We've all heard of Black History Month, but have you heard about Atheist Bashing Week? It was Atheist Bashing Week for me as I did three debates over the past seven days with a new crop of leading atheists.
First on Monday April 21 I debated philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong at Dartmouth before a large crowd. The 500-seat auditorium was full so they used an overflow room, which had hundreds more watching on a big screen. This was a scholarly debate in which Sinnott-Armstrong distanced himself from what he portrayed as the crude atheism of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Against this village atheism, well represented among atheists who comment on this blog, Sinnott-Armstrong offered a more dignified atheism that he said recognizes the accomplishments of Christianity. In one revealing moment he event said schools and colleges should teach students that the crimes of Christianity, like the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials, pale before the crimes of atheist regimes like those of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Overall this was an elevated debate, one of the more high-toned ones I've participated in.
Then on Tuesday April 22 I debated Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation at Harvard. Here the audience was smaller, because Harvard is launching into final exams. But the debate was very sharp and lively. We didn't do the traditional opening statements followed by rebuttals and cross-examination and so on. Rather, a student panel posed questions to both of us, and we each answered, with the other person than having a chance to reply. This format suits me very well, and I found myself being able to develop arguments about epistemology and science more fully than in other formats. Later the atheist students who organized the debate complimented me on my performance, and one said that I had made numerous arguments that he had never thought of, and that were compelling him to rethink (although not abandon) his atheism.
Finally on Friday April 25 I debated the controversial Princeton philosopher Peter Singer at Biola University. This was the biggest event, with more than 2,500 in attendance. Since Biola is a Christian campus, the majority of those present were believers, although atheists were represented too. The Christian students treated Singer extremely well, which is not always how theists are received when they show up on secular campuses. I went first and focused on Singer's extreme views, such as his proposal that parents be allowed to kill their children up to the age of 28 days. Singer also thinks America and the West can learn from non-Western societies, not to mention ancient Greece and Rome, where children were routinely killed at much higher ages. Oddly enough this champion of infanticide and euthanasia also favors animal rights!
If this seems like a strange combination, the apparent paradox is resolved when you discover Singer's logic. Singer argues that we human beings are Darwinian primates. We are on a continuum with the other animals. It is Christianity, Singer charges, that came into the world and elevated human beings on a pedestal. It is Christianity that proclaimed that man is in the image of God, and that creation is for man's benefit. These ideas gave rise to the special dignity of man and human rights and moral principles such as "It is wrong to deliberately take human life." Singer thinks that now that we know God is dead, we should get rid of these principles and replace them with utilitarian considerations more in keeping with our animal nature. In a sense Singer is taking up Nietzsche's challenge--to rid our civilization not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality--and his homicidal conclusions, which many people find horrific, are only a working-out of his atheist logic.
Surprisingly Singer didn't want to talk about any of this during our debate. In a way I can see why: who wants to defend killing three-week old infants in the presence of a largely-Christian audience! Instead Singer wanted to argue about why a just God allows suffering in the world, not only the suffering of children but also of animals. I didn't want our debate to be like two ships passing in the night, so I happily engaged Singer on those issues. He is a lucid and gentlemanly debater, and he complimented me for eschewing Bible citations in favor of reason and logic and history and science in developing my arguments. I praised him for having the guts to come to a Christian campus and debate me, quite a contrast from the invertebrate Richard Dawkins who seems terrified to take me on even at his native Oxford.
All these debates will soon be up on the web. I have now debated six leading atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dan Barker, and Peter Singer. Hitchens and I already have a couple of rematches scheduled, and Singer has agreed to a second debate on the East Coast. I am also planning a debate next year with Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. The mathematician John Allen Paulos, author of the new book Irreligion, has approached me about debating and we are looking for the appropriate venue. Over the next few years I am hoping to assemble the most extensive existing archive of "God v. Atheism" debates. Many churches are already showing these debates in order to educate and instruct believers. I wonder if atheist groups will have the confidence to air them at their conferences.
So far no takers though. And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: "Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh." Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarassing himself and destroying his public reputation! Won't it be hilarious if the "party of faith" is unafraid of opposing arguments while the "party of reason" cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.
Reader Comments ( Page 58 of 61)
856. emendozajun, and yet you would have me believe that your deity can twink himself in and out of the measurable universe as he pleases. Sorry, this is fantasy.
JefFlyingV at 10:24PM on May 2nd 2008
857. @859:JefFlyingV: I respect your view. Thanks.
emendozajun at 11:51PM on May 2nd 2008
858. "But its wrong to seek physical evidence of that which is universally agreed, at least on this thread, is not physical." - emendozajun (or is it Dinesh D'Souza?)
NONSENSE. BULLSHIT. MIND POO. GARBAGE. Not true. Void.
emendozajun, you are stuck in "agreement reality", well really "agreement of fantasies" that you construct. Agreement reality is NOT reality, it's just your agreement about reality - and nobody cares about it but you and those that agree with you, that is why there are 2,500+ gods that humans have invented to comfort them from the abyss of death that inescapably awaits us all. Just a few more orbits of Earth (Ocean)... count to a hundred and see how far you get...
Reality is the only true arbitrator of reality - so to speak (no personification intended but due to limits of human language an entity is required for the sentence).
In other words have your fantasies emendozajun all you want, in the end you'll die like the rest of us and that will be the end of it. No magical 72 virgins for you or whatever other prize you think you'll be getting.
You can postulate any possibility you want. Without proof it isn't real it's just a possibility and those are not even worth anything unless you make it real or unless it has a correlation to reality. The proof is what is required otherwise you're just jerking your mind off with a fantasy.
As for you, emendozajun, whatever.
ANY AND ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT REALITY THAT DON'T CORRELATE WITH THE ONE OBJECTIVE REALITY MEANS THAT YOU ARE DELUSIONAL ABOUT THOSE THOUGHTS ESPECIALLY IF YOUR BELIEVE OR HAVE FAITH THAT THOSE THOUGHTS ARE TRUE. THIS IS AN INESCAPABLE TRUTH THAT NO BEING CAN AVOID. YOU ARE TRAPPED IN THE ONE OBJECTIVE REALITY THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN. THERE IS NO ESCAPE.
THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE OTHER THAN ROTTING FLESH AND DUST.
Now you might argue with other peoples views about reality, but reality will prevail. The only real question is will you live your life with a maximum of delusions adding to them all the time OR will you live your life eliminating delusions of your own and others and make a positive difference in the world while you can, while you are alive?
You might not like to hear about the one objective reality and about methods (outlined in my many posts here and by many scientists around the world) but that doesn't matter. The choice is yours. Do you create your reality based on notions that you can't prove or do you live your life based upon evidence based upon well tested and known laws of nature that any of us can test ourselves. The choice is yours.
God is a hypotheses proposed by those who want to define and shape reality to the notion that there is an invisible and very grumpy overlord that you should bow down to and obey OR ELSE you'll be punished for ALL eternity (that's a long time if you hadn't noticed).
I choose to find out what reality, the one objective reality we live in, you know, the place where your heart beats, the place where you blood, prescious blood flows through your veins, the place where you see, hear, love, replicate, eat and deficate. That's reality. I choose reality over mythical super beings.
If that means that mythical super beings will punish me forever then bring it on!
If that means that some mythical super being, say Zeus, will appear and choose to crush me or choose to force me to beg for my life, bring it on Zeus or Jesus for I'll spit in your face as I'll never bow down to any super being. None.
Why would anyone want to worship a god. This is one question that religious types never answer, other than to say that they'll be rewarded. It's like they are getting paid to whore-ship their god. That's the oldest profession isn't it?
It's shocking why any self respecting human being would offer themselves to a super being and prostrate themselves in servitude.
It's very shocking indeed.
Choose life free of totalitarian dictatorship of a god.
I choose life free.
If you think that there is more than one objective reality please provide proof. You can't so enjoy your wet dream about it and leave the rest of us alone going about our lives within the confines that nature provides and allows for (no entity nature is intended here, that's just an artifact of human languaging).
Splat. Oh, Iron Man just splattered on the inside of his suit. Darn, that sure shortens the movie. Oh well, reality bits. Good thing though that film makes don't let reality stop their stories. It's just too bad that those religious nut jobs are also just con men story tellers. At least with movie makers you know what you are getting and that they only want a few bucks out of your wallet and they'll leave you along till their next film. Those religious nut jobs actually want you to subvert your precious mind and pollute it with their delusional beliefs and faithful poison. Shame on them. Yea for movie makers. Actually Iron Man was pretty darn good, worth the $12.50 for a few hours of escape from reality. Now back to it... emendozajun stop the mind poo as your life will just smell better.
Peter at 4:23AM on May 3rd 2008
859. "There's whole world of laws out there that have existed even before anything began and will remain after our "objective reality" is completely finished." - emendozajun
Ah, no. It's us that will vanish. Objective reality will continue on without any observers (at least no observers from Earth) and eventually no observers at all (from any and all species in the universe).
The problem emendozajun is that you think that I'm talking about "perception of reality" that each of us has rather than an objective reality that exists outside of us and independent of any human or living observer. I really don't care about our perceptions of reality what I'm interested in is "objective reality".
There is a huge difference that your delusional fantasy driven mind can't comprehend since the mush of god delusions has warped your ability to think to the point where you can't think worth a dam. The primary evidence for such a statement about you is that you keep presenting the notion that just because you can conceive a possibility that makes it a real certainty. You fail to consider that reality might have something to say about it (so to speak) that would negate your precious possibilities.
"But its wrong to seek physical evidence of that which is universally agreed, at least on this thread, is not physical." - emendozajun (or is it Dinesh D'Souza?)
A further comment is needed for this obvious attempt at "CULT CONTROL" of the people in who post and read these comments. Obviously you think that agreement has something to do with anything about reality. It doesn't. Your comment is typical of a con man attempting to assert control over their flock. Shame on you.
Peter at 5:21AM on May 3rd 2008
860. Peter, here's yet another error on your part. You keep speaking about 'objective reality,' and about how 'reality is the arbiter of reality.' But there's a deep problem here, and anyone who's taken a philo 101 course, or a philo of science course -- or even a good, thorough introductory science course (one that covers methodology and assumptions), in any discipline -- would know it. You are obviously completely ignorant of this problem, so let me educate you.
How could you tell if a painting of some landscape or person is an accurate representation of its object? Well, the answer is simple: you compare the two. But what if you only have access to the painting? In this case, you're simply not in a position to say if the painting accurately represents its object.
Okay, here's the problem: how can you tell if your perceptions of reality accurately represent reality? Can you test your preception against reality 'as it actually is' independent of your perceptions? Of course not: you can never get 'outside' your perceptions. Every test you propose, every verification by another person you acquire, and every bit of evidence you gather will all rely, at their root, on your perceptions, so obviously none of them can do the work we want them to do.
Now, when you speak about 'objective reality' -- as you so ofetn do -- you are, by definition, speaking about reality as it is independent of our perceptions of it. Yet we've just shown that you can't tell if your take on reality matches reality as it is; therefore, your whole notion of objective reality is reduced to -- what was that term? -- oh yeah: mind poo. You can never show that reality as it is matches your perceptions of it, so your belief that you have access to objective reality is an act of faith.
Apparently, you're just as deluded -- though much more ignorant -- as the rest of us.
So, Peter, the question is, Will you either demonstrate that your perceptions of reality accurately represent it (in a way that is non-circular, i.e. that doesn't presuppose the accuracy of your perceptions), or will you concede that you are kneck-deep in mind poo with the rest of us?
Renzo at 11:19AM on May 3rd 2008
861. Renzo said: "Okay, here's the problem: how can you tell if your perceptions of reality accurately represent reality?"
That is why we have the scientific method to determine if we're out to lunch with our perceptions and too what degree accuracy our theory of reality seems to be correlated to reality.
Renzo wrote: "Can you test your preception against reality 'as it actually is' independent of your perceptions? Of course not: you can never get 'outside' your perceptions."
Of course you can. Sheesh. That is what test instruments are for. That is what other people who hate your theory are for. They offer a different perspective.
That is what repeated tests are for.
A very good example is the whole Cold Fusion debacle. Someone reports a breakthrough. Everyone else gets either excited or annoyed by it so they prudently TEST the theory and attempt to follow the recipe (directions) and repeat the experiment. They fail... fail... and fail again... now maybe they didn't do it right or did they... maybe it was hogwash... most think so but the jury is still out or is it?
There are unknowns in science. Get used to it. Eventually we'll likely know enough about chemistry and physics to know what's up with the whole fusion thing but it takes time. Science works and often, but not always, gets us along with advances that make a difference in our lives.
While the god freaks are 100% certain not only that their imaginary god exists, he is possible they say after all, they are 100% certain that they have messages from him (sorry ladies most of the time it's a him) and know all about him and what he wants. That's a big step from a tiny possibility that approaches zero at the 100th decimal place (if you give them that for the sake of this paragraph) to the verified certainty of existence. It's funny that they can't prove that their very grumpy god exists but they know for sure that he is very grumpy indeed. And you are holding me to high scientific standards and attempting to split hairs with some "hole" you might find in my "blog postings" which I write rather quickly? That's very funny indeed.
Sure I might have errors in my postings. They are after all simply blog postings written rapidly. But the real focus is on the god freaks since this is the BLOG OF GOD FREAK DINESH D'SOUZA after all who offers up ZERO EVIDENCE for the existence of the magical invisible man that HE PUBLICLY AND VOCALLY BELIEVES WHOLEHEARTEDLY EXISTS.
If the god freaks even attempted a modicum of honest introspection about their beliefs and faith they'd realize that it is they who need to be held up to the standards that other human beings, day after day, work so hard bringing us breakthroughs in all areas of science, medicine, technology, and other advancements. The people that make this happen are applying hardearned knowledge of the real objective reality that we exist within to make our lives better and you know what, it works. So take notice god freaks.
"Now, when you speak about 'objective reality' -- as you so often do -- you are, by definition, speaking about reality as it is independent of our perceptions of it."
Da.
"Of course not: you can never get 'outside' your perceptions. Every test you propose, every verification by another person you acquire, and every bit of evidence you gather will all rely, at their root, on your perceptions, so obviously none of them can do the work we want them to do."
We can fly to the moon. We can blow up anything on our planet that we want to with all kinds of different explosives and kintetic weapons. We can built tall buildings and huge jets that carry hundreds of people six miles in the sky traveling almost at the speed of sound with pretty awesome reliability (well you don't think it's reliable when your plane is crashing but that's a different discussion). We can perform heart surgery without cutting a person's chest open. We can make soy ice creme that actually takes pretty good. We can do all of this and more and you are still stuck in philosophy 101 - get over it.
You brain in a dish pan philosophical nut jobs who don't get it, those things you say about how can you tell if it's just perception? Those are just puzzles that the professors use to see if you were awake! They are trick questions. You want to know how to tell if it's just your perception? Put a lit gas burner under your hand and simply hold it there as long as you can until your hand is seared like a steak then you'll have your answer if it's just your perception that your hand is burnt beyond recognition. Even if you had a medical doctor eliminate all the pain signals from your hand your hand would still be a not yummy human hand steak. No doubt. So much for your "it's only my perception" crap.
Reality exists. You can test what is real and what is not. Sure somethings are harder to test. That's why we have scientists who do the dirty work for us. That's why we have other scientists who don't agree with them quadruple checking the results 1000's of times.
"Yet we've just shown that you can't tell if your take on reality matches reality as it is; therefore, your whole notion of objective reality is reduced to -- what was that term? -- oh yeah: mind poo."
How the heck did you come up with that crappy line of reasoning? My take on reality is quite accurate. I've also demonstrated that I'll adjust myself to conform with "agreement reality" - for example I corrected the spelling of "sheeple" to conform to the spelling expected by the group. I've described the scientific method used to determine if I'm full of shit with an idea or if it might have some accuracy. I've clarified that I'm not a flat earther but an oblate spheroidist to within 100 meters with a diameter of 40,000 km divided by the math constant pi. Ah pi. Ah pie. I'm willing to change on a dim if any of you can prove that I'm wrong about any theory what so ever in any field of human thought. I'm willing to expunge any belief or faith that might happen to slip by my brain's belief making machinery. I'm willing to so all of that, how much more flexible and open minded do I have to be to satisfy you guys?
"You can never show that reality as it is matches your perceptions of it, so your belief that you have access to objective reality is an act of faith."
Nonsense hogwash. I thought you were better than that Renzo.
I can't believe I have to teach you folks basic science here. Maybe that what god folk need to dispel them of their delusions... a good does of a really good science classes.
Anyhow, it's not important that Newton's theory isn't as accurate as Einstein's. It isn't important that Quantum Theory says things about the universe differently than Einstein's. Well, not important in the sense that while Einstein's theory is more accurate representation of the universe than Newton's most civil engineers in the world still make use of Newton to build their structures. Only rarely do they need to consider what Einstein had to say. They still make safe buildings and bridges that perform quite well.
The fact is that reality is a messy place and you don't always need 100% accuracy.
The fact is that our brains make a representation of reality and that yes that representation will never be 100% the same as reality. It's just a brain map of reality. There is a phrase "THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY". That means that your brain's map of reality isn't actually reality other that it reality it's your brain's map of reality.
The problem Renzo is that you're getting confused with the silly notion that our brain maps of reality need to be the same as reality. That isn't possible.
Yes it's not possible. And you guys say that you can't eliminate possibilities. I just did it again. Eliminating shit ideas is what science is about. Don't hold back let it all flush out of your brain, all those nonsense beliefs and all that refuse known as faith. Let it flush out and you'll feel much lighter and ready to eat and digest and flush out your next meal of reality and bullshit that people throw at you.
The question for your Renzo and emendozajun and Dinesh D'Souza and ALL GOD FREAKS is do you want a brain map of reality that is drawn by an idiot with a scarf over his eyes who imagines that reality is his way or do you want a more accurate brain map that that is drawn by someone who actually looks what's out there and who can provide you with as detailed maps of reality as you can care to have?
The problem is that you guys put in a place called god in your map and when the rest of us ask for directions so that we can see this god for ourselves you tell us to "believe" and have "faith" that he's there. Where did you say? Oh, he's invisible sky being who's quite grumpy so don't look for him with your science or he'll get very grumpy and wont' let you into heaven? Heaven what's that? A place of bliss after you die? After you die? Yes after you die you go to heaven but only if you believe in him. OH. My detailed map here tested by many billions of deaths of humans and other animals shows that human and other animal bodies ROT and turn to dust one way or another after you die and that all brain activity stops and that brain activity has been correlated with consciousness and that after you die the evidence all shows that that's it, blotto, gone forever. Oh, but if you believe in magical invisible super natural beings who are not ever provable then you exist for eternity in bliss? Yes. Ok sign me up - NOT!!! Your map of reality sucks Dinesh D'Souza and the rest of you god freaks. I'm not buying your map. Nice singing though for the most part, could do without all those references to mythical super beings, maybe you could sing about real human issues like giving peace a chance or something.
When I spew mind poo I'll be the first to adapt when presented with a more accurate map of realty that has evidence for it. So far you god freaks fail even the most basic tests for saneness with your whacked out beliefs and faith.
Note that I've not even entered into any in depth discussions (except a couple times challenging Dinesh for an apology for the evil title of this blog article) about the complete inconsistencies of your faith beliefs and how your own belief systems require you to be evil people in the world. It's a testament to the evolved natural goodness of most people that religious nut job con men leaders haven't been able to get too many people to act out on the vile evil beliefs in their so called holy books.
The key is the ability to edit your own brain maps of reality and not to take the evil crappy nonsense from the con men out there who wish to control you. The key is to make your brain map as clear and accurate and adaptable to change as possible while keeping your grounded and correlated with reality so that you can enjoy your life and make a positive difference in the world. At least that is the key for me and if I can help deprogram just a few of you from the god cults that you were raised in then I've spent some time pursuing a worthy cause, especially if you help some others out of the god gutter of belief and faith.
Unfortunately some of you accept thoughts like "if she floats she's a witch, burn her" and commit untold evil in the here and now with your whacked out delusional god beliefs and vile faith in invisible super natural beings. Sheesh, grow up.
Peter at 2:21PM on May 3rd 2008
862. Peter, wow, did you miss the boat entirely with this one -- evidence that you didn't understand it at all.
Renzo wrote: "Can you test your preception against reality 'as it actually is' independent of your perceptions? Of course not: you can never get 'outside' your perceptions."
Peter said: "Of course you can. Sheesh. That is what test instruments are for. That is what other people who hate your theory are for. They offer a different perspective.
That is what repeated tests are for."
Hello! And how do you use these instruments? How do you learn what others think (and how do they reach their own results)? What do you use to read an instrument? What are you relying on with a test -- whether it's done once or a million times?
Your perceptions (i.e. reality as it appears to you)!
So, as I said, you cannot present a non-circular argument (i.e. one that doesn't presuppose the reliability of our perceptionsm by which I mean one that doesn't presuppose that our perceptions accurately represent reality) to justify your reliability on your perception of reality. Everything you just wrote presupposes that your perceptions accuratly represent reality, so you're still stuck in mind poo.
"While the god freaks are 100% certain not only that their imaginary god exists, he is possible they say after all, they are 100% certain that they have messages from him (sorry ladies most of the time it's a him) and know all about him and what he wants."
This is complete BS and proof -- yes, proof -- that you know next to nothing about theology. No Christian says, "God is possible, therefore god exists." And Christians struggle with doubt, about god's existence (try distinguishing certainty from certitude), god's nature and what god 'wants' from us (sheesh Peter, there are libarries full of books on these topics, countless hotly debated positions on each of these topics, and continuing development on each of these topics. Again, only someone who is ignorant of the intellectual traditions of, say, Christianity, and who is relying completely on 'pop' versions -- the atheist equivalent of 'the universe is only 6,000 years old' crowd -- could ever say such silly things. You are in serious need of an education when it comes to Christianity, yet you love to bash it. You should at try to understand a worldview before you bash it).
"And you are holding me to high scientific standards and attempting to split hairs with some "hole" you might find in my "blog postings" which I write rather quickly? That's very funny indeed."
If there's a key distinction you're missing, or a hole in your argument, it's irrelevent how 'quickly' you wrote it -- the fact remains that there's still a key distinction you're missing, and a hole in your argument. Or should we now lower the bar for opoorly thought out arguments, simply because they've been 'written quickly'?
Renzo wrote: "Now, when you speak about 'objective reality' -- as you so often do -- you are, by definition, speaking about reality as it is independent of our perceptions of it."
Peter wrote: "Da."
Good to see we agree here, since from this one simple agreement my whole argument follows, and yours crumbles. If our perceptions of reality are -- by definition -- 'mind dependent,' which they are (unless you know a way to perceive reality that doesn't use your mind -- and 'instruments,' 'repeated tests' and 'other minds' depend on your mind, Peter), and if objective reality is mind independent, then it follows that we can never compare our mind dependent representations of reality to reality itself.
"We can do all of this and more and you are still stuck in philosophy 101 - get over it.
You brain in a dish pan philosophical nut jobs who don't get it, those things you say about how can you tell if it's just perception? Those are just puzzles that the professors use to see if you were awake! They are trick questions. You want to know how to tell if it's just your perception? Put a lit gas burner under your hand and simply hold it there as long as you can until your hand is seared like a steak then you'll have your answer if it's just your perception that your hand is burnt beyond recognition. Even if you had a medical doctor eliminate all the pain signals from your hand your hand would still be a not yummy human hand steak. No doubt. So much for your "it's only my perception" crap."
Let's sum up this response: I can't answer your objection. Why not just admit it? As for your proposed 'pragmatic' solution, it -- yet again -- completely misses the boat, and actually opens you up to a logical demolition. If we take the pragmatic approach, and rely on our perceptions even though this reliance is fraught with logical difficulties, then 1. you have no basis to attack religious experiences, i.e. claims to have directly experienced god's presence (unless you rely on an argument similar in substance to the one you're here rejecting); 2. you have no ultimate grounds for your reliance on your own perceptions -- i.e. it becomes a matter of faith, or, as you like to say, 'mind poo' (again, if you respond with 'But we can test them, etc.' you simply haven't understood my objection) and 3. you've missed another key distinction, i.e. the distinction between our experiences of reality, which is the object of your pragmatist objection (e.g. my experience of the blowtorch) and of reality as it is independent of our experiences (e.g. the 'objective reality' of the blowtorch example, independent of my experiences).
"Reality exists. You can test what is real and what is not."
Okay, you missed the whole point of the argument.
"I've described the scientific method used to determine if I'm full of shit with an idea or if it might have some accuracy."
What you're failing to do is ask yourself questions about the -- by definition -- non-scientific assumptions of the scientific method.
Renzo wrote: "You can never show that reality as it is matches your perceptions of it, so your belief that you have access to objective reality is an act of faith."
Peter wrote: "Nonsense hogwash. I thought you were better than that Renzo.
I can't believe I have to teach you folks basic science here. Maybe that what god folk need to dispel them of their delusions... a good does of a really good science classes."
Two problems here: 1. this isn't a scientific question, and surely someone who understands science would know this; 2. since it isn't a scientific question, science cannot settle this issue, so no number of 'science classes' will help.
"The problem Renzo is that you're getting confused with the silly notion that our brain maps of reality need to be the same as reality. That isn't possible."
Um, no. My point is that you can never compare your map to the territory in this case. That's what you're missing. All you're ever doing is looking at different parts of the map, with higher and higher degrees of resolution and detail.
"Your map of reality sucks Dinesh D'Souza and the rest of you god freaks. I'm not buying your map."
Again, further evidence that you don't understand the religious worldview (at least not the Christian worldview). I get to include all the science you include -- I doubt we disagree on any major scientific conclusion -- and I add to it the religious conception of reality, which doesn't in any way distort it, but enriches it. My worldview allows much more than yours does, since it allows everything yours allows, and much more besides (none of which contradicts in any way contradicts the scientific conclusions of your worldview; in the words of the late atheist scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, the magisteria do not overlap).
"Unfortunately some of you accept thoughts like "if she floats she's a witch, burn her" and commit untold evil in the here and now with your whacked out delusional god beliefs and vile faith in invisible super natural beings. Sheesh, grow up."
More buncombe. This is like saying you support experiments on human beings -- something which would surely promote our understanding of science. When you come to a view of the world, you don't have to therefore approve of everything done in the name of that worldview -- whether it's burning witches or experimenting on human beings. (Incidentally, you ignore the conclusion of the vast majority of historians, to wit that Christianity not only contributed greatly to the development of modern science, and to the development of freedom-promoting and rights-defending modern Western institutions, but also to the fact that Christianity's record is, on balance, one of benevolence and charity -- in other words, Christianity has helped far, far more people than it's harmed -- the latter through a distortion of its teachings, mind you).
Renzo at 6:26PM on May 3rd 2008
863. @862: "Ah, no. It's us that will vanish. Objective reality will continue on without any observers (at least no observers from Earth) and eventually no observers at all (from any and all species in the universe)."
Finally.
Exactly, Peter, this objective reality that will continue on without any observers, this is the objective reality to which or of whom my so called "deifinitions and rules" apply and that which others call "God by any other name". I happen believe this objective reality to be more permanent than the particulars that greet our senses in the here and now.
When I choose to believe this objective reality to be God, that is what I meant by faith beeing a matter of will. Call it a choice if you will.
You may call it Objective reality that "will continue on without any observers (at least no observers from Earth) and eventually no observers at all (from any and all species in the universe)", I call it God.
I agree with most of what you say about science except for your entirely humanistic and materialistic views of it and I disagree famously when you exclude that objective reality which I call God.
A lot of the exchanges have been laced with personal attacks and insults I could almost feel the emotions dripping there. When you started to put the words delusion, delusional, deluded, mind poo and such in your responses to my posts, I thought they were personal attacks and so I was provoked. I'm really so sorry. I apologize. (But you see all I could muster was the puny "asshole." I don't really have many collections of english cuss words.)
"THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE OTHER THAN ROTTING FLESH AND DUST".
It follows, ineluctably as they say, that I don't agree with this opinion of yous.
Peace
emendozajun at 7:34PM on May 3rd 2008
864. Sorry for the wrong spellings.
emendozajun at 9:03PM on May 3rd 2008
865. Renzo, Renzo, Renzo what will we do with a deluded puppy like you?
So you are saying that because you can't trust your perceptions to present to you the exact reality of the real world that you'll ignore everything about that world that we can learn. Sad day for your buddy Renzo.
Ask any blind person if they'd like to see again and gain that added "resolution" to their perceptions and the likely answer would be yes. (Although I'd understand any that said no).
Your argument about perception is not only pointless it's irrelevant to how we build up our understanding of the universe since we have many ways to verify knowledge of the one objective reality.
Yes, instruments let us see beyond our range of vision. Yes, we look at the instrument to see what it sees that we can't. Yes we use our perception. Da.
We are conscious beings after all and consciousness is one of the three irreducible axioms that support all of human knowledge: existence, identity and consciousness. "I think therefor I am" sums them up nicely. Consciousness, along with our, biology, allows us to perceive. Our ability to think enables some of us to go beyond the inaccuracies of our biological senses and get at reality and our instruments and experiments enable us to confirm that the hypotheses proposed by geniuses such as Einstein are accurate and to even measure the accuracy of our instruments in determining the accuracy of how our theories correlate to reality.
You mistakenly wrote: "you cannot present a non-circular argument (i.e. one that doesn't presuppose the reliability of our perceptionsm by which I mean one that doesn't presuppose that our perceptions accurately represent reality) to justify your reliability on your perception of reality. Everything you just wrote presupposes that your perceptions accuratly represent reality, so you're still stuck in mind poo."
It's you that are stuck with silly useless arguments. Let's dispense with this. I don't presuppose the reliability of my perceptions to accurately represent reality. In fact I know that they don't. I can't see infrared light. If it's moderately intense I can feel it without harm to myself, but to see it I need to augment my senses with an instrument that reveals the hidden reality. We've even built very sensitive instruments to reveal aspects of reality to a very high degree of accuracy and we'll continue to push the frontiers of that in many areas.
You obviously didn't read what I wrote before. Maybe your doing a bit of fast writing yourself, eh?
We can accurately discover reality and the nature of reality otherwise we'd not even be having this conversation over the internet!
If you can't get these simple facts of philosophy and science then you really are hopeless.
Ok, now the attack against me from the theological front begins in your posting.
You wrote quoting me: "No Christian says, "God is possible, therefore god exists.""
Well in fact they do. Maybe you don't but I've met many people who identify themselves as "Christians" who say that simply because god is possible therefor god exists.". Yup.
Oh, and many of you who've written posts and comments in this blog also concur with the notion that simply because you can conceive of a god he therefor must exist. Reread the posts and you'll see that that is essentially the argument.
Heck, my own sister claims to be a Christian Preacher and she believes that too.
It's the flaw in the whole does god exist argument that believers fall into when they think through the question: Does god exist? Well you can't prove that he does? Nope agreed there (although many cling to that they can and the Catholic Church does a lot to support that notion through the ridiculous notion of miracles and Saints). Then they say, well you can't prove that god doesn't exist. And almost all people are stumped with that one. This is where it usually ends with the god freak then believing that god exists since he can't be disproved. You can read it all over the internet. You can see it written in the vile book known as the bible. You can hear it out of the mouths of Catholic priests as I did recently on the occasion of my Dad's full Catholic Funeral. Quite explicit. You even hear it in the debates that Dinesh D'Souza has. Listen for it. So shallow.
Maybe you don't have such shallow thoughts Renzo so may be there is hope for you after all.
"This is complete BS and proof -- yes, proof -- that you know next to nothing about theology. "
"You should at try to understand a worldview before you bash it".
So much for your proof that I know nothing about theology. I was raised in a catholic home and went to church every sunday for much of my youth till I was able to rebel and put a stop to that bullshit activity. Fortunately I was never a "catholic child" in that the beliefs and faith never took as my brain has always questioned any beliefs and faith that people tell me. Also fortunately my parents and many siblings imbued the value of learning and asking tough questions of any authority. The Jesus Myth and The One True God of delusional god freaks lost that one.
"You are in serious need of an education when it comes to Christianity, yet you love to bash it." - Renzo mistakenly wrote thinking that he knows my history. Unfortunately for me I wasted years with religion classes and church crap as a youth. Fortunately for me it bounced off of my critical thinking skills. Unfortunately for Renzo and other deluded god freak folks like Dinesh D'Souza they failed and were indoctrinated into their respective cults.
No I'm not a theologian and have never many any such claims in that regard. Unlike Hitchens and Dawkins I haven't studied theological materials in depth. I find theological materials painful to read as each sentence is hell on earth since it is so disconnected from the one objective reality and filled with pure unadulterated vile bullshit evil statements. While I can take the bible in small chunks it's usually too putrid to digest in long readings as a result of the evil that it wishes it's believers to perform. Don't take my word on this, see some of the quotes from the bible that are evil and vile for yourself here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm.
"You should at try to understand a worldview before you bash it".
Renzo opined foolishly.
All that one really needs to know about theology is that it is about the delusional belief and faith in god, and depending on the variant of theological thinking you are inflicted with you'll have minor differences that many people have died for.
"Again, only someone who is ignorant of the intellectual traditions of, say, Christianity, and who is relying completely on 'pop' versions -- the atheist equivalent of 'the universe is only 6,000 years old' crowd -- could ever say such silly things."
There you go making my exact point that there are differences in the delusional beliefs of believers and faithers. Who cares about the differences between your nonsense sets of beliefs - it's all made up by humans and simply reflects the evil cults that you find yourself within.
Sad really all those deaths over the hundreds of centuries by delusional people deluded into thinking that they were doing gods work when in fact it was they who were carrying out the evil acts upon the often helpless people they were torturing and killing. Actually it's worse than sad, it's a crime against humanity and organizations like the Catholic Church should be held to account and be punished by being closed forever.
In fact YOU should be held to account for believing in the bible - which from your comments you seem to believe in but correct me if you don't - since it's an evil vile book that promotes crimes against humanity throughout it. How any compassionate and moral person could believe in the god described therein I find truly shocking and despicable.
Renzo (daemon of Dinesh) wrote: "Let's sum up this response: I can't answer your objection. Why not just admit it? As for your proposed 'pragmatic' solution, it -- yet again -- completely misses the boat, and actually opens you up to a logical demolition. If we take the pragmatic approach, and rely on our perceptions even though this reliance is fraught with logical difficulties, then 1. you have no basis to attack religious experiences, i.e. claims to have directly experienced god's presence (unless you rely on an argument similar in substance to the one you're here rejecting); 2. you have no ultimate grounds for your reliance on your own perceptions -- i.e. it becomes a matter of faith, or, as you like to say, 'mind poo' (again, if you respond with 'But we can test them, etc.' you simply haven't understood my objection) and 3. you've missed another key distinction, i.e. the distinction between our experiences of reality, which is the object of your pragmatist objection (e.g. my experience of the blowtorch) and of reality as it is independent of our experiences (e.g. the 'objective reality' of the blowtorch example, independent of my experiences). "Reality exists. You can test what is real and what is not." Okay, you missed the whole point of the argument."
You are right I don't understand your objection and not because I"ve not tried, it's because it makes no sense. Please write it with clarity without missing any steps.
I don't even know where to begin with that rumbled jumble of horse manure.
Ok, let's shoot down "you have no basis to attack religious experiences, i.e. claims to have directly experienced god's presence". Ok, where is the proof that it was god and not a delusional person's experience? It's much more likely that the person was delusional since there is zero evidence for the existence of god and lots of evidence that the human mind can easily provide full sensory delusional hallucinations for people. Just ask anyone who's taken LSD or other drugs that doctors like to give out.
Again the burden of proof is upon those making the wild claims that such phenomena should be interpreted one way or the other. This is especially the case when the interpretation relies upon unprovable hypotheses. Occam's Razor applies slicing your argument to pieces.
"You have no ultimate grounds for your reliance on your own perceptions". What? You really are brain dead Renzo. I thought that there might be a modicum of rationality within your thinking processes but it's clear that you've lost it and are impervious to rational thought. As pointed out before you can rely on your perceptions. Look, if you don't believe that, as clearly you don't, then I suggest you carry out the simple proof that eliminates your suggestion that you can't trust your senses and perceptions. Cross a busy street or highway with moderately fast moving traffic that is not too tightly packed. Do your senses tell you not to cross as you'll loose the game of frogger? If your answer is no don't cross then your perceptions were correct as you'd have died crossing or at least have been hit by a vehicle moving at, say 60 kilometers per hour (about 40 miles per hour) and are likely battered up and pretty badly in need of an ambulance. If you seriously think that you can't trust your perceptions to tell you - accurately - what is happening in reality then I suggest that you make sure that your Will is up to date as you are not going to survive long in the world of the living. Your corpse will be a testament to the fact that you ignored your perceptions thinking that they were just silly and didn't tell you about the world.
The problem with you and your arguments Renzo is that you don't check your statements, beliefs and faith against reality. You really have been programmed by your cult.
Please tell us everything about your history and life growing up as you seriously need a lot of corrective measures to bring you back to reality. Deprogramming 101 is recommended for you followed by a dose of Deep Deprogramming.
Ok, what are the "non-scientific assumptions of the scientific method"?
It's not relevant to day to day life that my perception of reality and my internal map of reality enhanced by rational thought and critical thinking skills and the results of well tested theories of the world is 100% accurate. Newton works for me in general day to day life. When I need the extra accuracy of Einstein is when I'm thinking about Space. At least Newton is accurate enough for most of the physics that I deal with. Consider the alternative, "if it floats it must be a witch". Not only were the alternatives incorrect they can get you into trouble. (Ok, I was having light of the alternatives to Newton there but it's not far off).
Ah now comes the silly defense (and attack) that "this isn't a scientific question, and surely someone who understands science would know this".
What you are basically saying is too leave us "god con men" alone to ply our con games with the flock of deluded believers and we won't attack you (or in less moral times, we won't kill or imprison you for your scientific work).
Well, the question of the existence of god is a question of the nature of the universe. If there is a god that impacts the nature of reality substantially just as the case if there isn't a god does. Inherently the claim of the existence of god is a question that science can address. The political accommodation that some had which existed in the past is over. That should be abundantly clear to any of you who've read Hitchens, Dawkins, Pinker, and a whole host of other books on the subject.
Where the science classes would help is to slice away your bullshit reasoning. Actually any such class would need a strong critical thinking component to it to address horrific cases like yours Renzo.
Renzo wrote in a fit of delusion: "Um, no. My point is that you can never compare your map to the territory in this case. That's what you're missing. All you're ever doing is looking at different parts of the map, with higher and higher degrees of resolution and detail."
I assume it's a fit of delusion since it's such nonsense pap that I don't know how any person could have come up with that.
Yes, you can compare the map to the territory. Sigh. Before, during, and after looking at the territory of the objective universe with different tools, with different resolutions, with different perceptual filters, you can also be comparing that with your "map". It is done all the time. Oh, look I found this here. What's that? Oh, let's take a closer look. Oh, it's a virus we've never seen before. Cool. Let's let other scientists know that we've discovered a new organism that could be dangerous and even beneficial in some ways. Ok, sounds good. Let's get the paper written and distributed quickly on this one. Great. Oh, this will change some of aspects of theory X of biology since this organism has characteristic Y. Yeah, awesome something new to adjust our map of reality.
I'm glad that scientifically trained humans are carrying out medical research rather than you religiously cult indoctrinated freaks. (Unfortunately some of those freaks are scientifically trained and could have religious agendas that will harm others which is something to be on guard for).
"I [RENZO] get to include all the science you include -- I doubt we disagree on any major scientific conclusion -- and I add to it the religious conception of reality, which doesn't in any way distort it, but enriches it. My worldview allows much more than yours does, since it allows everything yours allows, and much more besides (none of which contradicts in any way contradicts the scientific conclusions of your worldview; in the words of the late atheist scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, the magisteria do not overlap)."
Unlucky you Renzo. No, you don't get to include science plus religion. That's an illusion. In fact it's the opposite whenever you add religion to someone trained in science the effect is a negative by a huge margin.
Stephen Jay Gould was mistaken about "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) of science and religion.
Renzo fortunately warns us about the quality of his next paragraph of thoughts with the first sentence of it: "More buncombe. This is like saying you support experiments on human beings -- something which would surely promote our understanding of science. When you come to a view of the world, you don't have to therefore approve of everything done in the name of that worldview -- whether it's burning witches or experimenting on human beings."
I have yet to hear you denounce any of it. Support and belief in the bible indicates a depraved and deluded person potentially a great threat to others lives.
Completing your bunkum paragraph you continue with: "(Incidentally, you ignore the conclusion of the vast majority of historians, to wit that Christianity not only contributed greatly to the development of modern science, and to the development of freedom-promoting and rights-defending modern Western institutions, but also to the fact that Christianity's record is, on balance, one of benevolence and charity -- in other words, Christianity has helped far, far more people than it's harmed -- the latter through a distortion of its teachings, mind you)."
I've not ignored any such assessment of the contributions of people who believe in god. Most certainly some people who have deluded god beliefs and faith have contributed to the advancement of humanity out of the dark ages into our modern world. Just as certainly many people who have deluded god beliefs and faith have contributed to horrific crimes against humanity in the pursuit of their delusions.
I don't see what any of that has to do with the discussion that we've been having. It's not relevant. The crimes of Christians do not excuse any benefits they have brought us.
That's like saying, oh this person who committed 50 murders also helped 10,000 homeless people find their way again by getting off of hard drugs and getting jobs. The 50 murders don't excuse any of the good that they did. Just like any good that comes out of Iraq can't excuse George W. Bush (both of them and Clinton for that matter) from the massive number of deaths that they are responsible for in Iraq over the time since Saddam invaded Kuwait (and even going back to the 1950's but that is a longer dialog and would include even more US Presidents on a War Crimes List).
There are crimes against human beings and humanity that simply can't be excused no matter how many good deeds or how well meaning you intended to be are.
Your crime Renzo is accepting a book like the bible (assuming you accept the book that is - if you don't then forget I wrote this paragraph) as evil and vile as it is. You can't read it and just take the good bits as that would be ignoring the evil bits that the god who is described within it ORDERS you to commit. If you fail to commit these crimes against humanity YOU ARE CONDEMNED TO DIE AND BURN IN HELL!!! How about that. Just taking the good bits is enough to condemn you to hell for all eternity. If you don't believe me read the evil nasty vile bits that I linked to above.
You've got a long way to go before you can be clear of your cult Renzo. If you want help deprogramming yourself I can help with that as I'm sure many others can.
It's good talking with you all, however, this thread has taken a bit too much of my time this week and I'll be closing it down now. I'll only respond to VALID NEW arguments that have not yet been discussed. I'd certainly welcome any direct postings by Dinesh D'Souza clearly identified as coming from him. Certainly he owns people an apology for the obscene title of his article.
ps. Pardon my spelling and grammar mistakes. If you need me to clarify any paragraphs that might have mistakes of that or content please ask. Thanks, it's difficult enough time wise to respond respectfully with enough depth to the other postings that I haven't had the opportunity to let my postings sit for a while for the necessary review editing phase that I normally would have for a full and proper article. Pleas again, pardon me.
Peter at 9:40PM on May 3rd 2008
866. Peter, here are your problems (I'll make this one very quick):
You've never read Kant. If you had, you'd see that I'm just presenting a simplified version of his argument. His problem (to wit the one I'm discussing about perceptions) has never been answered. By the way, Einstein was a Kantian.
You know nothing about the philosophy of science. If you don't know (as you admit) that science rests on non-scietific assumptions -- and if you're not willing to learn this, which seems to be the case --then you're hopelessly ignorant.
You know nothing of the religion you're ctiticizing. I'm sorry, but "I was raised as a Catholic" won't do, since it in no way justifies the idiotic things you insist on saying (I'm sure that when you say, "If god is possible, he exists" you're not referring to Plantinga's modal ontological argument for god's existence).
You know nothing about history. If you did, you'd never make the absurd claim that science and religion are not compatible. The simple fact is that most scientists, by far -- and more than half of the scientists alive today -- believe in god -- a personal god (if you switch the criteria to a god of any sort, such as a deistic god, the numbers increase dramatically). Not only that, but they have seen -- and still see -- a deep connection between their faith and their scientific work. Newton wrote far more on theology than he wrote on science, yet he was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived. He attributed his success in science to his religious assumptions, i.e. god exists, created the universe, made it intelligible, provided us with reliable cognitive processes, etc. and that to study the universe is to know god through his creation. Arno Penzias, Nobel prize winning physicist, is a believer; so is Francis Collins; so is John Polkinghorne; one could go on and on and on. Apparently, believing in god is compatible with doing science at the Nobel Laureate level.
Finally, you know nothing about basic philosophy. I think that most of your problems with this discussion, by far, stem from your ignorance in this area.
This discussion cannot proceed until you remedy your deficiencies in these key areas.
Renzo at 10:17PM on May 3rd 2008
867. emendozajun, it's clear that you don't agree with what I've been saying.
The basics of what I have to say are not my opinion though as they are basic irrefutable facts of nature. The pitiful attempts to refute them here and in other forums over the past thousands of years have failed.
My opinion is mostly irrelevant. Certainly it that would seem to be the case with a number of the other people writing comments in this blog.
To say that the universe aka objective reality is "god" is just silly. That is one of the many thousands of variants of gods that humans have created. It is the first of many steps that leads you to other silly and dangerous notions. The next thing you'll be saying is that the universe, your god, is alive and kicking.
Without evidence or logic or rational reasoning you can justify anything you like that still doesn't mean your deluded god view has anything to do with reality.
Provide proof and you'll convert the world. Fail to provide proof and you're just a delusional person with a false belief about the universe. Heck you god freaks can't even form a proper hypothesis to test for god's existence. Heck you don't even like it when someone eliminates your possibility of god to a probability of zero by the simple process of elimination.
Stop the harm you are doing in the world with your delusional god beliefs and unsupportable delusional faith. Please. Stop the killing in god's name. That's the least that you can do. Then stop believing in your nonsense and join reality with a clear mind.
Peter at 2:21AM on May 4th 2008
868. Renzo wrote out of belief "You've never read Kant."
You don't know what I've read or not read so you can't say one way or the other. A good demonstration that you are belief stricken in areas not just regarding religion and delusional god beliefs but in assessing people too. Belief will, I fear for you, get you in trouble. I caution you against using it and highly recommend a course in critical thinking skills and skepticism.
Since you raised it I was asking you what particular "non-scientific" assumptions you thought were relevant that underly science. You attacked rather than answer a simple question that is put to you, a mistake on your part. it was a simple question to find out where you wanted to take the discussion. Obviously you'd prefer to commit to an ad hominem attack against your opponent than answer the question put to you.
I know quite a bit about philosophy, science, the philosophy of science, religion, and in particular a number of variants of the Christian religion. It's interesting that you should know so much about my knowledge base when you don't even know me. It's interesting that you'd jump to conclusions rather than ask questions. This actually highlights a big difference in the approach of those interested in the scientific method to life, we like to ask questions and then draw preliminary and always over ridable conclusions which we can then test along with testing ALL assumptions even those that form the foundation of our methods - to do otherwise is to be lead down the garden path to blindness. This is unlike others who take the tack of making assumptions and forming conclusions without testing either since their assumptions and conclusions don't need testing as they are inherently untestable from the beginning.
You are right about one thing, I don't know what religion you belong to and which variant or sub variant your cult is so yes it is hard to criticize specific details since you've been coy to not reveal anything other to say that you are Christian. However, notwithstanding your silly statements to the contrary, I do know quite a bit about various Christian religions and cult groups, certainly enough to respond to all of your comments so far and to support all my statements. I've even provided supporting quotations from the vile bible itself to support my assertions that it's a vile and evil book. You just don't like to hear the truth.
You say that I've said idiotic things but you've not had the guts to actually quote any of them! Please be specific with what you think that I've said is idiotic to you.
In many discussions with Christians and other god freaks from different cults when the discussion turns to me asking for evidence that their god - by their definition - exists they claim that that their god can't be disproved and then go on in depth about the certainty that their god exists. They are using the "can't disprove" logic as permission to believe.
Maybe you don't do that. However, your particular delusion might have deeper roots, certainly you can write about it better than most.
Again you make a claim that you can't support: "You know nothing about history.". You don't know what I know or don't know.
You make the following absurd statement: "If you did, you'd never make the absurd claim that science and religion are not compatible. "
Of course science and religion are not compatible. Of course I can say that. At it's very basic core science is about asking questions about any topic that reveals the nature of objective reality to us. Religious nut jobs seem to want to inject that the universe was created by a mythical invisible man they call god and that if you don't worship this god you'll burn for all eternity. This has so many assumptions in it that it's not funny. All these assumptions can be questioned by people using the scientific methods to determine if they hold any water or if they are just what they seem: delusional ideas about objective reality. It seems that the delusions prevail and have done so for thousands of years as skeptics have rejected the nonsense bullshit and lived their lives without delusional god beliefs just fine thank you.
It's irrelevant that many scientists are delusional nut jobs along with being scientists. That's been true for a long time. Many religions reached a political accommodation with scientists since the religious con men who lead religions see the benefits of technological improvements as a way to make themselves richer. It's a political expediency that makes the lives of religious nut jobs who work in scientific fields easier. I do question their work and their ethics though.
We do know that Newton was a religious and spiritualist nut job. That doesn't change the fact that he did some brilliant work with his theory of gravity. As a religious nut job of course he'd attribute his success to god - if he didn't they'd likely have hanged or flogged him or done what they did with Galileo Galilei.
Again another claim without asking for information to support your claim, you've got he cart before the horse Renzo: "you know nothing about basic philosophy."
I know quite a bit about philosophy, quite a bit more than you'd imagine. I've been privy to and present at some of the most amazing philosophical conversations in recent human history.
I simply do not accept statements that clearly violate basic and well tested known laws of nature and science. I speak out about it to. I speak truth about the vile evil orders from your god that the bible records that you must follow to get into your heaven. You just don't like that. The old con men who ran the Christian churches were right to fear translations of the bible from the latin and other original languages it was written in. They were right to fear people like myself who stand up and say enough of this poisonous vitriol that is written the bible. Enough of the evil morals that it teaches. Enough is enough. No more. No more accommodation with religion by scientists as it risks the quality of their work. No more expedient accommodation.
Provide evidence and you'll convert the world. Provide belief and faith and you'll continue to poison the world with death and destruction.
If you have substantive comments I welcome them. I do ask you to keep your fingers from writing claims about me that you have no way of knowing.
Also please do tell us about your religious beliefs and faith since you claim that I don't know about it. I could assume beyond what you've already said but I'd rather not do that as it's not my style. What variant of "Christian" are you Renzo? Please tell us in depth.
Peter at 3:03AM on May 4th 2008
869. It's clear that Kant was another delusional religious nut job and that his work is partly why people accept that since it's impossible to disprove god's existence that it's ok to thus believe in god:
"Kant asserted that, because of the limitations of reason, no one could really know if there is a God and an afterlife, and conversely that no one could really know that there was not a God and an afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Kant.27s_philosophy
Kant thought that the weight of these two probabilities were EQUAL. Oops, that's a big mistake for someone with his historical reputation.
Unfortunately for Kant and ALL those who believe and have faith in the existence of god or gods the probability of the two alternatives is not equal and this puts the "rationality" of believing in a god that Kant authorized with his philosophy in jeopardy and in disrepute. It also put any belief in god into the realm of delusion and disconnection from objective reality. This really is the gateway thought for many into the realm of delusion and a massive opening used by nut job religious con men promoters such as Dinesh D'Souza.
The elimination of the possibility of god's existence proceeds from testing claimed attributes of god - as claimed by god freaks - against well tested and known facts and laws of nature. As each test succeeds it reduces the probability of the possibility of god existing. This eventually eliminates the possibility of god's existence to zero. So while you might not be able to prove that god doesn't exist you can certainly prove that he couldn't possibly exist in the real objective reality. This informs us that it's not rational to then believe in god as Kant authorized so long ago as the weight of whether or not god exists is NOT equal as Kant hypothesized. Since it's not possible for god to exist God's non-existence in objective reality is thus proven. If you define god to be out side of objective reality then by definition god doesn't not exist since the definition of objective reality is all that exists. It's not possible for anything to exist outside of objective reality since objective reality includes all that exists inside or outside of our universe.
Clearly Kant made a big mistake in his thinking. As have all of you god freaks with your delusional god beliefs and acidic faith.
Peter at 3:57AM on May 4th 2008
870. IMPORTANT CORRECTION REQUIRED FOR THIS PARAGRAPH from prior posting:
The elimination of the possibility of god's existence proceeds from testing claimed attributes of god - as claimed by god freaks - against well tested and known facts and laws of nature. As each test succeeds it reduces the probability of the possibility of god existing. This eventually eliminates the probability of the possibility of god's existence to zero. So while you might not be able to prove that god doesn't exist you can certainly prove that he couldn't possibly exist in the real objective reality. This informs us that it's not rational to then believe in god as Kant authorized so long ago as the weight of whether or not god exists is NOT equal as Kant hypothesized. Since it's not possible for god to exist God's non-existence in objective reality is thus proven. If you define god to be outside of objective reality then by definition god doesn't exist since the definition of objective reality is all that exists. It's not possible for anything to exist outside of objective reality since objective reality includes all that exists inside or outside of our universe.
Peter at 4:03AM on May 4th 2008