BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 11:22 PM

Well, Steve - If you're as open-minded as you claim to be, then maybe you aren't so far away from some of us theists as you claim to be. It's just that you can't bring yourself to understand that some of us theists are a lot more open-minded than you think we are. I wouldn't sent my children to a school where "they mustn't question God," either.

Here's a statement of yours I question: I can't think of anything more limiting than pretending you've found the answers by inventing an exceptionally improbable entity, inexplicable in himself, who is supposed to explain everything.

You're right in the idea that the Deity is inexplicable, but not necessarily in your "supposed to explain everything" supposition. I suppose, maybe, if I could completely and incontrovertibly understand any one thing and all its implications, then I could understand God - and vice-versa, perhaps. But there's always something more to explore and understand. So, to say, "That's the way God made it," would be the ultimate cop-out. Lots of people make that cop-out, but not all of us. Some of us find God in the question, not the answer. That question keeps beckoning us to seek deeper and deeper. There's always something Beyond.

So, when I say that everything has a spiritual side, I mean that everything has something Beyond what one sees through ordinary observation and logic. I call that Beyond "God-stuff," and I think that I and other theists may tend to personalize that Beyond in our pursuit of it. But don't you seek that same Beyond, but call it by another name? I've studied Jewish and Muslim and Christian mystics, and I've found they seek the same thing (and they don't have the interdenominational conflicts that other members of their religions have). But there are also non-theistic mystics (particularly Buddhists) who seek essentially the same thing. I think it's some kind of all-encompassing unity that is always just beyond our grasp. I call that Unity God. Others use other names, or no name at all.

When the Dalai Lama went to a pizzeria and the clerk asked for his order, the Holy Man said, "Make me One With Everything" (click).

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 06:13 AM

""There are crap books like Harry Potter that will diminish us all,""

You really need to provide a rationale for that statement Steve.

In precisely what way does the use of imagination to provide light hearted entertainment diminish anyone?

I just start to understand where you're coming from, then you take a swerve right off the rails.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 06:46 AM

It's just that you can't bring yourself to understand that some of us theists are a lot more open-minded than you think we are. I wouldn't sent my children to a school where "they mustn't question God," either.

If you'd care to check my post (which I did before I posted it) you'll see that I said many believers, not all believers. Does your school make children say prayers? Sing hymns? The words of which express certainty?

Some of us find God in the question, not the answer. That question keeps beckoning us to seek deeper and deeper. There's always something Beyond.

That is an elegant and thoughtful way of putting it.

So, when I say that everything has a spiritual side, I mean that everything has something Beyond what one sees through ordinary observation and logic. I call that Beyond "God-stuff," and I think that I and other theists may tend to personalize that Beyond in our pursuit of it. But don't you seek that same Beyond, but call it by another name?

It isn't Beyond. It's here and it's with us now, part of what we are. As a scientist I refuse to believe that there are matters permanently beyond explanation. Our spiritual side may one day yield to a brain-chemical explanation of sorts, but the delicious mystery of the synergy of our brain-chemistry will take a lot longer, maybe forever, to crack, in just the same way that we don't understand how a bunch of plucked, blown and banged notes can make the Pastoral Symphony. If we're here for any reason at all we're here to keep looking. My view of nature, the world and the universe is that they have the ultimate wow-factor of all - the overwhelming, sheer wonder of their downright ordinariness. In terms of a spiritual-side contest, well for a start I find the word "spiritual" mysterious enough for me to suspect people who lay claim to it all the time, but if I really had to I'd say that my spiritual side is as fully-formed as anyone else's. Without a God Beyond.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 06:49 AM

"I don't agree with you" equals "you've taken a swerve off the rails". Nice one, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 06:51 AM

Then there is the point about Richard Dawkins being the world's most famous atheist. Most people don't know who he is at all. In the US, when you mention Richard Dawkins, people think you're talking about the host of "Family Feud".
My vote for the World's most famous Atheist would be Hu Jintao, who is the Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China. He is famous at least to the 1.3 billion people that he rules, many of whom are also atheists.
.,,.
A bit of equivocation here, Stim. Don't pretend that you didn't appreciate that Steve's point unquestionably implied that Dawkins was the most famous person famous for being an atheist. Hu may or not be an atheist ~ his religious position is not in question either here or with regard to his activities in general: but even if he is, it is not what he is 'famous'for. It's a bit as if you said that Madonna was the most famous blonde in the world: she happens to be blonde, but that isn't what she is known for.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 06:53 AM

I misused equivocation. I meant to say that my posts don't express certainties about God's existence, etc., but are full of caveats.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 06:56 AM

Apologies to violinists for omitting "scraped".

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:59 PM

MtheGM; My point, meant, as usually, to be at least a bit droll, was that Steve was tossing a lot of points as if they were undisputable facts, when there was in fact, room for quite a bit of debate.

Given that, in the US, at least until his recent and unfortunately early demise, our most prominent Atheist was Christopher Hitchens, who had been on the talk show circuit for years, and was much more entertaining than Richard Dawkins.

As to Hu Jintao, hating the evil, atheistic Communist China is a cottage industry for many on the religious right here in the US, and being a political leader, is seen as much more of a threat to the Flag, Mom, and Apple Pie than Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 05:28 PM

"Steve was tossing a lot of points as if they were undisputable facts, when there was in fact, room for quite a bit of debate."

That's what evangelical atheists tend to do. (((Yawn)))

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 06:31 PM

""I don't agree with you" equals "you've taken a swerve off the rails". Nice one, Don.""

Facile and disingenuous Steve!

I asked you how exactly you see us (any of us) being diminished by a book which consists of an imaginative and entertaining fiction.

That does not equate in any way, shape or form with "I don't agree with you".

What's up mate? Feeling the need to avoid a question to which you have NO logical answer?

I was tending toward agreeing with your general opinion as to the need for a deity. Now I'm getting the impression that you just don't have any interest in anything but your own voice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 08:10 PM

"Steve was tossing a lot of points as if they were undisputable facts, when there was in fact, room for quite a bit of debate."

That's what evangelical atheists tend to do. (((Yawn)))

I wasn't doing it. Just because some religious nutter says it don't make it true. Anyway, Jacko, you appear to come on this thread merely to express your boredom with it. Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 08:19 PM

I asked you how exactly you see us (any of us) being diminished by a book which consists of an imaginative and entertaining fiction.

[Jeez, if I really must...] Good for you if a poorly-written kids' book entertains you. Perhaps you've gone round full-circle or something. A brief perusal of one of 'em revealed dull writing and characterisation that only got away with it because the characters were so unreal. The books are popular because they are so unchallenging. I'm not saying they'll turn anyone's brain to mush but I do think you're championing something that lacks any kind of quality of the kind that will really last.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: gnu
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 08:22 PM

"In the US, when you mention Richard Dawkins, people think you're talking about the host of "Family Feud"."

Now, THAT made me LOL.

I find this discourse facsinating and educational. Not that it is any further up scale in substance than same at a tavern but the quality of eloquent arguement is indeed appreciable and appreciated. Thought provoking without (much) poking. Often a rarity in this Café. (Yeah, it was *me* that said that.)

BYW, if I just wasted your time, bite me... the devil made me do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 08:25 PM

much more entertaining than Richard Dawkins.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you assert this. I doubt that you'd have found him particularly entertaining had he ever taken you on over your shaky views face to face. This kind of talk from believers reveals unease, fear even. You're a classic example. We don't bite, you know. We politely ask you for evidence for the stuff you like to spout about and force on your children. And we don't even tell you there's no God.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 08:42 PM

Given that, in the US, at least until his recent and unfortunately early demise, our most prominent Atheist was Christopher Hitchens, who had been on the talk show circuit for years, and was much more entertaining than Richard Dawkins.

Well yes, I said that Dawkins was the most famous atheist. I'd wager (in the safe knowledge that my poll will never be conducted) that if you asked a large number of people who the most famous atheist is they would not say Hitchens or that other bloke on yank telly that somebody mentioned who I'd never heard of. Not only that, you dispute my most famous atheist by replacing him with an apple-and-pear most prominent atheist. We have different words for things like famous and prominent because they mean different things, old chap. Frankly, I don't give a flying shite, but it is still highly amusing to note your unequivocal assertion - no room for cavils here! - that Given that...our most prominent Atheist was ( not probably was, etc.) Christopher Hitchens... So who's being indisputable now?

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 05:00 PM

Obviously, you aren't familiar with Christopher Hitchens, so the best I can do is to paste this quote:

"Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford and a friend of Hitchens, said, "I think he was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants including imaginary supernatural ones."

As for you, you say:

"We don't bite, you know. We politely ask you for evidence for the stuff you like to spout about and force on your children. And we don't even tell you there's no God."

Judging by your posts, you are what the literary types among us would call an unreliable narrator--contrary to your statement, you snap at nearly anything that moves, you are rude, and, unless I have misread, you do tell " people there's no God."

As for me, you have no idea what I believe, or if, in fact, I believe anything. As to what I tell my children, though I am under no obligation to account any of that to you, I will share two things:

1) When someone, no matter how important, tells you they are right, it doesn't mean that they are.

2) When you think you're right, it doesn't mean that you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 06:46 PM

Obviously, you aren't familiar with Christopher Hitchens, so the best I can do is to paste this quote:

"Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford and a friend of Hitchens, said, "I think he was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants including imaginary supernatural ones."

I am very familiar with him, and have had his book "God Is Not Great" since it came out. "Obviously" my arse! You appear not to have read it, because, if you had, if you think I'm a bit sharp on the atheist front you wouldn't care much for him, as he makes me look like a cuddly bloody bunny. Dawkins also advises people like you to avoid taking Hitchens on. You failed to mention that. You'd be mauled!   

Judging by your posts, you are what the literary types among us would call an unreliable narrator--contrary to your statement, you snap at nearly anything that moves, you are rude, and, unless I have misread, you do tell " people there's no God."

What absolute tommy-rot, Mr Literary-Type (prove it, you pompous git!) I snap at nothing but provide measured responses (I know how annoying that must seem to guys like you who are looking for the faintest excuse to pounce on us heathens!) And not once, ever, have I told anyone that there's no God. For a literary type, you do appear to struggle with plain English, if I may say so.

As for me, you have no idea what I believe, or if, in fact, I believe anything.

Well you haven't actually said, but it isn't hard to work out. Be like me. Come out!

As to what I tell my children, though I am under no obligation to account any of that to you

Please yourself, but you do appear to be shuffling rather uncomfortably.

I will share two things:

1) When someone, no matter how important, tells you they are right, it doesn't mean that they are.

2) When you think you're right, it doesn't mean that you are.

So I see you have a degree in the Bleedin' Obvious from the University Of Plain As The Nose On Your Face. You're an astonishing chap, no doubt about it!

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 07:43 AM

Well at least TheSnail has decided not to contribute any more to this thread; I don't think that I could cope with another Snail/Shaw fracas! We have to thank God (whoops!) for small mercies!

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 08:02 AM

Oh, he'll find some chink or other in what I've said to home in on. Coping strategy: put your feet up with a cup o' Java and a big bag of popcorn!

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 08:42 AM

Steve Shaw

Oh, he'll find some chink or other in what I've said to home in on.

Not at all, Steve. You seem to have done a complete about turn on your previous "Evolution is true" stance so that's fine by me.

(Careful what you wish for, Shimrod.)

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 10:49 AM

""I'm not saying they'll turn anyone's brain to mush but I do think you're championing something that lacks any kind of quality of the kind that will really last.""

Intellectually lazy and off the point.

HOW will they diminish anybody?

You seem unaware that you are skirting round the question. Perhaps you would make a good politician.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 02:27 PM

I meant to blow this thread off, but you keep me coming back, Steve. This statement is the winner this time: "Well you haven't actually said, but it isn't hard to work out."

So please, tell me, what have you worked out?

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 02:31 PM

And show your work.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:50 PM

Evolution is not a belief but a scientific fact. Those that don't recognize it's value are ignorant. Charles Darwin is a twentieth century hero that has changed the biological landscape forever and this is why the so-called Church and Creationists are up in arms; they have no scientific credibility.

National wealth is an addiction that has taken over the Romney and Ryan campaign based on the insane ramblings of Ayn Rand who had her own addictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:52 PM

I can almost see refusing to believe in evolution. But the effects of explosive decompression are a little more immediate easier to observe.

"I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don't think she knows just how worried some of us were," Romney said. "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she's safe and sound."

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:59 PM

Evolution is not a belief but a scientific fact.

Agreed, Frank, but some folks still don't believe in Evolution. Most folks can't be arsed with the Scientific Method. They believe, what they believe. Truth and fact are not part of the equation.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:25 PM

Anyone who says "I don't believe in evolution" is a confounded eejit. And that's a fact! Argue with it, quibble over details, pick it to shreds, counter it with some other evidence, that's all luvverly. But it's a scientific theory (and more). You can't "not believe in it" any more than you can't not believe in the M25 as London's orbital motorway. The reason a lot of people say they don't "believe" in evolution is that they think evolution excludes God. Darwin know that his theory fatally undermined God as a creator, in fact he was scared that that (correct) interpretation would be made, so he had to be rather diplomatic. I don't have to be. Darwin's theory completely does away with the need for God, no matter how valiantly those believers who also want to embrace science cling to it. That's why you get daft notions such as God kick-starting evolution, or being the driving force of evolution, or other such clunky compromises. God just doesn't get a look-in.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:28 PM

knew. He's dead (and was 19th century, by the way!)

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:36 PM

So please, tell me, what have you worked out?


And show your work.

Well, you said this:

I feel that I must tell you that it seems to me that you don't understand those of us who make faith and spirituality a focus in our lives.

That was four short days ago. Now I'm quite prepared to accept that you've moved from faith to atheism since September 20, though, as I recall, it took me about 20 years to make the same leap, so perhaps you really are the remarkable fellow I took you to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:55 PM

Intellectually lazy and off the point.

HOW will they diminish anybody?

You seem unaware that you are skirting round the question

Don, Don, Don! Harry Potter is no benign child-enhancing phenomenon. It's a massive great big industry designed to make rather a lot of people very rich. You can bet you shirt that the publisher pestered JK again and again to do follow-ups. That wouldn't be so bad had the books possessed considerable literary merit, but they are singularly lacking in that department. The writing is dull and the content is unchallenging. If children (and grown-ups who really should know better) are dedicating large tracts of their lives to immersion in such mediocrity instead of pursuing far more challenging activities, then that is diminishing. Not depraving and corrupting, and I suppose it at least gets the little buggers reading, but not the best thing. I mean, Playboy got me reading whenever I could get my hands on it (Playboy, that is). I'm not saying that a little escapism every now and then is harmful, but flopping on the sofa for hour after hour reading that stuff (then there's the films, of course) goes way beyond that. They'd be a lot better off out on their bikes.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 07:20 PM

your shirt. Grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 01:52 AM

That's a relief. I thought for a minute you knew something.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:17 AM

Anyone who says "I don't believe in evolution" is a confounded eejit.

I suppose I can only keep saying it. Evolution is not a belief system. Science is not a belief system. If you talk as if they were, you have already lost the first battle against the creationists by establishing an equivalence with belief in the literal truth of the Bible.

It becomes a game of "My belief system is better than yours."

This is not a "chink" in Steve's argument, it is fundamental to the difference between science and religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:16 AM

Well I have to agree there, whilst pointing out that I did expand on that statement, hopefully to your satisfaction. I would also point out that atheism is not a belief system either. Not even an unbelief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:19 AM

Well, I must say, Stim ol'bean, you must have massive balls to keep on after your gaffe.

Mene, Mene, Tekel, u-Pharsin

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:28 AM

""That wouldn't be so bad had the books possessed considerable literary merit, but they are singularly lacking in that department. The writing is dull and the content is unchallenging.""

You really must learn to qualify your statements with "in my opinion" whenever that is what you are posting, especially when you are completely missing the point of what you denigrate.

Otherwise some spiritually minded people may start to believe that there is a God, and you are it.

You sound like the stereotypical dry as dust scientist, who can't abide non productive pursuits, and wants the World's nose firmly attached to the grindstone 24/7.

You would have been a marvellous addition to the Victorian world of strait laced schoolmasters, slapping a cane aginst you leg and demanding absolute obedience.

Just my opinion of course, based on your style of communication.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:29 AM

Breakthrough!

I've always had a problem with atheism. Defining yourself as not believing in something seems an odd position to take. I've always prefered ignosticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:36 AM

Snail, it's very nice to say that evolution is not a belief system and science is not a belief system. and I agree with you.

HOWEVER, if you are a scientist dependent of taxpayer-funded grants, you are going to have to make the taxpayers believe in whatever it is you're doing. No belief, no funding. And don't count on the taxpayers accepting scientific arguments.

So, yes, on one level you are absolutely correct to say that evolution is not a belief. But on a practical level, you won't get far unless you can get people to believe you.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:57 AM

Believing you and "believing" evolution are not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:02 AM

Well, Don, I won't bother to qualify with "in my opinion" every time I type something that is my opinion. There are people here who type stuff that requires far more mental processing than that, yet I don't see you going for their jugulars.

You may be feeling miffed that I've had a crack at the children's books you so enjoy in your dotage, but I'm not alone, far from it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter#Literary_criticism

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:28 AM

I've always had a problem with atheism. Defining yourself as not believing in something seems an odd position to take.

Not only odd, but wrong. You're immediately putting yourself into believer territory by defining yourself that way. Considering that the notion of God defies all the laws of nature and lacks all evidence, they should be on our territory and forced to define themselves, not the other way round. I suppose we're stuck with a word, "atheist", spawned on their territory, but hey ho. I don't say "I don't believe in God." I prefer to say "That's an interesting notion you have there. What evidence have you got to support it?" And one thing that no self-respecting atheist will say is that there is no God.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:54 AM

The gastropod makes a good point about defining oneself by what you are not. Ignosticism has some merit but it is defined as a theological position concerned with the existence of God. I prefer Paul Kurtz's philosophy; eupraxsophy (originally eupraxophy) which refers to philosophies or lifestances such as secular humanism and Confucianism that do not rely on belief in the transcendent or supernatural. A eupraxsophy is a nonreligious lifestance or worldview emphasizing the importance of living an ethical and exuberant life, and relying on rational methods such as logic, observation and science (rather than faith, mysticism or revelation) toward that end. The word is based on the Greek words for "good", "practice", and "wisdom". Eupraxsophies, like religions, are cosmic in their outlook, but eschew the supernatural component of religion, avoiding the "transcendental temptation," as Kurtz puts it. Although critical of supernatural religion, he has attempted to develop affirmative ethical values of naturalistic humanism.

Definition from Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:16 AM

I like it!


Or I might like it if I got it...

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:30 PM

Actually, this is rather good. Says it better than I did. Lifted just now from wiki:

In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:58 PM

A not-so-preachy atheist.

He makes some good points.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:18 PM

""You may be feeling miffed that I've had a crack at the children's books you so enjoy in your dotage""

Thank you for your ad hominem comment, Steve, which proves that you have no logical response to make, and therefore don't know what you are talking about.

I am grateful for the clarification of your lack of understanding, especially as I was just about convinced that you might have a point about Atheism.

Hot air and opinion presented as fact do nothing to draw people toward your POV. Quite the reverse. in fact.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:15 PM

A not-so-preachy atheist.

He makes some good points.

He's seriously misguided. He's praising people who start from the totally unjustified standpoint of belief and who take it from there. They are constrained, ringfenced. He should be telling them to start from what we know to be true. It's wonderful enough and contains more potential for spirituality than anyone needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:25 PM

Neither hot air nor dodgy italics, Don. I gave you some food for thought in the wiki link, quite a lot, actually, but Don thinks that disagreeing with Don equals no logical response, lack of understanding, hot air, don't know what I'm talking about. As you've referred to your advanced years in the past, I hardly think that a gentle reference to them is ad hominem. Certainly, in any case, far less of an ad hominem than your telling me I'm illogical, bereft of understanding, spouting hot air or not knowing what I'm talking about, all simply because you don't agree with me, and all unsupported by any sensible counter-argument. It's fantasy, Don, but not as we know it. Harry Potter might, though...

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:12 PM

"HOWEVER, if you are a scientist dependent of taxpayer-funded grants, you are going to have to make the taxpayers believe in whatever it is you're doing. No belief, no funding. And don't count on the taxpayers accepting scientific arguments."

As Lady Hillary and I were driving home from Western Pennsylvania yesterday, we saw two signs relevant to this argument: "The Theory of Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." The other was a billboard inviting us to go to the Creationist museum, showing man and the dinosaurs together. My initial reaction to the first was "Belief in God is a fairy tale for children."

The point is not that people are idiots but that they are taught to take the easy route, and avoiding any thinking which requires effort. They are taught to believe authority and not to think for themselves. As long as this is so, people who try to tell the truth will have to beg for funding. The ignorant also have a tendency to follow the crowd around them. It's comfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 10:13 PM

"
A not-so-preachy atheist.

He makes some good points.

He's seriously misguided. He's praising people who start from the totally unjustified standpoint of belief and who take it from there. They are constrained, ringfenced. He should be telling them to start from what we know to be true. It's wonderful enough and contains more potential for spirituality than anyone needs. "

Evangelical, fundamentalist atheist.