Atheists or Creationists - who's got more faith?

[carpedm9587]

For the record, I was making the argument as a starting point. I was hoping to get reasoned responses to it, so I could compare my reasoning on the topic with other peoples reasoning on the topic, not so I could prove that position true or false. The problem is, no matter how many times I tried to correct those that went immedietely to ad hominem attacks and to try to get them to 'just talk', it was just nearly impossible to get there. Beagles second to last response could have been a good start point, but then the final one was back 'to the man', though I don't think in that case it was purposeful.

I will leave you and Beagle to sort out your differences. I'm curious to know if you thought any of my responses were ad hominem?

Thanks for your explanation of your position. But at least for now, I'm in no mood to discuss what I see are it's merits or flaws, as it is clear there can be no discussion on that level. I either agree your position is valid, or I am evil and will be treated as such.

Jim

Jim, you are projecting a point of view on me that I have not articulated and I do not have about you. My discussion has been entirely about the merits of the argument, and why I think the argument you have put forward so far is not a good one. You are, of course, free to withdraw. That is your right. But I would appreciate it if you would not color me in a way that my engagement with you has not merited.

If you HAVE found some of the points I made to be offensive in some way, or a personal attack, then it would be helpful to know which statements left that impression. It was not my intention to attack you personally at any point.

Michel

[oxmixmudd]

I will leave you and Beagle to sort out your differences. I'm curious to know if you thought any of my responses were ad hominem?



Jim, you are projecting a point of view on me that I have not articulated and I do not have about you. My discussion has been entirely about the merits of the argument, and why I think the argument you have put forward so far is not a good one. You are, of course, free to withdraw. That is your right. But I would appreciate it if you would not color me in a way that my engagement with you has not merited.

If you HAVE found some of the points I made to be offensive in some way, or a personal attack, then it would be helpful to know which statements left that impression. It was not my intention to attack you personally at any point.

Michel

looking back over the discussion, I do have to admit you are right. I think the ad hominem goes more to the other thread, and they are indirect, and what I believe to be beagles 'accidental' broad brush (which I was already angry at that point with how things were going) - so to you and beagle I'll retract the accusations of personal attacks. Please accept my apology.

I think what was actually going on was that I couldn't get past the stereotypes of what you and beagle (and others) believed I was saying in my posts. Later in my frustration I was taking that as 'to the man'. I was frustrated there and I quickly realized that I was going to have to put up with a lot of negative and pejorative comments and reword my posts several times before we could ever get to the points I was trying to address. I still feel I was making valid points, but unfortunately it's clearly going to be very difficult to find a venue where I can bounce them off intelligent people and get reasoned responses to them.

So I also apologize for overreacting to those elements. And maybe another time we can try again.

Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

you do realize that by making that comment you just effectively smeared me as a bigot equivalent to a stereotypical 'southern' racist - right?

Jim

(rolls eyes) No Jim, I didn't. My apologies for bumping that chip on your shoulder.

[HMS_Beagle]

I think what was actually going on was that I couldn't get past the stereotypes of what you and beagle (and others) believed I was saying in my posts.

Jim

Jim you were putting forth some rather vile stereotypes of LGBT folks in your posts. Like the comment about how LGBT folks could never know true intimacy because they couldn't produce children. That's 100% false and very demeaning yet you see no problems with it. How would you feel if someone wrote "Christians can never be honest if they take all Bible passages literally"?

I'm not saying this to bash you, I still think you're one of the nicer people I've met online. I'm just trying to make you aware that people can sometimes send hurtful messages without meaning to.

[carpedm9587]

looking back over the discussion, I do have to admit you are right. I think the ad hominem goes more to the other thread, and they are indirect, and what I believe to be beagles 'accidental' broad brush (which I was already angry at that point with how things were going) - so to you and beagle I'll retract the accusations of personal attacks. Please accept my apology.

That you would extend one speaks volumes about your character. No harm done.

I think what was actually going on was that I couldn't get past the stereotypes of what you and beagle (and others) believed I was saying in my posts. Later in my frustration I was taking that as 'to the man'. I was frustrated there and I quickly realized that I was going to have to put up with a lot of negative and pejorative comments and reword my posts several times before we could ever get to the points I was trying to address. I still feel I was making valid points, but unfortunately it's clearly going to be very difficult to find a venue where I can bounce them off intelligent people and get reasoned responses to them.

Jim, I consider myself reasonably intelligent, and I consider my responses to be reasoned. You made an argument, and I pointed out places where I thought the argument was flawed/weak. I still think that. Your arguments appear, to me, to be largely focused on the procreative aspect of marriage, and disproportionately minimize the relational component. Why you are doing that I do not know, but I believe it is the flaw in your argument, for the reasons I cited. A strong case can be made that marriage is more relational than procreative, though it clearly is associated with both. And the Abrahamic/Western view of marriage is only one of many views. The world has many different types of family.

So I also apologize for overreacting to those elements. And maybe another time we can try again.

Jim

I hope that will be possible.

Until then...

Michel

[oxmixmudd]

Jim you were putting forth some rather vile stereotypes of LGBT folks in your posts. Like the comment about how LGBT folks could never know true intimacy because they couldn't produce children. That's 100% false and very demeaning yet you see no problems with it. How would you feel if someone wrote "Christians can never be honest if they take all Bible passages literally"?

But beagle, I never said or implied anything like that! Could you please find whatever line or paragraph from my statements you thought implied that?

But THAT is what is so frustrating. I have no idea how (in specific or in general) you got that idea from what I wrote, and so in general I have no way of avoiding implying (to you) such a ridiculous thing in the future.

I'm not saying this to bash you, I still think you're one of the nicer people I've met online. I'm just trying to make you aware that people can sometimes send hurtful messages without meaning to.

Well, I do hope you'll help me understand how you derived that from what I wrote. It might help me in a future conversation.


Jim

[Jorge]

Since the common definition of "religion" is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," it is hard ot see a position that such beings do NOT exist as religions. There are also relatively few actual churches dedicated to atheism. However, if your position is actually that atheism is as much a position of faith as theism, then I would agree with you there. Because the idea of god is not subject to scientific examination, belief that god does not exist is as much a statement of faith as belief that god does exist.

What you cite as the "common definition" of religion is indeed "common" --- childishly common.

A serious, more adult study of the subject shows that "religion" is far beyond the naive "... belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." The essential and ever-present elements in all religions (ALL, bar none) is that they give answers to the most important questions in human life regardless of time (when), geography (where) or culture. These are questions that have been asked since humans walked on Earth. Those questions include: How did we get here? Is there a purpose for my life and for all other lives? Why is there something instead of nothing? How did what exists come to exist? Is there some other reality (an afterlife) after natural death? Is there an objective, unwavering standard for moral behavior? Others ...

Give it a bit of thought and you should come to the realization that your Atheist religion "answers" each and every one of those questions. Buddhism gives answers; Taoism gives answers; Hinduism gives answers; Secular Humanism gives answers; Atheism gives answers. Atheism/Materialism is a religion - period. The sooner you accept that the sooner you will begin to face certain truths.

Jorge

[Jorge]

You are right about the establishment clause. That does apply.

The state can't force any religion upon you if you don't want it. And that is as it should be.

Jim

Yet the State IS forcing a religion upon us - Materialism.

Not the right forum ... nor do I have the time, nor the inclination.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I didn't say it would. You are generating that conclusion yourself.

Of course it is. I wasn't saying it was 'only about making babies'. Again, you are drawing conclusions from the text that are not there. I know it is hard - but you are bringing a whole laundry list of stereotypical assumptions about what the points are I'm trying to make. And since I'm not completely aware of what key phrases I'm using that are setting those off, the conversation is never going to get anywhere unless you can ditch them and enter into a the conversation without them. IOW, it is virtually impossible at this point to have a reasoned conversation because you're looking for a fight. Can't we just talk about the various issues and see where it goes?

But perhaps we can try a different approach. What is your explanation for the historical reality of the nearly universal presence of marriage, and the nearly universal absence same sex unions.


Jim

Bwahahahaha

Welcome to my world - trying to have a rational discussion with Beagle Boy.

You may as well be trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall -- oh, and the
jellyfish is drunk and the nails you're using are made of silly putty.



Jorge

[Jorge]

As many of you may recall, since my first day here on TWeb I've stated that Atheists/Materialists are religious folk - deeply religious folk - they just don't like to admit it. BTW, that is why I always capitalize Atheist/Atheism and Materialist/Materialism -- because theirs is a religious position every bit as much as is Christianity, Buddhism, etc. That religious position makes its way into Evolutionism (but that's another story).

I recently came across the following short video (< 5 minutes) in which a PhD astrophysicist states the essence of one of my arguments. I definitely do not agree with everything he says but on that one point he is correct.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/whats...-or-multiverse

Be sure to enjoy, especially the Materialist/Atheist faithful among you.

Jorge

I've long said (jokingly) that I wish I had the faith that Atheists/Materialists have.
I say that because, man-oh-man, they can believe in just about anything, no matter how wild!
The jokingly part is because theirs is a BLIND, IRRATIONAL faith, not the kind of faith I want.

On another note, I came across this today:

"The ribosome is a huge macromolecular complex and there are many steps leading up to the synthesis of the peptide bond that joins amino acids. There is no way that a ribosome could have evolved de novo in a single step and meet our guidelines of continuity .. .. It is impossible on an incremental model that a very complex structure could evolve 'for' something that does not yet exist." (David Penny, "An Interpretive Review of the Origin of Life Research," Biology and Philosophy 20 (2005): 633-671, at 650.)

Just more of the ignored hard evidence that yells loudly against Evolutionism. Oh well ...

Jorge

[carpedm9587]

What you cite as the "common definition" of religion is indeed "common" --- childishly common.

A serious, more adult study of the subject shows that "religion" is far beyond the naive "... belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." The essential and ever-present elements in all religions (ALL, bar none) is that they give answers to the most important questions in human life regardless of time (when), geography (where) or culture. These are questions that have been asked since humans walked on Earth. Those questions include: How did we get here? Is there a purpose for my life and for all other lives? Why is there something instead of nothing? How did what exists come to exist? Is there some other reality (an afterlife) after natural death? Is there an objective, unwavering standard for moral behavior? Others ...

Give it a bit of thought and you should come to the realization that your Atheist religion "answers" each and every one of those questions. Buddhism gives answers; Taoism gives answers; Hinduism gives answers; Secular Humanism gives answers; Atheism gives answers. Atheism/Materialism is a religion - period. The sooner you accept that the sooner you will begin to face certain truths.

Jorge

Much as you consider the definition of religion "childishness," it's the one found in most dictionaries. If you wish to redefine the word, you certainly can do so. You'll be introducing confusion into the communication, however. I'll try to remember, in future discussions with you, that you have a different definition of the word, and define it by the list of questions a belief system purports to answer.

However, atheism doesn't answer all of the questions religions purport to answer. Some of those questions are simply meaningless in an atheist worldview.

[Tassman]

Yet the State IS forcing a religion upon us - Materialism.

Jorge

[Roy]

On another note, I came across this today:

"The ribosome is a huge macromolecular complex and there are many steps leading up to the synthesis of the peptide bond that joins amino acids. There is no way that a ribosome could have evolved de novo in a single step and meet our guidelines of continuity .. .. It is impossible on an incremental model that a very complex structure could evolve 'for' something that does not yet exist." (David Penny, "An Interpretive Review of the Origin of Life Research," Biology and Philosophy 20 (2005): 633-671, at 650.)

But since Jorge didn't get this from David Penny's article, but from IDist Paul Nelson's essay "Five questions everyone should ask about common descent", there's considerable expectation that it is taken out of context, especially given the embedded ellipsis, a fair chance that it's a misquote, and about 5% chance that it's entirely fake - and Jorge wouldn't know. He clearly hasn't learnt anything from his Dima fiasco.

Just more of the ignored hard evidence that yells loudly against Evolutionism.

So it's being ignored by being published openly and discussed at length in a freely-available article? is bonkers.

For the rest of you (but not who clearly couldn't be bothered to read the article he's supposedly quoting), Penny does in fact go on to discuss various possible routes by which the ribosome might have evolved originally for other purposes, and it's clear that Penny isn't saying that the ribosome couldn't have evolved, only that it couldn't have evolved without previously having a different function.

[rogue06]

But since Jorge didn't get this from David Penny's article, but from IDist Paul Nelson's essay "Five questions everyone should ask about common descent", there's considerable expectation that it is taken out of context, especially given the embedded ellipsis, a fair chance that it's a misquote, and about 5% chance that it's entirely fake - and Jorge wouldn't know. He clearly hasn't learnt anything from his Dima fiasco.So it's being ignored by being published openly and discussed at length in a freely-available article? is bonkers.

For the rest of you (but not who clearly couldn't be bothered to read the article he's supposedly quoting), Penny does in fact go on to discuss various possible routes by which the ribosome might have evolved originally for other purposes, and it's clear that Penny isn't saying that the ribosome couldn't have evolved, only that it couldn't have evolved without previously having a different function.

I've seen the line that something is being hidden from the public being propagated by a bunch of different proponents of various conspiracy theories who seem to ignore the fact that this hidden knowledge is regularly mentioned and openly discussed -- including by those supposedly keeping it from the public

[Jorge]

Much as you consider the definition of religion "childishness," it's the one found in most dictionaries.

Dictionaries are most often at the "popular" level - the level used in common, everyday life. Try an encyclopedia of philosophy or, better yet, do an in-depth study on the subject (online will be fine).

If you wish to redefine the word, you certainly can do so.

No, I am not "redefining the word". What I gave you (and there's much more) is what scholars at the highest levels in multiple disciplines accept as THE definition - what religion actually IS. Simply accept what I gave you ... Confirmation is just a few mouse-clicks away.

You'll be introducing confusion into the communication, however. I'll try to remember, in future discussions with you, that you have a different definition of the word, and define it by the list of questions a belief system purports to answer.

It's deeper than that - what I gave you was just to show you that the definition you're using is superficial and, bluntly, naive. Here is an excellent source (one of the best) for you to get caught up on the subject: Liberty University Law Review, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 2009 by John H. Calvert (115 pages with 466 references, most of them studies and court-case decisions on the topic). Note that this is only up to 2009 --- more has been added in the 9 years since then.

However, atheism doesn't answer all of the questions religions purport to answer. Some of those questions are simply meaningless in an atheist worldview.

How VERY wrong you are. Atheism most definitely answers - certainly CLAIMS to answer - the questions that I listed for you.

To wit: You claim to be an Atheist. Go ahead, take a swipe at every question in my list and confirm to yourself that you do indeed "have an answer" to those questions - an answer that your Materialistic/Atheistic worldview provides.

You unwittingly (a Freudian Slip) give one of those answers right there in your post when you say, "Some of those questions are simply meaningless in an atheist worldview." To regard a question as "meaningless" IS an answer (a statement of position) to the question!

Furthermore, regarding your assertion that the questions are "meaningless" --- I must ask, how old are you? Anyone past the age of 20 (perhaps earlier) asks in his/her heart "what's this all about?" ... "is there anything after?" ... and so on.

Only an intellectually dead person would never ask those question nor assign any meaning or value to them. I mean, natural life DOES end - right? - and to simply assume (you certainly cannot prove it) without a second thought that at death "that's it, there's nothing more" is the highest expression of ignorance, hubris and foolishness all rolled-up into one any person can have. Ask Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett to prove their Atheistic belief that there is no life after death - that this belief is in fact "reality". Expect silence. They cannot prove it but they certainly do BELIEVE it. Belief - faith - religion. Now you're catching on!

Jorge