Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

The reason anarchists get angry with government types is because government is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.

Hurrah! Let's ban governments! We should all be anarchists!

Alright.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I am no Biologist but I am aware that there are divisions within the science community as a whole not just in biology. Intelligent Design versus Evolution for example.

Putting my finger in the air, there are about as many university-trained biologists who doubt evolution as there are university-trained historians who doubt the Holocaust happened. And the doubters doubt for distressingly similar reasons.

SW wrote:

robindch wrote:

...Not really. Natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance and the "selection" part of "natural selection" entirely dominates the random process which gives rise to variation. If it didn't, then Genetic Algorithms wouldn't work.

Huh? Forgive me but you would need to break that down into smaller pieces for me? I'm sure it envelopes more than the sum of its words.

See Wicknight's example with the coins. You can have a random process which gives rise to a result which is non-random. For example, rain falls in random places, but it collects into lakes and rivers which are scattered about the place non-randomly.

You've really misunderstood the rest of my first post. You asked:

SW wrote:

If so then why has it (the God concept itself) survived for such a long time over the history of mankind on this earth?

...and I gave a few reasons why the concept of a retributive god, once developed, would spread through a population. The theory of evolution, aka "differential reproductive success", explains why this happens, with a minimum of fuss, and rather neatly. Which isn't to say that the god doesn't exist, but simply that god doesn't need to exist in order for people to believe that he does.

Read back over my original post here and see if it makes more sense in the light of the previous paragraph.

Scofflaw

Soul Winner wrote: »

That really wasn't my intention whatsoever. The sub conversation was relating to the subject of the Resurrection of Christ not that of Evolution. The PhD in question also spent three and half studying the evidences for the Resurrection of Christ from which he emerged convinced its truth. The reason I added his credentials was merely to show that it was no fool who treated the subject. It was not an ‘act of desperation’ as you put it I'm sorry you are wrong there Scofflaw.

My apologies if you took that meaning from it! For one thing, it's far too early in this debate for you to be desperate.

Unfortunately, a PhD is no guarantee that a person is not a fool. It proves that they have a certain base level of discipline, intelligence, and intellectual rigour, but only in respect of the subject of their thesis.

Look at it like this. There are, let us say, several million subjects on which a doctoral thesis can be done. The award of a PhD, then, indicates that the holder is more expert than most people in one out of several million subjects. Their competence in the rest of the several million possible areas of expertise remains unproven, so outside their focus area their PhD remains irrelevant.

robindch wrote:

Soul Winner wrote:

robindch wrote:

...Not really. Natural selection is exactly the opposite of chance and the "selection" part of "natural selection" entirely dominates the random process which gives rise to variation. If it didn't, then Genetic Algorithms wouldn't work.

Huh? Forgive me but you would need to break that down into smaller pieces for me? I'm sure it envelopes more than the sum of its words.

See Wicknight's example with the coins. You can have a random process which gives rise to a result which is non-random. For example, rain falls in random places, but it collects into lakes and rivers which are scattered about the place non-randomly.

The classic demonstration of the non-randomness of evolution would be very similar to the pepper moth experiment. We can simplify it slightly.

Imagine a population of black moths. These moths live in birch woodland, and are preyed upon by birds. The birds eat about 50% of the black moths in any generation.

Now, introduce a heritable mutation that produces a white moth, otherwise identical to the black moths. This is random, as mutation is - the mutation could equally well have produced red moths.

The white moths are harder for birds to spot against the birches, so only 20% of them are eaten by birds in any generation. This is not random - it's an inevitable result of the white moths being harder to spot against the birch trees.

Over the course of several generations, you will observe an ever-increasing proportion of white moths in the woodland population, simply because more of them than the black moths survive to breed.

So we have a random mutation, which is then operated on by non-random selection. Does that make sense? Where do you see the system as requiring the intervention of a 'designer' or 'director' to ensure that we get mostly white moths in the woodland?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Soul Winner wrote: »

Isn’t it possible that this just might be true though?

Its possible.

So is the existence of an invisible, intangible pink unicorn in my bedroom who lives off eating invisible, intangible grass which is growing underneath my bed. We'll come back to him (or her? I can't tell!) in a bit....

Why do we throw out these beliefs ...

Who is the "we" you refer to here? It would seem that you mean 'atheist' or - in the inaccurate sense that you've been (ab)using it thus far - 'evolutionist'.

Everyone throws out beliefs. If you can understand and explain why you throw out your beliefs, you'll be a long way to being able to understand why others do similarly.

...when there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the physical world is not all there is?

Is there? When you say "evidence", what exactly do you mean? I suspect you mean it in the same non-scientific sense that you used the term "theory" earlier.

In the scientific sense of the term, I would argue that there is no evidence of what you speak of. Indeed, virtually by definition there cannot be, as evidence in science requires observation, which in turn would be "the physical world".

If you go beyond the physical world, you go beyond the observable.

The scientific perspective is that such issues are not addressable. This may be mistaken by some to mean "science says it doesn't exist", but thats a mischaracterisation. Science does not address the existence of such things.

Dawkins, (and some posters such as Wicknight), may argue that we can apply logic and say that there are many things that science cannot address which we no not even contemplate taking the existence of seriously (the invisible, intangible pink unicorn in my bedroom being one), but this is still heading beyond the realms of science.

Just because we cannot see it doesn’t mean its not there.

I agree, but I would ask if that is that your position regarding my invisible, intangible pink unicorn? Do you accept that it could be there? Do you accept that it is there?

Are the human eyes the judge and jury or all reality?

Certainly not. Nor is science.

It is perhaps mischaracterised as such either by those who misunderstand it or those who wish to undermine what it does address.

The question of 'ultimate purpose', to tie all of this back in, is non-scientific. Its not addressed by science in the slightest. Science neither says there is nor is not an ultimate purpose. Science only comment on the matter is that there does not appear to be a need for an ultimate purpose, insofar as we can define what an "ultimate purpose" may be.

Science cannot tell you if the purpose of the rain is turn a hole into a puddle, or if the purpose of a hole is to turn rain into a puddle.

It cannot tell you what the purpose of the puddle is, let alone the ultimate purpose of rain falling, holes existing, and puddles forming.

What science can and does tell us is how a puddle forms when rain and a hole interact under the right conditions, and what those conditions are.

Science tells us that we do not need a "god of puddle-making" in order for puddles to form. It tells us that a puddle can form without the need for a god of puddle-making. It does not say that there is or is not god of puddle-making, for that heads outside the realm of its remit.

In short, science addresses the how. Faith addresses the why. Religion, in my experience, seems to take faith, add in a dash of the how, and then require that this latter addition be defended to preserve the faith.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

No problem. You point 'em out, and I'll accuse them, if they're doing what is being done here.

It's not intended to be a dig at Soul Winner - it's an honest attempt to keep him/her from doing something that makes any of us who are scientists immediately go "oh dear...pseudoscience alert". The exact qualifications of a scientist are not actually important, except to indicate that they are in a relevant field. Much of the time, the bald statement "PhD Stanford" actually disguises the fact that the person concerned actually earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education at Stanford University, as is the case here. The "PhD" and the "Stanford University" are borrowed glory, to disguise the complete irrelevance of the pastor's background to a debate about evolution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So you won't be impressed with the Ph.D I purchased for $25?

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So you won't be impressed with the Ph.D I purchased for $25?

Probably not, I'm afraid. Would you regard my Ministry in the Universal Life Church as giving me any spiritual authority?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

I'm assuming that you can't buy that for $25?

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm assuming that you can't buy that for $25?

No. It's free. However, it does make me a genuine licensed Minister within the State of California.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.

We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history. A study of history will show us the effects of person or event on the environment both physical and social, by way of written or photographic accounts.

So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.

2Scoops

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.

We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history. A study of history will show us the effects of person or event on the environment both physical and social, by way of written or photographic accounts.

So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.

But those 'tangible' effects could just as easily be ascribed to the real-world reactions of humans to a fictional, but believed real, character.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.

We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history. A study of history will show us the effects of person or event on the environment both physical and social, by way of written or photographic accounts.

So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.

We would usually look, rather, for circumstantial evidence - inscriptions, family records, documents, recorded meetings from external sources etc. All of these are absent in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote: »

We would usually look, rather, for circumstantial evidence - inscriptions, family records, documents, recorded meetings from external sources etc. All of these are absent in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Roman documents attesting to the effects of Jesus upon the Roman world do exist.

Roman and Jewish historical adocuments do attest to the life of Jesus.

Family records beyone royalty and gentry do not exist.

What does exist though is a testimony to the life of Jesus and Hi seffect on the population. Both the actions of His supporters and the actions of those who tried to kill Christianity and place blame on it for the ills of the Empire.

BrianCalgary

2Scoops wrote: »

But those 'tangible' effects could just as easily be ascribed to the real-world reactions of humans to a fictional, but believed real, character.

In the case of the pink unicorn, there is no tangible evidence of it's existence beyond the tales of Bonkey and his testimony of it.

Whereas there is tangible historical evidence surrounding the life, times and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and the effect His life had on many a person throughout the Roman world at the time.

I don't see many influenced by Bonkey's unicorn.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Roman documents attesting to the effects of Jesus upon the Roman world do exist.

Roman and Jewish historical documents do attest to the life of Jesus.

None contemporary.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Family records beyone royalty and gentry do not exist.

What does exist though is a testimony to the life of Jesus and Hi seffect on the population. Both the actions of His supporters and the actions of those who tried to kill Christianity and place blame on it for the ills of the Empire.

Well, I would be very foolish to deny the historicity of Christianity. However, I would be equally foolish to take the historicity of Christianity as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, since otherwise I would have to equally accept the historicity of every other cult figure or deity, the golden book of Joseph Smith, and the existence of Xenu.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Brian wrote:

In the case of the pink unicorn, there is no tangible evidence of it's existence beyond the tales of Bonkey and his testimony of it.

And, in the case of Jesus, there's no tangible evidence of his existence beyond the tales in the bible, the testimony in it, and four or five tiny and discrepant references in texts written much later by people who'd not witnessed the events anyway.

At least bonkey is alive and we can speak with him/her and see if we'd like to trust the tale about the pink unicorn. We can't even do that small credibility check with the authors of the bible who have been dead for 80 generations.

.

2Scoops

BrianCalgary wrote: »

In the case of the pink unicorn, there is no tangible evidence of it's existence beyond the tales of Bonkey and his testimony of it.

OK, more popular examples would include Luke Skywalker/Jedi-ism, Harry Potter and others. All have a massive following with tangible effects in the world. Santa Claus is another, which I regretfully have to bring up in these pre-December times. All fictional.

PDN

2Scoops wrote: »

OK, more popular examples would include Luke Skywalker/Jedi-ism, Harry Potter and others. All have a massive following with tangible effects in the world. Santa Claus is another, which I regretfully have to bring up in these pre-December times. All fictional.

St Nicholas (Dutch - sinterklaas) is very much a historical figure. While many of the popular images of Santa Claus are fictional accretions, Nicholas' bones lie in a crypt in Bari, have been photographed, and tell us that he was five feet high with a broken nose.

Dave!

I think youre missing the point...

PDN

DaveMcG wrote: »

I think youre missing the point...

Quite possibly. I just have an annoying habit of correcting people on side issues. It drives my family mad, but everyone wants to be on my team at Christmas when we play Trivial Pursuit.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

St Nicholas (Dutch - sinterklaas) is very much a historical figure. While many of the popular images of Santa Claus are fictional accretions, Nicholas' bones lie in a crypt in Bari, have been photographed, and tell us that he was five feet high with a broken nose.

That is actually a good example.

Does the fact that St Nicholas was a real historical figure mean that every Christmas Eve he flies around the world giving children toys?

I would imagine most people would say no.

Confirmation of one aspect of historical accuracy of a story that claims to be fact is not confirmation of all the other aspects of the story.

I don't think anyone here doubts that there was something significant going on 2000 years ago in the middle east. Jesus may have been one single person. Or the stories of him may draw on instances from the lives of a number of different people (as with Santa)

But the fact that people can find slimmers of truth in these stories does not in any way verify the historical accuracy of the entire story.

If Jesus was a real person that no more means he did what is describe in the New Testament than it means Santa flies around the world because St. Nicholas was a real person.

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I think Bonkey that I would look for tangible evidence of the effects of your pink unicorn.

So you believe that the human eyes are the judge and jury of all reality, then? That if we cannot find tangible evidence for something, it is reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist???

We can't scienticically prove any character or event from history.

Only insofar as the notion of "scientific proof", strictly speaking, doesn't exist.

We can establish, to varying degrees of certainty, our historical timeline. Beyond a certain point, our degrees of certainty drop so far that we honestly know we are making a "best guess" at certain facts, and our belief of what really happened may change over time.

The further back we go, the "blurrier" our understanding of history becomes.

So with Jesus we can study biographical accounts of His life and study the effects of that life and the social ramifications of that life.

Not exactly. We can study what appear to be biographical accounts of his life. We can study the effects of those accounts, and the social ramifications of those effects.

My position would be that the Christian faith in the detail of the bible - or indeed in the detail of the gospels alone - is far greater than the scientific position can be.

Before we go too far down this road, however, I would point out that my point was looking at something slightly different. I was addressing the argument that there is evidence to suggest that the physical word isn't all there is. I read this as SW making the case that there is evidence that, for example, that the divine exists, that heaven exists, and so forth.

I would argue that there is no such evidence, using the scientific understanding of the term. There is, as with the stance you took regarding my unicorn, no tangible evidence of its existence. There is my claim that my unicorn exists. At need, I can produce written material regarding its existence. I can probably get a couple of colleagues to write up some stuff as well. Does this constitute tangible evidence of its existence, or merely tangible evidence of the claim of its existence? For me, its the latter.

From a scientific perspective, either my unicorn interacts tangibly with the physical world (in which case, those interactions can be falsifiably tested), or science does not address the question of its existence. Logic suggests that I've made it up, though, even if I genuinely believe in it.

bonkey

PDN wrote: »

St Nicholas (Dutch - sinterklaas) is very much a historical figure. While many of the popular images of Santa Claus are fictional accretions, Nicholas' bones lie in a crypt in Bari, have been photographed, and tell us that he was five feet high with a broken nose.

You're saying that there is evidence that a person, whom we know as St. Nicholas, existed....but that this does not constitute evidence that the "Saint Nick" of various Christmas fables was the same man, or that St. Nicholas possessed the magical qualities we attribute to Santa.

Applying the same logic to BrianCalgary's assertions of the evidence of the existence of Jesus should lead us to the same conclusion...that there is multiple sources of corroborating evidence that a real individual was the root of the various accounts, but not necessarily that the accounts themselves are accurate.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote: »

So you believe that the human eyes are the judge and jury of all reality, then? That if we cannot find tangible evidence for something, it is reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist???

Zing

Akrasia

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not that you need me to or anything but I can accept that. But if the God of the Bible exists then the only choice you have is to choose masters, you do not have a choice to have no master.

And thus, probably by accident. you have stumbled onto the 'evolutionary' benefit of religion. Of course, it's not exactly evolution, more like anthropology, but the reason why almost every indigenous society has some form of religion is down to systems of control. Religion has been used to control people since its inception. The leaders of countries or tribes always claim to have some god on their side (sometimes they claim to be god themselves)
Religion exists because it is in the personal interest of elites to have religion exist.
The fact that religion is possible, is because humans have evolved to be social animals who learn culture through immersion and through being taught by others. People tend to believe what their teachers tell them, and when those teachers are telling them that there is an all mighty god watching their every activity, and this god commands them to be loyal to him and the state, there is an obvious benefit to the elites. And there are countless examples of elites taking advantage of 'religion' to control people

Acid_Violet

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why then would an atheist or those who prescribe to (or have faith in) the theory of evolution consider me as (Richard Dawkins would) to be a fool for believing in such things as the supernatural when it’s obviously of no ultimate benefit to me whatsoever in this purposeless universe. When by the same token his or her criticism of me is as equally of no benefit to them and just as foolish if things exist they way they themselves believe them to be?

A ‘no ultimate purpose universe’ means nothing in it has any purpose and this includes the criticism from evolutionists of those who believe in a God who did purpose it.

The evolutionists believe we evolved our working parts (organs etc) for specific bodily functions in order to ‘just’ survive in this by chance living planet, but from whence has evolved (and why? as there is no survival benefits from it) the ability to choose freely one’s belief system in this purposeless universe?

By-product of heightened consciousness, which is a survival benefit because you're able to think and understand things more (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in saying that )

What is the point of it all if there really is no creator?

To have a mind developed so much that it's able to make a point of it all?

If we are all but chance happenings ourselves then where is the evolutionary benefit for survival (to borrow from CS Lewis) in evolving a God concept in our consciousness?

Evolutionary psychologists answer this.

Personally speaking, I think God is probably an explanation for things early man didn't know. The evolutionary benefit of that?

I'll use an analogy; generations gone by believed things like blood-letting cured certain illnesses due to ignorance of said illnesses.
When you're trying to figure out why the crops didn't grow this year, you say it's because of whatever supernatural force, and embark upon rituals to try to stop it happening again. Make sense?

Is this fallacy to the laws of nature as some believe them to be the start of the evolutionary wind down of the human race? Is this pointless God concept development in our genes but the beginning of the end to the survival instinct gene in homo sapiens? Or are religious people just the outcasts or waste product of the human race which strives to evolve for purely survival purposes in a purposeless universe? If so then why has it (the God concept itself) survived for such a long time over the history of mankind on this earth?

I hate to say it, but Richard Dawkins answers these questions all pretty well!

Nobody wins if there is no God because all things are purposeless from the get go and have no sense in them nor were they meant to have if it all started by chance including the purpose of evolution.

Or it means that, within human limitations, anything is possible? Could you not find some purpose in your life without God? Would you not think that making life better for others is a good purpose, whether there is a God or not?

If I were a blank page in this world not yet convinced of either argument as to the belief systems in relation to how we came to be then it would be a hard fight to compel me toward the side of the evolutionist as I would find it much harder to place my faith in the ‘by chance everything just came into being’ belief system (which has to be taken on faith) than the belief in a supernatural all powerful being who started it all with purpose (which also has to be taken by faith).

So you think it more plausible that 'by chance' a God was conceived of himself and created the universe?

Both concepts require faith but at least the religious side will tell you that from the outset.

The difference is that the faith is required in an old book of tales of creation similar to the lore of other civilizations but the difference is that these tales are believed, and then the faith required for belief in evolution is that these things, logically explained, make sense.

The evolutionists say that their theory is fact and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a fool. That just smacks of dark ages religious mentality if you ask me and has no true old fashioned scientific searching after truth aspect to it at all.

It does smack of dark religious mentality. But I really think that's a severe exaggeration.

The universe is too perfect and balanced and beautiful a place for everything in it to be all but chance products of a series of chance happenings spread out over billions of years. The chances of even an enzyme evolving by chance has the same odds as you winning the lottery this week by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then winning it the same way every week for a thousand years.

Please don't take this is a personal jibe, but do you have any specific education on these matters to back up these claims

Also what do you think the odds would be of a God conceiving himself in thin air?

seamus

The chances of even an enzyme evolving by chance has the same odds as you winning the lottery this week by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then winning it the same way every week for a thousand years.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. All it really requires is for a single cell to randomly form. After that, it's a pretty inevitable (if slow-burning) process. For most of the earth's history, all that existed was algae.

One of the problems us humans have is fathoming very large distances or periods of time. People point to mutated virii with resistances and wonder why we haven't seen such leaps in human development. They miss the fact there may be thousands, if not millions of generations of that virus before that strain emerged. We, on the other hand, are probably about 200 generations (taking a generation to be 25-30 years) from the start of recorded history.

Even in that time, we've seen genetic variance sufficient to form "proof" that evolution isn't by chance. Every single human being is a genetic mutation of their predecessors. We don't mutate by chance, it's an undeniable part of our nature. Those who benefitted from their mutations lived to procreate and pass it on.

To use your analogy, it's like winning the lottery once, then putting your money into a million different shares every week for the next billion years. If a share wins one week, you leave your money there. If it drops, you lose your money and go elsewhere.

DeVore

PDN wrote: »

The reason anarchists get angry with government types is because government is no longer a simple personal decision, it has invaded law, state and rights. It causes wars due to its blind faith and at its worst infringes on the most basic human rights of those who choose not to believe it in.

Hurrah! Let's ban governments! We should all be anarchists!

Your logic is faulty. You equate atheists with anarchists, and religion with government, then having drawn this analogy, you conclude with a reasonably silly statement, implying, through the use of reductio ad absurdum that my initial statement is equally invalid.

This fails because religion is not equivalent to government. Democracy enshrines the right of all people who live under a government to be able to elect, question and repeatedly replace their governments. The same cannot be said of the religious hierarchy.

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

I'm not putting the boot in here, I'm answering the question the OP posed.

DeV.

DeVore

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm sorry that Religion is not a simple subject that you can shelve an be done with. It's been around longer than the sciences and deserves respect and at least as level a playing field as other subjects. Science is a wonderful subject and deserves as much of an audience as any other but it does not have all the answers to all the questions and until it does then it cannot look down on religion or any other subject as being inferior to it. Religion itself is not he causer of war and evil. Mankind can do all that himself, even if it might be in the name of religion at times. Like I said in an earlier post 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' even if some religionist are prone to taking stupid pills from time to time.

I have no issue whatsoever with the freedom of expression of religious beliefs. What I DO have a problem with is when those beliefs involve specifying what *I'm* allowed to do. The day I join a religion, is the day you can tell me wha I can and cannot do. Until then I will always have a problem with religious interference in state (and personal) matters.

If you think I am countenancing a repression of religious rights and beliefs, you might want to stop and consider on who's platform this forum, containing this and many other enlightening debates, exists.

DeV.

Fanny Cradock

DeVore wrote: »

religion should be in charge of society

I don't think PDN actually said that. You would be hard pressed to find many Christian posters here desiring such a thing.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think PDN actually said that. You would be hard pressed to find many Christian posters here desiring such a thing.

Would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

DeVore wrote: »

Your logic is faulty. You equate atheists with anarchists, and religion with government, then having drawn this analogy, you conclude with a reasonably silly statement, implying, through the use of reductio ad absurdum that my initial statement is equally invalid.

This fails because religion is not equivalent to government. Democracy enshrines the right of all people who live under a government to be able to elect, question and repeatedly replace their governments. The same cannot be said of the religious hierarchy.

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

I'm not putting the boot in here, I'm answering the question the OP posed.

I believe my reductio ad absurdum succeeds very well because it operates on the following principle:
De Vore argues that atheists get angry at religious types because 'religion' has invaded state, law and rights. However, that only makes sense if all religious types belonged to religions that have invaded such areas. Some religions have but some religions have not, therefore it is illogical to be opposed to religion in general or to all religious types irrespective of their brand of religion.
My reductio ad absurdum is based on the principle that some governments have invaded state, law and rights. Of course an anarchistic opposition to all government would be fat headed because some governments are fairly OK. The anarchist blanket condemnation of governments, or indeed of all 'political types' would only work if all governments were harmful.
The fact that religion is not equivalent to government is irrelevant. The reductio ad absurdum works because it displays an identical logical fallacy to Devore's argument.

Democracy enshrines the right of all people who live under a government to be able to elect, question and repeatedly replace their governments. The same cannot be said of the religious hierarchy.

What do you mean by 'the religious hierarchy'? Do you believe there is a single hierarchy over all religion? I can assure you that I belong to a denomination where we are able to elect, question and repeatedly replace our hierarchy. In fact we vote in a new hierarchy every 2 years and have term limits to ensure no-one can hold a senior position for longer than 2 terms.

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

And you have betrayed an apparent inability to read someone's post before you answer it.

Where did I say that religion should be in charge of society? I have never said such a thing. In fact, on these boards, I have consistently expressed my belief in secular government. I get in enough arguments over what I actually have posted without you going inventing stuff like that.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality, though?

Most Christian posters would believe that the law of the land should reflect some Christian morality. Laws against murder, theft, etc. - but I think you would be understandably aggrieved if we tried to claim such morality as exclusively the preserve of Christians.

I would think most Christians on this board would be against laws that reflect all Christian morality (eg laws prohibiting adultery, gossip, or the worship of idols). You might get the occasional member of the lunatic fringe that would support such laws (I have one in mind) but they would be a small minority. You could always run a poll?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I believe my reductio ad absurdum succeeds very well because it operates on the following principle:
De Vore argues that atheists get angry at religious types because 'religion' has invaded state, law and rights. However, that only makes sense if all religious types belonged to religions that have invaded such areas. Some religions have but some religions have not, therefore it is illogical to be opposed to religion in general or to all religious types irrespective of their brand of religion.
My reductio ad absurdum is based on the principle that some governments have invaded state, law and rights. Of course an anarchistic opposition to all government would be fat headed because some governments are fairly OK. The anarchist blanket condemnation of governments, or indeed of all 'political types' would only work if all governments were harmful.

All 'government' is harmful. Anarchists don't object to specific governments, but to people abdicating their responsibilities to government.

PDN wrote: »

Where did I say that religion should be in charge of society? I have never said such a thing. In fact, on these boards, I have consistently expressed my belief in secular government. I get in enough arguments over what I actually have posted without you going inventing stuff like that.

Quite true - but let me ask you the question I put to Fanny - do you believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Perhaps the issue of religion and politics belongs in another thread

Soul Winner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Winner
I'm sorry that Religion is not a simple subject that you can shelve an be done with. It's been around longer than the sciences and deserves respect and at least as level a playing field as other subjects. Science is a wonderful subject and deserves as much of an audience as any other but it does not have all the answers to all the questions and until it does then it cannot look down on religion or any other subject as being inferior to it. Religion itself is not the causer of war and evil. Mankind can do all that himself, even if it might be in the name of religion at times. Like I said in an earlier post 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' even if some religionists are prone to taking stupid pills from time to time.

DeVore wrote: »

I have no issue whatsoever with the freedom of expression of religious beliefs. What I DO have a problem with is when those beliefs involve specifying what *I'm* allowed to do. The day I join a religion, is the day you can tell me wha I can and cannot do. Until then I will always have a problem with religious interference in state (and personal) matters.

If you think I am countenancing a repression of religious rights and beliefs, you might want to stop and consider on who's platform this forum, containing this and many other enlightening debates, exists.

DeV.

I agree completely but I fail to see what that has to do with what you quoted me on???

I will try and reply to everyone else when I get 2 minutes from work.

DeVore

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps the issue of religion and politics belongs in another thread

The OP posed the question of why atheists get angry with religious people if they don't believe that God exists. My point is that its not the belief in God or otherwise that bothers them, its the increasing invasion of the secular state by the christian right, organised by powerful religious organisations that really annoys them.

Some clear examples:

The teaching of genetics in schools, the right of choice of a woman over her body, homosexual unions.

Teach what you like in your church. Hold your members accountable for their actions to your morals. Stay out of our classrooms, doctors offices and bedrooms.

I'll reply in more depth when I get a chance, running for a train now.

DeV.

PDN

DeVore wrote: »

The OP posed the question of why atheists get angry with religious people if they don't believe that God exists. My point is that its not the belief in God or otherwise that bothers them, its the increasing invasion of the secular state by the christian right, organised by powerful religious organisations that really annoys them.

Some clear examples:

The teaching of genetics in schools, the right of choice of a woman over her body, homosexual unions.

Teach what you like in your church. Hold your members accountable for their actions to your morals. Stay out of our classrooms, doctors offices and bedrooms.

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

I was opposed to abortion when I was an atheist. My Christian beliefs have not affected that opposition. I do not believe that an unborn baby is merely part of a woman's body. That is a humanitarian, not a religious position.

My GP is a Christian. If he stays out of the doctor office then no-one will get treated. That wouldn't be very good.

As for your bedroom, or homosexual unions - I have no intention of going anywhere near your bedroom. I think you should be free to form a union with whoever you like (providing they are a consenting adult and, presumably, not fussy about sound logic).

bonkey

PDN wrote: »

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

deVore wasn't the first to engage in such sweeping generalisations on this thread. His generalisation is no more 'totally wrong' then those used by the OP to both equate 'atheist' with 'evolutionist', and indeed to tar all atheists with the same brush.

Its interesting to note, though, that in a thread effectively asking why atheists/evolutionists get angry with Christians/believers, it was the latter who objected to mischaracterisation first.

For allegedly angry people, those atheists are sure willing to suck a lot up

bonkey

PDN wrote: »

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

For the record, I agree completely.

Individuals should be treated based on their individual actions and voiced opinions, as far as is possible.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And again, it is totally wrong to be angry at all religious people because of the actions of some religious people.

Is he getting angry at all religious people?

My understanding of what he is saying is that he gets angry with those who wish to push religion into the realm of general social policy. As you say that isn't all religious people.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Is he getting angry at all religious people?

My understanding of what he is saying is that he gets angry with those who wish to push religion into the realm of general social policy. As you say that isn't all religious people.

It's a sweeping generalisation. When atheists get angry at "religious people who do X", it is taken as read that we are angry at all religious people.

You can support this position with a neat piece of pseudo-logic:

1. (some) atheists are angry at (some) religious people for meddling in government

2. the defining characteristic of the people the atheists are angry with is religion

3. therefore, the atheists are angry with religion

4. therefore, if you have religion, the atheists are angry with you

5. grr grr, angry atheists

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a sweeping generalisation. When atheists get angry at "religious people who do X", it is taken as read that we are angry at all religious people.

You can support this position with a neat piece of pseudo-logic:

1. (some) atheists are angry at (some) religious people for meddling in government

2. the defining characteristic of the people the atheists are angry with is religion

3. therefore, the atheists are angry with religion

4. therefore, if you have religion, the atheists are angry with you

5. grr grr, angry atheists

cordially,
Scofflaw

You left out step 2.5:

2. 5 The defining characteristic of the people getting angry is that they are atheist.

PDN

bonkey wrote: »

deVore wasn't the first to engage in such sweeping generalisations on this thread. His generalisation is no more 'totally wrong' then those used by the OP to both equate 'atheist' with 'evolutionist', and indeed to tar all atheists with the same brush.

Indeed. I think the OP owes an apology to all the atheist creationists out there.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Indeed. I think the OP owes an apology to all the atheist creationists out there.

Its funny considering how well supported Creationism is, scientifically of course, how few of them you find

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Indeed. I think the OP owes an apology to all the atheist creationists out there.

And the theistic evolutionists...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think the goal post are being shifted slightly here. The original accusation was that we Christians want to impose a theocracy upon the state. Something that has been refuted. Does this suffice?

To quote C.S. Lewis on this matter:

If there were such a [Christian] society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life were very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced’, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned — perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing.

I see no problem with certain aspects of Christian morality being integral to the laws of our land. Indeed, I would argue that many of the existing laws are grounded in Christian morality.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the theistic evolutionists...

Forget them... they are not as easy a target as young earth creationists.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think the goal post are being shifted slightly here. The original accusation was that we Christians want to impose a theocracy upon the state. Something that has been refuted. Does this suffice?

Bear with me! It's a trap. I've temporarily moved the goalposts in order to dig a pit, but I will be putting them back in due course.

Just to point out where they were exactly, though - "the increasing invasion of the secular state by the christian right, organised by powerful religious organisations" is not actually the same as "Christians want to impose a theocracy upon the state".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see no problem with certain aspects of Christian morality being integral to the laws of our land. Indeed, I would argue that many of the existing laws are grounded in Christian morality.

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Forget them... they are not as easy a target as young earth creationists.

Well, they're not nearly as funny, anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

I refer you to post #83

Soul Winner

bonkey wrote: »

deVore wasn't the first to engage in such sweeping generalisations on this thread. His generalisation is no more 'totally wrong' then those used by the OP to both equate 'atheist' with 'evolutionist', and indeed to tar all atheists with the same brush.

I didn't do that though. What I asked was thus:

"...who are atheist in your convictions and those of you who believe evolution..."

the word 'AND' seperates the two views it does not equate.

I'm really enjoying all your replies I will endeavour to reply in full to the other posts when I get time. Just thought I'd clear this little one up first.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bear with me! It's a trap. I've temporarily moved the goalposts in order to dig a pit, but I will be putting them back in due course.

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A trap, eh! Scofflaw, you fiend.

It seems you want a particular answer given before we Christians unwittingly pitch ourselves head first into your pit. I'd have to side with none other than C.S.Lewis and PDN on this matter, though.

To reiterate: I believe that the laws of the land already reflect aspects of Christian morality *Queue the angry chorus*. In light of this my personal opinion doesn't really matter.

A question, though. When you say 'should' what does this actually entail?