Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dawkins

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First, rather than allow untrammeled investigation and "questioning" about the universe, faith imposes dogmatic interpretations, saying simply "This is how it is." Yeah, yeah. Yet when we find, let's say, a teacher talking about how "disturbing" he finds it that students "question" the "irrefutable evidence" he lays before them, would you guess that teacher is a theist or a Darwinist?

a biology teacher in a Los Angeles public high school who complains that some of his Christian students doubt what he tells them about evolution:

"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

...Don't these students realize that "This is how it is"?

Second, Dawkins says, "faith unsupported by evidence is a lethal weapon." To back up this charge the video editor splices together a variety of visual images. Of those images intended to cast Christianity in a bad light, the visuals fall into three categories. There are scenes of children praying -- which can't be assumed to be a negative thing unless you've already accepted Dawkins's message. There are pictures evoking events that happened centuries ago -- the Crusades, the Inquisition. And there are pictures of members of the Westboro Baptist Church, protesting with their obscene signs.

Yes, the entire case against the contemporary Christian religion, a faith of 2 billion self-described believers worldwide, is allowed to rest on the actions of a single tiny group of nuts, reviled by everyone else in their faith if they are known at all and comprising just 40 members in total. This is the kind of evidence that Dawkins thinks we should find compelling.

Surely in a country of 314 million, the existence of 40 lunatics, most belonging to the same extended family, proves nothing other than it's a big country. In that context, the frequency with which evangelizers for Dawinian materialism come back to them, obsessively, is really striking. If the members of Westboro Baptist Church didn't exist, Richard Dawkins would have to invent them.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:44:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:33:22 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Ah, that Dawkins. What a character, amiright?

I like him- he's useful.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:48:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:
"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

There are 2 universal truths that I know of in the world, and a third that comes pretty darn close:

1. Pure mathematics
2. The Laws of Fluid Dynamics
3. (pretty close) Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Darwin was wrong, and I know this because many of his conclusions have had to be modified now that more, and better, information exists.

Creationists are also wrong, and I know this because all of their conclusions are complete, fantastical bullsh*t.

Doesn't mean a teacher of science, a pursuit which calls for the constant questioning of its theories, should get frustrated when his students question the theories he's teaching, even if their questions do seem stupid to him (we'd, perhaps, still believe Hawkings's theories about black holes if a plumber, Leonard Susskind, hadn't questioned those theories...what does a plumber know compared to a world class physicist? Conversation of matter, for one...)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:52:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:48:21 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:
"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

There are 2 universal truths that I know of in the world, and a third that comes pretty darn close:

1. Pure mathematics
2. The Laws of Fluid Dynamics
3. (pretty close) Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Darwin was wrong, and I know this because many of his conclusions have had to be modified now that more, and better, information exists.

Creationists are also wrong, and I know this because all of their conclusions are complete, fantastical bullsh*t.

Doesn't mean a teacher of science, a pursuit which calls for the constant questioning of its theories, should get frustrated when his students question the theories he's teaching, even if their questions do seem stupid to him (we'd, perhaps, still believe Hawkings's theories about black holes if a plumber, Leonard Susskind, hadn't questioned those theories...what does a plumber know compared to a world class physicist? Conversation of matter, for one...)

I'm sure Darwin was more right than what creationists make known. And creationism just isn't science whatsoever. But I'm on the fence about ID still altogether. I used to be completely opposed.

I just can't stand when both sides make it about religion, it's so... villagey
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:52:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:44:49 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:33:22 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Ah, that Dawkins. What a character, amiright?

I like him- he's useful.

Useful how?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:04:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:52:34 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:44:49 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:33:22 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Ah, that Dawkins. What a character, amiright?

I like him- he's useful.

Useful how?

Good question. First he's an excellent biologist. But also he brings up good points against village theists that need to be taken seriously, as well as creating a bigger utility of atheism in the main stream. It's hard refuting all the religions of the world just to find which one remains standing as the true one, if there is one.

And so this is why I believe in the utility of atheism in general, but Dawkin's project in particular. I take interest in its progression- once it hits Christian Scholarship I watch even more carefully to see how atheistic skepticism (which less face is is the best type of skepticism on the market these days), lets Christians know how we can better refine our case, update formulations of old arguments and revise new ones of they fail.

As William James said, a philosopher alone in his cave is a beast. I think religion alone in their isolations become beasts too. This is one of the reasons Christ probably said "go into all the world sharing the good news."
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:04:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:52:26 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:48:21 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:
"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

There are 2 universal truths that I know of in the world, and a third that comes pretty darn close:

1. Pure mathematics
2. The Laws of Fluid Dynamics
3. (pretty close) Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Darwin was wrong, and I know this because many of his conclusions have had to be modified now that more, and better, information exists.

Creationists are also wrong, and I know this because all of their conclusions are complete, fantastical bullsh*t.

Doesn't mean a teacher of science, a pursuit which calls for the constant questioning of its theories, should get frustrated when his students question the theories he's teaching, even if their questions do seem stupid to him (we'd, perhaps, still believe Hawkings's theories about black holes if a plumber, Leonard Susskind, hadn't questioned those theories...what does a plumber know compared to a world class physicist? Conversation of matter, for one...)

I'm sure Darwin was more right than what creationists make known. And creationism just isn't science whatsoever. But I'm on the fence about ID still altogether. I used to be completely opposed.

Yeah. I tend to agree (thus my calling out the creationist theories as complete, fantastical BS).

I just can't stand when both sides make it about religion, it's so... villagey

I tend to agree with this as well. To me, the teacher should take this as a challenge. I started out in Catholic School. I was taught to believe the same cr@p these kids were taught to believe (though, Catholics tend to be a little less literal in their translations of The Bible, still, after each reading of The Bible in mass, the priest, or person charged with reading the passage states, "This is the word of God.", so we were supposed to take it as absolute truth). Through more and more knowledge, I (pretty easily...I was skeptical from the get-go) was able to break free of church dogma.

Try to "save" the kids who aren't so brainwashed that their perception of reality is completely fried. Be a good teacher and friggin' teach, if you think what you're teaching is correct and useful.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:06:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:52:34 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:44:49 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:33:22 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Ah, that Dawkins. What a character, amiright?

I like him- he's useful.

Useful how?

word
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:09:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:04:25 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:52:34 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:44:49 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:33:22 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Ah, that Dawkins. What a character, amiright?

I like him- he's useful.

Useful how?

Good question. First he's an excellent biologist. But also he brings up good points against village theists that need to be taken seriously, as well as creating a bigger utility of atheism in the main stream. It's hard refuting all the religions of the world just to find which one remains standing as the true one, if there is one.

And so this is why I believe in the utility of atheism in general, but Dawkin's project in particular. I take interest in its progression- once it hits Christian Scholarship I watch even more carefully to see how atheistic skepticism (which less face is is the best type of skepticism on the market these days), lets Christians know how we can better refine our case, update formulations of old arguments and revise new ones of they fail.

As William James said, a philosopher alone in his cave is a beast. I think religion alone in their isolations become beasts too. This is one of the reasons Christ probably said "go into all the world sharing the good news."

Are you saying you've already decided it's better to try to revise arguments once their faults have been pointed out than discard them?

Anyway, if you want an intelligent critique of deistic arguments, I don't think Dawkins is the right man to be following.

True about his biology expertise, though. He does have that.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:14:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:04:25 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:52:34 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:44:49 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:33:22 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Ah, that Dawkins. What a character, amiright?

I like him- he's useful.

Useful how?

Good question. First he's an excellent biologist. But also he brings up good points against village theists that need to be taken seriously, as well as creating a bigger utility of atheism in the main stream. It's hard refuting all the religions of the world just to find which one remains standing as the true one, if there is one.

And so this is why I believe in the utility of atheism in general, but Dawkin's project in particular. I take interest in its progression- once it hits Christian Scholarship I watch even more carefully to see how atheistic skepticism (which less face is is the best type of skepticism on the market these days), lets Christians know how we can better refine our case, update formulations of old arguments and revise new ones of they fail.

As William James said, a philosopher alone in his cave is a beast. I think religion alone in their isolations become beasts too. This is one of the reasons Christ probably said "go into all the world sharing the good news."

cool.
signature
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:14:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:04:48 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:52:26 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:48:21 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:
"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

There are 2 universal truths that I know of in the world, and a third that comes pretty darn close:

1. Pure mathematics
2. The Laws of Fluid Dynamics
3. (pretty close) Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Darwin was wrong, and I know this because many of his conclusions have had to be modified now that more, and better, information exists.

Creationists are also wrong, and I know this because all of their conclusions are complete, fantastical bullsh*t.

Doesn't mean a teacher of science, a pursuit which calls for the constant questioning of its theories, should get frustrated when his students question the theories he's teaching, even if their questions do seem stupid to him (we'd, perhaps, still believe Hawkings's theories about black holes if a plumber, Leonard Susskind, hadn't questioned those theories...what does a plumber know compared to a world class physicist? Conversation of matter, for one...)

I'm sure Darwin was more right than what creationists make known. And creationism just isn't science whatsoever. But I'm on the fence about ID still altogether. I used to be completely opposed.

Yeah. I tend to agree (thus my calling out the creationist theories as complete, fantastical BS).

I just can't stand when both sides make it about religion, it's so... villagey

I tend to agree with this as well. To me, the teacher should take this as a challenge. I started out in Catholic School. I was taught to believe the same cr@p these kids were taught to believe (though, Catholics tend to be a little less literal in their translations of The Bible, still, after each reading of The Bible in mass, the priest, or person charged with reading the passage states, "This is the word of God.", so we were supposed to take it as absolute truth). Through more and more knowledge, I (pretty easily...I was skeptical from the get-go) was able to break free of church dogma.

Try to "save" the kids who aren't so brainwashed that their perception of reality is completely fried. Be a good teacher and friggin' teach, if you think what you're teaching is correct and useful.

Exactly, this if anything (with the teacher) is a product of old era outcome based education where no one is taught how to think, they're just taught what to think.

The best of all "facts" are crammed into their skulls then of course since science has a history, by the time those kids get to college those facts become a bit less factual then they have to learn how to think clearer to figure out true fact from probable fact from fiction to useful fiction, etc..

Teach a man how to fish and you won't need to give him one, he'll be fishing with other folks on the doc, picking up tricks of the trade on how to catch the big one. Likewise if a mind is a thing which sifts through information, well dammit show it how to sift better rather than just giving it more info!
elisur
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:22:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:14:53 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:04:48 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:52:26 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:48:21 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:
"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

There are 2 universal truths that I know of in the world, and a third that comes pretty darn close:

1. Pure mathematics
2. The Laws of Fluid Dynamics
3. (pretty close) Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Darwin was wrong, and I know this because many of his conclusions have had to be modified now that more, and better, information exists.

Creationists are also wrong, and I know this because all of their conclusions are complete, fantastical bullsh*t.

Doesn't mean a teacher of science, a pursuit which calls for the constant questioning of its theories, should get frustrated when his students question the theories he's teaching, even if their questions do seem stupid to him (we'd, perhaps, still believe Hawkings's theories about black holes if a plumber, Leonard Susskind, hadn't questioned those theories...what does a plumber know compared to a world class physicist? Conversation of matter, for one...)

I'm sure Darwin was more right than what creationists make known. And creationism just isn't science whatsoever. But I'm on the fence about ID still altogether. I used to be completely opposed.

Yeah. I tend to agree (thus my calling out the creationist theories as complete, fantastical BS).

I just can't stand when both sides make it about religion, it's so... villagey

I tend to agree with this as well. To me, the teacher should take this as a challenge. I started out in Catholic School. I was taught to believe the same cr@p these kids were taught to believe (though, Catholics tend to be a little less literal in their translations of The Bible, still, after each reading of The Bible in mass, the priest, or person charged with reading the passage states, "This is the word of God.", so we were supposed to take it as absolute truth). Through more and more knowledge, I (pretty easily...I was skeptical from the get-go) was able to break free of church dogma.

Try to "save" the kids who aren't so brainwashed that their perception of reality is completely fried. Be a good teacher and friggin' teach, if you think what you're teaching is correct and useful.

Exactly, this if anything (with the teacher) is a product of old era outcome based education where no one is taught how to think, they're just taught what to think.

The best of all "facts" are crammed into their skulls then of course since science has a history, by the time those kids get to college those facts become a bit less factual then they have to learn how to think clearer to figure out true fact from probable fact from fiction to useful fiction, etc..

Teach a man how to fish and you won't need to give him one, he'll be fishing with other folks on the doc, picking up tricks of the trade on how to catch the big one. Likewise if a mind is a thing which sifts through information, well dammit show it how to sift better rather than just giving it more info!

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.
http://www.livescience.com...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:29:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:09:41 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:04:25 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:52:34 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:44:49 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:33:22 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Ah, that Dawkins. What a character, amiright?

I like him- he's useful.

Useful how?

Good question. First he's an excellent biologist. But also he brings up good points against village theists that need to be taken seriously, as well as creating a bigger utility of atheism in the main stream. It's hard refuting all the religions of the world just to find which one remains standing as the true one, if there is one.

And so this is why I believe in the utility of atheism in general, but Dawkin's project in particular. I take interest in its progression- once it hits Christian Scholarship I watch even more carefully to see how atheistic skepticism (which less face is is the best type of skepticism on the market these days), lets Christians know how we can better refine our case, update formulations of old arguments and revise new ones of they fail.

As William James said, a philosopher alone in his cave is a beast. I think religion alone in their isolations become beasts too. This is one of the reasons Christ probably said "go into all the world sharing the good news."

Are you saying you've already decided it's better to try to revise arguments once their faults have been pointed out than discard them?

Well there's options- for instance I'm wishy washy on conceptualist arguments for God namely because I don't consider universals concrete, nor am I a nominalist or Platonist. I consider numbers not as necessarily existing but rather as useful fictions to describe something that does in fact exist. I was recently shown that that's the more reasonable view given the alternative of seeing numbers as necessary concepts in some necessary mind. And so I gave up conceptualist arguments outright and altogether.

But then I convinced myself that the moral argument you see everyone on here use seems a bit question begging or at least the conclusions somewhat inflated. So I revised it, split it into two, and deflated the conclusions to existential and epistemological arguments. This I think was a more reasonable / modest approach.

I don't forsee the Kalam weakening nor Leibniz's argument. I am more inclined to view the design of the universe as a properly basic belief rather than an inference from fine-tuning. For a foundational experience of a designed universe is just slightly more reasonable view all things equal compared to naturalism's self-defeating defeater propounded by Plantinga's recent book (as well as Nagel's take on materialism).

Anyway, if you want an intelligent critique of deistic arguments, I don't think Dawkins is the right man to be following.

I'm no deist, I'm a Christian and I know Dawkins is just miserable when it comes to philosophical theology. But like I said he wells up the topic in most people so that they're less afraid to discuss it at least.

There's pop-culture (New-atheist movement) then arm-chair philosophers, then there's scholarship. And as you go up the chain it's nice to see that theism holds a prominent place still in Academia through philosophy.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:31:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a difference between a theist and a deist, and those differences are not, in any way, subtle.

Nearly all scientists I've ever encountered would have to be classified as deists (creation implies a creator...you can't make something out of nothing...but none of them, at least none of the ones I've come across, believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who is keeping us under His watchful, all-seeing eye).

Also, as someone who majored in a social science, there is no such thing as a social scientist. We're all a bunch of jerk-off who have nothing better to do than diss one another, and that which we practice cannot, with a straight face, be called "science". It's just a term, because it was the best they could come up with at the time.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:51:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:22:41 AM, elisur wrote:


Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.
http://www.livescience.com...

I've always said that Spirituality, constrained by sound Theology, renders the best of Philosophy redundant and the best of Science trivial.

The moment you say you're God, and I say no you're not, I'm doing theology- which takes practice in philosophy...and science is cool too.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:55:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:31:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
There's a difference between a theist and a deist, and those differences are not, in any way, subtle.

Nearly all scientists I've ever encountered would have to be classified as deists (creation implies a creator...you can't make something out of nothing...but none of them, at least none of the ones I've come across, believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who is keeping us under His watchful, all-seeing eye).


I'm guessing you don't know too many scientists then. Certainly at my Uni there is a very significant theistic population amongst those studying sciences. Probably larger than the deistic group. (and anyone who knows which Uni I go to can vouch that it certainly has an academic reputation)
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 9:47:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 5:55:09 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:31:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
There's a difference between a theist and a deist, and those differences are not, in any way, subtle.

Nearly all scientists I've ever encountered would have to be classified as deists (creation implies a creator...you can't make something out of nothing...but none of them, at least none of the ones I've come across, believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who is keeping us under His watchful, all-seeing eye).


I'm guessing you don't know too many scientists then. Certainly at my Uni there is a very significant theistic population amongst those studying sciences. Probably larger than the deistic group. (and anyone who knows which Uni I go to can vouch that it certainly has an academic reputation)

Yale? BYU (hey...it's a good school)? Colombia (it's run by Jesuits, right?)?

I went to one of the top 5 recognized schools in the country for the study of medicine, engineering (specifically, aerospace), and technology.

It's a public institution of higher learning, not a church funded, private one, though. That might be where the difference is coming from.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 10:07:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 9:47:02 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:55:09 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:31:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
There's a difference between a theist and a deist, and those differences are not, in any way, subtle.

Nearly all scientists I've ever encountered would have to be classified as deists (creation implies a creator...you can't make something out of nothing...but none of them, at least none of the ones I've come across, believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who is keeping us under His watchful, all-seeing eye).


I'm guessing you don't know too many scientists then. Certainly at my Uni there is a very significant theistic population amongst those studying sciences. Probably larger than the deistic group. (and anyone who knows which Uni I go to can vouch that it certainly has an academic reputation)

Yale? BYU (hey...it's a good school)? Colombia (it's run by Jesuits, right?)?

I went to one of the top 5 recognized schools in the country for the study of medicine, engineering (specifically, aerospace), and technology.

It's a public institution of higher learning, not a church funded, private one, though. That might be where the difference is coming from.

I think he goes to Oxford or Cambridge. I don't know, thought I remembered a thread from a while back.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 10:07:16 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 12/13/2012 9:47:02 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:55:09 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:31:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
There's a difference between a theist and a deist, and those differences are not, in any way, subtle.

Nearly all scientists I've ever encountered would have to be classified as deists (creation implies a creator...you can't make something out of nothing...but none of them, at least none of the ones I've come across, believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who is keeping us under His watchful, all-seeing eye).


I'm guessing you don't know too many scientists then. Certainly at my Uni there is a very significant theistic population amongst those studying sciences. Probably larger than the deistic group. (and anyone who knows which Uni I go to can vouch that it certainly has an academic reputation)

Yale? BYU (hey...it's a good school)? Colombia (it's run by Jesuits, right?)?

I went to one of the top 5 recognized schools in the country for the study of medicine, engineering (specifically, aerospace), and technology.

It's a public institution of higher learning, not a church funded, private one, though. That might be where the difference is coming from.

I think he goes to Oxford or Cambridge. I don't know, thought I remembered a thread from a while back.

Anglicans...I gotta say, I like them better than most Christian sects, but then again, they're not "Christians" like the mega-church douchebags that we so often see espousing the virtues of Christ in the states. They're more like reformed Catholics (who can get divorced as often as they want and have gay bishops)...they have a much more flexible concept of God and Spirituality, so there's still a bit of a difference between the Yankee theist and the Limey one from hoitie-toitie, cobblestone land.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 1:43:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:


First, rather than allow untrammeled investigation and "questioning" about the universe, faith imposes dogmatic interpretations, saying simply "This is how it is." Yeah, yeah. Yet when we find, let's say, a teacher talking about how "disturbing" he finds it that students "question" the "irrefutable evidence" he lays before them, would you guess that teacher is a theist or a Darwinist?

What's a Darwinist?


a biology teacher in a Los Angeles public high school who complains that some of his Christian students doubt what he tells them about evolution:

"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

...Don't these students realize that "This is how it is"?

Not that I have any statistics mind you, but from my personal experience, a lot of the people I've encountered who claim to have a scientific bone to pick with evolutionary theory seem to have an ulterior motive or aren't completely straight-forward with the roots of their opposition. These tend to be the sorts of people who quote Ken Ham or Kent Hovind and seem to think that evolutionary theory is some poorly-supported theory in crisis. "Disturbing" might seem a tad strong for some of us, but I don't think that this is necessarily an illegitimate concern coming from a science teacher. In short, in my experience, the "questioning" isn't the same kind of "questioning" that's supposed to warrant sympathy in these kinds of situations.


Second, Dawkins says, "faith unsupported by evidence is a lethal weapon." To back up this charge the video editor splices together a variety of visual images. Of those images intended to cast Christianity in a bad light, the visuals fall into three categories. There are scenes of children praying -- which can't be assumed to be a negative thing unless you've already accepted Dawkins's message. There are pictures evoking events that happened centuries ago -- the Crusades, the Inquisition. And there are pictures of members of the Westboro Baptist Church, protesting with their obscene signs.

Yes, the entire case against the contemporary Christian religion, a faith of 2 billion self-described believers worldwide, is allowed to rest on the actions of a single tiny group of nuts, reviled by everyone else in their faith if they are known at all and comprising just 40 members in total. This is the kind of evidence that Dawkins thinks we should find compelling.

Surely in a country of 314 million, the existence of 40 lunatics, most belonging to the same extended family, proves nothing other than it's a big country. In that context, the frequency with which evangelizers for Dawinian materialism come back to them, obsessively, is really striking. If the members of Westboro Baptist Church didn't exist, Richard Dawkins would have to invent them.

...Or if he wanted to focus on one specific example, he could just find another group? Surely you aren't implying that WBC is the only critique-worthy Christian group? There are many who would argue that a very, very large portion of the Christian community is on the wrong side of history with certain issues even today. The first example that comes to mind would be complementarianism within the Church.

Also, perhaps I'm misguided here, but how exactly does it follow that, because the Westboro people were mentioned, or are mentioned frequently, that Dawkins thinks that modern-day atrocities committed by Christian groups are limited to 40 people?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apeiron
You said this.. Second, Dawkins says, "faith unsupported by evidence is a lethal weapon."

I reply: FAITH is just that.. "Believing in something unsupported by evidence!!"
Apeiron THINK... If it was supported by evidence then it would NOT be faith it would be FACT!!!

Dogknox
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:26:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:17:01 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Apeiron
You said this.. Second, Dawkins says, "faith unsupported by evidence is a lethal weapon."

I reply: FAITH is just that.. "Believing in something unsupported by evidence!!"
Apeiron THINK... If it was supported by evidence then it would NOT be faith it would be FACT!!!

Dogknox

If there exist a 'reasonable faith' ... one that is self evident upon 'being as appeared to spiritually' or in other words 'acquaintance with God' is itself veridical for the person who actually has such an internal experience. And so therefore faith in fact, far from being unsupported, enjoys internal warrant.

Sure faith in something like the stock market going up or whatever can be described in the sense you mean. But when theologians bespeak faith, what I describe above is just what they mean.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:28:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 1:43:08 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:


First, rather than allow untrammeled investigation and "questioning" about the universe, faith imposes dogmatic interpretations, saying simply "This is how it is." Yeah, yeah. Yet when we find, let's say, a teacher talking about how "disturbing" he finds it that students "question" the "irrefutable evidence" he lays before them, would you guess that teacher is a theist or a Darwinist?

What's a Darwinist?


a biology teacher in a Los Angeles public high school who complains that some of his Christian students doubt what he tells them about evolution:

"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

...Don't these students realize that "This is how it is"?

Not that I have any statistics mind you, but from my personal experience, a lot of the people I've encountered who claim to have a scientific bone to pick with evolutionary theory seem to have an ulterior motive or aren't completely straight-forward with the roots of their opposition. These tend to be the sorts of people who quote Ken Ham or Kent Hovind and seem to think that evolutionary theory is some poorly-supported theory in crisis. "Disturbing" might seem a tad strong for some of us, but I don't think that this is necessarily an illegitimate concern coming from a science teacher. In short, in my experience, the "questioning" isn't the same kind of "questioning" that's supposed to warrant sympathy in these kinds of situations.


Second, Dawkins says, "faith unsupported by evidence is a lethal weapon." To back up this charge the video editor splices together a variety of visual images. Of those images intended to cast Christianity in a bad light, the visuals fall into three categories. There are scenes of children praying -- which can't be assumed to be a negative thing unless you've already accepted Dawkins's message. There are pictures evoking events that happened centuries ago -- the Crusades, the Inquisition. And there are pictures of members of the Westboro Baptist Church, protesting with their obscene signs.

Yes, the entire case against the contemporary Christian religion, a faith of 2 billion self-described believers worldwide, is allowed to rest on the actions of a single tiny group of nuts, reviled by everyone else in their faith if they are known at all and comprising just 40 members in total. This is the kind of evidence that Dawkins thinks we should find compelling.

Surely in a country of 314 million, the existence of 40 lunatics, most belonging to the same extended family, proves nothing other than it's a big country. In that context, the frequency with which evangelizers for Dawinian materialism come back to them, obsessively, is really striking. If the members of Westboro Baptist Church didn't exist, Richard Dawkins would have to invent them.

...Or if he wanted to focus on one specific example, he could just find another group? Surely you aren't implying that WBC is the only critique-worthy Christian group? There are many who would argue that a very, very large portion of the Christian community is on the wrong side of history with certain issues even today. The first example that comes to mind would be complementarianism within the Church.

Also, perhaps I'm misguided here, but how exactly does it follow that, because the Westboro people were mentioned, or are mentioned frequently, that Dawkins thinks that modern-day atrocities committed by Christian groups are limited to 40 people?

Name a Christian group on a par with WBC?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:52:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 12:55:36 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 10:07:16 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 12/13/2012 9:47:02 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:55:09 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:31:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
There's a difference between a theist and a deist, and those differences are not, in any way, subtle.

Nearly all scientists I've ever encountered would have to be classified as deists (creation implies a creator...you can't make something out of nothing...but none of them, at least none of the ones I've come across, believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who is keeping us under His watchful, all-seeing eye).


I'm guessing you don't know too many scientists then. Certainly at my Uni there is a very significant theistic population amongst those studying sciences. Probably larger than the deistic group. (and anyone who knows which Uni I go to can vouch that it certainly has an academic reputation)

Yale? BYU (hey...it's a good school)? Colombia (it's run by Jesuits, right?)?

I went to one of the top 5 recognized schools in the country for the study of medicine, engineering (specifically, aerospace), and technology.

It's a public institution of higher learning, not a church funded, private one, though. That might be where the difference is coming from.

I think he goes to Oxford or Cambridge. I don't know, thought I remembered a thread from a while back.

Anglicans...I gotta say, I like them better than most Christian sects, but then again, they're not "Christians" like the mega-church douchebags that we so often see espousing the virtues of Christ in the states. They're more like reformed Catholics (who can get divorced as often as they want and have gay bishops)...they have a much more flexible concept of God and Spirituality, so there's still a bit of a difference between the Yankee theist and the Limey one from hoitie-toitie, cobblestone land.

Such folks seem to be the type that need that redemption on offer then eh?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 9:13:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 5:28:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 1:43:08 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 12/13/2012 3:29:02 AM, Apeiron wrote:


First, rather than allow untrammeled investigation and "questioning" about the universe, faith imposes dogmatic interpretations, saying simply "This is how it is." Yeah, yeah. Yet when we find, let's say, a teacher talking about how "disturbing" he finds it that students "question" the "irrefutable evidence" he lays before them, would you guess that teacher is a theist or a Darwinist?

What's a Darwinist?


a biology teacher in a Los Angeles public high school who complains that some of his Christian students doubt what he tells them about evolution:

"[W]hether the students are being influenced at home, in church or through Christian Club connections, Phillips finds it disturbing to see them turn in class reports in which they question irrefutable evidence that Darwin had it right."

...Don't these students realize that "This is how it is"?

Not that I have any statistics mind you, but from my personal experience, a lot of the people I've encountered who claim to have a scientific bone to pick with evolutionary theory seem to have an ulterior motive or aren't completely straight-forward with the roots of their opposition. These tend to be the sorts of people who quote Ken Ham or Kent Hovind and seem to think that evolutionary theory is some poorly-supported theory in crisis. "Disturbing" might seem a tad strong for some of us, but I don't think that this is necessarily an illegitimate concern coming from a science teacher. In short, in my experience, the "questioning" isn't the same kind of "questioning" that's supposed to warrant sympathy in these kinds of situations.


Second, Dawkins says, "faith unsupported by evidence is a lethal weapon." To back up this charge the video editor splices together a variety of visual images. Of those images intended to cast Christianity in a bad light, the visuals fall into three categories. There are scenes of children praying -- which can't be assumed to be a negative thing unless you've already accepted Dawkins's message. There are pictures evoking events that happened centuries ago -- the Crusades, the Inquisition. And there are pictures of members of the Westboro Baptist Church, protesting with their obscene signs.

Yes, the entire case against the contemporary Christian religion, a faith of 2 billion self-described believers worldwide, is allowed to rest on the actions of a single tiny group of nuts, reviled by everyone else in their faith if they are known at all and comprising just 40 members in total. This is the kind of evidence that Dawkins thinks we should find compelling.

Surely in a country of 314 million, the existence of 40 lunatics, most belonging to the same extended family, proves nothing other than it's a big country. In that context, the frequency with which evangelizers for Dawinian materialism come back to them, obsessively, is really striking. If the members of Westboro Baptist Church didn't exist, Richard Dawkins would have to invent them.

...Or if he wanted to focus on one specific example, he could just find another group? Surely you aren't implying that WBC is the only critique-worthy Christian group? There are many who would argue that a very, very large portion of the Christian community is on the wrong side of history with certain issues even today. The first example that comes to mind would be complementarianism within the Church.

Also, perhaps I'm misguided here, but how exactly does it follow that, because the Westboro people were mentioned, or are mentioned frequently, that Dawkins thinks that modern-day atrocities committed by Christian groups are limited to 40 people?

Name a Christian group on a par with WBC?

Um, okay...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 1:02:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 12:52:18 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Asked for a Christian group, not a separatist group from Christians.

Sorry, aren't they on record saying that every single other "Christian" outside of their local church is a complete fake? I can't find a strict definition of "Christian separatist," but that sure sounds at least intuitively to be a decent label for Westboro. Would you mind educating me on the difference?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 1:26:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 1:02:32 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 12/14/2012 12:52:18 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Asked for a Christian group, not a separatist group from Christians.

Sorry, aren't they on record saying that every single other "Christian" outside of their local church is a complete fake? I can't find a strict definition of "Christian separatist," but that sure sounds at least intuitively to be a decent label for Westboro. Would you mind educating me on the difference?

Well it seems the difference between WBC and that white supremacist separatist group from Christ followers isn't as tenuous. (I wouldn't know for certain but to be honest I really don't want to honor them by researching their ant-Christian claims.)

An acting Christian is a Christ follower, they exemplify Christ pro tanto, and so what we have of Christ is properly bounced off of those actions of folks claiming to be Christians- meaning if actions are contrary to what Christ preached, then we've every reason to say such a person or group is acting on their own initiative, even though they may claim they're Christians, IF they act contrary to what CHrist preached... they may be saved for all we know, but folks can still act out on their own initiative.

Those Pentecostals in that Dawkins video, how they were praising God with their emotions through children- that could be a cultural initiative or it could be truly what the Christ preached, to have your kids lead in the spirit speaking words of God to others in the church or whatever... most likely Christ didn't say that however and Paul just as readily said worship ought to be orderly... either way this is how humans go about wrapping their minds around God and their existence in his creation. I see nothing wrong there with 'letting it all out' from time to time. (But I would never be Pentecostal).

Dawkin's video showed muslim mobs throwing stuff in anarchy. This too is the fault of those who sincerely follow Christ ...

Granted you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater all in one recruitment video just because you disagree with the theistic worldview. Although I do appreciate the stirring up of awareness against religious violence. I think that shouldn't be tolerated. Whoever claims to be the authority on God has got a Big, risen Messiah over their shoulders with his arms crossed- and the look of 'I know what you did at school today angry dad' face... except, much worse.