Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 3:36 PM
460 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 454 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,967 Year: 6,573/21,208 Month: 2,334/2,634 Week: 522/572 Day: 8/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Church Is Not Enough?
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 31 of 110 (674195)
09-27-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law
09-01-2010 4:49 PM


I would like to respond to your ending question, why isn't Church and the home enough?

Well, this brings to mind that evolution is taught in schools, not that I disagree with that, but that, as one evolutionary philosopher, Michael Ruse, has stated, evolution is a religion. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full

Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all) (Well, that includes determining what is shown inside the home as well. And last I heard, teaching kids about creationism is child abuse, so...)

(I am not a proponent of putting creationism in schools, as it may be distorted by anti-creationists)

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tram law, posted 09-01-2010 4:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 2:13 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 32 of 110 (674197)
09-27-2012 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 1:59 AM


quote:

Well, this brings to mind that evolution is taught in schools, not that I disagree with that, but that, as one evolutionary philosopher, Michael Ruse, has stated, evolution is a religion. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all)

That is not exactly an accurate presentation of Ruse's position. In fact you are engaging in what Ruse calls "a rhetorical debating trick" in the very article you refer to. Ruse does not deny that evolution is a scientific theory, worthy of being taught in school. If there are religious elements (which is all Ruse says) these should be left out, of course, but the science can and should remain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 1:59 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 3:25 AM PaulK has responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 33 of 110 (674202)
09-27-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
09-27-2012 2:13 AM


quote:
That is not exactly an accurate presentation of Ruse's position. In fact you are engaging in what Ruse calls "a rhetorical debating trick" in the very article you refer to. Ruse does not deny that evolution is a scientific theory, worthy of being taught in school. If there are religious elements (which is all Ruse says) these should be left out, of course, but the science can and should remain.

You are beating a strawman here. I do not state that evolution is NOT a scientific theory. It is. It is also religious, as Ruse has pointed out. And it is not easy to separate the religious parts and the non-religious parts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 2:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 4:02 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 34 of 110 (674203)
09-27-2012 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 3:25 AM


quote:

You are beating a strawman here. I do not state that evolution is NOT a scientific theory. It is. It is also religious, as Ruse has pointed out. And it is not easy to separate the religious parts and the non-religious parts.

In fact it is not a strawman, since you quite clearly wrote:


Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all)

Quite clearly you presented evolution as a religious view in itself, rather than - as Ruse presents it - a scientific theory with associated religious elements.

And really I don't see the difficulty in separating out religious elements - which so far you haven't even bothered to identify. I'd say that those elements are mostly errors from the scientific point of view anyway (e.g. the identification of evolution with "progress" in a broad sense).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 3:25 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:44 AM PaulK has responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 35 of 110 (674206)
09-27-2012 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
09-27-2012 4:02 AM


quote:
Quite clearly you presented evolution as a religious view in itself, rather than - as Ruse presents it - a scientific theory with associated religious elements.

Let me make this clear. It is a religion. It is also a scientific theory. There is nothing contradictory between the two. Me highlighting that it is a religion is not an error. I will explain following.

quote:
And really I don't see the difficulty in separating out religious elements - which so far you haven't even bothered to identify. I'd say that those elements are mostly errors from the scientific point of view anyway (e.g. the identification of evolution with "progress" in a broad sense).

Evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. See more http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm (That was a very interesting speach, by the way)

These are some of the reasons why evolution (and atheism, by extension) is a religion: According to Smart, N., 1996. Dimensions of the sacred: an anatomy of the worlds beliefs. HarperCollins, London, there are seven dimentions of a religion.

1. Narrative: Religions as a whole has a origins story and mans part in it. Evolution explains where man came from (Where something came from nothing, and where humans evolved from animals, thus man is just another animal.)

2. Experiential: There are two aspects to this. One: By the founder, before founding the religion. Two: By later adherents. Religious ceremonies are emotional events. There are evolutionists that feel liberated after converting. http://old.richarddawkins.net/...ers-the-atheists-39-prayers

This religion of which I am describing requires a denial of the afterlife. Since there is no afterlife (Provine, W.B. 1994) then the highest goal is happiness. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. Evolutionism requires faith to believe that the laws of biology, like those of biogenesis, can be violated, without evidence.

3. Social: The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work. Dawkins writes in the preface to The God Delusion, If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. Essentially this is what any missionary would want accomplished, to their own religions, of course.

Many scientists are high up in this religions hierarchy, Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (Such as those about the chameleon's catapult tongue and suction cap)

4. Doctrinal: Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion. The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good. By and large, atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they dont know the specifics of the document.

5. Ethical: Evolutionism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as Dawkins and Provine has stated. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said Im a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but Im a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.

6. Ritual: Evolutionism is a relatively recent religion, about 200+ years old. Hence there is not much to commemorate. Things that is commemorated are: Darwins Birthday, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Lifes publication date, etc.

7. Material: The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. Nature itself is treated by some as sacred. (Such as when N in nature is capitalized)

Maybe Im too long, but I want to be complete. So, how do we separate the religious parts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 4:02 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 09-27-2012 5:09 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 5:20 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 39 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2012 6:07 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:31 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 50 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 9:51 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9260
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 36 of 110 (674207)
09-27-2012 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 4:44 AM


Assumptions
Limp Spider writes:

Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good.

Is it not also an assumption that humans are intrinsically evil/flawed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:44 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:48 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(4)
Message 37 of 110 (674209)
09-27-2012 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 4:44 AM


quote:

Let me make this clear. It is a religion. It is also a scientific theory. There is nothing contradictory between the two. Me highlighting that it is a religion is not an error. I will explain following.

In the first Ruse article you quoted, Ruse was really quite clear about where the elements he identified as "religious" were and also clearly stated that the core of evolutionary work was scientific, not religious. So clearly that article contradicted your claims and it is not a strawman to point that out. Moreover, if evolution is a valid, mainstream scientific theory that is clearly a good reason for it to be taught in schools. Are you claiming that you had not thought of that?

quote:

These are some of the reasons why evolution (and atheism, by extension) is a religion: According to Smart, N., 1996. Dimensions of the sacred: an anatomy of the worlds beliefs. HarperCollins, London, there are seven dimentions of a religion.


Obviously the extension is invalid....

quote:

1. Narrative: Religions as a whole has a origins story and mans part in it. Evolution explains where man came from (Where something came from nothing, and where humans evolved from animals, thus man is just another animal.)

Many things involve narrative, this is not a reason in itself.

quote:

2. Experiential: There are two aspects to this. One: By the founder, before founding the religion. Two: By later adherents. Religious ceremonies are emotional events. There are evolutionists that feel liberated after converting. http://old.richarddawkins.net/...ers-the-atheists-39-prayers

Atheism, of course, is not evolution so your "evidence" is not relevant. Moreover there are no ceremonies nor any insistence on emotional experiences so this point seems to apply more to sports fans than to the science of evolution.

quote:

This religion of which I am describing requires a denial of the afterlife. Since there is no afterlife (Provine, W.B. 1994) then the highest goal is happiness. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. Evolutionism requires faith to believe that the laws of biology, like those of biogenesis, can be violated, without evidence.

Humanism is not evolution, evolution does not require denial of the afterlife and evolution violates no laws of biology. So everything you say here is irrelevant or false.

quote:

3. Social: The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work. Dawkins writes in the preface to The God Delusion, If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. Essentially this is what any missionary would want accomplished, to their own religions, of course.

Atheism is not evolution, so again your "evidence" is irrelevant.

quote:

4. Doctrinal: Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion. The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good. By and large, atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they dont know the specifics of the document.

Humanism is not evolution. Therefore your "evidence" is yet another irrelevance.

quote:

5. Ethical: Evolutionism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as Dawkins and Provine has stated. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said Im a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but Im a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.

Well, here is a point where quoting Ruse might have done you some good. Certainly it would be better than wasting time talking about atheism again. However, any moral aspects are easily separated from the science of evolution, as Ruse recognises, so even the better argument would fail.

quote:

6. Ritual: Evolutionism is a relatively recent religion, about 200+ years old. Hence there is not much to commemorate. Things that is commemorated are: Darwins Birthday, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Lifes publication date, etc.

In other words you have to clutch at straws. I would dare say that there are far greater commemorations associated with Independance Day or even Martin Luther King Day in the US, so it seems that you have nothing of significance here either. You don't even mention any actual rituals!

quote:

7. Material: The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. Nature itself is treated by some as sacred. (Such as when N in nature is capitalized)

Again, nothing of any use.

quote:

Maybe Im too long, but I want to be complete. So, how do we separate the religious parts?

You could have left everything out and still been complete. The only possibly religious elements are the ethical dimension and the idea that Nature is sacred - neither of which are part of evolutionary science. Both are easily left out. And i have no idea why you kept talking about atheism or humanism instead of evolution, I mean, do you really think that The God Delusion or similar books are set texts in biology classes ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:44 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:04 AM PaulK has responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 38 of 110 (674212)
09-27-2012 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
09-27-2012 5:20 AM


Phat, I make no such assumption, and you should phase such a presumptive question more carefully.

PaulK

quote:
In the first Ruse article you quoted, Ruse was really quite clear about where the elements he identified as "religious" were and also clearly stated that the core of evolutionary work was scientific, not religious. So clearly that article contradicted your claims and it is not a strawman to point that out. Moreover, if evolution is a valid, mainstream scientific theory that is clearly a good reason for it to be taught in schools. Are you claiming that you had not thought of that?
As a scientific theory I agree that it should be taught. It is jumping to conclusions to even suggest that I have never thought of it. The dogmatic way it is held is what I disagree with.

quote:
Obviously the extension is invalid....

Why? Although I do know that Provine said that ...belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. (Provine, W.B. 1999)

quote:
Many things involve narrative, this is not a reason in itself.

Do you need to point that out? There are seven cumulated reasons.

quote:
Atheism, of course, is not evolution so your "evidence" is not relevant. Moreover there are no ceremonies nor any insistence on emotional experiences so this point seems to apply more to sports fans than to the science of evolution.

Did you read the link? Im assuming not. You still have not provided evidence for your first statement.

quote:
Humanism is not evolution, evolution does not require denial of the afterlife and evolution violates no laws of biology. So everything you say here is irrelevant or false.

This is the informal logical fallacy of elephant hurling. You make statements without any supporting arguments, when I have. Do you intend to provide any logical, fact-based arguments?

quote:
Atheism is not evolution, so again your "evidence" is irrelevant.

Are you fond of quoting this mantra?

quote:
Humanism is not evolution. Therefore your "evidence" is yet another irrelevance.

Can you please show me where I said humanism IS evolution?! I would willingly correct that!

quote:
Well, here is a point where quoting Ruse might have done you some good. Certainly it would be better than wasting time talking about atheism again. However, any moral aspects are easily separated from the science of evolution, as Ruse recognises, so even the better argument would fail.

Which person did I quote, exactly? I did not know Russ and Dawkins were the same!

quote:
In other words you have to clutch at straws. I would dare say that there are far greater commemorations associated with Independance Day or even Martin Luther King Day in the US, so it seems that you have nothing of significance here either. You don't even mention any actual rituals!

Is something that is more widely commemorated more significant to this discussion? This is about humanistic commemorations. Are you the one that is clutching at straws?

A simple google search would vindicate me. http://darwinday.org/ YOu might come up with the objection that this is not worship, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship The behavior do ft into the definition of worship.

quote:
Again, nothing of any use.

Why did you not respond to my arguments? Surely it has nothing of use for you to win the debate, but it does have a use for proving my point. Hand-waving such as what you have just done is just not what debate is all about.

quote:
You could have left everything out and still been complete. The only possibly religious elements are the ethical dimension and the idea that Nature is sacred - neither of which are part of evolutionary science. Both are easily left out. And i have no idea why you kept talking about atheism or humanism instead of evolution, I mean, do you really think that The God Delusion or similar books are set texts in biology classes ?

Actually, I have used the Greatest Show on Earth as reading material for my class. So. Unless you can rationally contradict Provine, I will have to assume, an argument from silence of course, that you have no rational argument against his statements.

Edited by LimpSpider, : Mixed up the actual book and the creationist rebuttal. Both read


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 5:20 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 8:20 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1479
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 39 of 110 (674213)
09-27-2012 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 4:44 AM


quote:
These are some of the reasons why evolution (and atheism, by extension) is a religion: According to Smart, N., 1996. Dimensions of the sacred: an anatomy of the worlds beliefs. HarperCollins, London, there are seven dimensions of a religion.
1. Narrative
This one is strange as, according to the book you referred to, the first of the seven dimensions of beliefs, is : Doctrinal.

Yet, you listed the first of Smarts the seven dimensions of the sacred as: Narrative.

The word narrative (from the Oxford Dictionary) means: 1 n. tale, story, recital of facts, esp. story told in first person; kind of composition or talk that confines itself to these 2. a. in the form of, or concerned with, narration;

The word doctrinal means: a. of or inculcating doctrine(s).

The word doctrine means : n. wat is taught, body of instruction; religious, political, scientific, etc., belief, dogma or tenet;

The word inculcate means : v. t. urge, impress, (fact, habit, idea) persistently (upon or in person or mind).

Seeing that these words dont have the same meaning, could you please advise us on why you changed the word Doctrinal, as found in the book you referred to, to Narrative, which has a different meaning ? Did you use a different version of the book? Did I miss something in that book?

Sources

1. The one you referred to: Smart, N., 1996. Dimensions of the sacred: an anatomy of the
worlds beliefs. HarperCollins, London.
2. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Seventh Edition. 1987 reprint.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:44 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:18 AM Pressie has responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 40 of 110 (674215)
09-27-2012 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Pressie
09-27-2012 6:07 AM


Pressie, thanks for commenting. I listed his seven dimensions alright, Just not in the order he presented it. Each of my pointers can be used as a stand-alone paragraph. (I did reference my source, and I doubt you can say that if I changed the order to the order stated in his book it would make any argumental difference)

quote:
Seeing that these words dont have the same meaning, could you please advise us on why you changed the word Doctrinal, as found in the book you referred to, to Narrative, which has a different meaning ? Did you use a different version of the book? Did I miss something in that book?

You missed only one thing: Looking down further into my post. Doctrinal I put at 4.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2012 6:07 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2012 6:42 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1479
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 41 of 110 (674216)
09-27-2012 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 6:18 AM


Ah, so you changed things around.

However, on your first point, you say:

quote:
1. Narrative: Religions as a whole has a origins story and mans part in it. Evolution explains where man came from (Where something came from nothing, and where humans evolved from animals, thus man is just another animal.)
I must have missed something else. Ive never seen anywhere that evolution says that something came from nothing. Could you refer to any biological journal that claims that? Or did I miss it, too?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:18 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 42 of 110 (674218)
09-27-2012 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
09-27-2012 5:09 AM


Re: Assumptions
Phat, I will make a more detailed answer.
quote:
Is it not also an assumption that humans are intrinsically evil/flawed?

Firstly, what is evil? If everything was relative, rape would not be evil, as some scientists have proposed should be the case. I make no assumptions on this topic. I dont believe man is intrinsically flawed, or basically good, for that matter. I believe that every person has the capacity to be both good and evil. I know that sounds oxymoronic, but Eva Braun certainly thought Hitler good (Why else would she marry him when he was all but defeated). Others think him evil. OK. I think this goes more into philosophy now, so Ill stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 09-27-2012 5:09 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2012 7:30 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9321
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 43 of 110 (674219)
09-27-2012 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 6:48 AM


Re: Assumptions
Firstly, what is evil? If everything was relative, rape would not be evil, as some scientists have proposed should be the case.

Which scientist proposed that? Your Godwin's law invoking, Eva Braun reference is ridiculous. Who gives a hoot that Braun loved Hitler. Some women love evil men because the women themselves are evil. Rape is nearly universally regarded as evil. Only a few psychopaths have a moral code that says otherwise.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:48 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 8:02 AM NoNukes has responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 44 of 110 (674223)
09-27-2012 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
09-27-2012 7:30 AM


Re: Assumptions
NoNukes,
quote:
Which scientist proposed that? Your Godwin's law invoking, Eva Braun reference is ridiculous. Who gives a hoot that Braun loved Hitler. Some women love evil men because the women themselves are evil. Rape is nearly universally regarded as evil. Only a few psychopaths have a moral code that says otherwise.

Craig Palmer, and Randy Thornhill, academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press).

Why is the reference ridiculous. My point was that good and evil are relative terms that have no logical basis if there is no purpose to us being here. I could have used Stalin. Or anyone else, you, and me. Its about perspective.

How is this moral code any worse than ours?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2012 7:30 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:26 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 9:58 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 12:53 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 45 of 110 (674225)
09-27-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 6:04 AM


quote:

As a scientific theory I agree that it should be taught. It is jumping to conclusions to even suggest that I have never thought of it. The dogmatic way it is held is what I disagree with.

It seems that I have to remind you of what you said - again.


Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all)

And how is the teaching of evolution more dogmatic than the teaching I experienced of Newton's Laws of Motion - which had been known to be merely (very) good approximations decades before I went to school ?

quote:

Why? Although I do know that Provine said that ...belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. (Provine, W.B. 1999)

Since atheism does not entail evolution it is invalid to go from the assertion that evolution is a religion to the claim that atheism is a religion. Moreover your quote from Provine at most asserts that evolution entails atheism which is the wrong way round for you (more likely it entails that if there is a God, that God did not detectably intervene in the history of life on this planet - a position clearly compatible with a Deistic view of a God who created our universe but does not intervene in the workings of the universe after that).

quote:

Do you need to point that out? There are seven cumulated reasons.

Yes, I do because it it the ONLY one of your seven "reasons" that strongly applied to evolution as science.

quote:

Did you read the link? Im assuming not. You still have not provided evidence for your first statement.

Yes, I did read the book review of The God Delusion that you linked to. It doesn't say anything about conversion or evolution at all. And which statement have I failed to support? "Atheism is not evolution"? I would have thought that was obvious, but if it is not see my point about Deism above. Clearly it is possible to accept evolution and believe in some kind of God even if Provine disagrees (and you have not shown that he does)

quote:

This is the informal logical fallacy of elephant hurling. You make statements without any supporting arguments, when I have. Do you intend to provide any logical, fact-based arguments?


This is untrue, you have not supported any of the claims that I objected to. I have seen no argument from you that Humanism is evolution, that evolution denies any belief in the afterlife or that evolution violates any actual laws of biology. In fact every one of those is so obviously absurd that they require no refutation.

quote:

Are you fond of quoting this mantra?

If you make the same error time and again repeating the fact that it is an error seems reasonable.

quote:

Can you please show me where I said humanism IS evolution?! I would willingly correct that!

Sure, you do that implicitly in points 2 and 4 when you start talking about Humanism. Since your argument is all about evolution you should be talking about evolution...

quote:

Which person did I quote, exactly? I did not know Russ and Dawkins were the same!

I didn't say that you quoted anyone. I said that you SHOULD have quoted the Ruse article that you linked to in your first post to this thread, since you would at least have found something that was not completely irrelevant, even if it did not really help your case.

quote:

Is something that is more widely commemorated more significant to this discussion? This is about humanistic commemorations. Are you the one that is clutching at straws?

A simple google search would vindicate me. http://darwinday.org/ YOu might come up with the objection that this is not worship, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship The behavior do ft into the definition of worship.


Yes, secular events that are more widely celebrated are relevant, since they show that the force of your argument is very weak. Certainly "Darwin Day" (which I have never celebrated) doesn't seem to represent any more "worship" than those events. And where are the rituals ?

quote:

Why did you not respond to my arguments? Surely it has nothing of use for you to win the debate, but it does have a use for proving my point. Hand-waving such as what you have just done is just not what debate is all about.

You HAD no argument. How does "Some treat Nature as sacred" indicate that evolution itself has any "material" aspects of a religion ? You don't even attempt to show that this idea is part of the science of evolution. There is no argument to respond to.

quote:

Actually, I have used the Greatest Show on Earth as reading material for my class. So. Unless you can rationally contradict Provine, I will have to assume, an argument from silence of course, that you have no rational argument against his statements.

The Greatest Show on Earth is a popular science book, not a book on atheism so obviously it is not really relevant.

As for the Provine quote I have shown that it does not support you even if Provine is entirely right, so I have no need to argue against it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:04 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:22 AM PaulK has responded

    
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017