In the news this week ...

https://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/

The Committee of Advertising Practice's claim that this ad placed by the British Humanist Association could cause "widespread and serious offence" is frankly bizarre. The ad is merely telling people that if they are not religious to say so on the Census form.

Does the Committee have a view on the image of a man nailed to a cross with blood pouring out of him? I think it must frighten a lot of children.

It's also good to see Glenn Beck doing his best to further his reputation that a lot of people think he's a right-wing fanatic with little attachment to reality.

Will quite rightly drew critical attention to that website that attempted to claim the earthquake in Christchurch was the fault of a gay ski week. I think it's the responsibility of all journalists with a rational mindset to expose Glenn Beck's outspoken views for what they appear to be; fundamentalist opinions no different to that of the Westboro Baptist Church and their like. He just wraps it up in more mainstream language.

Interesting start to Bibles Buried Secrets on BBC 2 last night. Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou explores the archaeology surrounding mythical stories from the Bible.

@ 2:
Glenn Beck is a Mormon & his views are quite different from Westboro Baptist.In fact, I think virtually everyone's views are different from Westboro Baptist's.
And I still haven't seen any info. on whether the Christchurch earthquake/gay ski weekend website was a hoax or not. Did you find anything about that?

Be sure to check out Martin Bashir's interview with Rob Bell.

I hope all you creationists are taking advantage of the chance to be educated by Prof Brian Cox - Wonders of the Universe
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdhtg

allybalder (@ 6) -

"I hope all you creationists are taking advantage of the chance to be educated by Prof Brian Cox - Wonders of the Universe"

Well, since we keep being told on and on and on and on, blah blah blah blah blah, ad nauseam et ad infinitum that, at heart, reality is founded on the principle of total mindlessness, then I can't really see why we need to bother, can you? I mean: Why?? Please tell me. If reality is ultimately mindless and without purpose, and if our reason is simply the result of mere animal instinct, and if everything (including the views of creationists) is simply the result of materialistic determinism, then I fail to see why you are even asking the question. Just let nature be, and if nature has made some people creationists, then that is what nature has decided. There is no 'right or wrong', 'true or false' about it.

I tell you what... here's the deal:

If Brian Cox, in cahoots with the BBC, can put together a programme without using intelligent input, and only by being faithful to the metaphysics of mindlessness, and if all the information within the programme has been derived from a non-intelligent source, then I might listen to what he says.

But, to be honest, it's a bit unreasonable to expect people to listen to someone who won't even stick to his own philosophy.

Again - *sigh* - it falls to l'il old me to explain to these seriously philosophically challenged materialists what their own philosophy really implies. Hey ho.

LSV,

You seriously need to learn the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

It's quite possible to use the first without believing in the latter.

And again; random and chaotic does not mean without meaning.

It's also sad you're bringing your heavily refuted concepts into another (totally unrelated) thread to use against posters who've not read all the preceding 400 comments.

I am saying no more about this on this thread.

Natman -

I was only responding to allybalder's rather snide comment, before you start dishing out your accusations about going off topic. Or are certain people just supposed to 'take it all on the chin'? As I have said before, if my views are attacked, I will hit back. If you don't like that, then tough luck, mate.

As for needing to learn the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism, all I can say is this: if science is only about 'methodological naturalism', then fine. It's just an intellectual game that tries to work out "what could have happened if matter is all that exists", but with the understanding that, of course, this tells us nothing about what is actually true. So if you want to play an intellectual game of interesting hypotheses, go ahead. But whatever you do, don't come on here giving the impression that your ideas have anything to say about TRUTH.

If you want to talk about the concept of 'truth', then we can do that. The discipline that deals with this subject is philosophy - or more specifically, epistemology.

If you really are only interested in methodology and not philosophy, then I am relieved to know that you acknowledge that science and atheism are completely unrelated. Therefore why are you so obsessed with criticising people who hold to a faith in God? You sound extremely 'philosophical' to me, and not merely 'methodological'!

As for your 'heavily refuted' bluff: these are just words and posturing. Other people can be the judge of whether my arguments have been refuted or not.

You find my contributions 'sad'? Ah, poor little you. I did a little analysis of the 'Christchurch' thread, and guess who has contributed the most posts? Not LSV. Oh no. I was second, admittedly (with 66 posts). I wonder who was first (with 87 posts)? So, Mr 'Evidence', if you want to shut other people up, why don't you set a little example then?

It's just an intellectual game that tries to work out "what could have happened if matter is all that exists.

It would be if it wasn't for all that boring testing and observing and experimenting. Which is where it differs from thinking hard and making stuff up, aka philosophy, or thinking hard and making stuff up about god, aka theology.

And yes, strong empiricism is self refuting. So, the empirical method is the best method we have of approximating the truth unless you have something better up your sleeve you've been hiding all these months.

grokesx (@ 10) -

"It would be if it wasn't for all that boring testing and observing and experimenting."

Good. So where is all that boring testing, observing and experimenting that proves that life definitely naturally self-assembled? I would love to know how you 'test' macro-evolution. I would also love to know what scientific experiment has been conducted that instructs us that we should only interpret the origin of the information content of life in a naturalistic way. What scientific experiment has been conducted that tells us that the concept of 'intelligence' should be ruled out of reality? Please enlighten me on these points. If you cannot provide evidence of these experiments (remember, experiments devoid of any kind of philosophical bias), then I can only conclude that your claims are based, not on experimental science, but on so-called 'made up' philosophy!! Come on then, cough up the evidence, and let's see whether you are telling the truth. I will keep note of your response - or lack of it - and remind you of it henceforth on this blog (that should keep you quiet for the next few years!).

I am aware that this thread is in danger of descending to this state of affairs again, but it should be noted (Natman, take note) that it was not me who provocatively brought up the subject of origins on this thread!

"...making stuff up..."

So 'reason' is something made up, is it? Why then are you so concerned that I should believe a word you say?

Not very good at this, are you, grokesx?

LSV,

(breaking my word here)

"What scientific experiment has been conducted that tells us that the concept of 'intelligence' should be ruled out of reality?

You don't understand. You have to create experiments to show how intelligence is ruled -in-.

Grief, LSV. Scientific Method 101: The basics.

Now everyone let the thread get back to the subject.

Will, I was interested to read the article by Andrew Brown, that you linked to, on 'Enlightenment and Progress' (with reference to David Hume) - or more, specifically, the comments section.

Brown made the point that the years 500 to 1500 AD was a period of "largely illiterate brutality". The first comment picked up on this, and then attempted to divine some kind of anti-theistic message from it: those thousand years..."were exactly those years when Christianity reigned supreme over Europe. Might one be forgiven to think that we all would be better off if we could do away with organised religion once and for all?"

And then it was pleasurable to see a thorough and intelligent refutation of this prejudicial comment in the following posts.

I'll say no more. Others can read it, if they are interested.

Natman -

Re: #12 -

That's a philosophical and not a scientific answer, since it presupposes (without experimental justification) that a naturalistic explanation is the only acceptable one. Therefore the concept of 'explanation' is being pre-defined (again without experimental justification).

Empirical observation can lead to the inference of non-empirical or non-observed causes ('dark matter' being one example. The hypothetical 'Oort Cloud' is another.).

Unless there is further provocation on this thread, I'll stick to other subjects here (you'll be relieved to know!)

Not very good at this, are you, grokesx?

If you say so, but getting you to splutter theatrically at regular intervals more than makes up for it.

So 'reason' is something made up, is it?

Nope, but most of philosophy and all of theology is. That part of philosophy concerned with logical deduction from premises isn't made up, of course, it just unpacks what's in the premises. But most of the premises are made up, anyway.

That's not to say it isn't interesting or valuable, but like fiction, it's ultimately making stuff up.

As for the evidence and other stuff, as Nat says, it's just basic science. You might not like it, but there it is.

Anyway, that dead horse has been flogged enough.

Peter Atkins fells Mary Midgely in this short "science-versus-philosophy" knockabout. Atkins starts by saying there are 3 ways we can acquire knowledge of the world:

1. From holy books;
2. By thinking about what it should be;
3. By going out and seeing what it is.

He argues that the third way is best. Midgely focusses on "non-questions" (eg What is the meaning of life?")and it is the first time that I have heard a distinction being made between "wonder" and "reliable wonder".

It starts 7 minutes from the end of the programme (2:53).

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00zfmqb/Today_17_03_2011

@ 13:
"Brown made the point that the years 500 to 1500 AD was a period of "largely illiterate brutality"
***************************
A "thank you" to St. Patrick & others for making that statement less true.
I saw this in the Irish Times online-Letters to St. Patrick:

https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0317/1224292390196.html

Wishing you all a happy St. Paddy's Day!

grokesx -

In my discussions with you and your gang, I am reminded of the following scene (from something 'made up', but eerily true):

"Let the jury consider the verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

INTERPRETATION:

For "Let the jury consider the verdict", read: "Let people make their own minds up based on reason and evidence."

For "No, no! Sentence first - verdict afterwards", read: "No, no! Condemnation of any non-naturalistic thinking first, based on a circular argument - we'll try to justify ourselves later by appealing to our own biased presuppositions."

For "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!", read: "Enough of special pleading and circular arguments!" said the voice of sanity clearly. "How dishonest it is to define evidence only in terms of presuppositions which have not themselves been properly validated."

For "Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple, read: "Shut up your silly 'goddit' arguments. They don't count. Why don't you just give up and admit you're wrong. La la la...." said the angry fundamentalist, resorting to prescribed 'route one new atheist playbook' put downs.

For "I won't!" said Alice, read: "No, I will not give up my right to express what I believe to be true, based on the reasons I give. Shout and cry as much as you like" said the voice of sanity.

For Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice read: [I leave this interpretation to the conscience of those for whom this little dialogue applies]

Now, grokesx, was that theatrical enough for you, or not?

newlach #16

I listened to the Today link. Loved it!

Loved the answers from Peter Atkins...


I’m an optimist.

There is no meaning.

Being bleak is part of the pleasure of being alive.



I'd say Mary Midgley lost too!

(How do you type your tongue in your cheek?)

On the "Migration and theological method" link- this paragraph stood out for me

"As the migrant said, ʺI crossed mountains and I almost froze to death; I traversed deserts and I almost baked to death; I have been hot, I have been cold; I have almost run out of oxygen inside train cars, but that is not really the hardest part. The hardest part is when people treat you like you are a dog; like you are the lowest form of life on Earth; like you mean nothing to anyone.ʺ

Religion, or lack of it, doesn't seem to effectively tackle this human trait in society. It's so often a *them & us* mentality- what is it about human nature that provokes this reaction. Why does mindless prejudice hold so much sway. It's the same in Ireland,the US, anywhere. It's rarely a question of feeling physically threatened by the person-more of what this exemplifies. Is it that we don't like being confronted with the reality of what humanity living in a state of nature & being a slave to it represents. That- if we withdraw some of the components which make our lives stable, detached from & subjugating nature- we'd be reduced to the same struggle for survival. You only have to look at Japan- one of the richest countries in the world to see how events out of our personal control can put a population on the edge- limited access to food, heating, medicine- all in the space of one week.Less than one week! We're talking days here. There is no heirachy of suffering where someone with food & comfort looks down on another in N.E Japan with the attitude of- why can't you cope with the natural world & life like I can.

We don't like being reminded of our own fragility,we prefer the illusions our comfortable preening society often illicit: that we can rise above nature, subjugate it with a strong civilisation and religious code.It's clear we need to harness science to protect us. We're just not developed enough to stop science backfiring when confronted with a stronger provocation from nature. Yet.

@LSV

Now, grokesx, was that theatrical enough for you, or not?

Deliciously so. I particularly liked the persecution theme. Mind you, just because you've got a complex doesn't mean we're not out to get you. It's well known around my part of the world that as soon as I hear the word "epistemology" I stop polishing my jackboots and reach for my revolver.

Here's an interview with Martin Bashir on his interview with Rob Bell.

Bashir takes Bell to task for his misrepresenting a letter from Martin Luther, you can find more on this on Reformation21 from Carl Trueman, here.

This was an interesting article
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9428189.stm
Yiddish is still widely spoken by hasidic communities. I wonder if Ancient Hebrew has made inroads into these communities, or will ancient Hebrew become an Israeli yiddish and develop into something quite distinct from the ancient Hebrew in texts. Perhaps similar to the relationship between Latin & Italian

What I find annoying in the 2011 census form is that Roman Catholic is down as Roman Catholic, but no designated place except on other just to Protestant. I am 1st and foremost A Protestant and on my census form will be shown the word Protestant. I was born into the Protestant faith and I will die as a Protestant.

Well, on the England census form it says this under "What is your religion?"

Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)

I think it's wonderful that we've all been lumped together. Perhaps it's a subliminal message from the census compilers to remind us to get on with each other. Either that or our mindless squabbles are of no interest to society as a whole!

A salutory lesson, don't you think?

Well said LSV

Here is a link to a truly shocking story involving a church pastor who wrote a book entitled: "Parenting God's Way".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368173/Eleven-years-evil-pastor-tortured-child-slaves.html

It is difficult reading. The explicit nature of the story might mean that it doesn't pass the censor, but it could be easily found.

re: #27 -

BREAKING NEWS...

...There are some evil people in the Christian Church!

Something the Bible reminds us about only too clearly.

So nothing new there.

grokesx (@ 21)

"I particularly liked the persecution theme. Mind you, just because you've got a complex doesn't mean we're not out to get you."

Oh, I can well believe that you are out to get us. People of your ilk have a particular penchant for opposing freedom of speech and undermining someone who was just doing his job - i.e. encouraging students to think critically.

As this victim of academic fascism stated: "If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct."

Is it now a crime to think? Obviously the scientific inquisition says it is.

History has come full circle it seems. Galileo will be turning in his grave.

Oh well. I plod on... ploughing my little freethinking furrow for the cause of sanity.

I'm gonna side with LSV on this one. Not because of any qualms with methodological or philosophical naturalism, both of which I as a pragmatist think are entirely acceptable and non-circular. Basically, I'm a little perterbed by Grokesx's account that philosophy can do nothing more than unpack prior semantic content. At the very least, philosophy remains the domain of the metalogician and the metamathematician.

There is as a result an important semantic and pretheoretic role that needs to be served in scientific enquiry that Philosophy currently fulfils - that of the correlation between the world as it is explored, the mathematical structure we attribute to it in our investigation of it, and the arguments one can make concerning facts about it. In doing this, it's not just "unpacking what's already there" - it's also making clear our commitments to what is there in the first place, and how those carry between premises and conclusions of deductions.

If you think we can make do without any such analysis, and that some intuitive and unanalysed natural-language inference notion suffices for a scientifically rigorous deduction scheme, then I'd be more than a little skeptical about the warrant for your conclusions.

To follow on RJB's point in the Gome's thread, this might be of interest
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/20/celtic-rangers-football-religion-sectarian
If football is a religion to many, the conflict between Rangers and Celtic is its sectarian face.Maybe Pharmaceutical grade E and happy house can help- it helped dissolve hooliganism in England :p. But seriously, maybe the Scottish football association, or FIFA can dismantle the tribalism. Either that or they could have a 50:50 approach to managers and players in terms of their affiliations to Catholicism or Protestantism. Lennon seems to be a good manager of his team- it's a shame that his presence causes so much hatred
This is a good article
https://celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=589:neil-lennon-source-of-all-evil&catid=45:season-2010-2011&Itemid=80

I wonder if this is a foretaste of what could possibly play out in English leagues within next 50 yrs with Muslim communities in places like Yorkshire

"There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct."

Yes, unfortunately for said 'victim', if you want to uphold an alternative, it's got to be properly put forwards.

Besides, his field of expertise was aerodynamics. Biologists don't tell him how a plane flies, he doesn't tell them how their field works. It's quite simple; I struggle to understand why people think that, because it touches on areas normally reserved for religion, they can comment on what is fairly technical science.

He was also a climate change denier, which was probably the main reason he was fired.

Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says.

I'm always dubious of studies into the future, given the number of times that Tomorrow's World always let me down, but whether you like it or not, secularism is on the rise.

I'm not about to predict the end of religion; there will always be some who like to believe, even if it's only to reassure themselves, but there's a fairly clear link between countries with high level of secularism (coupled with a properly functioning democracy) and high standards of living.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, of course, but at some point the p-value is going to be telling.

@33:
Interesting article but I wonder how the study took various religions into account.For instance, how many Moslems answered in the negative re. religion & what might their population growth be in 40 years? Ditto for Catholics, Orthodox Jews & others who are growing in population?
It's a bit different from languages dieing out from lack of use.

Concerning "the end of religion", I don't think the issue is quite as simple as this article makes out. Firstly we have to define what we mean by 'religion'. 'Religious' can be used to describe anyone who believes in the supernatural, whether in terms of traditional Christian belief or in terms of the other major world religions or in terms of the New Age movement etc. 'Religious' can also be used to describe atheists who actually go to church (presumably for cultural reasons, or, as a certain person on this blog would say, for reasons of 'community cohesion'!).

There is actually very little correlation between church attendance and 'belief in the supernatural' in all its various forms. People can say what they like on a census form or as a response to a survey, but atheists would be fools to think that the sense of the transcendental could be eradicated from people's minds and hearts (especially considering that the 'mindless despair' philosophy is not actually a great vote winner anyway!).

If some religious belief system is in decline today, it does not follow that such a decline will continue, either at all or at the same rate. There have been many times in history where the trend has completely reversed. Of course, I suspect that these scientists subscribe to a worldview in which they assume that history is on their side (a fatal position to take!). So the process of history is moving in one naturalistic direction, and therefore it is only a matter of time before their philosophy conquers all. There is no reason at all (even within their own theory of evolution!) why this should be so. There is a kind of philosophical 'hubris' and presumption at the heart of this prediction.

The Communists of the USSR made the same mistake and confidently predicted the demise of religion, as they believed that the march of history was on their side. How wrong they were!

Finally, if belief in God is on the wane, then it is nothing that the Bible has not already predicted - see Luke 18:8. So the atheists should understand that no true Christian will be surprised or troubled at all by this trend.

LSV, again, equating atheism to 'mindless despair'.

Good to see you're not upholding stereotypes there.

Natman -

Fair point.

Let's call it the "nothing more than molecules" philosophy then. That is still not a great answer to people's deepest needs.

You will disagree of course. That is your right, which I thoroughly respect.

An awesome rebuttal from Brian Cox to this article in the Telegraph with regards the insignificance of it all.

Read the article, then scroll through the comment until you find it. I have to say I think Prof. Cox is The Man :-)

@PaulR

Basically, I'm a little perterbed by Grokesx's account that philosophy can do nothing more than unpack prior semantic content. At the very least, philosophy remains the domain of the metalogician and the metamathematician.

Not quite what I said, or at least what I meant. The parts of philosophy that use formal deductive logic are at bottom unpacking premises. I don't think it is particularly controversial to say so. Much of what's left is arguing over the premises using mainly inductive methods - or thinking hard and making stuff up: metaphysics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, epistemology and the rest. I was careful to say it does not mean philosophy is not interesting or valuable - after all the alternative, hardly thinking at all and making up stuff up aka politics, journalism and most of the meeja (the eponymous host of this blog is an honourable exception, naturally) is pretty rubbish.

Regarding metamathematics and metalogic - I had a long conversation with LSV on another thread recently. I think it's fair to say it was not a productive exchange. FWIW, I'd say they are squarely in the field of maths, but with crossover into philosophy and science. Neither unpacking premises or making stuff up, but hey ho.

The philosophy of science is of marginal interest to scientists - "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds" according to Feynman. And regarding:

that of the correlation between the world as it is explored, the mathematical structure we attribute to it in our investigation of it, and the arguments one can make concerning facts about it...

... Hawking was right in saying, pretty much, that it is getting harder and harder for
philosophy to do this because understanding the relevant fields deeply enough is too difficult for non specialists to make meaningful contributions. And lets be honest - there aren't that many who make the effort.

Oh well. I plod on... ploughing my little freethinking furrow for the cause of sanity

That's an interesting definition of sanity you have there, including as it does intimate knowledge of the thoughts of someone you don't know on a subject he has not expressed an opinion on.

Please could someone put me in the picture about 'Godwin's Law' - something about gratuitous camparisons/references to nazi Germany? Why "Godwin' i wonder? And, grokesx, can it be invoked for things like your curious allusion in post #21;

"It's well known around my part of the world that as soon as I hear the word "epistemology" I stop polishing my jackboots and reach for my revolver."

Obviously this is just a sort of 'knowing' dismissal of a branch of learning which you don't respect, but it might be worth bearing in mind that history was not exactly kind to the 'jack-booted' crowd...

Theophane,

re: Godwin's Law.

You're on the internet. Do the research. Or are you so seriously blinkered that you daren't use something like Google in case you find something you find offensive?

Oh yeah, thanks. I wrongfully supposed it was a 'Will and Testament' thing. Mike Godwin, right; a sound observation. Here's another one, though there'll most likely be some disagreement:

There are essentially only two default settings in the human psyche for people who reject belief in their Maker. If you are an atheist, you are either a fascist or a communist.

Theophane,

How do you establish that? it sounds like a baseless accusation. Plus, you say -two- default settings, but there are non-atheists out there who reject belief in a Maker. so that makes three.

Here's one for you:

There are essentially only two default settings in the human psyche for people who believe in a supernatural Maker: If you are a theist, you are either a fundamentalist loon or an anti-intellectual anti-science ignoramous.

See how easy it is to make it up!

Natman;

You could put me in the "fundamentalist loon" category, though i could be an "anti-intellectual anti-science ignoramus" at the same time, something which is very tricky with fascism/communism. Seriously though, i'm such a "loon", i see a relevant message in the name "Godwin". I dimly remember a Spitting Image sketch in which Sylvester Stallone is trying to get backing for a new 'Rocky' film. Someone asks "Who wins?" - "Rocky wins!"
Similarly, we can rest safe in the knowledge that God, always, wins.

Theopane "There are essentially only two default settings in the human psyche for people who reject belief in their Maker. If you are an atheist, you are either a fascist or a communist"

I would disagree with that analysis. It's interesting that fascism took hold in predominantly Catholic countries, such as Italy, Spain, Austria,& inception in Germany in the Catholic South. This is before I even begin to list the countries in South America that had fascist dictators. In terms of the cultural impact of Catholicism on a Societies susceptibility to Fascism- Fascism is able to break right through in Catholic countries . In terms of Christianity, Protestantism seems to equip a nation and its individuals with more resistance to this form of social destabilization & tyranical control. This is perhaps because Protestantism encourages an individualistic interpretation of the world around them. A personal belief system around a central idea, rather than the rigid authoritarian heirarchical prescription of Catholicism. In terms of China and its renewed interest in Religion , especially Christianity , there is more chance of social stability within Protestantism. The Chinese authorities- if they desire the growth and stability of government in Western Protestant countries would do well to steer their population in the direction of Protestantism rather than Catholicism

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"About this blog

BBC Northern Ireland presenter William Crawley discusses the often controversial political, religious and ethical issues of the day."

I do hope the moderator will please keep this description in mind when considering #47...

Theophane,

"BBC Northern Ireland presenter William Crawley discusses the often controversial political, religious and ethical issues of the day." (emphasis mine) does -not- equate to 'I'll say what I want and they have to show it.

I hope it was a well reasoned and justified answer as to why you think all atheists are facists or communists. We're still waiting on that explanation.

Natman;

"I hope it was a well reasoned and justified answer as to why you think all atheists are facists or communists."

That idea needs modification, because i know there are so many people who feel they cannot believe in God. But the so-called `new atheism` offers nothing to replace the Christian civilization to which we are the heirs, except illusory satisfaction from ever-greater abuse of the freedom which God has given us. This has dreadful implications for the very tiniest and weakest members of our society.

@Theophane 50

I preferred the original idea. It seems to encapsulate the nuances of your thoughts perfectly.

Theopane, surely you see the irony in what you write- you can't be this lacking in self awareness. Quote "...This has dreadful implications for the very tiniest and weakest members of our society" yet the Catholic Church has had dreadful implications for the very tiniest and weakest members in society- the sexual abuse rumbles on and on- young lives destroyed.

And here's a quote showing human nature & religious absolute power- mated into a position of total control from only 6 decades ago...

"Catholic extermination camps

In the years 1942-1943 , in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by
Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope.


There were even concentration camps exclusively for children


In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a
Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial
number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha
burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to
have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply
stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated
between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the
killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough
to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching,
to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew
about these events and did nothing to prevent them."


There are many more examples through history, the Spanish Inquisition being one particularly prolonged series of massacres,100,000+alone, who died in prison.
What's remarkable is the length of time the Spanish inquisition & the Catholic Church terrorized Spain. From 1478 - 1834. All in the name of a religious faith. To protect catholicism and its place in the society to the detriment of peoples lives, the enlightenment, science, economic growth. By 1834 Spain was a backwater, the Inquisition had left it spent

Theophane,

I'm seriously beginning to think you're a Poe. No one can seriously think the same thoughts as you and not be extracting the urine on a fairly high level.

"...the so-called `new atheism` offers nothing to replace the Christian civilization to which we are the heirs, except illusory satisfaction from ever-greater abuse of the freedom which God has given us"

You forget, I think, that it was the Enlightenment; a movement -away- from conservative christian values, that gave us the tolerant and just society you take for granted today. In an index of societies with the highest standards of living, lowest corruption values and strong equal right laws are also the most secular. It's a common trend that in societies with strong state religions, or a high level of adherance to conservative religious values, there are high levels of oppression, corruption and crime.

Besides, call me shallow, but I'd rather have illusionary satisfaction with freedom than very real oppression to a dogmatic religious body.

In response to Natman's claim in #53, here's an interesting article on Keir Hardie. It is true that Hardie denounced hypocritical Christians (in other words, false Christians), but he was motivated, not by atheism, but by Christianity. If the Labour movement had been nothing but Marxist (i.e. atheistic), then I am sure our society could have gone the way of the Soviet Bloc, which was a monumental social failure.

Of course, there is nothing within the philosophy of naturalism that tells us that "we must love our neighbour", so it is difficult to comprehend quite how such a philosophy could have any civilising influence at all. But that won't stop the atheists falsely claiming credit for all manner of things (while quietly ignoring - or explaining away - their own atrocities).

LSV,

You really don't get it that altruism has a strong evolutionary advantage, do you?

You also confuse atheism with authoritarian, again.

What I keep seeing here is a relentless Catholic-bashing.
Where's the vitriol for other faiths? Other religions receive dirision, disdain, or neglect but not the truly hateful comments I see online.
Perhaps the Church is doing something right to receive this type of reaction.Free speech or not, you can only wonder what might follow if these comments were directed at Jews or Moslems.

mscracker,

Personally, I have the same level of derision for catholism as I do every other religion (and other supernatural and woo claims). However, the catholic church has opened itself up to higher levels of criticism becayse if its stance on issues such as clergy child abuse, women priests and contraception in AIDS ravaged countries.

mscracker

re- Catholic bashing.

I think your analysis is wrong. Ryan has posted two links on this thread to articles which clearly challenge certain types of Protestants.

I have posted elsewhere on here with similar criticisms. (I have admittedly criticised aspects of the RC Church often on here, but I think justifiably so.)

Atheists are constantly ridiculed on here, (not very successfully IMO. i.e. Theophane.) Liberals constantly get it in the neck from the likes of MCC. They have also displayed a Catholic triumphalism and arrogance which deserves the ridicule it provokes.

The Catholic Church is not served by sweeping its outrages in the past under the carpet. Get it out in the open. And, yes, I would also like to see the same spotlight shone on the anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bile which lurks beneath the surface of the Establishment in Scotland.

I appreciate the responses but it is still my perception that the Catholic Church seems to receive harsher attacks than other denominations or religions in this blog.
And sadly, I do agree with RJB. There is much predjudice still barely beneath the surface.And not just in Scotland.You can find more mannerly versions in the States or England.

Natman (@ 55) -

"You really don't get it that altruism has a strong evolutionary advantage, do you?"

I presume that this comment is your attempt to 'explain' why it is atheism that is the cause of social justice (you've made a rather obscure comment, it has to be said, but I'll try to see quite how it supports your argument. You may want to clarify what you mean).

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the philosophy of naturalism is true and that everything is the result of the evolutionary process (which must be the case, otherwise where else can anything come from, according to this philosophy?).

Well, that means that religion must be the result of the evolutionary process! And therefore religion must confer some advantage for some people. So if atheism is to be credited for the emergence of altruism (because it is the result of the evolutionary process), then I suppose atheism ought to be credited for the emergence of religion also! Which is really absurd, of course, but that is because the evolutionary hypothesis is absurd.

The fact is that, according to your way of thinking, the materialistic process of evolution has produced everything within human experience. The only reason for anything to emerge by this process is if it aids survival. There is no 'right or wrong', 'true or false' about anything caused by evolution. It just 'is'. So why do you criticise religion? Why do you not accept religion (along with every other ideology, including Nazism) as just some people's method of 'survival'?

Now I can imagine what an atheist might possibly say in response to this. It may go something like this... "yes, of course, religion is the result of evolution, but it is a stage in the whole process, and it is one we need to grow out of". That's the kind of 'analysis' I would expect. The trouble with such a view is that it implies that certain people have taken it upon themselves to 'guide' the evolutionary process according to what they consider its correct teleology. Which is rather ironic, don't you think, considering that the whole process is supposed to be unguided and blind?! Furthermore, such a view is authoritarian - something that doesn't have anything to do with atheism - so you tell me!!

Of course, I certainly don't believe that 'religion' is the result of this 'evolutionary process'. Such an explanation is pure fantasy (a view revealed by the illogicality of your position). And altruism can be explained on a completely different philosophical basis.

To quote mscracker 14 in the- " is religion on the way out ?" thread...
"And sometimes the truth may be unpleasant, even "nasty"... "

It's great that you can answer your own points.

Btw, doesn't Pope Benedict want to beatify this wartime Pope?

Quote "The Vatican was well informed of what was going on inside Ustashi Croatia. Not only because the Catholic Hierarchy sent the Pope regular reports, but because the Pope had his own personal representative there.

The duty of the Papal Legate was to send regular and accurate information on the exertions of the Catholic clergy and Bishops. Also on the political and military doings of the Ustashi Government and of its leaders.

Pope Pius XII's representative on the spot was the Papal Legate, Mgr. Marcone, who was accredited to the Ustashi Government and to Pavelic. Mgr. Marcone was minutely briefed on every aspect of the Catholic Hierarchy and the Ustashi

The Catholic Bishops and Archbishops of Croatia gave full support to the Ustashi. Indeed, many of them were themselves Ustashi long before Ustashi Croatia came into being

The Hierarchy were the inspirers of the forcible mass conversions.The higher clergy were no less explicit. Witness Bishop Mgr. Aksamovitcb, of Djakovo, who sent the following proclamation to all Orthodox Serbs in his diocese:

"Up to now I have received into the fold of the Catholic Church several dozens of thousands of Orthodox. Follow the examples of these brothers of yours, send without delay your request for your prompt conversion to Catholicism. By being converted, you will be left in peace in your home...."

For those who refused, or rebelled, the alternative was persecution, arrest, concentration camps, death


Very often, women and children were massacred with the rest.

In the village of Susnjary, for instance, after killing most of the inhabitants, the Ustashi led away about twenty surviving children, whom they tied to the threshold of a barn, which was then set on fire. Most were burned alive. The few who survived, horribly scorched, were then killed. As testified by eye witness Gjordana Friendlender, in the Ljubo Milos case.

On September 13, 1941, several youngsters were impaled. Girls had their breasts cut and their hands made to pass through them. Many died of starvation or disease in concentration camps ran by priests or monks. In this photograph (in link), the surviving women and children of a raided village near Bosanska, Dudica, are being taken to a camp. (1941)"

Ryan, #52

You`ve found "a quote", laced with tabloid-esque anti-Catholic allegations - from where? Some Catholics, without any doubt, did some terrible things; so did some Protestants, and - what do you know? - some Orthodox Christians. You seem to be oblivious however to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Catholics fought and served with very great distinction in the Allied cause. The Spanish Inquisition, like the Crusades, will no doubt continue to be used as a stick with which to beat Catholics for the foreseeable future; and, again, some terrible things were done, but your figures are imaginary and, as so often with the Crusades, there is no effort to see things in their true historical context.

#46;

"It's interesting that fascism took hold in predominantly Catholic countries, such as Italy, Spain, Austria,& inception in Germany in the Catholic South. This is before I even begin to list the countries in South America that had fascist dictators."

It won`t surprise you to learn that Catholics might take issue with this. To quote from an article by Professor Dick Geary in the October 1998 issue of `History Today`;

"Although Hitler's political career began in Munich, in the elections of 1928 to November 1932 the NSDAP [National Socialists] won a higher share of the vote in Protestant than in Catholic Germany. In the Catholic Rhineland and Bavaria (apart from Protestant Franconia) it polled disproportionately badly. In fact in July 1932 the Nazi share of the vote was almost twice as high in Protestant as in Catholic areas. The inability, of Nazis to attract the Catholic vote was demonstrated by the stable support for the Catholic Centre Party, which regularly gained between 11.8 and 12.5 per cent between 1928, and November 1932; and by that of its sister confessional party, the Bavarian People's Party (BVP), which stayed firm at around 3 per cent in those same elections.

In some places, of course, the NSDAP mobilised Catholic voters on a significant scale, as happened in Breslau and Liegnitz (towns in Silesia where conflicts between Germans and Poles coloured political identity), in the Catholic rural areas of the Palatinate, and among some Catholics in the Black Forest; but these cases were atypical.

Surprisingly, the first electoral breakthroughs enjoyed by the Nazis came in Protestant rural areas, such as Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, where peasant voters had earlier registered discontent with their traditional representatives from the DNVP (German National People's Party or Nationalists). In fact this was more than a little ironical, as Nazi propaganda had initially targeted urban workers, and the Nazi agrarian programme developed in 1928 was only in response to the expansion of support in these areas. Subsequently the constituencies with the highest proportion of Nazi voters were in Protestant farming communities..."

Catholic Spain did not side with Hitler - nor did Ireland or Malta - and Poland can reasonably be said to have suffered a `martyrdom` at the hands of the nazis, in the same way (though not quite on the same horrific scale) as did the Jews. A fifth of the population of Poland lost their lives in World War II. No one has mooted the idea that Benito Mussolini was a saint, but Italian Jews were allowed to join the fascist party until 1938, when restrictions were only introduced as a sop to Hitler. The following is from the `Holocaust Encyclopedia` of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum;

"Despite its alliance with Germany, the Fascist regime responded equivocally to German demands first to concentrate and then to deport Jews residing in Italian occupation zones in Yugoslavia, Greece, and France to killing centers in the German-occupied Poland. Italian military authorities generally refused to participate in mass murder of Jews or to permit deportations from Italy or Italian-occupied territory; and the Fascist leadership was both unable and unwilling to force the issue. Italian-occupied areas were therefore relatively safe for Jews. Between 1941 and 1943, thousands of Jews escaped from German-occupied territory to the Italian-occupied zones of France, Greece, and Yugoslavia. The Italian authorities even evacuated some 4,000 Jewish refugees to the Italian mainland. Incarcerated in southern Italy, these Jewish refugees survived the war."

Many people (not only Catholics) would point to the origins of parliamentary democracy in Britain not in the Reformation, but in Magna Carta, irrevocably placing government on the path which led to the neutering of despotism; though King Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell might be cited as examples of leaders who slipped through the net.

South American countries, like Spain, often had to contend with extremely aggressive communist movements, unknown to the UK - largely, i would argue, as a result of the parliamentary democracy which we inherited.

Finally, in the contemporary context, when associating atheism with fascism i mean the rejection by so many (though, O.K., not all) atheists, of the idea that unborn children should have exactly the same human rights as everyone else. The right to life of these people was respected from their own conception, but they imagine that we are entitled to deny this right to others.

Interesting you mention Magna Carta. You're aware there is one Statute that remains on the books today -subjecting a ruling monarch to the law of the land. This is perhaps where the Vatican and the Pope fail. The Pope is seen to be above the law and not accountable to it.
That a war time Pope can be beatified at the whim of the current Pope is farsical. To cleanse the name of Ratzinger's childhood Pope is supressing the reality.
There is a balancing act Theopane.It's clear from history, humanity combined with one all-encompassing religious power equals tyranny.

I also think you downplay the importance of the Reformation in Europe and the role of the Enlightenment that grew from that. As a cultural movement it created a great deal more freedom. Freedom of religion, Science, philosophy, humanist ethics etc.Instead of rejecting everything else in favour of our pre judeo-christian past- we renewed our connection with other strands of our past, such as Ancient Greek thought, Roman architecture and innovation etc

There are uncomfortable parallels between Catholicism and Islam in terms of cultural impact. They stifle diversity. They do not want to sit as "one among many" They want to be dominant - at any cost.

Sorry mscracker but it's the gift that keeps on giving.
From the Daily Mail the priest who helped to convert Tony Blair, Ann Widdecombe, John Gummer and the Duchess of Kent is accused of selling papal knighthoods for money. Of course being the Mail they had to include the following details,
"Fr Seed is on indefinite leave from his order after claims that he marked the 25th anniversary of his ordination in January with a champagne party at a racy club, with entertainment provided by men dressed as nuns."

Theopane, I think your argument to smear Atheism with Fascism etc is weak. It's clear from recent history fascist christians attacked & killed other christians & Jews.These people were Christians- your attempt to disown them doesn't wash. In fact your entire 62, bar the tacked on last paragraph relate entirely to events contained within a Christian culture. If you wanted to understand why people become Atheists & reject religion-esp in Europe- events of the last century are a pretty good guideline. I also question exactly what you understand by the term Atheist. To you it's obviously a dirty word, I wonder how you regard those who are Agnostic- who have rejected organised religion but only because it offers an incomplete answer to them- do you bag them into the same category as Atheists

Saying any one thing in history is responsible for 'the way things are' usually winds up as reductionism. Something to be mindful of.

Having said that, a good place to go for the political development of Europe is the work of Quentin Skinner. Particularly of note is his multi-volume foundations of modern political thought, some of this explores developing Protestant political theory. If you don't want to get his books check out his 'genealogy of the state' lectures on iTunes U, although this doesn't cover Protestantism it does give a good overview of where he's coming from.

The theological and philosophical accounts of modernity go round and round. A radical split between the middle ages and renaissance & reformation isn't always warranted. The same with the enlightenment and postmodernism.

I was reading an account of modernity yesterday that placed the battle between fascism and communism as a battle between the estranged children of Hegel's idealism, one right Hegelianism and the other left. There is probably a good deal of truth in that but I wonder how many of the 'fascists' placed themselves as children of Hegel?

There is often little telling how we have been influenced by others before us. The stakes never burn out and the pitchforks never lay idle.

LSV,

Yes, religion is a product of our own psychology which is itself a product of evolution.

So what?

Crones disease and cancer are by-products of evolution, as is love and music.

I fail to see your point. Evolution isn't conscious, either vindictive nor benevolent. It just is.

I -do- accept that religion is an important psychological tool for a good majority of people, it can provide comfort about the unknown (especially death) and it offers a sense of place, community and identity. It's not, strictly, necessary, but people do like it, along with a great many other things.

I also never claimed that atheism is "to be credited for the emergence of altruism" (?) you, again, are confusing the lack of need for a god in evolutionary theory with atheism. Did I mention -again-?

Finally, your idea that "[t]he only reason for anything to emerge by this process is if it aids survival." displays your utter lack of knowledge about the evolutionary process. Things -emerge- randomly, they're sustained as they confer an -advantage- to propagate themselves to further generations. It doesn't necessarily have to aid survival - the vastly elaborate tail plumage of peacocks hardly aids in survial, but it exists as, for whatever reason, it became part of that species' courtship rituals.

Natman (@ 67) -

You wrote: "I also never claimed that atheism is "to be credited for the emergence of altruism" (?) you, again, are confusing the lack of need for a god in evolutionary theory with atheism. Did I mention -again-?"

Well, I don't know what you were trying to say in #53 then, if you are now backtracking. As I said in my post #60, I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make in #55. As you had made a comment that was completely illogical and irrelevant to your argument in #53, I suppose other people have to try to make sense of what is actually going on in your head. Not an easy task.

You wrote: "Finally, your idea that "[t]he only reason for anything to emerge by this process is if it aids survival." displays your utter lack of knowledge about the evolutionary process."

If I have indeed misunderstood 'the evolutionary process', I can't say that it bothers me too much, in much the same way that I don't lose sleep over a failure to understand the logic of an episode of Dr Who. That's how fiction often works (particularly science fiction) - the plot doesn't always hold together. So don't expect anyone to understand it.

LSV,

*sigh*

Since when did altruism suddenly appear with the Enlightenment?

Why do you always take my posts and twist the meaning around to fit in with whatever point you're trying to make?

Altruism is a proven and observed important evolutionary advantage; you get more in the long run by cooperation and sharing than always taking for yourself.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my post in #53, which was a refutation of Theophanes opinion that our tolerant and liberal society was a direct result of christian teachings; it isn't, it's a result of the Enlightenmant, a movement away from traditional, conservative christian values (not necessarily atheism).

My post in #55 was pointing out that you always, repeatedly, attempt to blame atheism for the evils of authoritarian regimes when such a connection is a strawman at best and a deliberate falsehood at worse. I'm careful never to equate religion with evil, I don't agree that it is inherantly so, and I accept that religion has been of benefit to some aspects of society. Why you feel the need to constantly make the claim that atheism is some form of evil, amoral regime out to kill and enslave is beyond me.

Finally, for now, your final paragraph sums up your entire attitude to a lot of subjects on debate around here; you don't understand it so you don't waste your time trying to understand it and yet feel the need to comment on how, because you don't understand it, it can't possibly be true.

I don't understand a lot of philosophy, however, because you do, and because you use it in debate (quite rightly) I make the effort to understand it and never denouce it as a falsehood because I can't grasp the subtleties.

"What I keep seeing here is a relentless Catholic-bashing."

Here is a story concerning the Western Isles that perhaps shows Catholicism in a better light. On the Roman Catholic island of Barra the swimming pool is open on Sundays, but in the Presbyterian heartland of Lewis it is not. Things may soon change.

A member of the Lord's Day Observance Society when asked to defend his view that public facilities should be closed on Sundays responded by asking whether we should go changing other Commandments such as "Thou shalt not kill".

I hope that sanity will prevail.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12847619

Natman (@ 69) -

You wrote: "Finally, for now, your final paragraph sums up your entire attitude to a lot of subjects on debate around here; you don't understand it so you don't waste your time trying to understand it and yet feel the need to comment on how, because you don't understand it, it can't possibly be true."

Right, Natman, since you're attempting to claim the 'maturity high ground', here's the deal...

If I express regret for my 'rush of blood to the head' in my last paragraph of post #68, will you also do the same concerning your little rant in post #57?

Allow me to remind you of your 'dismissive' attitude to what you don't understand...

"Personally, I have the same level of derision for catholism as I do every other religion (and other supernatural and woo claims)."

Not asking much, am I, Natman? Or does a different rule apply to you?

LSV,

Since when have I expressed the opinion that I either a) don't understand catholism (or any other religion) or b) because I don't understand it, it cannot be true?

In this fair world of ours, the more complex and detailed a subject is generally the more learning is needed to properly either uphold it, or refute it.

Critiquing a religion does not need an advanced degree in theology as the concepts put forwards by said faith (and it's usually the base concepts that are debated) are simple and based upon very explicit sources (ie, the bible). It is only the fine details between specific versions of the same faith (the difference between predestination and freewill for example) that requires some learning in theological or bibliographical areas.

Critiquing science beyond the base requirements of understanding does require levels of knowledge beyond that currently taught in schools to GCSE level or equivelent.

It's perfectly acceptable to profess a disagreement with science, in fact it's encouraged, supported and even needed, as that's how science progresses. However, to do so properly requires a lot of work, original research and it's not enough to simply say 'I don't agree with it'.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with something science upholds, but that if you want to be taken seriously, there's a lot of work to do breaking down all the evidence and theories that have been gathered and proposed so far.

Fortunately (for me), religion is static and based upon rigid and energetically upheld dogmas that have been around for centuries, making criticism of it very easy.

Call this elitism if you want, call it an argument from authority, but that's how science works, it's why science works and it's the process responsible for nearly every tangible, material benefit you take for granted.

Simply put, I won't express regret for my comments in #57, not understanding the science and denying it is not in the same category as thinking religion, astrology, homeopathy and other woo things are bunkum.

@70:
I actually hope the folk on Lewis keep their Sabbath Day the way they feel convicted to.
I'm kind of amazed they have a public swimming pool & all. We don't where I live & it's not even safe to swim in local waters here(too many snakes & gators.)

Natman -

You wrote: "Simply put, I won't express regret for my comments in #57..."

Then neither will I express regret for calling your pet theory science fiction. After all, that is what I actually believe. The theory certainly cannot be 'science', since events of the distant past reconstructed according to a process of speculation based on the demands of a particular philosophy - events which are also untestable (can you test macro-evolution? or abiogenesis without the input of intelligence?) - fall outside the remit of the scientific method.

The true and legitimate science which has delivered material benefits is not the same as the philosophical speculation involved with the 'science of origins'. The two forms of 'science' have to be kept completely separate. The material benefits that I enjoy have nothing at all to do with atheism or any anti-theistic philosophy. In fact, if you know your history of science, you will know that modern science grew out of the soil of the theistic worldview - a view of reality based on order, meaning, reason and intelligence (none of which make sense within the "mindless fluke" philosophy to which you subscribe).

As for 'being taken seriously'... I don't really know what you're talking about. By whom exactly? I am simply expressing what I believe to be true. What other people think about my views is their business. As I have said before, I am only responsible for what I believe, since I cannot control other people's minds (nor do I want to). You have made clear on another thread that people should be honest about what they believe. So you can hardly complain when I state my views! Certainly it is not very honest of me to allow myself to be railroaded into accepting ideas which I think are totally idiotic, such as the self-assembly of life nonsense, or the "anything can happen given enough time and resources" fallacy.

@LSV

...If I express regret for my 'rush of blood to the head' in my last paragraph of post #68...

I wouldn't bother - it simply expresses clearly what is implicit in everything you have ever written on here about science.

...As for 'being taken seriously'... I don't really know what you're talking about. By whom exactly? I am simply expressing what I believe to be true. What other people think about my views is their business. As I have said before, I am only responsible for what I believe, since I cannot control other people's minds (nor do I want to)...

Naah. We are all responsible for a whole lot more than that, even languishing in the comments on some blog that hardly anybody will read. Either a god or (somewhat more likely, IMO) evolution has furnished us with the means to communicate our beliefs and also the means to dissemble, misdirect, misrepresent, obfuscate, baldly retreat, pretend expertise we don't have, tell half a story, rehash arguments that have been challenged a million times, exaggerate, parade our cognitive biases as virtues, provoke and antagonise and then innocently ask, "Who me?" and even downright lie. We are responsible for all that, too. Didn't your sky daddy teach you anything?

grokesx -

As per the rant in your last paragraph: you accuse me of lying and deceit. Evidence please?

As for 'antagonising', nooooo, atheists would NEVER do such a thing, would they?

Perhaps if you want a sensible mature conversation then why don't you actually engage with the arguments, instead of throwing ad hominems at people when their views are not to your particular liking? Attacking the person is the ultimate in intellectual cowardice and shows the world how wrong you are.

I admit that I tend to resort to sarcasm at times - and maybe it's a weakness - but it is not exactly easy when there is never a level playing field on this blog. You atheists think you can insult others with impunity and then kick up a fuss when you get the same treatment. I find it pathetic beyond comprehension. Just grow up, will you.

@LSV

You can't have it both ways, mate. Either we are are responsible for what we say and how we say it or we aren't. If you actually meant what you said in #74, then #76 is just manufactured anger, because what you think about my views is your own business and nobody else's. If you didn't mean it, well lying and deceit covers it. Either way, you're stuffed.

And in your froth, you may not have noticed that I haven't accused you of anything. I have just mentioned a bunch of things that "we" are responsible for. You supplied the connection between them and you.

Just cheap, rhetorical trickery on my part, of course. But you've been arguing at that level for a while now, I'm surprised you fell for it.

LSV, post 76,

"you accuse me of lying and deceit. Evidence please?"

As grokesx noted he didn't directly accuse you, but even if he had there would have been a case for the charge of dishonesty against you.

We could look at all the times you made erroneous scientific claims while preaching the gospel of anti-evolutionism. Claims that were easily shown to be wrong. Claims you didn't dare stand up for, even when challenged to so repeatedly. Yet some time later you went on to repeat them, as if you hadn't been shown wrong at all over and over again.

Knowingly repeating things you know are wrong can be called deceitful. You know what I'm talking about. Things like irreducible complexity of replicating systems, probabilities reducing with time, dark matter, the undfined crrationist jargon that is Specified Complexity. How many times have I challenged you on these subjects (that you yourself brought up)? Or the inverse correlation between scientific achievement and religiosity. How many times have you had the honesty to come clean on any of these? Never. You cling to whatever tiny bit works out for you, or go on a tangent, set up a straw man, but most importantly: ignore the overwhelming load against you.

Why shouldn't people charge you with dishonesty? You've given them all the ammo they could ask for.

grokesx -

"Just cheap, rhetorical trickery on my part, of course."

Now we know where you're coming from. Thanks for that. And yes, I did fall for it, because I am no fool, and I know exactly what you were saying (it's not that hard to work out from your other contributions on this blog).

I may not agree with Natman on just about everything, but at least he tries to engage with the issues. It's a pity that the same can't be said of you. It seems that for you debate is just a word game involving cheap point scoring. Sad.

PK -

"Knowingly repeating things you know are wrong can be called deceitful."

Except I do not 'know' that these things are wrong. You are now being deceitful by assuming that I 'know' that I am wrong. How do you know that? You have never presented convincing evidence to prove your position; all you have ever done is provide a theory as to how conceivably something can be explained in accordance with the philosophy of materialism.

And when I question your methodology from a philosophical point of view (remember philosophy deals with issues of 'truth'), you simply dismiss my arguments as sophistry (or some such wording). You dismiss a whole area of expertise, just because you don't understand it.

If you think I am just ignoring evidence, then please provide just ONE piece of evidence that PROVES that your view of reality is correct. I am not asking for hypotheses that can show that certain events COULD HAVE happened. I am asking for PROOF as to what DID actually happen.

If you cannot provide that, then your accusation against me is fraudulent.

@LSV

Mate - we came a long time ago to the point where any meaningful dialogue is impossible and your Dr Who-ology simply illustrates it, as do your repeated assertions that nothing anyone can say will ever convince you your arguments from personal incredulity can possibly be wrong.

You have turned away from any discussion about the weaknesses in your own epistemological position and discussion of metalogic. Your unsupported assertions still stand, still unsupported and your appeals to consequences hang in the air, probably wondering how backward causality works. And that's in your own "area of expertise". The other guff lifted from Casey Luskin and pals at the Discovery Institute is just following another well worn rhetorical strategy, "Repeat it loud, repeat it often and sound confident. And if you can't sound confident, assume the attitude of a whipped puppy and claim persecution instead."

LSV,

"Except I do not 'know' that these things are wrong. You are now being deceitful by assuming that I 'know' that I am wrong. How do you know that?"

It's very easy if you look at some numbers about when you responded and how you responded, in the things we've been debating recently.

I challenged you on 4 scientific claims you made in the service of your anti-evolutionism and general anti-science position (irreducible complexity of self-replicating systems, chances for abiogenesis decreasing with time, the ill-defined creationist jargon that is Specified Complexity and dark matter). Despite what may add up to a dozen or so reminders by now, you have always run away from answering any of those 4 (except for your diversions to unrelated webpages or pdfs on different subjects). There also was the issue of believing scientists. You successfully managed to refute one data point there, out of 4, thereby not doing an awful lot to refute the overall point of scientific achievement being inversely related to belief. So you have managed something like one fourth out of 5 issues, or some 5% of the things I've challenged you on.

Let's now consider how you reacted to that. Boy oh boy did you go on a gigantic self-congratulatory smug-fest about that little bit you got right. So even if you can only crawl away in silence on almost everything and get only such a tiny bit right, you make some of the loudest noise about it ever heard on this blog.

The fact that I've silenced you on about 95% of the issues (all of which, it has to be said again, were issues you chose to bring up) shows you are well aware that you're almost completely empty. Because you have demonstrated that if you thought you were right on any small bit of that 95%, we'd all be hearing it in a deafening manner.

So you're wrong on practically all of it, and you know very well that you are.