My position explained

In my opinion, Dawkins is just as militant in his atheism as some creationists are in their beliefs. He claims that evolution disproves not just creation but the existence of any god.It does not do that.Intellectually speaking agnosticism is the most logical course -- you cannot know for sure one way or the other by the very definition\concept of supernatural.I have to agree with Mike on this one.

Maybe you need to define what you mean by "a no go area". That reads as if it is an end to communication.I can say that anyone arguing that God created the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood, are all "no go areas" in the sense that I don't believe them... that is until there is good evidence for them. I will listen to evidence that anyone has for them.Are you willing to discuss and understand evidence which suggests random mutations (or events), and perhaps even "purposeless" (whatever that loaded term means) events?Once again I do need to point out that random and purposeless events leading to life and speciation is not inherently an athiest position. Athiests will inherently need something like it (or appeals to aliens or other nondeity powerful intelligences), but that does not make such things against theism. Or to put it another way, theist positions do not require that such things not exist. You had better give abiogenesis the credence it deserves, that is all. It is currently the best scientific theory for how life originated. That is without question.If you want to say it is so tentative a theory that you feel safe in believing tenets of your faith that say such a thing did not occur, that is fine, but that does not allow you to pretend like it is anything less than the best scientific theory we have. If we turned the tables and applied the same level of skepticism on your faith's position, it would come off far far less.But I do wonder about your final statement. Who are you to say whether primal sludge generating life is not a humongous testament to a God's creation? Why is the natural something you seem to hold in disdain? See this is where you get things confused. Evolutionists do not "have faith in" abiogenesis, including those that say it is likely what occured. It is only those that say 100% that is positively what happened and they "know" it, who are expressing a faith. Other than extremists that pretend we have definite knowledge of where and how life arose, the rest are stating a fact.Right now, the only physical evidence we have regarding the formation of life on earth is some form of abiogenesis, though it may actually have begun in various locations including off earth (meteoritic conditions).That is the only evidence you have and the only evidence I have... it is the only possibility based on evidence any of us have.Your position is of faith without regard to evidence. What your position stands on is that abiogenesis, as a theory, is so tentative (the evidence so small) that further evidence can and may surface to compromise it.So you have faith that future evidence will reveal abiogeneis to be untrue. While a scientist may be said to have faith that evidence will not surface that refutes abiogenesis, it is clearly a different epistemic category than your faith.To claim that scientists are having faith like you have faith is to equivocate. That is a gut feeling. It is fine to hold on to it, but one should not use that to discredit scientific claims unfairly, or avoid examining one's gut feeling critically given any new evidence.I am glad you said "theistic explanations" of intelligent design and not "scientific explanations". Yes I can. I have done so I think at least twice so far at EvC. The results have been Xians disappearing, and one lame-o claiming that ecclesiastes is actually false knowledge/wisdom and something we are being told to ignore. I hope this will not be the case with you.From the New International Version (I can get it from others if you want)... While it speaks of the limits of man's life being the same as any animal, it also suggests the limits of our knowledge regarding the afterlife of animals. We cannot know. Certainly your assessment of their purpose or lack thereof stepped across the boundary set here. You were not simply enjoying your work, but trying to explain things beyond our scope.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-18-2004 06:39 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have not seen him say this, but I will admit I have not followed his works fully. It's usually been in documentaries and his comments have not been as strong as you are suggesting here.From what I understand he does not believe in gods of any kind. In that he is taking a strong position, based on lack of any evidence for something. Logically that is not completely true (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but it is practically true. In other words it is a better pragmatic position than that taken by theists.I have heard him say that evolution is what gives atheists confidence in their position, and this is true. With contradictory evidence it would hinder atheism down to teh same pure faith level that theism currently holds.I have not heard him say that abiogenesis is a proven fact and that it along with evolution means that theism of any kind is ruled out. As far as I could discern it is the complete lack of evidence on the side of theism, combined with the positive (and consistently mounting positive) evidence for abiogenesis and evolution, which seals the deal for him.He has certainly been less than tactful towards theists, but surly is different than stating something logically out of bounds.But I have heard people make claims that evolution and abiogenesis is true and therefore all religious claims are bogus. Indeed I have heard scientists say this. Maybe I just haven't heard Dawkins say it. I am open to evidence on this point.That said, my guess is even if it were true, Dawkins is not advocating that reality is some bleak and nihilistic purposeless state of affairs. That is what Mike charged atheism with. Unless for some reason militancy of the atheism determines the tenor of life proposed by the atheist?It seemed to me Mike was trying to use the cover of bashing a rude atheist, to actually slip by attacks on atheism, or as you point out agnosticism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_3.htmlThe Improbability of God He has said more in other articles.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Holmes, no offense - but I simply think you are looking too much into this scripture. Since Christ has came preaching the kingdom of heaven - he has declared who lives on. So when it asks who knows - then we now know that Christ knows, as he has declared it.It says So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?This means that once a man is dead he won't return to the earth.You say;You were not simply enjoying your work, but trying to explain things beyond our scope.But the passage is about the Spirit - not whether animals live forever. Many have shown me this passage thinking it talks about animal heaven. Many also show me the one in Isaiah about God creating evil.I suppose I could be wrong and an animal has a spirit, but I only know Christ proclaimed the kingdom to humans and created us as a lining soul in his image, to have dominion over animals. And to even sacrifice them - which was fine with God.The passage refers to me returning to the dust. When I have finished on earth, then the earth I return to as dust and that's it concerning earth - there is no returning to observe the work of my hands. In this way I'm just like the animals - I have a heart that beats and when it ends - I end, earthly wise. This is what it means.When I said the animals would have died a natural death - it is my personal view - and I admitt it is speculation.I must go now, will return to address the rest when have time.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-18-2004 08:15 PM

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

evolutionistic, atheistic, nihilistics

---

You baby raping Christian.What was that? You took that comment as an insult? Then what do you think "evolutionistic, atheistic nihilist" is?Could you show me a single trait that the three share? Are you claiming that god cannot create life that evolves? That atheism requires the belief that everything ought to be destroyed? That a person cannot be of the idea that existence is senseless and still think it was created as a sick experiment?You need to stop insulting those who don't share your take on the existence of god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain has made a good point; Mike, please watch what you say in future. Theistic evolutionists will be insulted if you continue to equate evolution with atheism, etc. - and this is something you should avoid despite your own opinions.That said, could you be as polite as well, Rrhain? You two trading insults is not going to move the debate forward.AdminIRH

I'm a creationist also, I want to see if our positions are compatible.My position is more about the creation vs evolution controversy then it is about what I believe how organisms came to be.My position is that darwinists illegitematly took away the focus from decision / determination for questions about origins, to focus on various "cause and effect" ideas like reproduction with modification. They then proceeded to promote various bizarre and cruel ideas and ideologies based on their prejudiced science.Decision / determination refers to a change in a probability. So when at some point X in time, from zero it becomes a relative 100 percent likelyhood that an elephant will appear at later point Y in time, then that "decision" at point X is the origin of the elephant. (of course you can theorize there was more then one decision-event that went into the creation of an elephant, and that there were decisions that went against the creation, made the appearance of the elephant less likely)Now as far as I see it, where the gap between my viewpoint and yours is, is that you require an intelligent designer. This comes to the question of; what is intelligence?If you would say that intelligence is essentially a matter of decision, and not a matter of cause and effect, then I think I can link our positions. So that when you say you require an intelligent designer, you equally say you require a determination / decision to be at the beginning, the point of origin, and not some material effect.So basicly the argument goes as follows: at the start there was nothing. Looking backwards in time, tracing back the effects to their causes, evolutionists like to make it appear as if there is a logical train of cause and effect that lead up from nothing to an elephant. But standing at the very beginning, there is completely nothing, and, looking forward in time, it is a matter of decision / determination what comes next, what causes are set. An elephant was chosen to be, by miraculous decisions.It seems obvious that to focus on decisions is more conducive to belief in God, then to focus on "cause and effect". So what do you think, can our positions be linked this way, that you require decision equally as you require intelligence?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

It favours the natural and gives no glory to God whatsoever

---

But everything in science favors the natural and gives no glory to god whatsoever. That's the point: It's science and not religion. You don't sem to have a problem when we investigate gravity or light or electricity or any of the other things that science investigates. Why are you so uptight about us investigating life? What does anything we find about how life works say anything about the existence of god or nonexistence thereof?Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

quote:

---

saying that we evolved in some pre-biotic sludge.

---

And what's wrong with that? Are you saying god is incapable of creating life any way he wants? You seem to have this vision of god lovingly and personally putting each and every molecule in a specific place, giving it a tender kiss before doing so, as if he were some cosmic Martha Stewart ("It's a good thing.")Search your Bible. Where does it say exactly how god did it? I can't seem to find it. Who are you to tell god how to do things? Just because you have an idea of how it should have been doesn't mean god did it that way. God can create however he wants, can he not?Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

quote:

---

if evolutionists have faith in abiogenesis

---

But they don't. How many times do you need to be reminded before you remember? There is no such thing as faith when it comes to science. Things are accepted as being true because the evidence indicates that they are. If more evidence shows up tomorrow that we were wrong about absolutely everything, then it all gets discarded. We used to think that the natural state of objects was at rest. We dumped that when we realized that objects in motion remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. We used to think of the atom as akin to a plum pudding until we realized that you could bounce an alpha particle off them. That's the difference between science and religion:What would it take for you to admit you were wrong? Ask a scientist and you'll get a dozen things that, if you were able to do them, would make him question everything about everything. What would you need to see in order to get you to question your faith?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

AdminIRH responds to me:

quote:

---

That said, could you be as polite as well, Rrhain? You two trading insults is not going to move the debate forward.

---

Um, I've tried the pleasant, let's not make waves approach and it doesn't work. This is not the first time mike has called those who advocate evolution to be nihilists, bent upon destroying the world.And no, I am not trading insults with him. The difference is that I don't believe what I said. I don't think he's a baby raping Christian. He, on the other hand, does think that those who advocate for evolution are atheistic nihilists. My words to him are to point out that he needs an attitude adjustment. He can't see it or he would stop it (assuming that he's not just a troll). It is not enough to simply say that it was an insult. It has been tried and failed.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That's funny, because that is not what I was saying at all. I was saying that this passage, in the process of talking about other things, discusses repeatedly the limits of man's knowledge.I am only dealing with the limits of man's knowledge. You spoke of grander things than you are capable of knowing, even according to scripture. Whether there is a place in heaven, or a seperate heaven, for animals is beyond both of us. I made no statement there was, you made a statement there was not.Though I would state that it implies they have a spirit of some kind. Christ was talking to humans, so that makes sense. Whether they have dominion over animals is irrelevant, as men have dominion over other men on this earth as well. Indeed you can be called to sacrifice your life or the lives of others in the name of God. That does not alter whether those dominated or sacrificed have souls, and where they go afterward.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heyyyy... what about us atheist evolutionists being insulted by equation to bleak nihilists?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To be honest, none of this appears to contradict what I said. Especially when one looks at the full text of the essay.He starts with what he is trying to prove... That is not a statement of evolution and abiogenesis did happen as current theory indicates, and in being proven theism is rebutted.It is a blank statement that there is a dearth of evidence for gods in specific, and growing evidence for processes that do not require gods to maintain them in general.It is for a person to choose what to believe from this, but an atheistic position is better buttressed with that state of evidence.He then moves on to knock down the common arguments for a designer for "complexity" in life, a basic theist position, explaining that it is a mistake in logical reasoning. Compared to evolution, he states... So it is capable of doing the large picture job theoretically, and current evidence does indicate (well "fits with" would be better) that that is what is going on.Then he gets mean. He addresses the other arguments for believing in God, which are personal beliefs outside of testable evidence, as not worthy.He does not say that they are absolutely incapable of being wrong, and that evolution has proven it wrong. He says that personal revelation is known to be unreliable (and gives the guilt by association lunatic analogy), and the area being left to gods as necessary "to do" doesn't leave the gods much to do... sort of a low blow calling gods lazy if they do exist.Thus the latter reasons seem unconvincing as reasons to throw faith into those positions. I would argue with him that this is a little strong, and rude, but it does not cross the line suggested that he has taken.And I would reinforce my original argument. Mike was blasting Dawkins and people that believe as Dawkins does as championing a bleak, purposeless, nihilist worldview. That does not seem to be the case. If anything, it appears that he is saying the position of people like Mike tend to create more bleak, nihilist environments.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Agreed, that essay does not say what I had claimed, and it may just my forgettery working better than my memory. But yes he is mean when he could be kinder (but one can also understand his anger when you know his history with creationists, esp the ustralian video ones). And he certainly allows little room for agnostic position as intellectually valid either.Put the differences in the way he is perceived down to differences in perception. To me an atheist is just as committed on the god question as a theist and on just as much evidence, and I'll take mine with a little cream but no sugar, thanks.

... (mea cuppa?)

(marquee works ... ... but has been edited out )This message has been edited by RAZD, 12-19-2004 09:17 AMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 12-19-2004 06:30 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Mike,it may help you to look at 'in the beginning god created' from a different angle.
It does not say whose beginning. It also does not explain how this earth appeared initially, 'void, dark, waters covering it'.It was 'after' that, when God said 'let there be light'. Why not make light immediately, or make it fully functional immediately?
I understand the six-day approach to creation.
You cannot argue the mysteries with those who do not understand them and are not meant to. Better for them to read Christie, rather than Christ. More to offer.