by frog
For the long-winded on this windy day.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | THE GAME by frog on Sat, May 16th, 2009
Tags: general debate
General Debate, 16 May, 2009
Published: May 16, 2009
Comment via Facebook
137 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Hi greenfly. Must buzz away now!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice still and sunny here Frog; Monbiot has some interesting news this morning.
Have the long winded re-gathered in the House yet? – does anyone care?
Only a Lawyer could reinvent a Term like Fraud, and call it say, Filibustering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For people on the far ends (especially):
The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
A neurologist explains why you shouldn’t believe in political candidates that sound too sure of themselves.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-certainty-bias
and
Creationism Feels Right, but That Doesn’t Make it So
Psychological researchers suggest that evolutionary thinking is unnatural
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=creationism-feels-right-but-that-doesnt-make-it-so
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no i take it back -Parliament is good viewing at the mo…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We need to move beyond the party system. At present our system is disjointed and inefficient. Decision making should be based on (guided by) a tree format, with a tier of participants at each level and guided by reason.
At the upper level the broad objectives of society are considered and basic issues are clarified such as, (as a biological unit) does humanity need to control itself or will some sort of mechanism kick in. Lower down we deal with infrastructure etc The goal is to maximise rationality and focus (on the real world). A metaphor would be a jellyfish evolving a central nervous system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Parliament is good viewing at the mo…”
rewards that skew our thinking. Our mind has been described as a “kluge” (clunky instrument that works). By contrast argument mapping is hard work but pays off as you can (if the “debate” is in a cguided format) you can pin the opponent at every twist and turn… allowing nerve connections time to wire themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Psychological researchers suggest that evolutionary thinking is unnatural”
Interesting article jh.
Modern science has had an about face on the “God” question it seems.
All of a sudden the latest dicoveries on the universe have created a significant problem for the atheist religion.
At the end of the day it comes down to a choice of where to place your faith I guess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH,
Prehaps not the best metaphor unless you are intending to express that addopting such a structure would be massivly energy inefficent and contribute nothing to the survivability of the creature. Also, I presume you ment it is a total paradigm shift, but considering the functioning of simple neural nets such as the jellyfish posseses; not so much. [insert anti-anti-vivisectionist comment].
The only part about the shift that would seem difficult to me is the formulation of a non-party based system. The rest is essentially already there and just needs small adjustments of juristiction. sure disassembling the party system avoids party politics but it essentially neccesitates the terrible FTP system and requires voters to have knowledge about the policies of 100 individuals rather than 3 or 4 groups. Inefficency tot the max, and it wouldint promote good decision making, it would likely make it worse as each individual attempts to raise their profile and no longer has the policy resources availible to parties.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Um, what it actually refers to is that humans do not naturally think in a logical manner but rather are inclined toward simple, experiance based, attributions to deities and other supernatural forces. It doe snot in any way support or disproove god, if anything it just adds to the already high mountain of evidence that gods a a creation of the human mind to explain things they cant comprehend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, did you actually read the article? It supports none of your claims like Sap says, so I’m wondering if you read it or are just making things up. If you think there is evidence for what you say, why don’t you ever give us any reason to believe you? There must be something online to support your cause? I think it is because there isn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient is quite right, humans do not naturally think in a logical manner but rather are inclined toward simple, experiance based, attributions to deities and other supernatural forces. That’s probably the main reason why the acsendance of science has coincided with the ascendance of government and democracy. People have turned to new deities and supernatural forces to replace the discredited old ones.
To paraphrase William Cowper:
“Government moves in a mysterious way,
it’s wonders to perform.”
It plants it’s footsteps in the sea,
and rides upon the storm.
Deep in unfathomable mines
of never failing skill,
Parliament treasures up it’s bright designs
and works it’s sovereign will.
You fearful voters, fresh courage take;
the clouds you so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
in tax cuts on your head.
Government’s purposes will ripen fast,
unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
but sweet will be the flower.
Free market unbelief is sure to err
and scan democracy’s work in vain:
Government is it’s own interpreter,
and they won’t make it plain.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, my metaphor was related to evolution single celled > multi celled > organisation on an axis, and I was comparing humanity to an organism which needs a better central nervous system to function. I don’t mean a better nervous system as a paradigm shift but as a system underlying the rules around public decision making. Ie an argument map made in sections by groups of people who are representative of the behavioural types of the broader population with other levels for hangers on (organised using the internet). The map provides a reference for discussion and (hopefully) lends legitamacy to those who ultimately have the say so. Voting is included (somehow/somewhere) in the system as a safety valve and check.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thinking of the green party, it is about (most people would think) a stage beyond the present when we have learned to live sustainably. If that was a (poorly defined) node in the main map you would involve participants form left and right ( wide range of behavioural types) but working within the tight confines of an argument map. The aim is maximum efficiency (eliminate rhetoric, fallacies etc….)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s a link to the Listener article about The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3532/features/10321/show_me_the_child.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH,
lol, I was being pedantic, but still, a jellyfish does not need a better system to function, its system, like that of the earth worm, is perfect for its form.
Why this approach to more dirrect democracy? people are idiots, it important thing is not that they are represented or their opinions heard but tha they think they are. If the opinons of the people were really acted apon we would of failed long ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeh – Darwin missed by quite a margin eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’m wondering if you read it or are just making things up.”
Oh I read it all right, and I found it very interesting because you could take the evidence to support either position equally well, regardless of the conclusion of the author.
You can not claim God is being unfair if all humans a designed to comprehend his nature by default, now can you.
like wise, latest discoveries point strongly to a fine tuned universe with amazing precision, that could be evidence of a creative being.
Unfortunately for atheists, the more we learn the more difficult it becomes to disprove God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Neither are proof of god nor the absence of god.
A fine tuned universe is a necesity of life, but a fine tuned universe can only be observed by life and so saying that a fine tuned universe is proof of god is little different than standing in the middle of a forest reserve and thinking the entire world is the same. Most theories point to many many many universes, that we happen to arise in one that is perfect for us to arise is hardly surprising; you are making a point that ends up as a white swan fallacy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Most theories point to many many many universes”
No, one theory by an atheist with an agenda proposes that, and why?, cause the steady state theory they had pinned so much hope on has been blown out of the water.
And in any case, each one of those ” many many universes” will require a beginning no less of a miracle than our own, creation out of literally nothing.
Why did atheists resist the big bang theory for so long? because it creates a big, big problem due to the logical conclusions one can draw from it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
So physics is all about dissing God now, huh?
Based on the presumtion that all things must have a cause it is true that the big bang theory does run into problems as the explanation for the universe relies on the existance of a prior series of events and somewhere in which the universe exists and the reasoning to how those events and that place came into being is the same; repeat to infinity. In one way this creates the apparent need for a creator, but unless that creator is outside of the chain of causality then exactly the same problems are encountered. The only way to get around this problem is to admit that some things must not require this causality and as such it is possible for that creator to exist. but the moment we make that one admitance it becomes completly acceptable that maybe one of the multiverse’ did come into existance spontneously or always existed, as such nullifying any need for this creator.
All effects must have cause.
All that exists must exist within another existance.
All that exists must be composed of other existances.
These are the core assumptions of science, esspecially the first one. Yet none of these are logically possible when taken to its fullest extent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are no axial truths.
The only logically valid axial turths are A) that I exist, and B) that A and B are all I can know as truthful.
But even this comes into problems as it is based on the assumption that our logic is perfect; something that appears often to be false. so ultimatly there is nothing we can logically deduce to be true. (yeah, I went through my own reductionism and nihilism while in primary school, totally uninfluenced by any of the philosophers)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient , are you suggesting that multiple universes would all have the same laws of physics as ours?
As the laws of physics were created in the big bang, we have no way of studying the possibilty of other universes because we have no reference point to begin with, another universe would have a completely different physical reality. We could not even study it due us being part of the reality of this universe.
This brings me back to the point I keep making, the belief in God is not irrational due to modern science, infact it is becoming more rational all the time.
It all comes down to a personal choice of where we place our faith. When studies like jh referenced to above show an inbuilt “wiring” in our brains toward comprehending a creator, it only confirms what I already believe.
This is a 50 50 choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The existenice of something prior to the big bang is not important for science since we can’t observe past that point. Shundra you are free to believe that God was around before the big bang of course you or I will not be able to observe that via the scientific method. Science there fore doesn’t care.
We have also found no evidence for the existance of god or of a designed universe or that human life has in anyway been designed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda there is no evidence for the multiple universe theory and I doubt we will find any in our lifetime. I think it would be rather difficult to observe another universe from this universe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
” I think it would be rather difficult to observe another universe from this universe.”
Exactly, I would suggest impossible.
Therefore, as we can’t comprehend anything past this universe it becomes a matter of faith for ANYTHING beyond the big bang.
Further more it is unreasonable for SOME of the scientific community to suggest belief in God is irrational.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, one theory by an atheist with an agenda proposes that
An agenda, Shunda? Show us how that is, rather than just a scientist acting as they should.
, and why?, cause the steady state theory they had pinned so much hope on has been blown out of the water.
Science deals with failed hypotheses all the time. They move on with the new evidence, not always happily as they are human too, but science moves on. That’s something the myth believers never do.
And in any case, each one of those ” many many universes” will require a beginning no less of a miracle than our own, creation out of literally nothing.
As you know because we’ve had similar arguments before, it is not logical to posit a solution that requires more explanation than the thing trying to be explained in the first place.
Why did atheists resist the big bang theory for so long? because it creates a big, big problem due to the logical conclusions one can draw from it.
I’m afraid its logic that fails you. Please I ask once again for some link that argues persuasively one of your claims. You could start with atheist resistance to the big bang.
Sapient , are you suggesting that multiple universes would all have the same laws of physics as ours?
No, he’s suggesting the opposite.
This brings me back to the point I keep making, the belief in God is not irrational due to modern science, infact it is becoming more rational all the time.
Your conclusions simply do not flow from your premises.
It all comes down to a personal choice of where we place our faith.
Faith, by definition, doesn’t shift, as you so ably show. Scientific “beliefs” are changeable based on new evidence as history also ably shows. The only choice is whether to accept or ignore the evidence. You can’t have it both ways.
When studies like jh referenced to above show an inbuilt “wiring” in our brains toward comprehending a creator, it only confirms what I already believe.
Only because you willfully misinterpret, again showing the strength of your faith, but nothing more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
” I think it would be rather difficult to observe another universe from this universe.”
Exactly, I would suggest impossible.
Therefore, as we can’t comprehend anything past this universe it becomes a matter of faith for ANYTHING beyond the big bang.
Show me where a single reputable scientist claims a “belief” of anything beyond the big bang. That many scientists think and talk about this conundrum, does not mean they are being religious about it.
Further more it is unreasonable for SOME of the scientific community to suggest belief in God is irrational.
Furthermore? In what way are these two conclusions remotely connected (other than that they are both wrong)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“We have also found no evidence for the existance of god or of a designed universe or that human life has in anyway been designed.”
But that is not quite correct.
40 years ago there were 4 possible factors of design in the known universe, now there are 93.
If we suppose a creator God did not exist, we would expect to find less and less evidence of possible design as science advanced, this is not the case.
Therefore infuring that modern science is making the existence of a creator less likely, is completely incorrect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Furthermore? In what way are these two conclusions remotely connected”
I always know I’m on to something when the grammar police come out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What are you talking about?
93 factors of design??
An ordered universe does not lead to the existence of a god it just means there is an ordered universe.
Modern science is not making the existence of god more or less likely, science doesn’t care about god as god exists outside of the universe and is unable to interact within the universe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“An agenda, Shunda? Show us how that is, rather than just a scientist acting as they should.”
Then you say:
“not always happily as they are human too”
My point exactly.
“As you know because we’ve had similar arguments before, it is not logical to posit a solution that requires more explanation than the thing trying to be explained in the first place.”
Then the multiple universe argument Sapient brought up is inadmissable.
“The only choice is whether to accept or ignore the evidence. You can’t have it both ways.”
It is my acceptance of the evidence that enables me to hold to my beliefs as you do yours.
I am not trying to convert anyone here, what I am trying to show is that modern science does not and can not show belief in God is irrational.
I have shown that the bibles claim that one must have faith to believe in God is not irrational and the way this universe appears to have been created is evidence that God will not allow himself to be discovered (and therefore controlled) through intellectual reasoning.
He states his ways are higher than our ways and without faith it is impossible to please him, this seems like a rational statement to me, from the evidence science provides.
Once again it simply comes down to a choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Modern science is not making the existence of god more or less likely, science doesn’t care about god ”
But individual, and influential scientists like Dawkins do.
He makes some very strong claims of delusional religious people starting wars and embarks on extended bouts of ridicule, which earns cheers of apprieciation from his audience.
He IS saying science makes the existence of God less likely, he even wrote a book about it!!
“as god exists outside of the universe and is unable to interact within the universe.”
I don’t see how such a judgement can be made about the limits of the power of a possible creator.
If he has the power to make it, He quite concievably has the power to interract with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Dawkins believes that human beings that think the Bible is a history book are delusional. I agree with him if someone believes in a literal reading of the bible when its story’s contradict science then they are delusional.
If god interacts with the universe then these interactions will be observable and therefore the god question enters the realm of science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“No Dawkins believes that human beings that think the Bible is a history book are delusional.”
Well some of it is literal history, it would be fairer to say those that think Genesis is a science book are delusional.
That said, when you take into account the literary style and the range of interpretations on genesis, there is some remarkable symetry with science.
While the “young earth” creationists hate him, astrophysicist Hugh Ross has reconciled genesis remarkably well with what we know about the universe. No other creation narative of other religions can do this.
“If god interacts with the universe then these interactions will be observable”
They are! this is what I am saying.
The universe seems completely designed for life to exist.
Like I said, God will not allow himself to be discovered through intellectual assessment, He will not contend with the intellect of human kind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lol, except that it needs to be looked at abstractly and not taken liturally. Applying that same system to other creation myths; atleast half of them would appear to show remarkable symetry with science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The universe seems completely designed for life to exist.”
No it doesn’t, that is a subjective statement science deals with the objective.
Inteligent Design isn’t science in fact it fails on all the requirements in order for it to be a science. You seem to be so desperate for proof of god that you are seeing things that don’t exist. Human beings are a product of millions of years of evolution via natural selection. All the observable evidence supports that theory. There is not one single peice of evidence that supports a theory of a universe with inteligent design.
“That said, when you take into account the literary style and the range of interpretations on genesis, there is some remarkable symetry with science”
Sorry there is no symetry with genesis and science only a desire to see a pattern where no such pattern exists. Once again you seem desperate to need a proof of god. You will not find one in the universe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Inteligent Design isn’t science in fact it fails on all the requirements in order for it to be a science.”
I totally agree, if intelligent design can not come up with a testable hypothsis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions, it is not science.
I am not a blind follower of the intelligent design controversy.
“Sorry there is no symetry with genesis and science only a desire to see a pattern where no such pattern exists.”
Creation ex nihilo
Continual stretching of the heavens
Continual cooling of the universe
all refered to in the bible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
intelligent design is what we always made – there is no human on the planet more removed than about your ninth cousin by marriage.
see if there’s a quote inut.
“Many people today don’t want honest answers insofar as honest means
unpleasant or disturbing, They want a soft answer that turneth away
anxiety.” Louis Kronenberger – (1904-1980)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Once again you seem desperate to need a proof of god. You will not find one in the universe.”
I am not desperate for anything, just determined to show a belief in God is not irrational. I have a facination with science and obviously I relate my faith to it.
I also realise it is pointless to try to prove God exists scientifically because he exists outside of our physical reality, and by his design he will not allow himself to be discovered. This means evidence for his existence is in the history of interaction with the human race, Jesus etc, which brings the choice back to a simple faith issue.
When you strip away all the bad behaviour of christians, the likes of Dawkins argument become dramatically weaker, studying the universe will never disprove God, and atheists should stop misrepresenting the scientific community, and mis leading people in general.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
nt that that is the case here.
well technically any thing can be rational or irrational depending on your goals.
If you seek wisdom then a beleif in anything is irrational as it biases your interpritation, but if you seek to enjoy life then a beleif in that which makes you enjoy life, presuming there are no sacrifices incured, can be logical. If you beleived ina god because that beleif mad you ahppy but to have that beleif you had to take actions that would make you less happy than you would be without that beleif and those actions then that would be irrational
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Waaaaaa????
You’ve lost me sapient
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t care about your grammar. Its the logic police that have caught you.
You haven’t made a point – you’re just talking!
Its speculation and don’t think Sap claimed otherwise.
You haven’t provided us evidence of anything except that you will not let logic get in the way of your beliefs.
Very wrong of course. For a position to be rational so far as science is concerned there must be some evidence that supports the position. Science provides no evidence in support of a god, therefore belief in god is irrational.
You haven’t even begun to show this.
That’s not evidence, just your wild claim.
I’m not trying to convert you either. My goal is just to show that science in no way supports your claims.
No. I think that it is just very difficult for someone who is religious, but who also has an interest in science, to deal with the intellectual paradox the two things together present. The logic of what you’ve argued above is that you shouldn’t need science to support your belief. Your faith should be enough, no matter what science says. Just let it go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Im saying that what is rational is dependant on that which an individual wishes to pursue.
If a individual wishes to spend their life attempting to eliminate prostituion and homosexuality as a high profile politician then it is irrational to allow yourself to be caught foot-tapping in a toilet stall.
If an individual wants to have their own children then it is irrational to get castrated when there is no benefit to be had through doing that.
If an individual wishes to feel fulfilled in their mediocre life due to the prospect of a after-life it is rational to beleive in a after-life and irrational to not beleive.
If an individual wants to look at all things without bias it is irrational to take one position and constantly seek to proove or disproove it.
If a belief in god is rational or not is dependant apon the aspirations of the individual. If god can is logically necesitated is a entirly different matter.
It occurs to me that Valis puts alot of effort into arguing about religion. Good on him/her, but ive almost alwasy found it fruitless and, more importantly, repeditive and drab. So I stopped long ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well Sap, I agree, which is why I’m expressly not trying to change Shunda’s religious views, but am only arguing about what one can and can’t claim about the logic of science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good luck, buts its about as productive as arguing the virtues of the positivist approach to the “‘critical’ social ‘scientists’”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
V.Good Now who said ‘Lies and Damned Statistic’s;???
I’ve a funny illogical bug that says
‘True’.
Lets look at three months – after all we’re not so far gone.
Taurus (April 19- May 20)
Your ruling planet Venus has taken you through the depths of your soul in a way that you haven’t dared venture in a while. Although you aren’t completely out of the shadows yet, you’ve past a turning point and something in your heart is sure now. Hopefully you’ve recognized the depth of your own power and its potential to affect a greater world with its message of hope and awareness. This has never been about your ego, but simply about what you have to offer. Sometime towards the end of this week you seem to have an encounter with an an event that was predicted in the cards. Don’t be afraid to communicate clearly and ask for what you want and more importantly for what you KNOW you are worth. As long as you keep awareness of your noblest aspirations and deepest values you can’t go wrong.
Well, there you are: I’ll post it when the First Doctor of Astrology Takes their Bow in Sydney by Christmas – amazin’ no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You haven’t made a point – you’re just talking!”
Unless Dawkins has been brought up completely isolated from the world around him, he is compromised by personal prejudice to at least some degree. I shouldn’t have to join the dots regarding his obvious contempt for certain people. Are you actually claiming this has no effect on his work?
“Its speculation and don’t think Sap claimed otherwise.”
So its ok to speculate so long as you are not religious?
“You haven’t provided us evidence of anything except that you will not let logic get in the way of your beliefs.”
There is simply nothing about the study of the universe that makes God illogical.
Is it logical to just accept that nothing made nothing explode, and yet here we are? Is it illogical to speculate on what that cause may have been? or is it like abiogenesis and we just shelve it and move on.
“Very wrong of course. For a position to be rational so far as science is concerned there must be some evidence that supports the position.”
Rational as far as science is concerned? What about as far as the SCIENTISTS are concerned. Thats like asking a shovel what it thinks of the hole you’ve just dug with it. Science is only a tool for gaining understanding, not an all encompasing belief system.
“No. I think that it is just very difficult for someone who is religious, but who also has an interest in science, to deal with the intellectual paradox the two things together present.”
There is no paradox, science does not play any part in challenging my faith because there is no challenge!, I am not a young earth creationist!.
What aspect about the big bang, dark energy and the remarkable balance of the forces in this fine tuned universe makes anyone of faith deserving of the likes of Dawkins ridicule?. There are no grounds for it, only personal prejudice against people he dosen’t like!.
You may have a point with those christians trying to redefine science, or change the laws of physics, there can obviously be only be one “science”, but those like Dawkins that attack christianity don’t distingush between them, and attack the very idea of a creator, and this is misplaced.
Modern science is not anti “God” it is anti bad science!! I think it is intellectually dishonest for scientists to have any other position.
You may argue that most christians are ignorant of science, and many are even outspoken in their ignorance, but you must separate their beliefs from the FAITH they claim to represent.
Therefore, belief in God is not necessarily a delusion, the fact that I am having this conversation with you is even evidence of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If an individual wants to look at all things without bias it is irrational to take one position and constantly seek to proove or disproove it.”
I think it depends on how comfortable the individual is with their beliefs.
I start from the position that God created the Universe, sure, but everything back after that I have no problem in not knowing exactly how it took place. Hence there is no requirement for me to be in conflict with the scientific community.
If I hold to the universe being 6000 years old, then I have a problem.
If science can’t see past the big bang and there is no way to prove/disprove God, there is actually no basis for this war between the church and the scientific community.
Perhaps I am talking to the wrong people
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “There is simply nothing about the study of the universe that makes God illogical.”
Or, indeed, a whole pantheon of deities.
- “I am not a young earth creationist!.”
It’s all there in the Bible. Unless you believe that everything in the Bible is the literal truth you are really just making up your own belief system. It’s all or nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda-Wat; the best come up with evidence – i manage to convert the local door-knocker every wednesday at nine.
In the midst of prayer – a man phones demanding forbidden fruit –
in a humble second the sun winks thru the darkest cloud….
there’s another one o’ them co-incidences bro
No – one knows, for sure
Exciting hey?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It’s all there in the Bible. Unless you believe that everything in the Bible is the literal truth you are really just making up your own belief system. It’s all or nothing.”
There is nothing in the bible that talks about a 6000 year time frame.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So the question then becomes whether his bias is material.
Its his work that has led him to have contempt for some. I can’t see any effect this has had on his science. You claim otherwise, but give no credible examples.
Its ok to speculate so long as you are not religious about your speculation, meaning that you don’t claim its true when there’s no evidence.
I agree with Sap and I think wat too, that just about anything can be logical depending on what you’re trying to achieve. My argument is only about science, in which sphere you cannot make this claim.
It is logical to accept that we may never know the answer to such questions therefore have no reason to have absolute faith in any theory put forth.
Speculation is fine. Unwavering belief in a specific answer is absolutely not.
Same answer.
There is effectively no difference between these two questions. That scientists are fallible is ultimately corrected by other scientists. After all, scientists would be fallible even if they were never biased. That’s the beauty of the system. It has falsification built into it so its answers can improve over time. Religion doesn’t, you can make up whatever you want and make every last claim about it as you’ve made tonight and all just as logical, i.e. not logical at all.
Absolutely right. And the understanding you can gain with it has so far not provided any support for a deity.
Never claimed you were! Necessary but not sufficient!
The aspect that says there’s nothing about them that supports belief in god.
That’s a ridiculous argument that only someone with no straws left to grab would make. And particularly of Dawkins, who has very respectful relationships with many religious people, despite that he thinks they are wrong.
Both groups believe things that science provides no support for. That one is crazier than the other doesn’t really matter.
It is not pro god either. It is only anti god as much as it is anti the flying spaghetti monster, but you’d say I was crazy to claim science supported the existence of him, bless his noodly appendage.
Not when science supports neither. Instead, you should separate both from science.
It provides strong evidence that you believe, but absolutely none that you are not deluded in your belief.
So long as you are simply a deist and not a theist, I might agree (and equally once again there’s also no basis for needing to claim that science matters at all to your beliefs in this case), but you’ve never made that claim expressly before. Are you making it now?
Have a restful night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This site has grown
http://debategraph.org/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To most of us, the ‘discoveries’ of science are regarded as sacrosanct. Over the millennia we have ‘progressed’ from searching for absolutes to broadening the explanation base. This ‘broadening’ is generally regarded as providing us with a better understanding of the Cosmos. Again, science is considered to be at the very vanguard of this movement.
However, most modern scientific discoveries are the result of directed scientific research. Although this in itself is not necessarily a bad thing it does leave the way open for powerful interest groups to control research subjects – like drug companies limiting research to drugs that will (at least in the first instance) assist those who can afford to pay a high premium for the product. Hence research could be channelled into drugs to assist the ailments of the wealthy rather than the needy.
So science is vulnerable to being directed to meet various agendas – surely the AGW debate is an example of this.
A further concern is that many regard science as the sole means to discover and express reality (‘scientism’) This position, though not quite as extreme as the Logical Positivist’s Verification Principle, still places the scientific method on a pedestal far above other human pursuits such as philosophy, religion and the arts. The key support for scientism is the supposed objectivity of science . However, can we be sure that the experimenter is sufficiently separated from the experiment. Just how much is the experimenter influenced by preconceptions?
Associated with the above is the problem of our ability to comprehend the workings of the universe. Some of the astrophysical and molecular discoveries currently throw up inconsistencies in our understanding of the universe. We are apt to view such as ‘work in progress’ and that one day something akin to a ‘theory of everything’ will emerge. But we could just as forcefully wonder if we can really construct a model that provides a consistent interpretation of all our scientific findings. We may not really be that intelligent after all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“A further concern is that many regard science as the sole means to discover and express reality (‘scientism’) This position, though not quite as extreme as the Logical Positivist’s Verification Principle, still places the scientific method on a pedestal far above other human pursuits such as philosophy”
I think this is what valis is doing here, placing scientific principles as the only rigid way to interpret reality.
Then again:
“I agree with Sap and I think wat too, that just about anything can be logical depending on what you’re trying to achieve.”
Which sounds decidedly post modernist ie, truth is relative to the individual.
When I read what people like Paul Davies, Fred Hoyle, and Stephen Hawking say about the universe, they seem to leave the door far more open, all be it reluctantly, to a supernatural cause than your average garden variety atheist does.
It appears to me that science is actually neutral on the subject of God, yet certain scientists are not, which in effect is simply bigotry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Absolutely right. And the understanding you can gain with it has so far not provided any support for a deity.”
Only in your opinion, and there are many people and scientists that respect the scientific method that would disagree with that opinion.
When it comes down to it my position is equally valid to Dawkins, valis sapient or anyone else. This is why critics like Dawkins have to attack the behavior of christians instead of the faith, he has been critisised by non religious folk for this very reason.
There is no delusion, only choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A lot of misunderstandings here.
Firstly there is no true and false with regard to the universe. Science has never proven something to be true, the repeatable experiment does not prove an hypothosis to be true only that so far all experimental evidence seems to support it.
However the scientific method provides the best method for understanding the universe, if you guys want to come up with some other method you are more than welcome.
“So science is vulnerable to being directed to meet various agendas – surely the AGW debate is an example of this.”
Not true science is free from bias via repeatable experimentation and peer review.
“Some of the astrophysical and molecular discoveries currently throw up inconsistencies in our understanding of the universe”
The above quote highlights the layman’s mis-understanding of science, if science can’t explain some obseravation of the universe it does not open the door to you making something up (GOD). The correct approach is to say I don’t know, there is nothing wrong with not knowing. Too often we throw our hands into the air and claim I don’t know therefore god must of done it. Even Isaac Newton made this mistake when he couldn’t explain the orbits of the planets. Did god really do it, the answer was given to us by Einstein which was no.
Finally all other studies besides science are subjective and belong in the realm of the individual human mind. Science seeks to free itself from the mind. No one can answer the question as to which god exists and which god does not exist. Every christian is an atheist in that they deny the existence of Thor and Ra and a whole host of other gods but then claim that a christian god exists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Every christian is an atheist ”
Who said the greens were sane was wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lol, turnip is no green. So you believe in other gods? Which ones – Thor, Ra or some other?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Sapient Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Why this approach to more dirrect democracy? people are idiots, it important thing is not that they are represented or their opinions heard but tha they think they are. If the opinons of the people were really acted apon we would of failed long ago.
……….
The thing about including argument mapping it decision making is that it directs discussion along a structured path (or)… cuts out the crap.
It makes participants dwell at nodes they would normally be unaware of. Argument mapping changes the mode of thinking.
I read a good passage about our behaviour in debate (as opposed to critical thinking) but i can’t find it..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some people are definitely guilty of this. Dawkins does not come close to being one, nor do I. I’ve made no claim that science is superior to philosophy. They have their own spheres of usefulness and one cannot understand the totality of the world without both. But do you argue that science is not the best way to learn about physical reality?
Not at all. Go back and read Sap’s post. The logic is very basic and not postmodern at all.
Some no doubt do, but you may be getting tripped up by their choice of language. Einstein’s famous “God doesn’t play dice” is often misinterpreted as leaving the door open to a deity when he meant no such thing.
If it were neutral, it would provide neither reason to believe nor to disbelieve. I certainly agree science provides no reason to believe, it is my main point in this whole thread. But you can’t logically say it is completely neutral as the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support belief is itself a probabilistic reason to disbelieve, i.e. certainly not 50/50. This is true within the framework of science and is not meant to impinge on what various philosophies might tell us (unless they stray into making claims about the physical universe).
That’s the argument from this side of the big bang. From the other side of the big bang, science is indeed neutral since it can say nothing at all. I’m fine with that if you’re arguing as a deist only. But you didn’t answer that question Shunda. Which is it?
It would be convenient for you if it were so black and white like this, but it is not.
Some claim to, but they can only muster a philosophical basis for it, no physical evidence. Got any for me to consider?
I have sought out challenges too my thinking on this topic. One book that came highly recommended was by Francis Collins. Since he led the human genome project I thought he might say something new. But it was little more than recycled CS Lewis. Very disappointing.
Not insofar as interpreting what science says about the physical world. You’re the one being postmodern if you believe otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Have we decided the God question yet?
Paul Holmes on Q&A lavished praise on Russel Norman.
Laile Harre refered to the New Green Deal as being the only valid programme on offer. Good news.
The gift that keeps on giving – Christine Rankin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
New Zealand was founded on Christian values.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Aotearoa was founded on maori values.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j said: New Zealand was founded on Christian values.
Than God it wasn’t founded on Christine values.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
- “There is nothing in the bible that talks about a 6000 year time frame.”
Genealogy is laid out in tiresome detail in the Bible, and it works out at 6000 years since the Creation.
If everything is not the literal truth in the Bible then you cannot trust any of it. You simply cannot pick and choose which bits you believe; you are creating your own heresy.
Hence you must also believe in talking donkeys.
And speaking of genealogy, the Jews are correct; the Jesus character in the story does not fit the prophesy. He cannot be their Messiah figure.
D4J,
- “New Zealand was founded on Christian values.”
No, modern NZ was founded on values decidedly superior to the evil which passes for morals in the Bible. We don’t, for example, stone disobedient children or force rape victims to marry their assailants (you mean to say you haven’t noticed that the deity depicted in the Bible is just like all the others; a cruel, petty, spiteful baby?)
An NZ based on actual Christian values would like something like the fundamentalist Islamic theocracries.
greenfly,
- “Aotearoa was founded on maori values.”
And then, thankfully for everyone, civilisation arrived from Europe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – I’m keeping notes on everything this pinch-nosed trollop does – I plan to publish it for all and sundry to read. Calling it the Rankin File.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat – everyone? Chinese might argue that civilisation, nurtured into flower by them 4 000 years ago, has yet to arrive in the West.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RENEWABLES GLOBAL STATUS REPORT 2009 UPDATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2004, when the Renewables Global Status Report was first launched,
many indicators of renewable energy have shown dramatic gains. Annual
renewable energy investment has increased fourfold to reach $120 billion
in 2008. In the four years from end-2004 to end-2008, solar photovoltaic
(PV) capacity increased sixfold to more than 16 gigawatts (GW), wind
power capacity increased 250 percent to 121 GW, and total power capacity
from new renewables increased 75 percent to 280 GW, including
significant gains in small hydro, geothermal, and biomass power
generation. During the same period, solar heating capacity doubled to
145 gigawatts-thermal (GWth), while biodiesel production increased
sixfold to 12 billion liters per year and ethanol production doubled to
67 billion liters per year.
Annual percentage gains for 2008 were even more dramatic. Wind power
grew by 29 percent and grid-tied solar PV by 70 percent. The capacity of
utility-scale solar PV plants (larger than 200 kilowatts) tripled during
2008, to 3 GW. Solar hot water grew by 15 percent, and annual ethanol
and biodiesel production both grew by 34 percent. Heat and power from
biomass and geothermal sources continued to grow, and small hydro
increased by about 8 percent.
Many leadership changes and milestones in renewable energy markets and
policy took place in 2008. The United States became the leader in new
capacity investment with $24 billion invested, or 20 percent of global
total investment. The United States also led in added and total wind
power capacity, surpassing long-time wind power leader Germany. Spain
added 2.6 GW of solar PV, representing a full half of global grid-tied
installations and a fivefold increase over Spain’s 2007 additions.
China
doubled its wind power capacity for the fifth year in a row, moving into
fourth place worldwide. Another significant milestone was that for the
first time, both the United States and the European Union added more
power capacity from renewables than from conventional sources (including
gas, coal, oil, and nuclear).
Renewable energy industries boomed during most of 2008. Global solar PV
production increased by 90 percent to 6.9 GW in 2008. China usurped
Japan to become the new world leader in PV cell production and also
experienced huge growth in its wind power industry, with many new
companies producing wind turbines and components. Globally, the wind
industry continued to push turbine sizes higher, with models of 3 MW or
larger becoming more widespread. The concentrating solar power (CSP)
industry saw many entrants and new manufacturing facilities. The ethanol
and biodiesel industries similarly expanded, particularly in North
America and Latin America, and the cellulosic ethanol industry was in
the process of booming, with 300 million liters per year of capacity
under construction.
Although the clean energy sector initially weathered the financial
crisis in late 2008 better than many other sectors, renewable investment
did experience a downturn after September 2008. However, projects
continued to progress and many economic stimulus bills included
components for supporting renewable energy. At the same time,
development assistance for renewables in developing countries expanded
greatly, reaching about $2 billion in 2008.
By early 2009, policy targets existed in at least 73 countries, and at
least 64 countries had policies to promote renewable power generation,
including 45 countries and 18 states/provinces/territories with feed-in
tariffs (many of these recently updated). The number of
ountries/states/provinces with renewable portfolio standards increased
to 49. Policy targets for renewable energy were added, supplemented,
revised, or clarified in a large number of countries in 2008.
Many forms of policy support for renewables were added, supplemented, or
extended in a number of countries during 2008. For example, new solar PV
subsidy programs were adopted in Australia, China, Japan, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, and the United States; new laws and policy provisions
for renewables appeared in developing countries, including Brazil,
Chile, Egypt, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, Syria, and Uganda;
new mandates for solar hot water and other renewable heating appeared in
Cape Town (South Africa), Baden-Württemberg (Germany), Hawaii, Norway,
and Poland; new biofuels blending mandates or targets appeared in at
least 11 countries, including a new 20 percent target in India; and the
number of green power consumers grew to more than 5 million households
and businesses worldwide. City and local government policies were a
growing segment of the policy landscape, with several hundred cities and
local governments around the world actively planning or implementing
renewable energy policies and planning frameworks linked to carbon
dioxide emissions reduction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyone pick a notable absence from this summary?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps NZ still thinks its a leader?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis asks: But do you argue that science is not the best way to learn about physical reality?
No. I agree that science (as portayed in the ‘physical sciences’) is the best way to learn about physical reality. (Of course this can leave huge questions about the status of the subject matter of the social sciences). I was just trying to make the point that there are other valid ways of connecting with/experiencing cosmic processes.
Turnip: “Some of the astrophysical and molecular discoveries currently throw up inconsistencies in our understanding of the universe”
The above quote highlights the layman’s mis-understanding of science, if science can’t explain some obseravation of the universe it does not open the door to you making something up (GOD). The correct approach is to say I don’t know, there is nothing wrong with not knowing.
I think you misunderstand me. I am NOT saying that events or processes that are currently devoid of an adequate scientific explanation can be used as evidence for a particular form of deity. However, surely to admit (justifiably) that some things (currently) have no scientific explanation does leave the door open to the possibility that there are limits to our understanding of the universe – in much the same way as Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates the limits of any non-trivial mathematical system. (Please note that I commenced my earlier post with the observation that we – in the name of science – have generally moved away from ‘searching for absolutes to broadening the explanation base’.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Never doubted your view on this kjuv. Its Shunda I am seeking an answer from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
- “Chinese might argue that civilisation, nurtured into flower by them 4 000 years ago, has yet to arrive in the West.”
By the same token, Aztec and Assyrian civilisation has also yet to arrive in the West. And a jolly good thing to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Mayans, however, have a little ‘gift’ for us in 2012, we’re told
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat
“Genealogy is laid out in tiresome detail in the Bible, and it works out at 6000 years since the Creation.
If everything is not the literal truth in the Bible then you cannot trust any of it. You simply cannot pick and choose which bits you believe; you are creating your own heresy.”
That is simply not correct, the 6000 year genealogy claim is not widely accepted by anyone but young earth creationists.
The bible must be taken in context, and allowances must be made for obvious poetic language and structure.
The creation narrative has a poetic structure to it with a repetition of theme’s. My position is closest to astrophysicist Hugh Ross’s interpretation of the creation events.
“No, modern NZ was founded on values decidedly superior to the evil which passes for morals in the Bible. We don’t, for example, stone disobedient children or force rape victims to marry their assailants (you mean to say you haven’t noticed that the deity depicted in the Bible is just like all the others; a cruel, petty, spiteful baby?)”
Wow, you really are ignorant.
Show me where Jesus taught about stoning anyone and I will renounce my faith right now.
You seem to be confusing Judaism with Christianity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have to agree with Shunda that there is no requirement to take the Bible or leave it, en masse, on any point, particularly literal ineterpretation, wat.
where I disagree with Shunda, and point out that this requirement to take things in context supports my argument, is that everything old testament is Jewish Epic history, and is sorely bent and misused (IMHO) by the Christian faith. The latter books of the new Testament are just the dregs of that very political/philosophical debate of those early Christians trying to graft Jesus’ message onto Jewish history. IMHO, that is where most Christian faiths go wrong. Trying to shoehorn Jesus’ message into Jewish Epic history. I’ll take St Francis’ position and argue that the messages contained in the 4 gospels are enough to go on, and hard enough to live by, without all the gymnastics of trying to be Jewish and not Jewish at the same time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“That’s the argument from this side of the big bang. From the other side of the big bang, science is indeed neutral since it can say nothing at all. I’m fine with that if you’re arguing as a deist only. But you didn’t answer that question Shunda. Which is it?”
No I am not a deist, and that is still irrelevant.
“When it comes down to it my position is equally valid to Dawkins, valis sapient or anyone else. This is why critics like Dawkins have to attack the behavior of christians instead of the faith, he has been critisised by non religious folk for this very reason.
There is no delusion, only choice.
Not insofar as interpreting what science says about the physical world. You’re the one being postmodern if you believe otherwise.”
What is science saying about the physical world that causes a problem for my belief in God? give me some examples that make your statement correct.
You conceed that everything on the other side of the big bang is neutral, so if I don’t hold to “young earth creationism” or false “intelligent design” models on this side of the big bang, where is the point of conflict?
This is why atheists had so much hope in the steady state universe, it would necessarily deny exactly the position I hold to, but modern science tells a different story.
Therefore science has nothing to do with disproving God, it IS 50/50 Dawkins is wrong to claim otherwise.
So why does an intelligent man like him hold his position?
Because there ARE many christians that hold to psuedo science, and I don’t blame him for being offended at this, but psuedo science is all he can attack, not the idea of a creator God.
His book the “God delusion” is not intellectually honest, just becase there are many delusional christians does not make a belief in God delusional.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a scientist who also believes in intelligent design I don’t agree that i is not a scientific theory. It depends on what you mean by science. It does not provide a falsifiable hypothesis if that is what you mean, but then nor does evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “That is simply not correct, the 6000 year genealogy claim is not widely accepted by anyone but young earth creationists.”
Well, they are young earth creationists precisely because they have done the maths based on what the Bible says.
How foolish of them to believe the Bible.
- “My position is closest to astrophysicist Hugh Ross’s interpretation of the creation events.”
Strange indeed that for 2000 years people were completely wrong about this, and that it takes not a priest but an astrophysicist to finally comprehend it. Just who wrote this “holy” book of yours, Stephen Hawking?
It means that absolutely nothing in the Bible can be taken at face value. Every sentence is subject to revision and re-interpretation as necessary or convenient: Which, of course, is precisely what we see from Christians.
It also means that your belief system has not a shred more credibility than any other. After all, the claim that we’re riding around on the back of a giant turtle is not to be taken literally; and in fact the correct modern interpretation fits remarkably well with scientific observations…
- “You seem to be confusing Judaism with Christianity.”
It’s the same deity. You can’t just conform to the bits that you happen to agree with. That’s not taking moral guidance; that’s just selectively using the Bible to support your own prejudices.
If it was right, proper, good and moral then to stone disobedient children and to make rape victims marry their assailants (and to keep slaves, etc etc), then it is right, proper good and moral now. Which is it?
The only supernatural creature that comes out of the Bible with any credit is Lucifer, who stands up to the evil and sadistic Yahweh, with all his cruelty and childish tantrums.
frog,
- “I have to agree with Shunda that there is no requirement to take the Bible or leave it, en masse, on any point, particularly literal ineterpretation, wat.”
Hence, for example, rednecks get to condemn homosexuality whilst ignoring the somewhat lengthier verses about living in absolute poverty.
Biblically speaking, there is no moral difference between killing someone and wearing a garment of mixed weave. I think that tells us all we need to know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This week, Ideas looks at crime, punishment and rehabilitation. (duration: 47′24″)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ideas/2009/05/ideas
Interviews a prisoner who has 7 kids. He pleads guilty sometimes just to go back to jail “for a catch up”…. when I go back it’s like that program Cheers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and..how often have to been back in jail..?..there..?..jh..?
..and..are you norm..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dabney,
“Well, they are young earth creationists precisely because they have done the maths based on what the Bible says.”
They are young earth creationists because they are legalists. Go watch any of the “young vs old” earth debates on youtube and you will find their pharisaical character is not hard to dicern. Oh by the way, young earthers attack homosexuality and sin more than anyone else in this field, fitting well with their legalistic standing.
“Strange indeed that for 2000 years people were completely wrong about this, and that it takes not a priest but an astrophysicist to finally comprehend it.”
Wrong. The seventh day adventist church was the only group that pushed the 6000 years hard, another group that has struggled with legalism.
“It’s the same deity.”
Same deity, different covenant.
What did Jesus say to the woman who was going to be stoned by all those legalistic pharisee’s? “nor do I condemn you, go and sin no more”
Once again another “grace” vs legalism issue.
Why do you think the pharisee’s wanted to kill the guy? think about it.
“Hence, for example, rednecks get to condemn homosexuality whilst ignoring the somewhat lengthier verses about living in absolute poverty.”
I am no redneck, I probably take more crap from rednecks than you ever will. Poverty? another misinterpretation.
All you have done is high light the destruction and division that christian legalism does to people.
I respect your right to dislike christians, but you are targeting a narrow segment of the whole.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..# greenfly Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
The Mayans, however, have a little ‘gift’ for us in 2012, we’re told
..”
really..?..greenfly..?
i mean..i like to think i have an open mind..
but hanging armageddon/’the end of the world’..off the date (or not) on a mayan calendar..
is..to my little mind..a pile of self-delusional horse-sh*t..
(mmm!!..mixed metaphors..!..)
i mean..by 2012 our environmental-bill will likely be presenting..
..and a couple more years of economic meltdown as we have to re-jig our environmental/economic worlds will have taken their toll by then..
…but really..!..the ending of the mayan calendar marks/denotes the ‘end of the world’..?
sheesh..!..gizzafeckin’break here..!
..eh..?
and um..!..haven’t we go enough worries to be getting on with..?
..without making more up..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# phil u Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
and..how often have to been back in jail..?..there..?..jh..?
..and..are you norm..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
……
I assume you mean a) I don’t know enough as I haven’t had contact with prisoners. What this guys comments suggest (confirm) is that for some people it isn’t a deterrent more a motivator.
or b) you’re pulling my leg.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Left Wing Dictionary
Criminal: a person made sick by an unjust society
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil – (re: the Mayans)
really..?..greenfly..?
No. Not really.
Relax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Relaxing to phool is smoking a large greenflee joint.
God save us from these wack jobs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a change of topic, check out the latest Space Shuttle launch.
Crank up the sound for the main engine start, AWSOME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytqGMd6P8qk
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Talk of Armaggedon got you sweating has it dad, all that smoke and brimstone got you on edge? It’s the parable of the wheat and the tares that should have you squirming and falling to your knees in prayer. Are you for the barn or the pyre dad?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gf..whew..!
jh..or c..i’m being a punctuation nazi..(in yr own words..etc..)
..and d4j..?….it’s whack job…
..it’s got an ‘h’..
..got that..?
..just like whanganui..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stick to the wacky backy phool and stop trying to correct my words.
Wack the h into a ooter you dopey nitwit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what’s happened d4j..?
have you lost the fire in your belly..”
..your insults now are a pale wheeze..
..compared to back when..
..we could usually count on you for a full foam-flecked rant..
..and now..
..it’s come down to this..?
..’dopey nitwit’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
seems he’s out-witted U phil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Its certainly relevant that you’ve argued a point like a deist and then tried to apply it like a theist. Its part of why you’re not managing to be logically consistent.
There are (at least) two ways to answer this. One is the one I’ve been making for days that if science provides no support that a god has had anything to do with the physical universe, then it SHOULD mean that people of faith don’t claim otherwise.
The second answer is the historical trend. Everything that mankind has put up as physical evidence of god has eventually been knocked over by science, from the geocentric universe to the age of the Earth to special creation.
Because on this side things are NOT neutral. The arguments you can make on the other side of the big bang where science cannot tread cannot be made on this side of the big bang where the logic of science DOES apply.
Jesus, you’re confused on so many levels, excuse the pun. Suppose some atheists did hold that view (and you’ve not provided any evidence of it, let alone that it was ever a majority view). So what? It is certainly not a requirement for there to be no god even if it would have made the claim easier to make. Those atheists that were scientists (and that’s the only kind relevant to this argument) have moved on, incorporating the evidence into their world view in a way that a religious person refuses too.
Secondly, modern science can’t disprove god even if the universe was steady state, remember. It can only point in a direction to an imprecise degree (which doesn’t imply low) of probability. This is true whether there was a big bang or there wasn’t. Neither possible reality provides any support for your position.
No, that science can’t disprove god doesn’t mean it has no role in disproving god. For god to be disproved, science necessarily must provide no evidence for god’s existence, which is the case. This is not sufficient to disprove god, but it is necessary.
Illogical rubbish.
No more wrong than I am.
Because he’s thought it through more than you. Why does an intelligent man – you – insist on misrepresenting someone like Dawkins?
He can attack any claim made about the physical world that is based only on faith. You don’t have to be a creationist or other nutcase to make such a claim as you’ve shown over and over.
You once also said The God Delusion was a poorly written book and now that its not honest. But you’ve never read it have you. If you had, you’d see you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s not hard to out-wit a couple of green gits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
correction: seems he’s out-witted Us phil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nit-wits ‘n’ gits – that’s harsh dad!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I sense a twits forming in your brain dad! Don’t do it! I don’t think we can take it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
idjits? (just tryna be helpful).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
- “They are young earth creationists because they are legalists. ”
Yes, to their credit. None of this nonsense about 6 days actually equating to 6 billion years. They are true Christians.
- “by the way, young earthers attack homosexuality and sin more than anyone else in this field, fitting well with their legalistic standing.”
Because that’s what the Bible says. The Bible condemns homosexuality. If that’s “legalistic” then everything it says is “legalistic.” Why do you deny your faith like this? Why are you twisting it to fit your humanist beliefs? If you are a real Christian I expect you to condemn homosexuality (along with the mixing of different fibres, of course.)
- “The seventh day adventist church was the only group that pushed the 6000 years hard, another group that has struggled with legalism.”
“Legalism” seems to be another word for “honesty.” They have integrity and belief. What have you got? The “god of the gaps.” Your god is left in the decreasing spaces that science leaves for it.
- “Same deity, different covenant.”
Huh?
You don’t deny that this deity prescribes cruelty, oppression and murder, yet you choose to worship it anyway on the grounds that – if you pick and choose carefully – you can find stuff which you happen to agree with.
In other words, you don’t take your morals from this deity; you merely advocate those which you happen to agree with and entirely dismiss those you find repellent.
This is entirely to your credit, but we can forget any idea that this giant invisible space pixie is any kind of moral teacher. It is not, it is a cruel tyrant, a bloodthirsty butcher which at one point used a hippie sock-puppet called Jesus that appealed to your vanity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dabney Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
> It’s the same deity. You can’t just conform to the bits that you happen to agree with. That’s not taking moral guidance; that’s just selectively using the Bible to support your own prejudices.
There’s nothing inconsistent about believing some parts of the bible and not others. The bible is a collection of books written by many different people at different times over a period of a thousand years. There is nothing inconsistent about thniking that some parts of the bible are bulls**t, while others are good allegorical stories, others good advice and maybe some literally true.
There is also a certain logic to saying that a person who identifies as ‘christian’ should only follow the bits of the bible that carry explicit or implicit endorsement from Jesus the Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sorry I’m late me mate….say the God’s are getting a bit cheesy about you ignoring some of them….what can dad be teaching those children eh?…eh?
“In other words, you don’t take your morals from this deity; you merely advocate those which you happen to agree with and entirely dismiss those you find repellent.
This is entirely to your credit, but we can forget any idea that this giant invisible space pixie is any kind of moral teacher. It is not, it is a cruel tyrant, a bloodthirsty butcher which at one point used a hippie sock-puppet called Jesus that appealed to your vanity”
Wat, this is sheer brilliance – betchya ‘hippie sock puppet’ will go across well with the family….sorta like the mouse flipping the cat the bird really – the last great act of defiance….what then, is the difference between being brave and being silly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“As a scientist who also believes in intelligent design I don’t agree that i is not a scientific theory. It depends on what you mean by science. It does not provide a falsifiable hypothesis if that is what you mean, but then nor does evolution.”
You are not a scientist. You can’t hold up intelligent design as science and then claim to be a scientist.
There are a number of ways to disprove evolution:
- Find a human fosil in Jurasic sediments.
- Find a true chimerian fosil which has parts that are from different creatures.
- Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms. The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven.
Anyone of the above would falsify the theory of evolution via natural selection.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat, this is sheer brilliance – betchya ‘hippie sock puppet’ will go across well with the family….sorta like the mouse flipping the cat the bird really – the last great act of defiance….what then, is the difference between being brave and being silly?
Who’s wat got to be afraid of?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Weell Jesus Dad, the Hairy Thunderer got so mad he nearly blew a Galaxy, then his Uncle, The Cosmic Muffin, broke the cinnamon jar and Mum’s been crying. I’ll talk to ‘em – explain not all life is sentient…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh yea, forgot about them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe you greens should start praying to the “Cosmic Muffin”, because nobody in their right mind takes you utopian freaks seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and yet here you are dad!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and I have to ask; were there socks in biblical times?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My answer to you greenflee is in moderation. Communists@!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28 Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 4:16 am
> – Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms. The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven.
But, in fact, the main way we work out that two organisms are closely related is if they have a lot of DNA in common. Are you suggesting that we might find a fossil record that shows two creatures to have evolved from a common ancestor quite recently, when they don’t have much DNA in common?
That would be really weird, but it would be a strange kind of evidence against evolution in that it would include a fossil record that strongly backs it up. I suppose it would be consistent with the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy theory that the fossil record is a joke put there by mice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No answer to the sock dilemma then dad?
Darn!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
you know someone in their right mind dad?
prove it!
fly; No socks, no showers – time wiz tough ‘y know? Dont believe those rosy pictures of a white man….the JW’s even given him a haircut (& blow wave) and a shave – sort of un-palestined the guy y’know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are you suggesting that we might find a fossil record that shows two creatures to have evolved from a common ancestor quite recently, when they don’t have much DNA in common?
No, turnip is saying that finding such would help disprove evolution, not that he thinks for a moment that it will happen. He’s arguing with kiore’s assertion that evolution is not science by showing that it is indeed falsifiable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Another fine philosophical discussion, well sort of.
Well, not really, I get the feeling that Wat wants to punch me in the face.
Not much point to continuing really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a cop out. Just make sure you don’t stir that pot again then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey! I believe in intelligent design! I believe that we each create our own reality. Are you guys saying that I’m not intelligent? Even for a frog?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I believe the intelligent design.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What about unintelligent design?
Take a look at the video here – and wait for the second half!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Look how unintelligent the designer is:
He wired the eye’s around the wrong way, so then he required a software update to invert the signal, not a very good designer.
Also since light only makes up a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum, why didn’t he include the ability to sense the entire spectrum, another example of poor unintelligent design.
Notice how I call the designer a He, well it should be obvious by his poor designing that the great creator is Male.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What a cop out. Just make sure you don’t stir that pot again then.”
Not at all, I just think the discussion was taking on quite a nasty tone, I am happy to continue a discussion, but if you think of it as stirring the pot why would you want me to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda; never cease from that – your sensitvity to ‘tones’ is exacty why treaties never last
New One Jokers? Our toops have no p-lace in the Afghanisthan
Just send your’e jokes where-ever
What is fuuny, is that you pretend to be Fair.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I meant that as you often start these debates, you should finish them too. Anyway, its your serve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was not the one who brought up religion on this thread, if someone else brings it up I will engage in discussion, I was not looking for a flame war.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OMG Shunda! jh merely posted an article about a proposed psychological basis for creationism. Even though you’re not a creationist and so presumably this article posed no challenge to you, you chose to respond provocatively. You decided to take the conversation back to the old chestnuts of what science says about god and how that would supposedly cause problems for the “atheist religion”. You did this even though the article relates to neither of these topics, which is the first thing we pointed out to you. If you didn’t want to take it deeper, that would have been a really good place to stop digging the hole, but press on you did.
Now I’ve questioned your ability to make a logical argument, but I don’t for a minute think you are so stupid as to not know such provocation would result in a significant response on this blog. We’d just been having the same discussion in another thread a few days earlier, FFS – also a thread you chose to abandon.
So I say again, if you can’t hack it in these debates, don’t start them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Now I’ve questioned your ability to make a logical argument”
I just don’t see how you have really challenged my logic, but I am open to understand more, I would like to continue this debate so you can elaborate further, if you and frog are ok with it that is. Why is the monotheist position worse than the deist position?
“but press on you did.”
It takes 2 to tango Valis. I personally find these dicussions quite interesting, if you find it irritating you probably shouldn’t respond to my provocation, that said I thought most of the discussion was civilised.
You are right though, I was being provocative at the start.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, it takes 2, and the irritation only comes when the one who started things off backs out when the going gets a little tough and then claims they didn’t start things in the first place. I will only ever respond to you if I intend to stick with it. I’d like the same too.
Why is the monotheist position worse than the deist position?
In the context of our discussion about science and what support it provides or doesn’t for a god, the difference between deism and theism is significant. As I said above:
Science can say nothing at all about a god that starts off the universe and then takes no further part, particularly if it is posited that this god did this work on the other side of the big bang. We agreed on that. But then you tried to make the same argument for this side of the big bang, where god is posited to be active (a key point). In that context science is not at all neutral, but says real and important things about the physical world that can’t be ignored. It is not logical for you to argue otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
p.t.o. frog (fresh page?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But then you tried to make the same argument for this side of the big bang, where god is posited to be active (a key point). In that context science is not at all neutral, but says real and important things about the physical world that can’t be ignored.”
Ok, so the problem is one of, in my case, the christian God performing miracles or the posible separate act of creating life, or directing the formation of our planet.
But what if these creative acts such as the seeming fine tuning of the universe and our planet for life, were done in such a way as to use the laws of physics, all be it in a guided fassion?
Why couldn’t a God that created the laws of physics not then use them to achieve a desired outcome?
By using physical laws, this would still make a creator God largely invisible to science, and a belief in God would not necessarily be in conflict with science.
Evidence of this devine guidence would only show up in the laws of probability, which incidently is exactly what we find, the probability that our universe would be fine tuned for life is stageringly small.
ps,( I have alot on at the moment so I have limited time to respond until the weekend, I will check in after work tomorrow though)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice to have you back.
More specifically, whether science provides any support that your god may have done any these things. (I certainly think your problem is bigger than that, but I’ve not been arguing any further in this discussion.)
Possible, but in this case science would also be incapable, by definition, of providing any support for the existence of your god.
I’d agree this would be possible if you left “largely” out. With “largely” in, you have to explain in what way science points us at all in the direction of the existence of a god.
There is conflict if science contradicts claims made about the physical world by religion. This is the problem theists have, and in two ways. First is that the specifics of miracles amount to claims about the physical world – parting of a sea, or Mary bodily rising into heaven, etc – science says these things can’t happen the way they are described; there is conflict. Now I know you could just argue at this point that god is not only acting invisibly, but might be purposely making it look like he doesn’t exist by providing fake contrary evidence, so clever is his ability to hide. At which point I can only ask if there are ANY contortions you won’t go through to feed your desire for god to be true.
Second is that science often provides a simpler answer to the claim that god did it; natural selection is a good example. In this case science isn’t really providing explicit evidence against a god – it could be that god is acting invisibly as you argue. But by providing this simpler explanation, the bar is set higher – if you’re going to argue another cause, you need to have even better evidence. This is also a type of conflict, particularly as you have no physical evidence at all.
Just incidentally, eh? What luck. Suppose I accept that this small probability is a troubling issue (I don’t, but that’s another matter). It is simply not an indication of divine guidance unless you can show that the probability of a god is larger. How are you going to do that? You can’t! With no physical evidence of a god at all, it is even more unlikely that such a god exists than that our “perfect” universe has a natural cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You guys must be smarter than many leading scientists today then, and including Einstein in the past.
There is no doubt that Einstein was an atheist.
The laws of probability and the study of the universe have made atheism the newest fundamentalist religion.
Show us how! No fudging it now. We want the real dirt, not just the vague comments you’ve made so far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – you’d have to concede at the outset that a scientist who believes in God is disqualified from the argument, as he/she lacks subjectivity. That leaves only the non-believers to discuss the phenomenon of ‘belief in God’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
objectivity is the better term
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, all people are capable of lacking objectivity, even atheist scientists, as Shunda will shortly tell you. So we can but expose arguments from either side to the tests of evidence and logic conducted by many eyes. While I think they are dead wrong, I’m not so bothered by those who at least hold to their faith admitting that they do so against all evidence. This is at least honest, but few manage it. My church taught me to trust to faith and not seek evidence. Alas, I was never a good christian, but it seems good advice for the faithful. Even Shunda agrees, though he cannot help himself looking for the proof that isn’t there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Indeed Valis, but the subject here is God. Those who already believe in God’s existence should be excluded from the search, given that theirs is a belief based on faith and cannot be supported by science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I understand why its tempting to argue this, but I think it unwise. First, it will cause another argument that is even less profitable than the original. Second, the reality is that there are more of them than there are us, so we can no more cut them out of the discussion than ask them to change their views over night. Third, many scientific breakthroughs started because someone had a hunch, a belief, that they were onto something, even though there was no proof at the time. So I don’t think we should cut out those who believe, just hold them to the same standard that we hold ourselves. And if they accept my challenge above to be honest about their faith and stop seeking evidence, then they remove themselves from the debate of their own volition anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)