The God Delusion

[DjDan]

Heh, you guys are always the same. You're trying to bring everything to a pointless debate, and in doing so... try to belittle me as stupid. I am far from stupid, and know exactly how things work here.

 

To be frank, you act stupid. Everyone here who's prepared to counter your bullshit does so by asking and challenging you various things, all of which you ignore, you either can't answer them, or are too stupid too.

 

 

utter crap. no one on here constructs any reasonable argument against religion (which has often been the debate). It all boils down to 'you are religious..... THEREFORE you are stupid'.

 

May I remind you, there was no debate here abou evolution. You people never actually read the postings before you reply. I mentioned evolution as an example. Other people confirmed that evolution is a correct example... because it is not accepted as 'fact' in science.

 

Just for your information, my wife believes in God too. She knows more about this stuff than anyone here.. strange isn't it? In your pathetic minds though, all you'd blurt out would be 'she must be stupid, cause' she believes in God'. Evolution is far from fact. But like I said, no point in discussing that with you.

[ai_Droid]

utter crap. no one on here constructs any reasonable argument against religion (which has often been the debate). It all boils down to 'you are religious..... THEREFORE you are stupid'.

 

Does chinahand or Dr Daves posts fall into that category? You just wrap yourself in your curtain of smugness after people are prepared to spend time to challenge your frankly idiotic assertions. This is the behavour of someone who has no answer for the concepts they're challenged with, you're putting your fingers in your ears and saying 'lalaalalala'. It's pitiful.

 

May I remind you, there was no debate here abou evolution. You people never actually read the postings before you reply. I mentioned evolution as an example. Other people confirmed that evolution is a correct example... because it is not accepted as 'fact' in science.

 

This is a discussion forum, you made a bollocks statement, it was challenged, that is a debate.

 

Just for your information, my wife believes in God too. She knows more about this stuff than anyone here.. strange isn't it? In your pathetic minds though, all you'd blurt out would be 'she must be stupid, cause' she believes in God'. Evolution is far from fact. But like I said, no point in discussing that with you.

 

Nobodys saying you're stupid because you believe in god. Nobodys saying your wife is stupid. We're saying you're stupid for making up bullshit without being able to back it up.

 

Answer what's been put to you, why does your wife work as a science teacher if nothing in science can be proved 100% as fact? Or is all science ok as long as it's not contradicted by the bible, or that convicted conman you follow?

[Miss Take]

Also from the Manx Forums debate which has been going on for some time, it is pretty obvious that whatever you believe cannot easily be changed.

 

Not true - as Mr Dawkins himself has said - if proof could be shown that there is in fact a God, he would throw in the towel straight away.

 

 

DjDan - a few years ago, a couple of finely dressed, scrubbed up American boys knocked on my door and wished to talk to me about all things Mormon - when I said that I was an atheist, their very next question to me was 'oh, what awful things have happened in your life to make you into a non believer?' I found that pretty damn patronising as you can imagine, so as a form of payback I ask of you...

 

What thing happened in your life to make you such a vehement believer?

 

And why do you continually ignore the more articulate posts such as Chinahand's and concentrate on the more inflammatory ones?

[Chinahand]

Heh, you guys are always the same. You're trying to bring everything to a pointless debate, and in doing so... try to belittle me as stupid. I am far from stupid, and know exactly how things work here.

 

For your information, I am not going to waste hours discussing the theory of evolution, the strengths, and flaws of the idea. Like I said, my wife is a biology teacher, with significant biology degrees.. yes plural. I hardly think it necessary or even worthwhile to discuss the matter with you. As I remember it, I was asked to name an example of something taught by science as if it were fact. I mentioned evolution as that example, which example, stands firm.

 

Slim, i know very well the logic behind science and all this... 'fact', 'theory' blah blah. Evolution is far far far from fact... (a lot further than other scientific teachings) yet in schools, it is taught as a FACT. That is the point. The complaint was that religion is taught as a fact.... i make the contrast to this scientific idea, which is also taught as fact. You may say religion is not fact, and I agree. But to make complaint there... you also need to accept the complaint that evolution is taught wrongly in our schools. Pupils are taught evolution as if it were proven.. when yet, it is not.

 

Djdan - as ever with your posts we have reached an impass - you are refusing to explain, or extend your ideas, and are just stating your position is correct.

 

Unfortunately other members of this forum disagree with you.

 

You say evolution is taught as a fact when it is only an idea. But so is quantum theory, or relativity. All three theories can be and will be improved over time - quantum theory cannot explain gravitational effects over long distances, relativity fails at small scales. All three theories are wrong, but in a scientific way - they are the best ideas we have to explain the evidence [facts] we have.

 

You say evolution is taught as fact in schools - I'll agree with that. I'll also agree that the evidence presented in schools is simplified - controversies aren't explained in detail etc. The same is true with physics - kids will be told the earth circles the sun, then they'll be told it circles in an elipse, if they've got a very good physics teacher they might then be told that the influence of jupiter and the other planets causes this perfect arrangement to break down with the actual orbit having all sorts of pertibations etc.

 

Now lets get back to evolution - what are you saying? You've robustly told us it’s taught as a fact, but it’s only an idea.

 

But the variation of species over time IS a fact. Moths, butterflies, finches, trees in Kew Gardens have all been observed to do this: including specification events - the best documented new species are in butterflies and trees.

 

These living examples are then complimented by the fossil record and the genetic information the living descendents of these fossils adds even more examples.

 

Are you saying I am lying in the above few lines?

 

The exact mechanisms of these variations is complex and an active area of research - genetic drift, sexual selection, natural selection etc.

 

But the simple fact is evolution is an active and successful area of science that is producing useful research. You couldn’t work on HIV without understanding evolution, or understand how an ecosystem develops over time.

 

You seem to be saying evolution is fake and that children are being lied to in schools. If that isn’t what you are saying it would be helpful for you to clarify your remarks.

 

But to go: “you said show something taught in schools as a fact which isn’t: I say evolution: I win.”

 

Well it isn’t very helpful is it! But is very consistent with your posting style.

[Chinahand]

I do not know any religious people who actually believe the Creation account in Genesis. It is regarded as a myth. The earth is some 4.5 billion years old, not the few thousand that Bishop Ussher spoke about.

 

Charles, that pleases and interests me. My experiences mainly come from South Africa, the US, and to a more limited extent the UK. In the spectrum of beliefs I've encountered I've been shocked by the percentage of creationists, especially in SA and the US.

 

In my experience the idea of Evolution skepticism is a growing phenomenon – its almost become fashionable to be able to spout inanities about Intelligent Design etc.

 

Out of your Christian colleagues how many would be able to accept this statement:

 

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

 

It comes from the Steve Project run by the National Centre for Science Education in the US.

[Charles Flynn]

I do not know any religious people who actually believe the Creation account in Genesis. It is regarded as a myth. The earth is some 4.5 billion years old, not the few thousand that Bishop Ussher spoke about.

 

Charles, that pleases and interests me. My experiences mainly come from South Africa, the US, and to a more limited extent the UK. In the spectrum of beliefs I've encountered I've been shocked by the percentage of creationists, especially in SA and the US.

 

In my experience the idea of Evolution skepticism is a growing phenomenon – its almost become fashionable to be able to spout inanities about Intelligent Design etc.

 

Out of your Christian colleagues how many would be able to accept this statement:

 

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

 

It comes from the Steve Project run by the National Centre for Science Education in the US.

 

 

Personally I do not know any who do not accept the main tenets of evolution even though of course like all scientific theories the details may change as more evidence appears. I have accepted it since I did S level Biology at school. I am totally against pseudo science being introduced in school with the pretence that it is evidence based although I am in favour of religious/philosophical education. I believe most of my colleagues accept this

 

"The Bastard" asked can you be aChristian without believing in Christ - the answer is No and also queried my mention of "myth" in the Creation story of Genesis. To put the record straight on this a myth in theological discussions can have four nuances.

1. A myth may be a story which attempts to explain the origins of things without the use of modern historical and scientific investigation.

2.A myth may depict some aspect of human experience in the form of a story about the past.

3. A myth may be a story which is presented in terms of some symbolism and thus has a poetic or emotional appeal and is capable of reinterpretation in the light of fresh experiences.

4. The term is often used to refer to any kind of story which involves the gods or other supernatural actors.

 

To say as I did that the story is a myth is not to pronounce on its historical truth or falsity. It is simply saying something about how it functions ( just as a parable may be historical or fictional).

 

I cannot see Richard Dawkins changing his tune (nor do I expect him to) as he has too much intellectual capital tied up in his ideas that God does not exist. However I would like him to broaden his appeal on the public understanding of science rather than appearing to concentrate on one topic most of the time.

[ai_Droid]

I cannot see Richard Dawkins changing his tune (nor do I expect him to) as he has too much intellectual capital tied up in his ideas that God does not exist. However I would like him to broaden his appeal on the public understanding of science rather than appearing to concentrate on one topic most of the time.

 

Showing your ignorance of Dawkins work there I'm afraid, expecially given his latest series on TV is exactly what you said it should be.

[Dr_Dave]

I cannot see Richard Dawkins changing his tune (nor do I expect him to) as he has too much intellectual capital tied up in his ideas that God does not exist. However I would like him to broaden his appeal on the public understanding of science rather than appearing to concentrate on one topic most of the time.

 

I like the perpetual misrepresentation of Dawkins, it presumably makes his (very sensible, very defensible) positions easier to dismiss.

 

For the record, Dawkins doesn't think that God doesn't exist. He describes his belief as "God may exist, but I see no evidence for it, so will live my life as if he didn't". There is a chapter in The God Delusion entitled "Why God Probably Doesn't Exist". These positions are very different from the outright indefensible "God does not exist" that many theists claim to be his views.

 

Science does not, nor has it ever, ruled out the possibility of a creator.

 

Dave

[Charles Flynn]

Ignorance is bliss and I have no problem with it! Apologies to Prof Dawkins if I have misrepresented him but I rarely watch him. My impression comes from newspaper headlines which he generates presumably for publicity. Sensationalism and science do not mix comfortably. If he is broadening his public persona and restraining some of his sensationalist appeal, I believe it is a step in the right direction.

 

This appears in today's Guardian. It is a story told by Roy Hattersley whilst in Pakistan. as a guest of Benazir Bhutto:

 

"The head of Pakistan International Airlines, a former air chief marshall, was among the guests, and I could not resist the opportunity to ask him a contentious question. Earlier in the day I had been told - whether correctly or not I cannot say - that, according to the Qur'an, the sky is a blue carpet held over the Earth by Allah, and the stars His light which nothing could obscure.

 

I thought that the idea was much more attractive than the explanation that I had been taught in schoolboy physics, but I could see that it might raise problems for devout believers. So, as the dinner progressed, I raised the subject of pious pilots. How did they deal with the idea of the carpet in the sky? There was, the airman gravely replied, no difficulty. "They believe one thing up there and another down here." Bhutto, in her most serious voice added: "These things can always be worked out."

 

So can things be worked out? I believe all learning is valuable and each of us can make our own minds up about what we wish to take part in or indeed have our children study provided we are aware that a restricted diet inhibits mature development.

[Dr_Dave]

"...

I thought that the idea was much more attractive than the explanation that I had been taught in schoolboy physics, but I could see that it might raise problems for devout believers. So, as the dinner progressed, I raised the subject of pious pilots. How did they deal with the idea of the carpet in the sky? There was, the airman gravely replied, no difficulty. "They believe one thing up there and another down here." Bhutto, in her most serious voice added: "These things can always be worked out."

 

Heh, very interesting.

 

I think this is a very astute illustration of what is happening in the heads of most people who claim religiosity, especially moderates. I was having a conversation with my mother a few months ago, funnily enough about The God Delusion. We got to talking about origins and I asked her what she believed. She, a theist of the "there must be something" school of thought, said "well, I know that we came from monkeys and that Adam and Eve were the first people". Then she looked confused, as though she'd never tried to reconcile the two ideas before. After a minute or so, she said "well, one of them must be wrong I suppose".

 

People seem to have a cognitive dissonance happening about this stuff. We grow up from birth with fables about virgin births, resurrections or miracles taught to us as historical fact. We celebrate Christmas, and sing about angels. While at the same time we have science and rationality taught to us and we learn from common sense what is plausible and what isn't.

 

Religion, Abrahamic religion in a literal sense specifically, like it or not, simply isn't plausible, not according to every measurement we have. Yet people have this from-birth conditioning that causes them hold implausible ideas alongside plausible ones. From mild cases like my mother, to extreme cases like creationists (djdan? I'm not sure how deep his belief goes). I think it's tempting to believe that religiosity is a wilful embrace of ignorance, and it is to a certain extent, but I also think the deeply religious are no more responsible for their deeper beliefs than diabetics are responsible for having diabetes.

 

The undercurrent of what Dawkins says, for the record, is that we should stop this indoctrination and instead encourage kids to find their own way. He doesn't want to create atheists, or agnostics, or prevent people from being theists. He just wants people to get where they're going under their own steam. Surely this is what a God would want too?

 

Dave

[Charles Flynn]

I can go along with your last observation. I think sometimes we try too hard to force what we believe on to others - and that goes for all shades of opinion. Perhaps "live and let live" would be a better way.

[VinnieK]

DjDan: You keep mentioning your wife's "significant" degrees biology, presumably with the intention of suggesting that you've access to expert knowledge on the subject. If this is the case you'd be better off actually consulting her and using this knowledge to support your argument instead of repeatedly stating your case and hoping that mere mention of your wife's credentials will magically lend it credibility.

 

Also it has to be pointed out that:

 

a. it's entirely possible to sit through an undergraduate biology degree (and indeed a masters) and receive only the most basic of introductions to the theory of biology. For all we know your wife may be a wizard with plant biology, entomology, microbiology, or what have you, but have no better understanding of evolution than a grasp of basic 10 week fresher's material.

 

b. in terms of arguing with established theory, an undergraduate and masters is really no big deal. So you report your wife says evolution is taught as fact when it shouldn't be; it wouldn't be that hard to find an actual working biologist, with more qualifications, who says it should, being sure to meet every one of your requests to explain and justify our position with a celebratory "ahh, our mate did a PhD, and he says we're right!".

 

In short: Either argue the point directly or get out of the thread. Simply reiterating your position over and over and invoking your wife's career history whenever you get into a spot of bother is not an argument, it's an embarrassment.

[Charles Flynn]

Richard Dawkins in an interview with Time said

 

"My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

 

The Big God Theory!

[DjDan]

Hey everyone, I have an idea. Before talking more crap (as if i'm interested), why not read my initial post?

 

gee.... what about the problem of scientific theory being taught, without clearly defining which is a theory and which is proven?

 

Read what you just said, can you see how stupid it is? What unproven science do you think is daught Dan?

 

 

Evolution.

 

It's clearly taught as a fact... when yet, it's nothing more than an 'idea' or in other words... a theory.

 

 

Oh.. look at that! For those of you who can read, I was asked a question: "what unproven science do you think is taught Dan?". I answered "Evolution".

 

Quite simple. What just happened there? >>> 1) asked a question 2) answered a question (point blank).

 

What do we not have there?? >>> a debate about evolution, the strengths and the weaknesses. I am not entering a debate. I Like I said, I have no intention on wasting my time. I have better things to do with my life. Say what you will. Being married to someone who knows a lot about it, you do actually learn too. You guys should try it sometime.

 

Going back to my initial point ~(confused? see above)~.... evolution is an idea far from accepted in science. Yet in our schools, it is taught as a fact. Further to the comments on religion, the same also applies to science. When the kids are taught, they should also be told that it is not fact (because some of them.. don't realise that). That is my point..

 

Thank you.

[Gladys]

Damn sight easier to understand than creationism.