American Atheists Action AlertOctober 29, 2006 Defend International Free Speech, Right toQuestion and Criticize Religious Ideologies!http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-29-oct-2006.php Across the world, religious groups and their supporters are attempting to muzzle any remarks which criticize, question or “mock” their beliefs. They cite a number of disingenuous rationales — everything from combating “hate speech” to the claim that we must “respect” religious opinions. The Romanian Humanists (http://www.humanism.ro/ ) are asking for international support in their campaign to stop the latest effort by government and religious authorities to muzzle criticism of religion. That country’s Chamber of Deputies may soon adopt a rule that stipulates: “Any form, means, act or action of religious defamation and enmity, as well as any public offense against religious symbols, shall be prohibited in Romania.” An information release from the Romanian Humanists warns: “Should this article be adopted by the Chamber of Deputies, it would impose serious limitations on the fundamental liberties of the human being of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Books, works of art, movies, plays, concerts and rock groups could then be easily banned. To all those who treasure the freedom, the critical intellect, and religious tolerance of values which have become dominant in Europe after centuries of religious conflict and persecution, this new censorship is unacceptable.” To defend free speech, the Romanian Humanists have launched a campaign known as “Solidarity for Freedom of Conscience.” They are asking for international support, and request that e-mail be sent to :freedomofconscience@gmail.com Among the US supporters of the campaign is Dr. Fred Whitehead, Vice President of the International Committee to Protect Freethinkers (fredwh@swbell.net). He has sent the following statement: “I fully support the current protest the proposed law in Romania, which would prohibit any defamation of religion or public offense against religious symbols. This runs directly contrary to norms of freedom of press, speech and conscience, widely adopted in all civilized countries.” SPEAK OUT NOW! American Atheists urges you to join this international campaign! Express your support of the Romanian Humanists against this attempt to muzzle freedom of expression and inquiry. Send your messages to freedomofconscience@gmail.com, or visit our Action Alert page which includes an easy-to-use form at http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-29-oct-2006.php (AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O’Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
HZ
Glad you tackled that. I didn’t know what he was talking about!
Except for the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. The “proof” for god not existing is more the lack of any evidence that he does exist. When faced with something unlikely (god, flying pink unicorns etc) then the burden of proof is on those claiming this entity does exist.
We “he” was actually talking about being founded. Maybe i should have said “founded in a belief” in a Supreme/Higher Power. I dunno maybe i do mean grounded, whatever. I mean founded in that if i hold that people are all created, by S/HP, them i also must hold they are created with purpose. At least a purpose as far as the S/HP is concerned otherwise why create? why not not create and just continue being ethereal. So if a person is created then how does one figure out their purpose and path unless they believe, by choice or predestination, that there is something outside themselves that is worth investigating and giving great attention towards.
Sorry this may all be incoherent as i am tired and have been back and forth to meetings today. We” discuss more later, i guess.
Quickly – here’s a burden of proof. I exist and can think and do think. I have thought of the possibility that there could be someone higher than me based on the fact that i am not as perfect, absolute or sovereign as i can imagine a perfect, absolute and sovereign being could be. therefore convincing thought and evidence in my own conscience is a first step to hypothesis of the validity of god, more to come after i get rid of this headache.
HZ when you said this – “As to the question of proof. It is in theory very easy to prove that gods exist. All it takes is a god to appear and do godly things. While rumors abound that this has happened many times, none are substantiated or reliable – and most are just downright kooky” – does that mean that something like gravity has appeared and done gravitational things? I hope we agree that it has. But what are “godly things”? Is the existence of an unexplainable force that compels things to continue in motion or discontinue movement the same completely explainable type of science that you are talking about. Yes i am being sarcastic. What about light. Not even the best of science can tell us how it works or why it works. And while one can say give it time and we’ll figure it out, what is time exactly? Why does age happen why would evolution find a way to become and what it is in the cosmic realm with time, doesn’t that run against evolution becoming all that it could become? I dunno just some thoughts, you’ve probably hear a billion times.
forgive the poor grammar and spelling i’m in a rush to get outta here.
Won2have you seem to be saying in this post that you can conceive of a god and therefore that is proof that there might be one? Because you can imagine a being more perfect, absolute or sovereign than a person such an entity might exist? I hate to keep coming back to the invisible pink unicorn argument but I can imagine there is one in my office right now. We can imagine many things and logic suggests they can’t all be true. We can imagine mutually exclusive things. We can imagine anything.
As for gravity I would argue it does appear and do gravitational things – umm pretty much constantly in fact! With this argument (and the comments about light) you are talking about the god-of-the-gaps where we say we have limited knowledge and so since we can’t explain everything there must be a god. We do have limited knowledge and there are things no-one can explain. I suspect there always will be frontiers of knowledge and new things to learn. What I don’t agree with is your next leap of logic (or faith maybe). The fact that we don’t know everything does not mean there must be someone (god) who does. Why would it?
I don?t think this kind of ?why? question applies to evolution. There is no reason behind it. There is no ultimate purpose so it is incorrect to say that anything runs against evolution becoming all that it could become. It is not trying to become anything.
Time is just another dimension of the universe along with the other three we can perceive (ie height, depth and length). Scientists working on string theory say there are others we can?t perceive. That blows my mind and I can really only grasp the most basic components of the theory but it doesn?t make me think of god. Just that science is cool really.
As for ?what are godly things? I guess appearing and speaking to the world would do for a start. Then some miracles. And unambiguous ones too. No curing illnesses we already know how to cure. Find an amputee and re-grow the missing limb. That would be an impressive miracle. Make a meal appear in front of every hungry person in the world all at once. That sort of thing.
No big deal about the spelling and grammar but you are a little hard to understand because of it.
won3have
Just a little while ago, two of my cats got into a lively discourse. One, a theist, was insisting upon the laying-on of paws. The other, a secular felinist, wanted nothing to do with that. At all. A very fierce discussion ensued.
Monika,
Nice reply to won2have.
In what part of Aus are yo located?
Thanks Karen, thanks HeatheNZ.
I’m from Adelaide originally but live in Sydney these days. So does the capital NZ in HeatheNZ mean you come from my end of town (as compared to the USA anyway!)?
Monika,
You are correcto. i do hail from points antipodean.
So great, we all agree that the first plausible idea that god could exist is that god could exist as unseen and “hands off”. Choosing to not believe this doesn’t alleviate the idea of its possibility. If we can sit with really smart people and put together enough viable evidence for the pink unicorn theory, i could never say it is absolutely not possible. Since you, i assume, agree with the theory that not being able to know everything leaves the possibility for what you might not or can not know, god could theoretically exist. This is a convincing evidence theory that god could exist and chose to not reveal or be revealed by natural means. I do not think this is an “i can think of it so it must be” theory. i think this is a philosophical position of possible outcomes. like if i had two cats who seemed to be in some form of communication lets say. i can interpret whatever they are doing as hostile, docile, unknowable or i can say the cats could not possibly be speaking to each other about anything. the interpretation of what they are doing, or not doing, is strictly based on the limits i have to communicate with the cats. I do think it ridiculous that they are communicated about string theory. But lets say some cat people bring me evidence to show that they are communicating about who gets to eat first and who’s area of the house they are in. The second is far more plausible based on the long term experience of the cat person and what we know about the attitudes and nature after studying cats.
All that to say, i think one can believe that the occurring of highly improbable things can be evidence for existence of God. And if there are phenomena that occur like, Light- the wavelength and photons that are both light in essence but also very unexplainable as mutually exclusive truths. Or, how was my aunt pronounced dead by a coroner and then resuscitated somehow a bit later, or what is the force that hold electrons around a nucleus. There are lots of things like these that are so unimaginable that no can say something does not exist for sure. And if there be even a slight possibility for something like God, who would be no god if not the most unattainable, unimaginable, most highly other being ever to be, then I’d say I’d like to give a shot at seeing if god be…i dunno able to listen and speak back.
just a thought or two. and when can i get a little love hear for my comments. its like one versus…well a lot more than one. “I’m not sayin’ I’m a smart man jenny, but i do know what love is!”
won2have
OK . Here’s a little love for your commenting here. ♥
I sure do have a tough time trying to figure out what you’re trying to say though.
It would help (maybe) if you used more paragraph breaks.
Why does a god need to be unattainable? Many perceived gods interacted directly with mortals, including the xian one.
Before you said if something was imaginable it might exist. Now you’re saying if it’s unimaginable, it might exist.
The things that you mentioned, photons, light, etc. aren’t unimaginable-not to those who have observed and studied them anyway.
God is not unimaginable, just unprovable.
won2have ,
Not so fast Speedy. First you need to define what you mean by ‘god’. Or at least what characteristics you are assigning to his holy eminence.
Belief is NOT a choice. Belief is a consequence of considering one’s understanding and knowledge. We can no more choose to believe that which we find unsatisfactory then choose to grow to be seven feet tall.
I think you are say god is possible because anything is possible. If so, I object to this. Some things that we can imagine are very much NOT possible. For example a square triangle. There are logical impossibilities that cannot exist in reality but are perfectly reasonable in our personal conceptual space. Some definitions of god certainly fall into this category. For example having the characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence give us a logical impossibility.
Poppycock. Highly improbable things, first off are seldom as improbably as they might seem (when examined using probability theory rather than gut heuristics). Second most common everyday activities can be considered as highly improbable – yet have no bearing whatsoever on the question of god.
Like HeatheNZ said you are jumping to conclusions here. We can imagine a god but that doesn’t really lead anywhere. The last thing we find the idea is “plausible”.
I am not sure how Karen put in a little love heart but here is some love from me too. Love. I do appreciate that taking a pro-theism stance on this blog is not the easiest thing to do with your time!
I think Karen and HeatheNZ already covered everything else.
thanks karen, right back atcha babe!
“Before you said if something was imaginable it might exist. Now you’re saying if it’s unimaginable, it might exist.”
Can’t it be both?
I do not believe that “light things” are unimaginable. i do believe that things that are not provable can still be real. Beauty, or other romantic ideas are real yet not provable to all people because all people do not place value in the same things or in the same ways.
Thus what truth means does not equal what is exhaustible to know. The morality argument. Conception. All things that are determined differently depending on who you ask.
For instance, prove that life does not exist at conception, implantation, or whenever.
So here is a really good question why can two people, similar in make up and abilities, come to two opposite views. What is it in humans that gives us choice and reason. I think Faith is reasonable and most of you do not. That is the most fascinating thing in the world to me. Well almost, that and the idea that i am somehow knit in God’s ultimate plan for being known in the world.
This is not a cheap ploy.
I think that the idea that you all can reason so well and back up so definitely the actions and behaviors in yourselves and not believe in God is admirable. I wish i could not believe quite often. Sometimes i try to reason why there could be no god and how i have fooled myself into a great scheme of myth and magic.
i imagine in the same way i can’t disbelieve, some of you can’t believe.
then i ask myself, or God, why would you not allow a person to know you? And then i am stuck. I have no idea what Faith really is all about. Then i think. Then i wonder. Then it goes on like that each week or month.
won2have,
Here is the crux of your problem. Think about what you are saying here. This is equivalent to saying that you think squares are circular. Faith, by definition is holding a belief without reason. Faith is antithetical to reason – therefore it is most definately not reasonable.
This is quite interesting because I feel the same way from the other side of the fence. I don’t really understand faith. I don’t understand how someone can think about the universe reasonably and come up with the idea there is a god. I think this is about the point in the argument we agree to disagree. But it is interesting to talk about!
I agree.
I am not sure what you mean here but if you are saying you need god for there to be morality I don?t agree. The simple concept of the golden rule has been around for a very long time and does not require a god ?do unto others as you would have them do unto you?. Empathy gives us morality more than anything else. And to anticipate your next question the reason we have empathy is because we are social animals. Morality makes sense in terms of the evolution of our species.
This is just my opinion but I don?t think life exists in any meaningful way until it can exist independently. I have microbes in my stomach that are alive but remove my stomach and both the microbes and I will die so we are only one life only when we are combined. A baby is a life separate from its parent. A fertilised egg is just a possibility that there will be a life down the track. An unfertilised egg is a possibility also with a slightly lower chance of becoming a life.
Monika
the ♥ is alt+3 (3 on the number keypad) Alt+ different #s will give you other symbols. ◙ is alt+10.
won2have
I can’t imagine. Wait, yes I can.
No, nevermind, I can’t.
Beauty, truth, romance, morality. All subjective. As you said, people place different values on different things. But those four thngs, as well as others are agreed to exist through the communication of ideas and languages, which come from man.
This is an entire other argument, but…
Life does exist at conception. It exists before conception.
I concur with what Monika said.
If you’re getting at when is a fetus a viable human being, that’s something different again. It’s all been argued here before.
How about a triangle with three 90 degree sides, that would pretty much be a square triangle right. Well that’s possible. Just because things are not available in the dimensional plain we live in does not make them impossible or improbable.
I love the way you both think. The morality argument is not quite as you explained it, but similar in my estimation. “Do unto others…”, from the Bible. It is called God’s law of government. It is the second dispensation I believe. I know, I know written by men, later we’ll discuss that.
No i was not attempting to get into when is life a life, although you both sound like pro- life proponents at least in some sense.? That is surprising. i hope life is meaningful even when not independent other wise no cell has any real value and that being the case evolution means life was not life until it was… more than a plankton almost. And like you said then you are not alive, you can not exist with out some life inside of your intestine to break things down. Or maybe that is more of the bovines i am thinking of. Four part stomachs and all.
Languages and such do come from man, but if man comes from God then they have a more deeply resonating implication than we give credit.
Like what if in other dimensions you could smell colors or see flavor. what if you could see a voice speak and each voice looked uniquely different. There is not provable explanation for not seeing sound, or smells but they exist contrary to our vision. Just like how i think God exists contrary to actual vision or hearing, but in what he instills in emotion, reason and logic.
Faith – firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust. I do not believe i can fly off a building. But God could exists because things do exist. And those things have as much proven by science as they do theology. One explanation of life is believable not because it has ever been replicated or see or proven but b/c it is a theory – Evolution. Same with ole God. Never see proven are tested, yet believable. And that is why faith seems reasonable to me, not mathematical but reasonable.
talk to you all later
♥ hey it works!!
won2have
Nor does it make them gods.
Actually, this is another thing the bible writers plagiarized from earlier cultures.
I can only speak for myself. I am pro-life to the extent that I don’t think we should go about killing willy-nilly.
I am pro-choice regarding abortion; it is a woman’s peraogative to do with her own body as she wants.
In fact, I am a strong proponent of retroactive abortion. Ted Haggard is my latest addition to the list.
I am also pro death penalty, which very few others here support.
I can almost do the voice thing. I can be outside myself and see and hear myself as alters talking. It’s almost other dimensional, but it hurts my head too much to think about. I’m sure there is some natural explanation for it, but living with it is complicated enough.
You should take credit for these things on your own. It’s like thanking god for all good, but blaming man, or natural causes for the bad in life. Take responsibility AND credit.
SURE you can fly off a building. You’re just not very adept at it, or well-suited for it and won’t get very far. It’s the landing you need to worry about.
Because THINGS do exist, THINGS exist, not god. There is no god stamp on them. No fingerprint, no DNA strand left behind. God in his wiscom decided to create the many varieties of mosquito? Because just one kind wouldn’t be annoying enough? And he thought it would be fun to put salt in the oceans? And the possum? C’mon.
won2have
No. Please try to construct a tree sided shape with three 90 degree angles. You will find that it’s an open ended square.
Yes it does. To say otherwise requires you to discard the axioms upon which logic and reason rest. Unfortunately if you do this then you have no basis to assert the possibility of your suggestions.
The question of what is and what is not alive is an interesting one.
We humans could not live for more than a a very brief time without microbes inside us. In fact there’s a strong argument to suggest that we are really just a disposable container for the microbial society. Either way it’s a safe bet that microbes will be around long after the human race is gone and forgotten.
I was reading something the other day that suggested that bats could ‘hear’ colours and platapuses could ’see’ electrical fields. The theory was that where there is a large portion of the brain dedicated to interpreting the primary sense organ, this ends up being the equivalent of our sense of vision. At least that’s my understanding.
Evolution certainly has been seen to happen. Even evolution due to natural selection has been observed, albeit to expected small degrees. We know it happens, we know to some extent the mechanisms involved, and we suspect we know why it happens. But you’re right it is a scientific theory, and as such any conclusion is provisional.
Nope – not even similar. With ‘ole God’ we do not know it’s real, we do not know any mechanisms involved, and we have no idea why it does what it is purported to do. There is, and probably can never be, and probably should never be any scientific basis for gods.
Actually I think it does make them impossible. Maybe in some other dimensional plan but there is no way to prove or disprove any such place exists (at least currently ? who knows what scientists may discover someday).
Like Karen said this is from way before the bible. I felt it was worth repeating!
At each stage of evolution there was life that was independent ? plankton is independent life however simple.
On the pro-life question ?
Generally killing people is wrong with some dispensation for self defence but something to be avoided.
On abortion I am pro-choice and think a foetus is not an independent life we should respect but rather part of a woman?s body she can deal with as she wishes.
I am against the death penalty but it is more because of the limitations I see in the legal system not a moral stance. There are crimes I would have no qualms about executing people for but I worry about the wrongly accused.
I don?t want to get into a big evolution debate but I have to point out that there is evidence for the theory of evolution. As yet you have provided reasons why you think god could be possible and why you therefore have faith but nothing in the way of evidence.
Yes, yes, yes. Well said. God does not make us ?more deeply resonating? he takes all the credit and makes us less than we are. The concept of god cheapens the achievements of humanity.
If there is a chocolate milkshake (containing a 5-second cure for this awful cold I have) hovering next to my head in another dimension, but I can’t access it, then it is for all intents and purposes, impossible and improbable.
Likewise for any gods. If they are extra-dimensional, having the power to cross over, but not bothering, of what purpose are they, and why should I pay them any mind?
Ramen, Monika!
I have been away. Partly due to the exigencies of life ,partly because I think that I was force fed too much exsasparilla.
Just want to commend and congratulate Monika, Karen and HeatheNZ for your valiant efforts against the nonsense whose name dare not be mentioned; I don’t know how you maintain your composure.
HI remy
I dunno how Monika and Hz do it, but I am comfortably medicated.
wrong about the triangle with “3″ 90 degree angles. take a flat triangle and lay it on a sphere. With it bent to that shape, one point from a center axis to another that is centered perpendicularly. what are the degree measures of the angles? You have to think in at least third dimensions.
Y’all know what? I can’t prove god exists. You are right.
I can say at least on the point of evolution that, no offense, the most brillant of evolutionists will conceed that evolution is such a leap of faith that it is as plausible as god. however they are too far spent into research and defending it to switch to intelligent design theory.
i really enjoy you all a lot, but please do not act like i am uninformed or stupid for the beliefs i hold (remy). I sit here and think what if i am wrong and have devoted my life to something, at worst not real. And you do exactly to me what fundamentalists do to (homosexuals, athiests, pick a “sin”) and judge the ideas i value. So believe what you will and act as you will, judge me with what ever measure you can hold to yourself. I am not above criticsm. But please do not try to hurt me with you arrogance and pride. your damn right it hurts to be “put up with” and i do not generalize you with the morons i have talked with that have no idea why they do not believe in god, other that they prayed one time and god didn’t answer it as they would have liked.
I apologize for my rant. soapbox over.
tonight ends with my confession. I do not want this to be my “christian project”. I want to know what it is that a person experiences in their life that causes them to turn to the skies and their own bodies and say god’s divine nature and attributes are clearly seen in creation… but i chose to darken my heart.
won2have,
I considered wrapping a three sided object around a sphere, but thought better of it. You see a triangle by definiton has certain properties, one – that it be a two dimension shape, and secondly that its three sides be straight line segments. Incidentally it’s impossible to “take a flat triangle and lay it on a sphere.” Try it some time.
from http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Triangle_(geometry)
What you have described is a three dimensional three sided surface. The three sides of course are not straight line segments, but chords in a three dimensional space. Interestingly you could have done away with the requirement for the sphere by flatening the chords onto a two dimensional surface with the correct radius to maintain the 90 degree angles. Displayed like this though the ruse is too easy to see through.
So, nice try – but no cigar.
won2have
Please quote three – or even one. Personally I think this is merely your uninformed personal baised opinion, but I’m prepared to be proven wrong.
ID is not a theory, at least not a scientific theory. It offers no predictions, nothing falsifiable, and has no peer reviewed publications (well perhaps one, published and destroyed in an obscure Portland journal if memory serves), it is merely creation “science” by another name.
I’m sorry, I do sympathize with your umbridge at remarks commenting on you intelligence and stupidity, but this kind of unsupported fantastic commentry is only likely to reiforce that impression.
If this is truely what you believe, all it shows to me is that it’s extremely unlikely that you have a working grasp of the scientific theory of evolution.
My apologies if that sounds harsh, but unfortunately that would put you in some very good company. A little reading on the topic would go a long way.
The following might be a good starting point. It’s a huge topic, but most definately has nothing to do with “leaps of faith.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
won2have:
Ummm…that’s actually severely incorrect. Evolution is primarily based on a materialistic POV, & as such, relies strongly on material evidence. No leap of faith is required at all.
Sorry, but ID was debunked eons ago.
Well, when you weigh in about ID, it’s hard not to.
Then explore. Read. Research.
& decide for yourself.
Try then, not to mistake criticism w/pride & arrogance.
& we are a sardonic, irreverant lot, so ‘turn the other cheek’ so to speak.
How intriguing. Who might these morons be, exactly?
Light & darkness, darkness & light – 1 cannot exist w/o the other.
“There are cracks, cracks in everything – that’s how the light gets in.” – Leonard Cohen.
I will drop you 1 – religion sprang from the womb of evolution.
Think about that 1 for a while.
Thanks Remy. I maintain my composure I guess because the discussion is interesting if a bit frustrating! That?s OK though as I am sure Won2have finds it frustrating as well. The points we are making seem obvious to both sides and once you realise that it becomes easier.
Won2have I don?t think you are stupid but I disagree with the beliefs you hold and I do think those beliefs are kind of stupid so maybe that colours my tone sometimes. I am trying to have a respectful conversation but it is hard when our opinions are so far apart.
Actually I don?t think they will. I have not read a lot of evolutionary biologists but I have read most of Richard Dawkins books and I can assure you he would never make a statement like that. It is true that some scientists hold to discredited theories but most will be happy to go where the evidence leads. If intelligent design were a viable scientific theory that explained the evidence better than evolution then it would be the leading theory amongst evolutionary biologists and it is not.
I am interested in what you mean by your confession. When you say you darken your heart are you having doubts about your faith? Maybe I am jumping to the wrong conclusion. It sounds like you are wrestling with your christianity?
Oh and you could be right about the 3d triangle-on-a-sphere but by definition a triangle is a 2d object. So what you are describing curved over a sphere would be some other shape (not a triangle).
From my dictionary: The plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments; a three-sided polygon.
We are getting a bit beyond my geometrical knowledge here so I will allow I could be wrong.
?The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics.?
?The most beautiful system of the Sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.? -Isaac Newton
?I wanted to become a theologian; for a long time I was restless. But now I see how God is, by my efforts, being glorified in astronomy, for ?the heavens declare the glory of God?.?
?Great is God our Lord. Great is his power, and there is no end to his wisdom. Praise Him, you heaven, and glorify Him sun and moon, and you planets, for out of Him, through Him, and in Him are all things ? every perception and every knowledge.? – Johannes Kepler
It seems self evident that if everything came from God or Nothing, it must have come from God. God or Nothing leaves only one real choice?God.
It would seem that if God has no competitor, but Nothing, he has nothing for competitor. “God or Nothing” and “only God” are synonymous expressions.
? From the mind of Jonathan Edwards
?Intelligent Design (ID) is a biological theory that holds that a designing influence is required to account for the complex information-rich structures in living systems.” ?William Dembski
The bacterial flagellum
A molecular motor composed of approximately 40 interlocking and interacting parts, each of which is essential for proper function
What do scientists say when they see something that can?t be explained by random mutation and natural selection?
“The theory of natural selection provides a mechanistic, casual account of how things came to look as if they had been designed for a purpose.” ?Richard Dawkins (Reader, Oxford University), Replicators and Vehicles, 1982, p.45
?Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but evolved.? ?Francis Crick (Nobel Laureate)
The solution = to describe it as ?Apparent Design?
But you’re all so very right. I am really not knowledgeble as it comes to defending any intelligent design theory, but these guys are and some of them are your own proponents.
I really see it a an argument over naturalism and materialism, thanks you reformation. When people want to do what they want to do and not suffer any more consequence than they feel is right, they open themselves to be their own authority. I am not saying any of you are bad people. I am asking if any one of you, with out writing back and telling me about it or defending it, can ask yoursleves what if i am basing all my rational ideas on a theory of myself as god. that seems to be the question i come to.
And no i was not at that point at least doubting my faith. There is a huge distinction in religion and relationship. (not to sound preachy) I could never assert that gaining a relationship with God was done on my own with intellegence and craft. I am less responsible for that than my physical birth. But if what these quotes say is truth then i am so complex and formed with such design that the designer is at minimal awe inspiring. And worth being sought out as much as possible. I have never thought of any of you as morons, that is reserved for my close friends who are selfish in sole pursuit of the next friday night escapade, with no thought to a future and no care for those around them, but they are my friends so i can say that about them b/c i love them.
I love how most of you guys think you have cornered the market on absolute truth and won’t even give pause to the idea that you could be wrong. That is the most astonishly unscienfic stance ever. I still love y’all but it seems that when stuck in dogmas, you all take the cake.
How about a test. you all read up on ID and creation theory and defend it to me and i’ll do likewise on Evol. and atheism, not to change our minds necessarily but to become less hostile to the opponent. Huh, whatta ya say??
Gotta Run Football is coming on. Please say we agree on that!
won2have
You’ve confused me again.
won2have
Part of my post got cut off. In reference to the above blockquote,
are you saying that we think we are gods?
won2have,
Isaac Newton was a very religious man. He was also very eccentric and not always correct. He spent more time on alchemy and religion than he did on science. Please also bare in mind that he died before the publication Darwin’s ‘Origin’ and therefore cannot be considered to have commented on the theory of evolution as described therein.
The 1600s were very religious times….
Kepler, I know little about. He again predates Darwin (and Newton)so again cannot have considered Darwinian evolution in his quotes.
Jonaton Edwards – from wikipedia
Again predating (mostly) Darwin, and this guy seems to be fervently religious. Surely one would expect Edwards to spew forth such comments as a metter of course?
Please note that none of the above have ANYTHING to say on ID. ID ‘evolved’ in 1987 out of the discredited term ‘creation science’.
William Dembski is one of the 6 or so prime backers of ID. The quote you have chosen has been proved incorrect in every case that ID has proposed including the bacterial flagellum. The concept alluded to is alledged ‘irriducable complexity’. I freely admit that when I first got interested in this topic irriducible complexity was an attractive concept. They (Dembski, Behe, Johnson, etc) build a good case. Fortunately brighter minds than mine have addressed the concept and categorically shown it to be lacking in intellectual rigour.
They have yet to find something that fits into that category (except supernatural gods I guess). What do they say? One must invoke magic.
Your quote from Dawkins should be a wake up call to you. Apparent design does not equate to intelligent design. Of course biological systems are ‘designed’ for their environment, but the key factor is that no ‘intelligence’ need be behind that ‘design’. In the non-magical world natural selection acts as the ‘designer’.
With natural selection one would expect that designs would not be perfect, but ‘good enough’ to survive long enough to procreate. If an omnipotent god were at the helm, one would expect the designs to be a damn site better than they currently are.
won2have,
Okay this just sounds like sour gr_apes. pot.kettle.black if you will. I doubt that anyone here thinks they are in possession of absolute truth. What are fairly sure of is that mystical explanations of natural phenomena are generally weak and unsupportable in the face of rational inquiry. If you are addressing scientific explanations in general, please remember that EVERY scientific conclusion is PROVISIONAL and FALSIFIABLE. In other words they are working solutions waiting for something better to come along.
Hardly a characteristic of having absolute truth.
Religion on the other hand ……
I have already read the bible, Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and various populist authors such as Strobel and Jeffrey. I understand (I think) their arguments and rationale. Fortunately I did not stop there, but also read those that have examined their claims and effectively pointed out the deceptions, and shortcomings in their works.
I’m sorry to sound sanctimonious but I doubt you are currently capable of defending either position. However if you are serious about the topic, I’d suggest reading a little about the claims of ID from a proponent’s position and then reading some critiques of that position.
If you do so I think you’ll find that an honest defense of ID without resort to mysticism is an unenviable task. Certainly not one I would like to undertake.
HZ,
Just a reminder that you are doing a great job and that you are not alone. Please forgive me for not participating,; I have had my fill for now. These theist posts serve only to make me more radical and less likely to suffer their opinions.
remy,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are really prepared to learn something during a debate. Usually I am disappointed.
What does annoy me though is the relucatance to follow up on a point when it’s shown (I think) to be wrong. Rather they just go tothe next hackneyed argument.
There are of course exceptions, when poor reasoning is admitted (on both sides).
Won2have,
I have made the mistake of going back to read some of those posts I missed, wherein I have discovered that I have been referred to by name. It is therefore incumbent upon me to reply.
First of all, I am not acting and, while I know you only from the readings, I can safely say that you are indeed uninformed, ill informed and misinformed. Stupidity is a slippery little animal and if you will pardon the seeming contradiction, I have met quite a few brilliant people who enthusiastically embrace stupidity when they cannot find answers to questions about purpose and existence. Perhaps you are one of these stupid people.
My rancor and tempered hatred of your beliefs should be of some small comfort to you if you believe the following:
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
So, any of my vitriol-soaked opinions about you or your fellows ought to serve to improve your chances of a Pearly-Gate-Pass. Rejoice!
I have to defend Dawkins even though HeatheNZ already has ? he is a hero of mine. The important phrase in this quote is ?look as if? so he is not saying that it was designed. There is a popular quote from Darwin that is like this ?To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.? Darwin goes on to say why it is not absurd ?Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.?
Sorry that is quite a long quote.
I think this is built on the assumption of denying god. I personally have not decided that I would rather there was no god because I want to be my own authority or similar instead it is that I don?t think there is a god.
I love how most of you guys think you have cornered the market on absolute truth and won’t even give pause to the idea that you could be wrong.Oh come on now ? we have not changed your mind any more that you have changed ours (so far) and we are not accusing you of this kind of arrogance. You maintain faith and we maintain a lack thereof. No-one is claiming absolute truth.
It seems like HeatheNZ is well informed on ID (I only know the basics) so I for one would be interested to see the debate you propose if HeatheNZ is willing to take up the torch from our side. Of course I understand if you would rather not ? you are already putting a lot of effort into this discussion.
I have no problem admitting that i totally came into this blog randomly and am no where near prepared to defend, anything really. The reason i have not really camped out on researching a certain defense is that i am talking to like 5 different people with different ideas that i’d have to spend day and night on to make even a dent. therefore, i chose to bring up ideas i thought worth getting your thoughts on and defenses for so i could see how you go at the arguement.
It is an exhausting process mentally and physically. It exhausts my emotions and time and i am trying, so please be patient. I start to write and forget what you guys even have said…sorry i am a poor apologist. i’ll read whatever i have time to and can find to see your side.
This however is not really the suffering that matthew was talking about…i don’t think. and if it is thank god for it. better this than a brutal death on a cross. I fall back on the writer of Hebrews, “it is impossible to please god without faith.” We are at am impass. i am a moron and you have no faith. so i goto heaven an see what i could have learned and done better and you spend eternity separated from the presence of god, gnashing of teeth and all. I do not mean to be trite, well sorta, but this is all a bit much for me at midnight.
I am gonna go read and research ID and evolution. I feel like even if i could give evidence that god exists you’d still not believe, but maybe i am wrong. until i am more educated goodnight – this could take awhile, don’t hold your breath.
Good luck with the research. Feel free to come back and share with us what you find. Nice talking to you.
won2have,
Atheism is an offshoot of skepticism and critical thinking. If you could supply evidence I would change my mind.
Thanks guys talk to you later.
Here’s a thought, until i get back.
If you could live in any other time, and be any person in that time, where would you go and who would you be there?
things that make you go Hmmmm…?