not to exist turn out to have actually been there, etc.

I agree that I can, with effort, prove that oxygen exists. The statement was that oxygen was 'obvious'. Obvious means patently true, true upon initial examination, true without need of further explanation, etc. I said oxygen is not obvious, and I think I've shown that.

For example: It's not only improbable, but practically impossible for one man to gather every species of animal on the planet and shuffle them into a boat to ensure their survival. How did he get the polar bears? The penquins? The American wild-cat? They didn't even know America existed at that time...

It is probably not possible. That is not the same as proving it did not happen.

If you want to believe that, fine. But if you expect me too you have to produce some proof.

I agree that if I wanted you to believe that, the onus would be on me to provide some proof. I have not attempted to do so. Likewise, when you say that anyone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible is wrong, (which you have done) you also have to provide proof. Neither of us can, so attempts to convince the other of historical veracity would be futile.

 

[arnisador]

And what then, of personal experience-if my senses tell me that God exists, through personal, real and extraordinary if not "supernatural" (hate that word. What's "natural?" :lol experience, then should I not trust it?

As a practical matter, if you wouldn't trust a surgeon who accepted proof via self-revelation, the question answers itself--you're willing to accept a lower standard of 'proof' in matters of less practical (i.e. physical) import. But I also wonder if you have direct personal evidence of god--parting of the clouds, a burning bush, etc.--or if you're drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence. If it's the latter, aren't having more minds on the matter, and discussion of various theories, a surer way to the truth?

As a personal matter, I surely don't begrudge you your individual beliefs--I personally believe that my two children are the most intelligent products of evolution, and that "Enter the Dragon" is the most important piece of art mankind has ever produced. The freedom to believe what you want to believe, to think what you want to think, is surely among the most fundamental of all rights. But I have to say, it's 2009 and I'm surprised that people still cling to millennia-old myths intended to explain why it rains.

 

[yorkshirelad]

It was not my intent man. I used the Bunny because people get mad when I use god. It's simply there as an analogy rather than using a god or gods from any given religion.

So I guess I'm speaking to the passive Omar now?

 

[elder999]

So I guess I'm speaking to the passive Omar now?

Please let it go-there's no reason for this to not be the civil conversation it mostly has been.....

....looove the new avatar, btw!

As a practical matter, if you wouldn't trust a surgeon who accepted proof via self-revelation, the question answers itself--you're willing to accept a lower standard of 'proof' in matters of less practical (i.e. physical) import. But I also wonder if you have direct personal evidence of god--parting of the clouds, a burning bush, etc.--or if you're drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence. If it's the latter, aren't having more minds on the matter, and discussion of various theories, a surer way to the truth?.

I don't see it as a lower standard of 'proof', as much as it being an apples and oranges thing. I wouldn't trust such a surgeon, if there were such an animal, nor would I look to a "surgeon" for "spiritual guidance." And yes, I have direct, personal evidence. In keeping with your surgical metaphor, I should point out that in my experience, the medical definition for "miracle" is misdiagnosis. :lol:

 

[arnisador]

No, I don't have to prove the Bunny exists, nor do I have to prove anything else. It's the ones who worship the Bunny and see the Bunny as everyone's only hope is the one who has something to prove.

Or as Nicholas Cage said, Put... the bunny... back... in the box.

I said the burdon of proof is on the believer.

The burden is on the person making the claim. The theist makes an affirmative claim; the atheist (of scientific mind) simply declines to accept the claim without evidence. Like the Easter Bunny, it is unsupported and hence doesn't merit a reasoned response.

In fact, it's unfortunate a word such as atheist exists, because it's no different than being abunnyiest, aunicornist, abigfootist, avampirist, etc.

I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.

Atheists aren't as well known for forcing their position on the religious as are the religious for forcing theirs on the irreligious and those of different religious beliefs.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Actually I am a strong believer in religious freedom , which is why I support a secular state, it is the only way to guarantee religious freedom.

I too support a secular state Cheech. I was fumbling around my collection of books for a copy of 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' last night, as I remembered a quote that seemed rather apt to this discussion.

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
(The adventure of the Beryl Coronet).

 

[arnisador]

Well firstly, science has shown pretty clearly that we can't always trust our senses

You seems to be taking two sides here--if science is based on the analysis of sensory data, and science has shown that sensory data is untrustworthy, science must be untrustworthy too, mustn't it? I don't share that opinion, but it seems inherent in what you're saying here.

So, if I understand you correctly we gain our information for logical analysis and experiment through personal experience.

This experience is shared and common, unlike religious revelation. If we accept that what appear to be other humans are indeed separate, intelligent, autonomous individuals, capable of communicating with us, then we have the check of multiple reports of the data. If we reject that and believe that we are the sole intelligence in the universe...well, that might lead to different conclusions. Hence, while each person's experience of the world is by definition personal to them, the data of science is subject to open review and criticism, and is subject to refinement as more data is obtained.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Please let it go-there's no reason for this to not be the civil conversation it mostly has been.....

....looove the new avatar, btw!

The civility comes and goes in waves Jeff. I would like the thread to remain civil on both ends.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Atheists aren't as well known for forcing their position on the religious as are the religious for forcing theirs on the irreligious and those of different religious beliefs.

They are on MT :rofl:

 

[arnisador]

The civility comes and goes in waves Jeff. I would like the thread to remain civil on both ends.

One problem that's fundamental to the civility issue is that from my side I feel I'm using academically correct anthropological language when I say things like creation myth, primitive explanations of natural phenomena, fictional creatures, etc., or when I compare one god to another of a different pantheon or to another mythical creature. To those who believe in their notion of god that can be quite offensive, while to me it's scientifically accurate language that is intended to describe, not offend.