|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 09/08/2008 : 17:25:59
|
I've tried to post a reply to this lying git on his blog, but so far: nothing. So, as per usual practice I'm storing my reply here for critiquing purposes, as well as to show you guys the bs that's going on.
If evolution had not done away with it PZ Myers could have absconded from another debate with his tail between his legs.
Let us see, thus far, as I can recall from the top of my noggin Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Eugene Scott and PZ Myers flatly refused to debate Creationists. They have provided quaint pseudo-reasons for, at the same time, being alleged champions of reason and science whilst not debating their views against backwards-Bible-belt-fundamentalist-country-hicks.
|
I notice something. You don't really state why, other than to imply cowardice. Here's why: In an oral debate, there is no time to check out the facts of the other person's argument and to cross-examine them. Unlike say, in a court of law, for example, the Dover Trial where each side does have that.
Guess who chickened out there?
| Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell's exodus is explained by their fear of cross-examination. The public shredding that Irigonegaray had given ID creationists in Kansas one month earlier was still fresh [17]. Moreover, Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell knew what the plaintiffs' expert witnesses would say in court because they had our reports. DI must have known that our case would be devastating to the defense -and thus to ID- if it was argued before a judge who respected the truth and the Constitution. |
Back to your post:
| Now, Dr. Myers has also refused to debate the issue of the existence of god(s). Since he claimed that he only tackles weak arguments for the existence of god(s) because there are no strong arguments, Vox Day invited him to debate the issue on the Northern Alliance Radio Show (broadcast from Minnesota). Dr. Myers turned down the debate by referring to Mr. Day by various ad hominems, stating that he actually read more than a couple of chapters of Mr. Day's book (The Irrational Atheist) and putting down conservative radio (apparently referring to Mr. Day as odious, christofascist misogynist, beneficiary of wingnut welfare, prominent freakshow participant, insane babbler is some form of refutation in Dr. Myer's mind). |
What you failed to mention is why Myers calls Vox Day those kinds of things. Do a little reading...insane, misogynistic, let me quote:
| But this is not to say there is not a genuine threat to all three aspects of science today. Unsurprisingly, it comes from the same force that is the primary threat to the survival of Western civilization: female equalitarianism. Flush with their success in decimating the collegiate sports programs of America, the equalitarians have now set their sights on applying the infamous Title IX quotas to science education, despite the fact that women already earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees and a majority of doctorates. If successful in this effort, and initial signs indicate that they probably will be, in 30 years, academic science in America will be no more intellectually respectable or relevant than womyn's studies are today. |
| Women love education; it's the actual application they don't particularly like. Whereas the first thought of a woman who enjoys the idea of painting is to take an art appreciation class, a similarly interested man is more likely to just pick up a paintbrush and paint something - usually a naked woman. |
I went to Vox's own site for those quotes.
refutation by ad-homs
Home of the Atheidiot
The godless commenters at Pharyngurl's are almost as irrational as they are breathtakingly ignorant: |
Vox goes on to talk complete bull about atheism and it's "murderous" track record. What you evangelicals are never honest enough to admit: In the 20th century, there were many more people around and the there were far more efficient means of killing people. The fact that religous people may have killed less people numerically than the "godless" atheists is not for lack of trying, or any restraint. Consider what the death toll for the Thirty Years' War was, it's percentage of the population killed, and consider what numbers that percentage would mean today.
Also never mentioned is that religious belief has been responsible for killing people for century after century. Compare the time for which the "godless" countries were killing people. Decades at most.
Anyway, back to Vox: Vox vs. science, again
Your post:
It is no wonder that the New (and Old) Atheist are so shockingly wrong so stunningly often. They have their fans who follow behind cleaning up their messes and excusing any and everything. Such was the case with Dr. Myers and his screechy monkeys who congratulate him to no end for cowering away from a debate again someone whom they consider easier to topple than a straw man.
Here are some of the relevant posts on this issue: |
You left one out. Wonder why?
From Myer's relevant post:
| The second attack is coming from wacky ol' Vox Day who accuses me of cowardice for advocating that we don't debate creationists. It's a remarkably cowardly job on his part: he quotes the bit where I say that the 'debate' format is tactically poor and throws away the strengths of science, and then stops right were I start to make suggestions for actively engaging the public with substance and evidence and ideas. Is Day dishonest? Why, yes. But that kind of fraud and blatant twisting of words is Day's specialty, right up there with his penchant for looney right-wing theocratic babble. |
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/08/the_absurdity_of_vox_day.php
http://brentrasmussen.com/log/vox_popularitas
http://brentrasmussen.com/log/vox_day_author_musician_libertarian_christian
http://brentrasmussen.com/log/more_on_vox_day
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/vox_day_weighs_in.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/vox_day_mindlessly_parroting_antivaccina.php
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/05/did-he-just-deny-holocaust.html
| For the Nth time, I could not care less what illiterates and cretins such as the sort popping up today think about me or anything else. I suspect WND is similarly indifferent. The idea that anyone should apologize for the mere mention of the Holocaust is absurd. I mean, even those Jews who were previously so quick to get their panties in a bunch over my postulating that perhaps medieval anti-semitism was not merely the result of chance took no umbrage over today's column, presumably because they are capable of reading at a functional level. |
I told you there's a reason why Myers calls Vox Day names...he deserves them.
Vox Day's, An Invitation to PZ Myers
Fraters Libertas', And Gallantly He Chickened Out
PZ Myers', Sorry, Vox, I Don't Debate Crazy Pipsqueaks Any More
Vox Day's, The Fowl Atheist |
Tell you what...we'll take Myers and the other godless sciencebloggers, and you can keep Vox Day, and his crazy dad! Do whatever it takes to make sure that Vox [b[stays[/b] a christian until the day he dies, I beg of you.
Enough about that...now, as to why Dawkins et al won't "debate" you people...you people have established a reputation for not being honest when you people interview them. Here is one more example.
| Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). |
SNIP
| Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure - that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience). |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
Edited by - the_ignored on 09/08/2008 17:30:45
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2008 : 07:34:51 [Permalink]
|
| Well, I've gotten a reply. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2008 : 09:15:18 [Permalink]
|
PS: Edited for readability; everything below the dotted line is my response to Mariano.
Well, I've replied to him again:
--------
Mariano
| While people generally have reasons, or excuses, for doing what they do, or what they do not do, the facts remain and my post is accurate. |
Well, except for the fact that at the Dover trial, it was a few ID/xian people who chickened out there. While the "darwinists" as you people call them, all showed up. Barbara Forrest even did her work there pro-bono
| You end up proving my point about "their fans who follow behind cleaning up their messes and excusing any and everything." |
Uh, no. If any of those people were murderes I don't think I'd be excusing "any and everything" that they do. Contrary to xian apologists who defend the killing of pregnant women and babies in the OT while pretending to be "pro-life", just to make a point.
| The reasons you offer for Prof. PZ Myers refusing to debate Vox Day are not those expressed by Prof. Myers himself. |
I just go into more detail than he did.
Let me repeat what Myers had said:
he quotes the bit where I say that the 'debate' format is tactically poor and throws away the strengths of science, and then stops right were I start to make suggestions for actively engaging the public with substance and evidence and ideas.
I just explained how the debate format it tactially poor. Eugenie Scott had said the same thing years ago in an article in NCSE. Stephen Gould had once said that if one is to face creationists, to do it in court if at all possible.
You certainly offer some quaint excuses for the hundreds of millions of people murdered by atheists. |
"Quaint excuses"? An "excuse" pal, would be if I tried to justify those killings. I did not do that. All I did was point out why there was such a large disparity in the number of deaths.
The points of which were completely ignored by you. I'll ask you again to think about the Thirty Years' War example to get my point.
Vox goes on to talk complete bull about atheism and it's "murderous" track record. What you evangelicals are never honest enough to admit: In the 20th century, there were many more people around and the there were far more efficient means of killing people. The fact that religous people may have killed less people numerically than the "godless" atheists is not for lack of trying, or any restraint. Consider what the death toll for the Thirty Years' War was, it's percentage of the population killed, and consider what numbers that percentage would mean today.
Also never mentioned is that religious belief has been responsible for killing people for century after century. Compare the time for which the "godless" countries were killing people. Decades at most.
"Hundreds of millions" killed by atheists? May I see some numbers please? But before you do, need I remind you that at least Hitler was (at least pretending to be a xian, if not actually one of you). He was sucking up to the christians in germany, not the "atheists".
For more about where he got his attitude, read hitler's book and then read Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.
Anyway, the only people I've ran into who try to make "quaint excuses" for stuff like murdering babies and pregnant women are xian apologists when talking about the OT.
| But to be fair to us both, to merely state that atheists did it in the name of atheism or religious people did it in the name of religion is simply too simplistic in that it does not take into consideration various other motivating factors such as politics, resources, territory, power-hunger, avarice, etc. |
That, at least, is true. So why do you think Vox Day brought it up? It's one of those wonderful "debate" tactics your side uses.
By the way, you only quote Vox Day from one of his own websites/blogs once, the rest are from secondary sources (out of the 18 hyperlinks that you provided). That does not necessarily mean that he has been taken out of context or misrepresented but it makes one suspect that you are not reading the originals for context but relying on someone else to tell you what he says and what he means when he says it. |
Actually, I've done both. I've linked those sites because they refute Vox Day, and at least some also link to him. Like the Bad Astronomer site for example.
Saves time and linkage.
Please keep in mind that committing the ad hominem does not mean that the personal attacks are not accurate but that they are being made in place of dealing with the issue at hand. |
Yes, so what does your attack against the scientists who are too chicken to debate creationists have to do with anything?
You've ignored the actual reasons why they don't; you've ignored the fact that in a format where each side gets a chance to examine and cross-examine the other side, its your side that chickens out. Example: The Dover trial.
If you were interested in more than trying to imply that atheists were cowards, you'd not have posted this at all.
My post was about Prof. Myers refusing to debate Day on the issue of the existence of god(s) while the post you refer to as #8220;Myer's relevant post#8221; is not relevant in that it is not related to the debate challenge which I refer to |
Not quite. You said: It is no wonder that the New (and Old) Atheist are so shockingly wrong so stunningly often. They have their fans who follow behind cleaning up their messes and excusing any and everything. Such was the case with Dr. Myers and his screechy monkeys who congratulate him to no end for cowering away from a debate again someone whom they consider easier to topple than a straw man.
Here are some of the relevant posts on this issue:
I posted Myer's post where he explains why he doesn't debate creationists period. The same reasoning applies with Vox Day. You've disregarded the point he was trying to make about how conducive the format is.
And your comments about Myers' "screeching monkeys" shows an attitude of a person that not many people would want to debate you with anyway. At least, not in person.
Anyhow, in any debate involving science, each side needs time to check out and confirm the claims made by the other side. This involves research. Then the other side is cross-examined.
That's how debates are actually done in science. Formats like peer-review and yes, like court trials like The Dover Trial.
Again, just look at who backed out of the Dover Trial, and look at the transcripts and the judges decision and see what happens when both sides have time to both check out the other side's claims and to cross-examine the other side.
Who's the real coward?
and that it refers to debating issues of science such as "evolution" vs. "creation."
You stated, "I told you there's a reason why Myers calls Vox Day names...he deserves them." That may very well be so, I would even grant you that and yet, the question remains, "Why not hang an annoying little lunatic out to dry as he comes up against the eruditeness of Prof. Myers?" |
That's what Myers and Phil Plait have done: in written form! In written form, one can go and research the claims the other guy makes and go and say why he's wrong, or why he's a sod.
You can't research your adversaries claims in an oral debate, can you? Besides, by having their remarks on the web, it allows everyone to see them for posterity, instead of just a few people who'd see the actual "debate".
To see how useless a verbal debate is when it comes to convincing the public of scientific matters, do a little reading on Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
| Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents, and his followers, who included many well-educated people, were equally tenacious. |
So, just because he reputedly won all his debates, does that mean he was right about his "flat earth" idea? No. It means he was a good debater. That's why scientists go for the written format when they debate. You can check things up.
Again, even if I grant you that "you people have established a reputation for not being honest when you people interview them" how does this keep them from wanting to debate creationists? |
You don't see the answer right there? If the peron interviewing them is not honest, how can you be certain that your words won't be twisted or edited, or you will yourself be lied about??
| The parameters of a debate are discussed and agreed upon well before either side takes the stage. Again, I have written about this here |
And since Dawkins was there, he's written about it also.
As far as debates in general go, it doesn't help if one side is dishonest about what the rules are, or they twist the words of their opponents. For example, the "From a Frog to a Prince" interview, and the Stein interviews, and yes, even your post about how you claim that Dawkins is a manipulator:
Neither I nor anyone that I have read claims that Prof. Richard Dawkins has abandoned any of his Darwinist theories in favor of an exclusively directed-panspermist-intelligent-design theory. Stating, as I did, that Prof. Richard Dawkins came out as an Intelligent Design proponent is not a lie. Primarily, let us note that to lie is not to state something that is incorrect but it is stating something that is incorrect while knowing that it is incorrect, and particularly with an intent to deceive.
Prof. Richard Dawkins first pretends to hold to a position that he does not hold.
Based on his statement, statements about him are made about his position.
He then refers to people making statements based on his pretending as liars.
We are not liars rather, Prof. Richard Dawkins is a manipulator. |
He was asked to give a scenario where ID would apply; he gave one. He did not say that he believed it, and he said that it would just push the problem back. The Expelled people ran around saying that Dawkins believes in aliens, which he never said he did.
You then go and say that Dawkins came out as a ID proponent, when he is not. he was merely doing what the interviewer asked: Given the most plausible scenario for ID that he could come up with. He did not say that he believed it.
and under#8 here.
Also, so that you are aware, I have written on the issue of the Stein / Dawkins interview here. |
Yeah, and Stein et al has been caught lying six ways from Sunday here
[Prof. Richard Dawkins has also refused to debate is Dinesh D'Souza and William Lane Craig, but who is counting?] |
I'd say you are, except for when it's your side refusing to show up to be cross-examined in court cases. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 09/15/2008 22:56:16 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2008 : 13:53:11 [Permalink]
|
Well, t_i, you properly gutted 'em an filleted 'em. The fact that the tiny ganglions that pass as their brains aren't aware that they've been destroyed is no argument in their favor, only more evidence of their dishonesty and holy stupidity.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2008 : 21:56:51 [Permalink]
|
Well, seeing as how Conservapedia is also lying about Myers about debates, I think this reply of his might be useful.
I've noticed that at the end of the Simmons debate with Myers, Myers is asked if he'd do another debate, and he's up for it.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 09/15/2008 22:39:42 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 01:47:29 [Permalink]
|
All this writing is a pain...I'm not going to copy and paste from here to put this on Mariano's blog, since the formatting code is different...I'm just going to put links on his blog that lead to my arguments here. I just want my arguments stored in case he doesn't get around to putting them up on his blog.
Hope no one minds. If so, let me know, and I'll do the copy and pasting...
From Mariano's other blog:
Let us begin with the virtually ubiquitous confusion in the New Atheist movement between "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism." In God and Earthlings Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote:
"All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are."
As far as I can tell, this is his best attempt to explain why he and others constantly confuse the matter. However, even on this point he is generic and ultimately fails. |
A lie from Mariano here...check out the transcripts from the Dover trial, or if he doesn't have the time, he could read over Barbara Forrest's summary
| I had two tasks: to demonstrate to Judge Jones (1) that ID is creationism, thus a religious belief, and (2) that Of Pandas and People is a creationist textbook. As part of the evidence for my first task I included the words of two leading ID proponents, Phillip E. Johnson and William Dembski. Under direct examination by Eric Rothschild, I related Johnson's definition of ID as "theistic realism" or "mere creation," by which he means "that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." [27] To that I added Dembski's definition: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." [28] If the judge had heard nothing except these two quotes, he would have had all the evidence he needed that ID's own leaders regard it as not only creationism but also as a sectarian Christian belief. But I had much more, such as CSC fellow Mark Hartwig's 1995 Moody Magazine article in which he referred to a 1992 ID conference at Southern Methodist University as a meeting of "creationists and evolutionists," calling Dembski and Stephen Meyer "evangelical scholars." [29] During these early years, when they needed money and supporters, ID proponents openly advertised both their religiosity and their creationism. |
| However, none of the evidence for ID's religious, creationist identity was more important than "The Wedge Strategy," probably written in 1996 when the CSC was established but revised in 1998. Known informally as the "Wedge Document," it was leaked from a Seattle office and posted on the Internet in early 1999 [30]. DI did not acknowledge ownership of it until 2002, after I independently authenticated it and wrote about it in 2001 [31]. The technical team hired by Pepper Hamilton to create computer "demonstratives" projected the Wedge Document onto a screen in court, and I walked Judge Jones through it, explaining the most important parts. My first slide made its significance clear: "[C]ould I have the first slide, please? This is the first page of the Wedge Strategy, and this is the opening paragraph of it. Quote, 'The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which western civilization was built.' This . . . states very well the foundational belief behind the intelligent design movement and the reason that they have rejected the theory of evolution." [32] As I continued, the judge heard the strategy's explicitly Christian goals: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [33] |
The significance of the Wedge Document is that it shows that the religious attitudes shown by the individual quotes from some of the ID supporters saying that ID is just xian creationism are not aberrations or individual opinions that differ from the goals of the main group.
The revolutionary was Johnson, who decided that, for creationism to survive Edwards, creationists had to redefine science: "Definitions of science, [Johnson] argued, could be contrived to exclude any conclusion we dislike or to include any we favor." Not only was Johnson#8217;s deliberate but nominal transformation of creationism into ID important for demonstrating ID's true identity, but it also provided important support for my testimony about Pandas: to survive after Edwards, Pandas would require a similar transformation. (When the book was first published in 1989, Johnson was already allied with chemist Charles Thaxton, author of the creationist book The Mystery of Life's Origin and "academic editor" of Pandas. [35]) The subpoenaed FTE documents, which contained several earlier Pandas drafts, revealed that precisely such a transformation had been effected.
A Pandas co-author, CSC fellow Dean H. Kenyon, had been a creationist witness in the Edwards case and had submitted a sworn affidavit testifying that "creation-science is as scientific as evolution." [36] I discovered a letter Kenyon wrote to FTE president Jon Buell showing that he was working on the 1986 draft of Pandas, then called Biology and Creation, while also assisting in the Edwards case! [37] |
If Mariano has any further confusion as to whether Intelligent Design is really gussied-up creationism, he should do some reading on the cdesign proponentsists origins.
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: "Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct."
Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: "Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."
Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: "Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: "Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."
Of Pandas and People (1987, "intelligent design" version), p. 3-41: "Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view." |
From Mariano again:
| They are "devout," but devout what? Due to the very fact that Intelligent Design is not Creationism (which specifically refers to a biblical view of origins) Intelligent Design proponents are indeed devout, they are devout atheists, agnostics, Moonies, Jews, Christians, Muslims, et al. Incidentally, Prof. Richard Dawkins refers to Intelligent Design proponents as "IDiots." |
Bottom line, the vast majority of ID people are xian, and more importantly, those who came up with the idea of "Intelligent Design" in the first place are xian. The Discovery Institute is funded by xian Dominionists. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 09/17/2008 02:11:41 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 07:35:08 [Permalink]
|
| We'll debate him. Only it has to be a written debate. Simple as that. Face to face debates are useles which is why PZ and many others will not do that anymore. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 07:52:57 [Permalink]
|
Also; from what I recall, the supreme court had already decided that creationist was religious in nature and, as such, could not be taught in public school.
Creationism had lost this round.
The change to ID was therefore 'required' for the creationists to try and play again. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2008 : 10:16:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by the_ignored
...Due to the very fact that Intelligent Design is not Creationism (which specifically refers to a biblical view of origins)... |
This guy needs to be reminded that intelligent design is nothing but blueprints in a drawer without intelligent implementation, which necessarily involves a creator. And Biblical or not, we have no evidence of any creator.
And what Kil said. Except we're fans of a pretty tight written debate format. One question, with length-limited answers and rebuttals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 09:24:29 [Permalink]
|
Well, my replies are up, as well as his reply to them; though I'm ticked off that in my second reply where I had links to this site, they only go to the general forums as opposed to this thread. I know damned well I put in the proper links; I tested them. Well, I've tried again. I'll post my most recent reply to him here:
------
It seems the link address that was posted was wrong. It only takes you to the general SFN site. It's supposed to link to here, in the thread I started.
Hopefully that won't happen again.
Mariano said...
Reynold;
Pardon my delay in approving your comments (was out of town most of the weekend and the week sort of flew by). Thanks for the info on the Dover trial and for your comments. |
Yeah, the same thing might happen to me.
Mariano
| Please understand that you can play the #8220;you do it too (tu quoque)#8221; card all you want but this does not change the fact that the persons I mentioned do what I claimed: they refuse to debate those whom they consider to be superstitious ignoramuses. |
Not all the time: at the end of Myer's debate with Simmons Myers is asked if he'd do another debate, and he said he'd do it. He even said that he'd prefer audience participation.
Mariano
Your dissection of the debate format is lacking: The debate topic is agreed upon before hand, the research takes place before hand (by opponents who are well versed in the field to start with), |
Ah, no. Why? Even if each side researches the topic in general, there's no way that they can, in the middle of an oral debate, or even beforehand, check the <b>particular points</b> that the other side is making.
There is another problem: Oftentimes, it takes more time to rebute a false point than it does to present the false point. In an oral debate, that'll ruin you; in a written debate, peer-review, or court of law, it won't.
That's why in the link I posted earlier, I mentioned the case of Samuel Birley Rowbotham, a flat-earther who kept winning all of his debates with his opponents.
Oral debates in science don't solve anything; if they did (according to the creationist reasoning for crowing about the evolutionists "absconding" from debates) then Rowbotham would have "proved" that the earth was flat, or at least that the round-earthers would have been too "scared" or "unsure" of their evidence to face public scrutiny.
Mariano
| the debates are generally transcribed (and now-a-days recorded and available on the www in written and audio form) and generally there is some back and forth after the debate on issues that the debaters perceive as not having been ironed out or confused during the debate proper. |
Some, but really, who pays attention to those?
That's why scientists deal with written debates. Everything is out in the open, and all the facts are examined. Each side has the time to cross-examine the other side on each particular point the other side raises, as opposed to just "studying" the general topic and hoping not to miss anything.
That's what happens in scientific journals, peer review, and in courts of law. That's why Stephen Gould once said that's the place to confront creationists, since there, they can be cross-examined.
If "evolutionists" were truly cowards, they should fear the court system more than oral debates, since under cross-examination their defeat would be more complete, and more accessible to the public.
Mariano
| I find it fascinating that debates have been taking place for MILLENNIA but suddenly the supposed most erudite amongst us realized that there are problems with the debate format. |
If you go to the link I posted and read up on Samuel Rowbotham, you'll realize that they started to find out the problems in the oral format at least a hundred years ago, and probably sooner. Public debates are good for politics, not so suitable for science. Otherwise, one would think that the flat-earther Rowbotham would have lost all his debates instead of winning all of them.
Mariano
| Do not get me wrong#8212;debates are what they are. But the fact is that these supposed defenders of reason and science want to defend their views in the protection of their own classrooms where they enjoy the authority of their professorships and impose their views on students. |
Wrong. You've missed the point about being cross-examined in court cases and the written debate format where each side can examine point by point what the other guy is trying to say. Doesn't sound too protected to me. Try comparing that to a church. How many times is one allowed to raise one's hand in church during a sermon to ask a question?
Or how about the oaths that creationist institutions like Answers in Genesis and the ICR are supposed to take, where anyone joining has to swear to take the biblical view no matter what, even before they start their research?
Mariano
| If the movie #8220;Expelled#8221; is worth watching for any reason it is to see how these champions of atheism and #8220;science#8221; come across as very erudite and certain about their promulgations until#8212;until they are asked a very simple question, #8220;How do you know?#8221; at which point their façade falls apart and they instantly turn into fumbling, stumbling, stammerers in admitting that they have no reasons to claim to know that which they have just proposed. |
You must be joking. Then again, selective editing will do that to you, as Dawkins et al found out. Try reading some science books if you really want to find out why they think what they think.
It's worth watching maybe to see how much they lie about history with regards to the holocaust, but that's about it. You really want some fun? Read Comfort's reply to my post.
Mariano
| As far as court cases, this may be worse than a debate if you have a judge like John E. Jones, the one at the Dover trial. |
The one who was appointed by Bush and had such a good conservative pedigree that Dave Scot and Dembski were certain that he would rule in their favour before the verdict?
Mariano
| who basically just cut and pasted his decision from the statements by the ACLU (see here, here and here). |
You need to learn more about the law with respect to the "Proposed Findings of Fact" that <b>each</b> side in a case like this presents to the judge. The judge is basically constrained to reading the PFF of the winning side when the verdict is reached
When they say that he copied "factual errors" from the ACLU brief, all they really mean is that the judge accepted the factual claims of the other side rather than theirs. Basically the complaint is "but we said that wasn't true and he didn't believe us." But in fact, the evidential record in the case supported the proposed finding of fact in each case. Their real problem with this is that they lost the argument.
Then, oddly, they admit that there's nothing unusual about using the proposed findings of fact of one side in whole or in part in a judicial ruling:
Judges frequently employ arguments submitted by plaintiffs or defendants in their final decisions. But high-ranking Discovery Institute staffer John West, a coauthor of the report, contends that the extensive word-for-word use in this case lessens the likelihood that other judges will cite the decision: "Copying the ACLU verbatim or nearly verbatim is something other judges will be concerned about relying on."
I'll take wishful thinking for $1000, Alex. But pray tell, if you're going to admit that, in fact, what Judge Jones did was not at all unusual and is normal judicial practice, what on earth was the point of all that "he's suddenly clammed up and won't respond to this important accusation" nonsense at the beginning? |
Maybe that's something you should be asking the people who wrote those articles you linked to.
More here
As if it wasn't bad enough that we have the Discovery Institute throwing ignorant criticisms at Judge Jones, now Larry Moran has joined their chorus of absurdity. He writes:
Apparently Judge Jones copied the most "scientific" parts of his decision from the ACLU 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' that was submitted a month before the decision was published. I'm told that this is standard practice. Judges often rely heavily on written submissions from the side they support. I'm told that it's common for judges to copy from those submissions.
That may be true--I have no reason to doubt it--but it does make a difference to me. The legal significance of the decision doesn't change but my opinion of Judge Jones does. He is no longer the brilliant man who was able to grasp complex scientific concepts in the blink of an eye. He's able to discern who's right and who's wrong, but that's all.
What a patently silly criticism. What does Moran expect, that Judge Jones was going to invent his own arguments? That's not what judges do. When it comes to findings of fact, the judge does nothing more than determine which set of facts presented by the two sides is better supported by the evidence |
You seem to have forgotten the law firm Pepper Hamilton? Though it makes for a better villain for the religious right, I suppose.
Enough whining. Time for those ID guys to actually go into a lab and do some research! Lord knows, some scientists have been waiting for it.
So, at risk of sounding like a broken record, let#8217;s see what we didn#8217;t get from the intelligent design movement this year:
-A peer-reviewed paper by Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer ...
-Or for that matter, a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing, by any fellow of the DI.
-An exposition of Nelson#8217;s theory of "ontogenetic depth" (promised in March 2004)
-An article by Nelson & Dembski on problems with common descent (promised in April 2005).
-Nelson#8217;s monograph on common descent (currently MIA since the late 90#8217;s).
Funny. That list is identical to what we didn#8217;t get last year. Wow. It#8217;s like 2007 never happened.
But let#8217;s end on a high note. The ID community did provide us with some fun things; LOLcreationists (see my own contributions - LOLDembski and LOLBehe), a strong candidate for Word of the Year ("egnorance"), and ICON-RIDS "an international coalition of non-religious ID scientists & scholars" which Dembski felt would cause problems for nasty evilutionists. ICON-RIDS turned out to be the brainchild of William Brookfield, a professional solo musician and entertainer, founder of the Brookfield (Saba) Institute of Transparadigmic Science, major advocate of Plesurianism, and founder of a company "specializing in high quality sexual products." Needless to say, ICON-RIDS soon disappeared from the ID radar. |
| I agree that #8220;religious belief has been responsible for killing people for century after century#8221; please inform me as to how you condemn these actions. |
Easy. I condemn them. I thought that context was easy enough to see. I guess not.
I posted a link that details a discussion on why ID is really creationism despite what IDists say, but it never got through. I'll try again. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 09/20/2008 09:57:05 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 08:48:01 [Permalink]
|
So far, he seems pretty good about not censoring what others are saying, still, I'll post my reply to him here also (yes, again!).
I have to catch up on the number of posts you characters have here somehow!
Mariano said...
Reynold;
I hope you do not mind, but I wanted to focus on one issue.
I stated and asked, "I agree that 'religious belief has been responsible for killing people for century after century' please inform me as to how you condemn these actions."
Your answer was, "Easy. I condemn them. I thought that context was easy enough to see. I guess not."
I guess not as well. I do not get your point unless it is that you condemn them because you condemn them.
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking in what manner I condemn them as opposed to what justification I'd use for condemning them.
Still, it's easy. The deaths of innocent children, pain and suffering, (would you want that kind of thing done to you), and then there's the fact that acts of genocide aren't really conducive to the human race's survival.
Your god set up a lot of lousy precedents in the OT which history shows that your fellow believers made use of.
Does an atheist condemn certain actions because they are immoral or are certain actions immoral because an atheist decided to condemn them?
Answered above.
Thing is, I can turn that back on you. Is something moral because your god says it is in which case it's purely subjective or does your god say that something is moral because it intrinsicallly is moral, in which case "morality" is something that exists outside of your god, and he, like us, just picks out what seems moral to him.
Too bad he's not consistent though. You know, the so-called "pro-lifers" who worship a being who had pregnant women and babies killed in the OT. |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 09/25/2008 16:43:43 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2008 : 09:12:06 [Permalink]
|
Man, his reply to me is seriously effed up!
My response:
Well, so much for the xian claim of atheists having no moral code then. I've shown it and you've said, in effect, "so what"?
Please don't deconvert then. You've shown yourself to be nothing but a psychopath who's restrained by a belief that someone is watching him.
In general, atheists view the human race as something worth preserving, for our children's sake if nothing else. You religous people don't have even that, I guess.
What you have seems to be "morality" dictated by rewards and threats of punishment. That's a child's level of morality and not a morality based on consequences or empathy or even compassion. |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 09/27/2008 09:16:12 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2008 : 10:21:13 [Permalink]
|
To be fair; he is not necessarily saying that he is not; but might be asking you where you think these feelings come from.
The answer; obviously; being: evolution.
As mankind evolved to be a highly social animal the capacity for empathy was selected for heavily because the animal's fitness was so dependant on his group's well being.
More solitary animals, for example bears, have not displayed a level of empathy similar to that of social animals. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 21:39:16 [Permalink]
|
More fun:
---
Reynold;
I am not sure if you cannot identify a rhetorical device when you encounter one or if you are being sarcastic. |
Being sarcastic to drive a point home. The theist rhetorical device you used only shows the weakness of your moral stance; if stuff like empathy, the golden rule, or the well-being of future generations of people doesn't count then it's apparent that those are not things that you're concerned about.
| Obviously, or so I thought, I was attempting to get you to elucidate because you did not "show" anything-you merely presented some assertions and I was asking why those assertions are valid and or upon what they were premised. |
I guess empathy, consequentialist morality and thinking of the survival of the human race are just "assertions" to you then?
Is preserving humanity not "valid" enough?
| Moreover, you are incorrect in stating that "so much for the xian [sic] claim of atheists having no moral code," this is not the claim, the claim is that you have no premise beyond your personal preferences. |
"Personal"? Is the survival of the human race merely a personal preference? Theists reject every secular reason for morality by calling it "personal preference" or something like that...without realizing that if their only basis for morality is their holy book, then they really have no sense of morality at all; not any more than any child does who obeys his parents because they're watching him and will give them either rewards or punishments.
We tend to look at the larger picture and we also look at the consequences of our actions and the "golden rule" which is predicated on plain ol' empathy.
If you're lacking in that as indicated by your comment in an earlier comment:
| Also, why should I be the least bit concerned about the human race's survival? |
then it's obvious that you need someone to look over your shoulder.
Even as a rhetorical device, do you really need a reason to be concerned about the human race's survival? In the end, that's what drives us to try to make rules to ensure people's safety. Consider it an example of evolution in action. Even some primates to a much lesser extent demonstrate social behaviour like that.
| Furthermore, the concept of Christian morality being based on someone watching and dictated by rewards and threats of punishment is an atheist myth based on atheist#8217;s presuppositions and prejudice. How do you know why a Christian does or does not do something? Can you read thoughts? Can you discern motivations? |
No, all one needs is to read the bible. Don't you people try to base your lives and attitudes on what it says? It has rewards in heaven and punishments in hell and on earth for actions taken.
If the writers did not think that such things would be motivators than why put them in there if people were empathic and compassionate?
I'm not denying that many theists act out of empathy or compassion or even that there are verses that speak to that, but that is obviously not what the bible writers were counting on.
"Atheist myth" and "prejudice"...good one!
Sir, let us consider that I do not drive at a high rate of speed through a red light because I am concerned that I could crash into someone and hurt them. I do not run the red light because I have compassion and empathy. But based on your presuppositions and prejudice, you see that I do not run the red light and you state, "You didn't run the red light because you are afraid to get a ticket or end up in jail-you lack compassion and empathy" (I made this point here).
Think about it, even within a system which includes reward and punishment a person does not lack compassion or empathy. |
No, but you've neglected to mention the reason why the laws are made. They're not based on empathy or compassion. They're based on consequentialist morality. They are not counting on people's empathy (they may be hoping for it, though) but the fact that punishments are set out shows that they're not counting on it.
Same with the bible. If the bible writers were counting on people's empathy or compassion, one would think that there'd not be such an emphasis on rewards in heaven and punishment in hell and the "curses" described by your deity for wrongdoing.
| Incidentally, every moral, or legal, system on the planet includes reward and punishment#8212;will you condemn all law abiding citizens? |
They're not the ones claiming to have a transcendent source of morality like theists do. They don't go running around like you do and ask why they should care about the future of the human race and whatnot.
| You make assertions about morality but I am trying to understand why, what is behind them, on what are they premised? Simply stating something to the likes of you should be "moral" because you should be "moral" and morality is preserving humanity just does not cut the proverbial mustard. |
You spent a lot of time trying to question where atheists get "our" morality from, but you've never really explained where you get yours from (ie. what's God's rational for the laws of morality he passed down?)
Were they not for the people's own good as well? Were they not also based on consequentalist ethics? Were they not made to help increase the chances of the people's survival?
Why does that reasoning not "cut the mustard" when atheists bring it up?
By the way, some points you never responded to:
Thing is, I can turn that back on you. Is something moral because your god says it is in which case it's purely subjective or does your god say that something is moral because it intrinsicallly is moral, in which case "morality" is something that exists outside of your god, and he, like us, just picks out what seems moral to him.
|
As I asked: what does God base his views on morality on?
You've also never addressed all the other points I made in that post.
Nothing about the fact that Myers had agreed to another debate with that Simmons guy on the xian radio show they were on before, nothing about how a flat-earther kept winning all his debates, thus showing that <b>oral</b> debates aren't much good for hashing out matters of physical science, nothing about the merits of written debates, nothing about how ID was shown in the Dover trial to be just hashed over creationism etc.
On that thread you'll find that they're willing to engage you in a written debate on the matter.
Time to get back on track.
----
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/02/2008 21:50:20 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 22:07:17 [Permalink]
|
Well, he's responded again. Though he doesn't deal with some points. He still doesn't answer what reasoning his god uses for morality while still refusing to accept that human species survival is anything more than an "assertion" rather than a reason.
He claims that he's "dispelled" my "rewards or punishment" argument for morality, and says that it's a strawman that atheists use...that it's
| Firstly, I have already dispelled with your rewards or punishments argument. You are still presuming to know why people do what they do and do not do. It is presumptive, prejudicial and logically fallacious. I know that it is very popular amongst the atheists but it is really a very, very poor argument and you would do well to discard it. |
Fine. Explain why the bible writers had such a large emphasis on rewards and punishments then if those were not the motivators for morality.
His problem is really with the guys who wrote the bible, since they sure didn't presume that people would act morally out of the goodness of their hearts. According to the bible, we're all wicked, remember? Why else would they have rewards and punishments described in the bible if they themselves didn't make the same "prejudicial" presumption that I did?
I'll reply to him later...I'm busy with another character right now.
EDIT:
Here's my reply. I'm being a bit of an ass here because this guy seems kind of dense and he doesn't address half the point I've been bringing up:
======
| Firstly, I have already dispelled with your rewards or punishments argument. You are still presuming to know why people do what they do and do not do. It is presumptive, prejudicial and logically fallacious. I know that it is very popular amongst the atheists but it is really a very, very poor argument and you would do well to discard it. |
Your problem is really with the guys who wrote the bible, since they sure didn't presume that people would act morally out of the goodness of their hearts.
According to the bible, we're all wicked, remember? Why else would they have rewards and punishments described in the bible if they themselves didn't make the same "prejudicial" presumption that I did?
You have dispelled nothing.
| I am afraid that you are misunderstanding me. Please do not confuse my questions and my requests for further elucidation for disagreement. I agree with your moral assertions but you have not provided any premise for them. You are stating what we should do but not stating why. Empathy, the golden rule, the well-being of future generations, etc. are not reasons, they are assertions. |
So, the well-being of future generations is not a reason? Then nothing possibly can be then, I guess. If that isn't a valid reason for you, then what would be?
Oh, I know. God telling you. Ok, then why would god be making those rules in the first place? I asked that in my previous post to you, and you never replied.
| For example, you stated "Is preserving humanity not "valid" enough?" Valid as what? It may be a goal and something that we ought to strive for |
Uh, wouldn't that make it a reason, then?
| but it is not a valid reason since it is not a reason at all. |
How so? What would constitute a reason? I assume that the only thing you'd consider a reason would be if god told you?
Anything else is not a reason by default I assume? Am I wrong to assume that?
| What do you mean by "We tend to look at the larger picture" Who is "We"? |
Non-theists in general who are more concerned with the well-being of future generations of people in this life.
| "By the way, some points you never responded to" - but remember that I posed the question to you first and you did not respond. |
If you're implying that I did not respond to your question about why we should care about children being killed and the well-being of future generations was answered. Let me try again though. If past generations didn't care about future generations would we even be here? I'd thought I wouldn't have to explain that.
I asked this once before: what's God's rationale for the laws of morality he passed down?)
Were they not for the people's own good as well? Were they not also based on consequentalist ethics? Were they not made to help increase the chances of the people's survival which are the same goals non-theist morality has?
Why does that reasoning not "cut the mustard" when atheists bring it up?
| There is another aspect of debates that I previously failed to mention: it is common for the opponents to make each other aware of any books, articles, lectures, etc. that they have presented on the topic of debate. They do this for the express purpose of informing their opponent of their point of view and the specific arguments that they can expect to encounter. |
Is this done before the debates, I assume? So what?
| It is also noteworthy to point out that the personages whom I mentioned in the original post, and others, do not refuse to debate in general. |
That's not the impression you gave.
| For example, you mention a debate in which PZ Myers did participate. They do, in fact, engage in debates. Yet, it is a particular debate from which they collectively abscond. It is the topic of science which they refuse to debate, it is "creationists" whom they will not debate. |
It was a creationist that Myers was debating, and it was evolution and science that they were debating about.
You've missed (again!) all the points I had made in my previous posts: about the difference between oral and written debates (which creationists, not evolutionists avoid), about how a flat-earther kept winning oral debates, as an example that oral debates are not the best format to settle things in science, etc.
| By the way, from what I can recall the person who came up with the idea of "Intelligent Design" in the first place was not a Christian but was David Hume when he referred to an "intelligent author." |
It was William Paley. Hume criticized the design argument.
Are any of the other points about ID that I brought up in the September 20, 2008 9:21 AM post going to be addressed?
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/05/2008 00:30:43 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2008 : 03:04:47 [Permalink]
|
I just wanted to thank you for all this, Reynold. It is being read, and appreciated.
Presumably you know that the main reason not a lot of others are taking part in this thread is simply because they agree generally with you and think you are doing as fine a job as could be expected.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
False accusation of cowardice against PZ Myers
