Atheism

[Six Pack]

Nice work, disco!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Agreed Pantera. Jay, haven't I agreed with you more than once that many christians do many good things? Is that something that seems overtly negative to you?

I haven't heard you say anything like that in a very long time Duckman. In fact when I have tried to raise people's awareness re Christian charities etc., rather than openly acknowledge the incredible number of Christians who volunteer their time, money and energies to help others you moreso have entered into a counter argument that non-christians do plenty of this as well. I would bet my house on the fact that Church going Christians give more of their time to charity work than the average non believer in society. But in saying that there are many, many non Christians who do a fantastic amount of work in the community as well and I am certainly not knocking them. I wish that more people in general gave more of their time to others in today's world, but I think I covered that a while ago in talking about the way that the moral fabric of todays society is seriously slipping.
I enjoy debating with you, but I did raise the point recently that I felt your posting style lately had become more and more sarcastic and overtly negative towards anything we have posted. Pantera has been exactly the same. This is the sort of thing I am talking about from Pantera -"I have posted detailed counters to Djevv's posts about information loss on the Christianity thread. It appears that he has chosen to ignore these posts and continue to repeat old and scientifically debunked ID garbage. Repetition of the same old rubbish does not add weight to the argument." He gets absolutely zero respect from me, regardless of the accuracy of his post, when he presents himself in such an arrogant and self righteous way. But maybe I am reading it wrongly and I would be happy if that was the case.
Dare I say it but, from our side of the fence, Pantera is repeating the same old rubbish. Perhaps, we just would try not to be so blunt as to put it that way.
I would suggest that if you two are getting frustrated by the arguments that Djevv, PPT and I keep coming up with then we should discontinue the debate rather than let these threads spiral into tit-for-tat name calling and sarcastic commentary. There is plenty of time for that on less important threads (in which you can call me whatever you like! ;D)

Is it arrogant to present evidence over and over and have it disregarded? What I find arrogant is that you, who won't take the time to assess the scientific evidence, will dismiss the theory as rubbish because it is contradictory to your subjective worldview. I spend a great deal of my time studying these theories and in the lab where I see the evidence of evolution having occurred in the past, and observe it in the present on an almost daily basis.

In the case you cite above Djevv posted a counter article to my example of the vertebrate eye as imperfect design, the problem was his counter argument was debunked in the very article I posted originally, as was the next article he tried to counter the imperfect design argument with. That would suggest to me that he hasn't even bothered to assess what I have presented and just gone to ID or creationist websites to find an article that deals with each issue. You may notice that the counters to evolutionary theory provide no testable hypotheses and make no predictions, so they add nothing to our knowledge of the natural world.

I am sorry that you find my tone arrogant and self-righteous, however I never ask you to take my word for any of my assertions and happily point you in the direction where you can assess the evidence for yourself. It is a pity that you are unable to do likewise.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Very nice passage Disco.

From "Evolution as Fact and Theory", yes?

 

[Disco08]

Yep Pantera.

 

[jayfox]

Is it arrogant to present evidence over and over and have it disregarded? What I find arrogant is that you, who won't take the time to assess the scientific evidence, will dismiss the theory as rubbish because it is contradictory to your subjective worldview. I spend a great deal of my time studying these theories and in the lab where I see the evidence of evolution having occurred in the past, and observe it in the present on an almost daily basis.

In the case you cite above Djevv posted a counter article to my example of the vertebrate eye as imperfect design, the problem was his counter argument was debunked in the very article I posted originally, as was the next article he tried to counter the imperfect design argument with. That would suggest to me that he hasn't even bothered to assess what I have presented and just gone to ID or creationist websites to find an article that deals with each issue. You may notice that the counters to evolutionary theory provide no testable hypotheses and make no predictions, so they add nothing to our knowledge of the natural world.

I am sorry that you find my tone arrogant and self-righteous, however I never ask you to take my word for any of my assertions and happily point you in the direction where you can assess the evidence for yourself. It is a pity that you are unable to do likewise.

Are you really sorry that you come across as arrogant and self righteous or are you just saying that? Because someone who was truly sorry would try to do something about that and I can't see that in this post, your final line being a glaring example of the arrogance I am talking about. Still, this is a sensitive topic and it brings out emotions in all of us. I think that is a good thing because it means we are discussing something of importance.

The short answer to both of these threads, which IMO should be merged as they have ended up going in the same directions, is that we will never agree. For all of the scientific evidence that you present, I believe there are major flaws and gaps in that evidence. For all of the historical, biblical evidence that I present, you believe that there are major flaws and gaps in those.
I don't discount all scientific evidence and have admitted that natural selection can occur. I have also admitted that my wife and father in law are scientists (my F-I-L being the head of microbiology in Adelaide's major research hospital) and yet they are both committed Christians. In fact, I have many friends and associates who are scientists but also have a firm Christian faith. I don't see the two as having to be seperate from each other.
What surprises me is how easily you discount the words of the Bible, if nothing else as an accurate historical text. This is where I believe your negativity clouds your better judgement. What unfortunately you will never be able to understand or experience is the unmistakable day to day relationship that I have with God and the incredible affect that He has on my life. I am in constant amazement of the ways in which He reveals Himself to me. Still, we are in a situation where neither side will agree so really, in my opinion, there is little point continuing the debate.

 

[Disco08]

Don't you find it easier to discuss things such as evolution in this thread so that the christianity one can be kept for discussing the Bible and points actually specific to christianity, not points that refute it?

 

[jayfox]

Don't you find it easier to discuss things such as evolution in this thread so that the christianity one can be kept for discussing the Bible and points actually specific to christianity, not points that refute it?

Sure, as long as they stay within those guidelines.

 

[Disco08]

Well, I think it's worked quite well in keeping the evolution talk off the christianity thread lately.

 

[jayfox]

Well, I think it's worked quite well in keeping the evolution talk off the christianity thread lately.

Good, then leave it.

 

[Disco08]

Will do.

There's a couple of questions left unanswered from my latest post in our most recent discussion too if you're interested in carrying on said discussion.

 

[jayfox]

Will do.

There's a couple of questions left unanswered from my latest post in our most recent discussion too if you're interested in carrying on said discussion.

Okay, but my quotenator is broken though. I must get that thing fixed.

Point 1. I'll just give up on this. Out of interest, do you think that, percentage-wise, Christians or Non-Christians do more charity work?

Point 2. The US certainly has it's faults but I believe it is the fact that they are becoming more and more secular (including the Christians approach to Christianity in the US) that is the problem. I just can't see how the US can compare unfavourably to somewhere topical like Iran and their recent human rights display though. I could also provide you with a list of countries that persecute or kill Christians just for admitting their faith. Problem is that the statistics of these types of crimes are never taken as the governments of these countries encourage this behaviour and consider it to be lawful. Can you imagine the outcry if the US started torturing and executing Muslims within their borders just for admitting their beliefs?
Final question on this - I acknowledge that the Us has problems and isn't perfect but - Who would you rather be the current World Superpower - The US, China, Japan, Russia or Germany?

Point 3. - As many have said, Science prides itself on admitting that what we believe now will possibly, and most probably, be different to what we believe in 500 years. I'm sure that thousands of years ago 99.946% of scientists believed the world was flat, even though the Bible has always said it is round. The truth contained in the Bible is as true today as it was when it was written and will be forevermore.

 

[Disco08]

Point 1. I'll just give up on this. Out of interest, do you think that, percentage-wise, Christians or Non-Christians do more charity work?

I would say there wouldn't be much difference. I think you possibly underestimate the ability of non-religious types to be compassionate.

The US certainly has it's faults but I believe it is the fact that they are becoming more and more secular (including the Christians approach to Christianity in the US) that is the problem.

The states with the worst records in the areas I mentioned are the Middle and Southern states traditionally known as the Bible Belt and home to the world's densest creationist populations. The more secular (and trending further from religiosity) North East and West Coast, despite having the crime that comes with big cities such as New York and LA have substantially better social indicators. Sam Harris book 'Letter To A Christian Nation' outlines these trends quite clearly and is well worth a read. It's only a tiny book so would only take you a couple of hours to read at most.

Final question on this - I acknowledge that the Us has problems and isn't perfect but - Who would you rather be the current World Superpower - The US, China, Japan, Russia or Germany?

Tough question. It all depends on the leaders of each country and their intentions. The US is doing a fair bit of damage though so I'd be tempted to give someone else a try if the choice was mine.

Point 3. - As many have said, Science prides itself on admitting that what we believe now will possibly, and most probably, be different to what we believe in 500 years. I'm sure that thousands of years ago 99.946% of scientists believed the world was flat, even though the Bible has always said it is round. The truth contained in the Bible is as true today as it was when it was written and will be forevermore.

That's a silly argument IMO. People who thought the world was flat had no way of knowing otherwise. Today alot of effort goes into seeking the truth about these things. How can you so easily discount the hundreds of thousands of experts who overwhelmingly agree on a subject which disagrees with some core points in the Bible?

And to keep the threads on topic, I'll respond to your assertions about the Bible in the appropriate thread.

I'll repeat this last question too;

When you say science and God can go hand in hand, do you mean the word of God as spelled out in the Bible?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Are you really sorry that you come across as arrogant and self righteous or are you just saying that? Because someone who was truly sorry would try to do something about that and I can't see that in this post, your final line being a glaring example of the arrogance I am talking about. Still, this is a sensitive topic and it brings out emotions in all of us. I think that is a good thing because it means we are discussing something of importance.

Why would I bother saying that if I didn't mean it? You decide to attack the tone of my arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. I am not fussed by the tone of your arguments, I am more interested in pointing out where I perceive flaws in them. Again, you fail to do likewise.

The short answer to both of these threads, which IMO should be merged as they have ended up going in the same directions, is that we will never agree. For all of the scientific evidence that you present, I believe there are major flaws and gaps in that evidence. For all of the historical, biblical evidence that I present, you believe that there are major flaws and gaps in those.

So as I have said countless times before, point out the flaws and present a better model to explain the evidence. As we have discussed on the Christianity thread, the bible does not count as historical evidence --> one case in point --> the authors of the NT of course had access to the old testament when they bent over backwards to ensure that Jesus appeared to fulfil OT prophecy, a 'proof' claimed throughout history and by yourself, but clearly the most dubious evidence for anyone with an ounce of scepticism.

I don't discount all scientific evidence and have admitted that natural selection can occur. I have also admitted that my wife and father in law are scientists (my F-I-L being the head of microbiology in Adelaide's major research hospital) and yet they are both committed Christians. In fact, I have many friends and associates who are scientists but also have a firm Christian faith. I don't see the two as having to be seperate from each other.

You only discount scientific evidence that directly contradicts your baseless (outside of your own subjective experience) beliefs. If you F-I-L is the head of microbiology at a major research hospital, then he must have a firm grasp on the importance of evolution in understanding pathogenicity and drug resistance in that field. The fact that he able to effectively partition his mind to maintain the scientific standards of scepticism and critical analysis in his study of microbiology and suspend such standards in his beliefs, provides no support for those beliefs. All this proves is that the human mind is capable of such compartmentalisation. Some of the most notable scientists in history held religious beliefs, including the head of the public human genome project, Francis Collins. Again, this just shows that our minds are capable of applying different standards of critical analysis to our 'beliefs'. The fact that Francis Collins has done some solid research in the field of genomics has no relationship to the fact that he believes in an invisible, omnipotent creator.

What surprises me is how easily you discount the words of the Bible, if nothing else as an accurate historical text. This is where I believe your negativity clouds your better judgement. What unfortunately you will never be able to understand or experience is the unmistakable day to day relationship that I have with God and the incredible affect that He has on my life. I am in constant amazement of the ways in which He reveals Himself to me. Still, we are in a situation where neither side will agree so really, in my opinion, there is little point continuing the debate.

I have no doubt that you 100% believe in God. If you actively engaged in the debate however, rather than saying this is how I 'feel' --> emotional responses and subjective experience being notoriously unreliable at gaining an accurate picture of the world around us, hence the success of the scientific method which concertedly attempts to control for such --> then we might actually find out exactly where we differ and look at what the evidence supports. To say I am 'negative' is, again, an attack on me, rather then my arguments. Like Disco, I have no problem saying that many Christians do good and many do not. Funnily enough, this could be said for any group of human beings, strongly suggesting that it isn't our faith (or lack thereof) that drives such 'goodness'.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Point 3. - As many have said, Science prides itself on admitting that what we believe now will possibly, and most probably, be different to what we believe in 500 years. I'm sure that thousands of years ago 99.946% of scientists believed the world was flat, even though the Bible has always said it is round. The truth contained in the Bible is as true today as it was when it was written and will be forevermore.

This is exactly what I was referring to in an earlier post. You have dogmatic religious beliefs that unwaveringly base their worldview on millennia-old documents and you have science that has the ability to change as new evidence is unearthed or generated. Which method do you think will give us a better, more accurate picture of the universe we live in? Can you point out where a firm, major scientific theory has been dismissed as inaccurate in light of new evidence in recent history? I am not saying that it can't happen, I am saying that it is exceedingly rare as our major theories are based on mountains of evidence. This evidence would have to apply to any new, improved theory, suggesting that any changes to these theories are more likely to be 'tweaks' rather then wholesale changes.

As for the bible claiming a spherical earth, how do you explain a passage such as this?

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor Matthew 4:8

That would suggest that the author assumed a flat-earth.

 

[Djevv]

In the case you cite above Djevv posted a counter article to my example of the vertebrate eye as imperfect design, the problem was his counter argument was debunked in the very article I posted originally, as was the next article he tried to counter the imperfect design argument with. That would suggest to me that he hasn't even bothered to assess what I have presented and just gone to ID or creationist websites to find an article that deals with each issue. You may notice that the counters to evolutionary theory provide no testable hypotheses and make no predictions, so they add nothing to our knowledge of the natural world.

Actually you are incorrect. I read most of what is posted here (but sometimes I skim). What you see a debunking I recognise as a discussion in progress. I still find the idea of the 'ill designed eye' humorous:

Here is a quote from the article I cited:

The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity! More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons. Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1,000 to one. Even specialist equipment hasn’t anywhere near the dynamic range of the eye.

Hard to say a device that performs to these specs is poorly designed!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Actually you are incorrect. I read most of what is posted here (but sometimes I skim). What you see a debunking I recognise as a discussion in progress. I still find the idea of the 'ill designed eye' humorous:

If you are going to get involved in the discussion and post ID articles on the topic, it would be more productive if you read the counters to those arguments instead of just repeating the same old arguments.

Here is a quote from the article I cited:

The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity! More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons. Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1,000 to one. Even specialist equipment hasn’t anywhere near the dynamic range of the eye.

Hard to say a device that performs to these specs is poorly designed!

No one said that the vertebrate eye doesn't do a remarkable job or that it has a high level of visual acuity --> the eyes of birds of prey are an example of just how good this 'quirky' design can be. The point that you need to address is why an eye would be 'created' like the vertebrate's, with its back to front orientation, the requirement of a fovea to allow visual acuity (at the expense of areas that aren't focussed on, and the presence of a 'blind spot' due to the requirement of nerves and blood vessels to pass through the retina? The ID counters have been covered in the original article that I posted and aren't supported by the evidence. Have a look at the cephalopod eyes, a much better eye 'design'. Why didn't we all get these types of eyes? The most obvious answer is that they have independent evolutionary histories, leading to a similar function (sight) using different solutions.

 

[Djevv]

No one said that the vertebrate eye doesn't do a remarkable job or that it has a high level of visual acuity --> the eyes of birds of prey are an example of just how good this 'quirky' design can be. The point that you need to address is why an eye would be 'created' like the vertebrate's, with its back to front orientation, the requirement of a fovea to allow visual acuity (at the expense of areas that aren't focussed on, and the presence of a 'blind spot' due to the requirement of nerves and blood vessels to pass through the retina? The ID counters have been covered in the original article that I posted and aren't supported by the evidence. Have a look at the cephalopod eyes, a much better eye 'design'. Why didn't we all get these types of eyes? The most obvious answer is that they have independent evolutionary histories, leading to a similar function (sight) using different solutions.

Here is a quote on the differences between vertebrate eyes and a cephlopod and why they might occur:

The human eye actually discriminates better in indirect, lower intensity light, so the intervening layer acts as a filter, minimizing excessive light-scattering. It also filters the short-wave ultraviolet (potentially cancer-causing) light. So why does the squid's eye not have this 'protective wiring' up front? Because this creature operates in a different environment. It needs all the light it can get, and because of the low intensity of UV light in water, neither sunburn nor sun cancers are occupational hazards for a squid or octopus.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Here is a quote on the differences between vertebrate eyes and a cephlopod and why they might occur:

The human eye actually discriminates better in indirect, lower intensity light, so the intervening layer acts as a filter, minimizing excessive light-scattering. It also filters the short-wave ultraviolet (potentially cancer-causing) light. So why does the squid's eye not have this 'protective wiring' up front? Because this creature operates in a different environment. It needs all the light it can get, and because of the low intensity of UV light in water, neither sunburn nor sun cancers are occupational hazards for a squid or octopus.

So why do fish, which have more species than all of the terrestrial vertebrate species combined have this suboptimal design? Why do terrestrial gastropods have the more efficient camera-like eyes? Its no good to look at single examples of each. What do the general trends suggest?

 

[jayfox]

Final question on this - I acknowledge that the Us has problems and isn't perfect but - Who would you rather be the current World Superpower - The US, China, Japan, Russia or Germany?

Tough question. It all depends on the leaders of each country and their intentions. The US is doing a fair bit of damage though so I'd be tempted to give someone else a try if the choice was mine.

So had the Japanese and Germans won WW2 you would have been happier? Because, had they won, they'd be the Superpowers now.
The Chinese still persecute Christians who admit to their faith (as well as many of their own non Christian people). Is that the sort of Superpower you would like to live with?
In all seriousness, I reckon you are either crazy or naive if you think that the world would be better off under China, Germany, Japan or Russia.

As for Science and the Bible, yes, I believe that science and the word of God can work in unison. Djevv, my F-I-L and my wife all prove this.

 

[Six Pack]

Why did Gallileo get persecuted by the christians?