Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
Comment #48110 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 6, 2007 at 4:11 pm
"However, I am afraid that I am not going to accept your flippant:"
I think you misunderstood me. I was stating that female circumcision is not even mentioned in the Bible and therefore it cannot be argued that Christianity endorses female circumcision in any way. I was not stating that it is a morally irrelevant question in the Bible. The Bible does in fact address how we treat our bodies and how we treat others. Applying reason, rational conclusions should be made about how we are to treat others and what we do to our bodies. Savagely knifing up female sex organs is clearly not what God intended for the female body. It is intensely disrespectful to the victim as well as to the victim's body (FYI, that violates two principles in scripture). He created sex organs for a purpose, and what these people do is a perversion of nature.
Just in anticipation, male circumcision is in no way even remotely equivalent to female circumcision. It doesn't affect reproductive capability or pleasure. It is a harmless procedure that can help to avoid health complications later on, but it is mostly, as I stated before, just good hygiene.
"You don't like female circumcision, great! Top marks. Now tell me why. What would you say to a Muslim who says that it is part of his religion and his religion is based on 'reasonable faith'?"
To answer the first question, I profoundly disagree with Islam, and I believe it is riddled with inconsistencies and morally repugnant notions. I would simply reply with the answer I provided in the first paragraph. It amounts to nothing less than mutilation. If someone's religion required its followers to torture people for fun, then obviously that religion is evil and those who practice it should go to prison for very long periods of time. As I stated in my second comment however, be careful not to over-generalize. Different religions are, well, different.
"Sorry Biz, moral reactions are based not on God's guidance, or 'reasonable faith' or 'objective morality' they are based on our guts."
I don't buy it. Morality becomes an arbitrary concept without God. If it is my gut feeling that I should torture infants for fun, based on your logic, could you argue with me?
Comment #48041 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 6, 2007 at 11:26 am
"…now I think that is definitely child abuse because there is no way a 7 year old girl can make her mind up as to whether or not she wants to be a catholic."
You must have a very, very peculiar definition of child of abuse. I was raised in a Christian home, but strangely (according to your theories on child abuse) I suffer from no psychological trauma or mental defects. Realistically, children can have no choice in anything of importance. They are simply not equipped to make choices at early ages. That is why they cannot drive, vote, drink alcohol, etc. Good parents make choices that they believe will benefit their child. If a parent believes that religious teaching will benefit their child, then it is their full right to do so.
Now I understand where this becomes a problem when you have groups such as Hamas brain-washing children with Islamo-fascist propaganda, but there is a stark distinction between teaching children to kill infidels and teaching children that killing people is wrong because they are made in the image of God. I believe that part of the problem in your line of reasoning stems from a lack of proper differentiation between the major world religions. They are certainly not all the same. To lump them all together would just be a gross over-generalization.
"I thought about it and I reached the conclusion that if she did decide to follow another faith or go the atheist route her whole family would shun her and make her feel terrible."
That's quite presumptuous now isn't it? I've heard this argument numerous times, and it just doesn't hold water. There may be a small number of cases where this is indeed the situation, but a vast majority of the time it is not. I know several good friends from high school who renounced their faith, and their parents love them and express their love for them no less than before. Your accusation is based largely on exaggerated stories.
"That argument is known as herschey's discombobular theory, which is a flawed pedagogical precept I'm afraid."
FYI, claiming the falsity of an argument does not make it false. Would you care to back this up with some rational arguments?
"The latter could only come from teaching children honestly, to understand that there are certain issues about which no one can be certain, which various mythologies and philosophies seek to address - in classes of comparative religion."
Ok, but the way you are referring to a study of religion implies something along the same line as a study of Greek mythology. If a child is therefore taught about religion with this same kind of attitude, then he or she would still be conditioned to believe against any form of religion. Either way, the end result is what you would call indoctrination. The only difference lies in the fact that one worldview is the polar opposite of the other.
The other issue involves your definition of what you call "certainties". I've argued on this site before that every belief we retain involves some element of faith. Certainty is therefore a concept of degrees. I cannot be certain that you exist, but I have good reason to. Likewise, I cannot be certain that God exists, but I have just as much reason to believe He exists.
"but reality is queerer then the flimsy dichotomies of human logic,"
I certainly agree, but unfortunately our logic is the only thing we have to go on. You just can't argue against a proposition on the basis that, although it may seem to be logically consistent, our logic can't always be trusted.
"I do so wish you were right about this, but respectfully you are dead wrong (I know this because I used to think as you do."
Research conducted in 1989 confirms that circumcised males are slightly less at risk for urinary tract infections that un-circumcised males, although this benefit is admittedly marginal. The main motivation for most people I know is simple hygiene. Once again I don't mean to be crude, but ever heard of smeg? That's something I'll never have to worry about .
As for female circumcision, I didn't even know we were talking about that. You won't find any arguments here. It is one of the most disgusting and perverted practices in place today. It has absolutely no relevance to Christianity however.
Comment #47892 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 6, 2007 at 12:50 am
First, I think my statement on guns is being taken out of context. My comment did not focus on gun control; it briefly mentioned it (that would mean that many of you are setting up straw men). The last part of my post was something of a side note on the rather negative attitudes that many non-American societies have towards the US, and this was indeed relevant to certain portions of the article. And yes, all of my guns are legal and registered. I shoot for fun. And you know, I may try to be well-spoken and educated, but it's a universal truth that any typical guy just likes things that go boom.
"This is nomologically false."
I think you've taken "nothing" out of context here. I was referring to the "nothing" in respect to the void of any belief that would exist in the mind of a child who is taught nothing regarding his or her parents' values. To retain no metaphysical beliefs would be to believe in nothing (in the sense that it is being used above), and that would obviously still mean believing in something. I always think it rather dull when atheists say that their philosophy is not a belief, but rather a lack of belief. A belief that God does not exist however is still obviously a belief. As for the irrelevant jargon on vacuums which I was already well aware of, I just say "boo". You, being educated people, are well aware that I was not referring to vacuums in the scientific context, but rather the philosophical one.
As for my use of a double negative, I am aware that it is a grammatical error (and of course Word underlines it in the little green squiggle) but I was using it to emphasize the logical absurdity of saying that vacuums do not exist.
"Anyway, that isn't exactly what I think is being advocated, and its at least not what I would advocate."
[In one form or another, all religions violate the rights of children.]
Then you have a very interesting interpretation of this article. I think the statement above says it all. The way I read it, the article is suggesting that the government have the power to regulate what children are taught by their parents in respect to religion, and specifically that children should be taught nothing of the faith of their ancestors. That's morally and ethically and many-other-strong-words-ly repugnant.
"Children should be taught how to think, not what to think"
I agree to an extent. I think however that this statement is a bit short-sited. You can teach a child to use and strengthen reasoning skills, but if your son asked you what the sun was, would you tell him to just figure it out using reason and logic? Certainly not. In this case, any father would absolutely tell him what to think. Learning how to think cannot be accomplished without pre-existing information. Reason after all requires experience. For example, a child needs to know that hurting other kids on the playground is wrong. This information cannot be gleaned from merely learning how to think, because there exists no experiential basis for understanding the morally unacceptable nature of physically assaulting another person. In this case, the parent would have to tell the child that hitting other children is wrong. This then becomes a moral foundation on which the child can build on using reason. Therefore, in many situations it is only through being told what to think that a child can learn how to think. The two aspects of learning cannot be separated as they are complimentary to one another.
"No you teach them to believe in nothing without evidence. It's called thinking for themselves."
No, actually it's called classical evidentialism, and it is a logically corrupt philosophical notion. Evidentialism holds that it is irrational for anyone anywhere to believe any proposition without sufficient evidence. Unfortunately, the philosophy fails to pass its own test as there is obviously no evidence to support evidentialism.
"I notice that you did not comment on the moral cowardice shown by the Vatican (and people of faith in general) over condemning the practice of circumcism."
Ok, well I'm sure you are aware that circumcision is actually a health benefit, right? I'm not trying to be gross, but I was not circumcised due to religious reasons. It's not an obligation in any way for Christians. I was circumcised purely for the health benefits. This is therefore a non-argument.
"Will you be sparing the rod?"
No, not really. I was spanked as a child with a leather belt. I've never once used or experimented with drugs, gotten drunk, or gotten into a fight. I don't even have a single ticket despite the fact that I drive a Camaro. I'm not perfect, but I can certainly attribute much of my success in life to amazing parents who didn't wuss out when it came to discipline.
"My point is that if you condemn the mistreatment of children (as I am sure you do) you have to condemn it whatever the theoretical underpinnings behind it."
Ok, well as I've argued before on this site numerous times, any philosophy/religion/what have you can be used to justify evil deeds. I can abuse my child in the name of atheism just as easily as I can in the name of Islam can I not?
"Was Biz allowed to shoot his real gun when a kid? Was he allowed to drink alcohol when a kid? Were his parents allowed to beat him to a pulp when he was a kid? Was he allowed to buy cigarettes when he a was kid? Were his parents allowed to deny him medical treatment because of religious beliefs when he was a kid?"
Where in the world did this come from? It's totally irrelevant and totally inappropriate. Why would you assume that because I own two guns and enjoy shooting that my parents, whom I love dearly, were abusive and irresponsible? This kind of garbage just isn't necessary.
I think that about covers it. This will probably be my last post on this article as I will have little to no internet access over the next couple of days.
Comment #47538 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 4, 2007 at 11:05 pm
At the heart of this monstrous idea lies the incredible misunderstanding that children can be taught to not believe anything. To believe in nothing is still to believe in something. A vacuum is still something. It is empty space. It does not not exist. You cannot teach children to not believe in anything, for then you teach them to believe in nothing. To teach children to believe in nothing would therefore still be considered, in your own words, "indoctrination". It's just plain silly.
I also disagree that bad religion is the sole source of instilment of corrupt values. Just look at any number of communist or formerly communist secular societies. Their children were still indoctrinated in corrupt values (i.e., that people who meet to worship God in secret churches should be executed) just like those of militant Muslims. The only difference is that one group thinks believers should be killed whereas the other things that non-believers should be killed. This is but one of the many different glaring issues that this article clumsily fails to consider.
What right does the state have to monitor the values that parents instill in their children? Regardless of the few rotten apples out there that propagate their corrupt beliefs, the freedom of parents to pass their values to their children far transcends the remotely possible positive effects of government control of parental guidance. The state guidelines would be irrelevant, even if they were friendly to Christianity. It is just not the government's place to tell parents what to tech their children, and as an American, the idea sickens me.
I know you all think we Americans are ignorant logic haters, what with mottos like "In God We Trust" on our money, but I will be so bold as to suggest that this may be the manifestation of just a bit of jealousy. I know America is very, very far from perfect, but here people are free. I can shoot my civilianized AK (or, if you're Canadian/British, my 9mm handgun) in my backyard without having to worry about being arrested for owning a gun. I can tell people about my perfectly rational faith in the God who gives me hope without being fined for spreading my beliefs. I can even curse my own country without a care in the world. God forbid that any government ever tells me what to teach my own children.
Comment #47282 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 4, 2007 at 12:02 am
"True, but it nukes the Bible, Torah, Quran and any other holy book. None of them mention life on another planet. They don't even mention planets as such. So life on another planet would pretty much mean they'd have to be rewritten."
Really? The Bible doesn't mention peanuts either, but I would hardly think that an atheist would use this as an argument against the Bible's accuracy. The Bible does not contain irrelevant information. If there is life on other planets, then I just don't see what implications it would have on our status with God. The Bible has a specific purpose, just like a biology or math textbook. If you did not find Pythagora's theorum in a biology textbook, would you use this to argue against the accuracy of the material?
Comment #47279 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 3, 2007 at 11:27 pm
"Even if it isnt intelligent life on one of those planets, it still tells us that it is possible for life to form on its own and propagate itself."
This statement begs the dickens out of the question. You are essentially saying that if we find life on another planet, then it is possible for life to arise from non-life, however the only support you provide for this argument consists of the a priori assumption that life did in fact arise from non-life on this planet. It's dreadfully circular reasoning. Finding life on another planet would imply precisely nothing regarding the issue of God's existence or abiogenesis.
And you know, why does everyone on this forum have to take a neutral article such as this one and hurl these contextually irrelevant digs at religion? I'm all for polite discourse and discussion regarding God's existence, but it seems just seems tactless to me to turn articles that aren't necessarily relevant to the issue into convoluted arguments against God. I mean, it's a free country, but as we say in the good ol' US of A, take a "chill pill".
57. What I Think About Evolution
Comment #46642 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 1, 2007 at 1:12 am
"The learned Senator speaks of dignity and humility, but fails to realise that the most dignified thing Humanity can do is to accept the fact that it is nothing special, and treat itself and the world accordingly."
And what exactly would "treating itself and the world accordingly" imply? I don't believe you've really thought this through. Logically, if man is an animal, then man should regard itself as no more than an animal, and treat itself as such. Animals engage in what humans would consider unquestionably reprehensible behavior. However, they are animals. That is what they do. You would no more reproach a lioness for killing the cubs of a rival pride than you would a dolphin for eating a fish: that is what they were programmed to do in those particular situations.
If I am an animal, then I am only a slave to my chemical nature. I cannot choose to do good, and I cannot choose to do evil (just as the lion cannot choose to not act like a lion). In fact, the two concepts become literally meaningless, for I can only act as my particular chemicals dictate I act. I am reduced to nothing more than a biological machine.
Applying this to my fellow similarly arranged mass of chemicals, I can perceive that he is just like me, if "me" is even a rationally sound concept seeing as how "me" is really just a very nicely arranged lump of matter. I can see that his value becomes subjective. I can see that his actions are not his own (if "his" is really a rationally sound concept), but rather that they are the inevitable result of his particular arrangement. I can see that I have no more right to chide him for wrong doing than he does to praise me for a good deed. I can see that survival is the ultimate ideal, and that the end certainly justifies the means. I can see that my existence, as well as his, is really just an absurd joke played by cruel chance.
If we are to trash this idea of man's special place in the created order, then we must ultimately reject the idea of responsibility. I cannot not act like myself anymore than a dolphin cannot act like a dolphin. Likewise, Hitler could not have not acted like Hitler anymore than a lion cannot act like a lion.
I also fail to understand how regarding myself as a mere animal would afford myself more dignity than recognizing a certain transcendent and intrinsic value provided by a perfect being. Dignity is just the sort of quality that separates man from the animals. Every sort of behavior that we deem as un-dignified is exactly what one would expect from an animal. The very definition of the word seems to imply that which is purely un-animal. It is therefore contradictory to say that descending into the realm of the animals demonstrates more dignity than further separation. If I called you a dog, would you appreciate it very much?
58. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say
Comment #44231 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 23, 2007 at 7:35 pm
"Soap + petro = NAPALM"
Er, not really. It has to be a very specific variety of detergent (I doubt they even make it anymore) and even at that you have to get the ratio perfect for the mixture to even be functional. How do I know this? Well, I mean, of course I just read it somewhere on the web...kind of...
I honestly laughed when I read the nature of these "explosive" devices (some media sources even called them "bombs"). This kid had no clue what he was doing, and I seriously doubt he had the guts to pull off his little stunt. I feel bad for him because he's definitely in a heap of trouble, but he definitely made a very poor choice.
And for the record, I don't know this guy. I do go to Liberty, but keep in mind that the school had over 11000+ kids on campus this past semester.
As for my take on the event, I have to admit I was a little shaken when I heard about it. I actually played in the service with one of the music teams at Liberty (Doc had requested that we play one of his favorite songs for his funeral), and I was thinking what a perfect opportunity a terrorist would have to take out alot of prominent evangelical Christians. The event just hit a little too close to home, regardless of the relatively harmless nature of the "bombs".
Of course I believe it would be very intellectually shallow to attribue this kid's actions to religion (especially Christianity). The Bible says to love and even pray for your enemies. I think this obviously rules out a Christianity based motivation. I also think it interesting that Redfive mentioned the common arguments against a religious motivation, but offered no rebuttals to them...
Keep in mind that many people attempted to kill Dr. Falwell during his life. Most of them were radical atheists. It is not an ideal that motivates people to evil deeds; it is a purposeful manipulation of that ideal. This event therefore is not representative of the Christian ideal, but rather of the basic human tendency towards evil.
59. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42521 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 18, 2007 at 10:26 am
Wowzers. Well, I'll do my best...
"First QM doesn't just apply to microscopic events."
Now I'm a little confused. As a system grows larger, the relative uncertainty within that system approaches 0. That's why we don't see huge masses of matter popping into and out of existence. Granted, other quantum phenomena can have effects on the macro- level, but this has nothing to do with the origin of matter.
"Now what if there is a blackhole adjacient to such an event and some anti-particles are captured?"
Question: black holes are collapsed stars, right? So where did the matter come from that created the black hole? Boo!
Oh, and one more problem (as presented by physicist Hugh Ross):
"Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator"."
And I don't think Dawkins doesn't use this argument simply because he's not a physicist. He's not a philosopher, but he still uses plenty of philosophy (albeit rather shoddily).
As for other claims that the Universe is self-existence, read my first couple of posts on this article. I've already covered that.
You need to look up what a "false dichotomy" is, you can find details at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
Ok, so if the universe didn't create itself and it cannot possess aseity, then what other solution would you propose to answer the question? A false dilemma is only a false dilemma if there are in reality (not just in speculation) more options than those provided for consideration.
"There is also a very well known base-substitution of position 6 B-globin gene.
You may know it as sickle-cell anemia."
Ok, but just like in the case of penicillin resistant bacteria, you have a degenerative mutation that just so happens to be conducive to survival in that environment. If you take a closer look however, you will find that the mutation that results in penicillin resistant bacteria actually destroys a gene coding for a regulating enzyme that limits the amount of pennicilinase produced by the bacterium. Therefore, the mutation actually destroyed genetic information, although it happened to benefit the organism in that environment. Sickle-cell anemia works on the exact same concept.
"Try and google CCR5-32."
Ok, but once again you have a deleterious mutation (it actually has a negetive impact on T-cells) that can lead to increased survival rates in certain environments. Once again, it fails to hit the mark of a mutation that can actually increase information while being beneficial to the organism.
"How did noah and familt manage to harbour all human pathogens, and not turn to mush."
Ok, notice the little conditional that God throws in there in the verse where he tells Noah to build a ship for every living thing that "draws breath"…do bacteria breath (in the classical sense of the word)?
"I was never healed."
Dower, I think you hit on a good point here. This is probably the issue that I struggle with the most. Personally, I don't believe in faith healings. I believe that it was the tool of the early church to become established. I certainly believe that people can still be healed through prayer, but that it is rare and does not necessarily manifest itself in obvious ways (i.e., a "miraculous" recovery from cancer). Also keep in mind that the Bible never says that God will unconditionally say "yes" to anything we ask. One of the apostles even suffered from a debilitating physical condition (I forget which one it was and I'm too lazy to look it up), and he prayed many times that God would heal him and He never did.
I still believe however that a rational belief in God does not have to be justified through direct observation of a decapitated person rising from the dead, or through witnessing God coming down from the heavens in power and glory. There is enough evidence as it stands, and let's not forget that there is still an element of faith involved in a belief in Christ.
"Billy, you are the lucky one to get any responses at all, Devolved and Bizzaro have never answered my questions!"
I don't answer questions that are not worth my time answering. I'm not trying to sound snoody, but I have other things to do and I can only answer the most relevant and important questions.
This will be the last comment I make on this article, however I will still post on more recent ones.
60. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42234 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 18, 2007 at 12:48 am
"Wonderful Bizarro, my point is why then do we have to choose to be not separate from "him" in the first place? So god is omnipresent and therefore an unavoidable part of reality."
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. I would say that Hell is not necessarily a place where God does not exist, but rather where people are not made aware of His presence. It would be as if you were in a room with the lights turned off, but your friend was in the room with you. He would still be there, but you wouldn't know it. I think that sums it up nicely. Good night, and I hope that helps.
61. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42232 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 18, 2007 at 12:43 am
"Why are (a) and (b) not viable? Been back 25 squillion years or outide the universe lately? ;-)"
Forgive me, let me rephrase that: it is unreasonable to view options (a) and (b) as viable given our experience and reasoning capabilities. Since we cannot go back 25 squillion years or exist outside the Universe, we can only believe what is most reasonable, right?
And yes, it's 3:40 here. But hey, this is what I enjoy doing. I'm going to bed now, so you probably won't get an answer for a while. Good night.
62. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42229 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 18, 2007 at 12:39 am
"If god is the source of all being how could you choose to be separate from it and still remain in existence?"
Well, does a computor have to remain in the presence of its creator in order to exist? Obivioiusly not. Of course, this ignores God's omnipresence, but I believe it answers your question.
63. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42228 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 18, 2007 at 12:36 am
"Going by good old Occam's razor (not multiplying entities unnecessarily), you're compelled to prefer one of the equally unprovable hypotheses that (a) matter has always existed, or (b)the laws of 'nature' outside this universe are such that matter can come into existence on its own."
This would be a valid argument if and only if options (a) and (b) were viable, but they are clearly not. Therefore, God is not only the most convenient explanation, but rather is the only explanation. The theistic argument does not "multiply entities unnecessarily" if the only viable and necessary explanation for the Universe's existence is a supernatural causative agent.
64. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42227 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 18, 2007 at 12:31 am
"Haven't you heard of quantum fluctuations?"
Seriously? I don't even think Dawkins uses this argument. First, quantum mechanics applies only to subatomic systems, and the Universe is clearly not a subatomic system. Second, the duration for any such quantum event could never reach 14000000000 years in a million years. There are other problems I'm probably forgetting about, but you get the picture.
65. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42222 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 18, 2007 at 12:19 am
"But also you didn't answer Dower's question, do you believe non-believers necessarily go to hell?"
Why do ask questions to which you already know the answer? Are you trying to trap me or something? Of course I believe that someone who chooses to be separated from God will be separated from God. It's only logical.
"So a supreme being more powerful than anything in human understanding was able to create itself? Matter cannot have aseity, but something capable of willing it into being it does?"
The fundamental problem in your understanding of God's existential properties lies in your implication that God had a beginning of existence. God did not will himself into existence at any time or place; he simply exists. Matter cannot have this property due to the simple fact that it exists within the confines of time. Matter obviously cannot have created itself as this would be a logical contradiction of the first law, so the only alternative would be to believe that matter is not a contingent entity. However, this still presents two serious problems.
First, the second law implies that if the Universe has existed for eternity past, then it would have reached the state of heat death an eternity ago. Second, the idea of anything existing for eternity past in the natural world presents a serious logical problem in that, if something has existed for eternity, then it must have transversed eternity to reach this point in time, but of course eternity is not able to be transversed. Therefore, the existence of any eternally existing entity in a time-bound universe is a logical absurdity.
"Sounds to me that you have never heard of DNA and genetic mutations, let alone natural selection."
Hehe, that's funny. I actually just finished my cell biology final earlier today . First, natural selection can't do jack but weed out genetic information. It is not a source of increased genetic variability, but rather of decreased and more highly specialized population genomes. Keep in mind however that common descent requires an increase in genetic information, yet we observe conservative tendencies in population gene pools, and never has any scientist observed an information-adding beneficial mutation.
The very existence of the Universe implies a supernatural creative force. That is the evidence for God. Suppose you came across a dead body that was shot 10 times in the head. Can a person shoot him or herself in the head 10 times without assistance? Obviously not. So it's only logical to deduce that someone else shot that person. You might not have seen the person, and there may be no witnesses, but it is apparent that the dead person could not have been killed without the assistance of someone else. I know it's a morbid analogy, but it works. The Universe seems to be a contingent entity based on our reasoning skills and experience. Contingent entities require a cause, and cannot be their own causes. Therefore, the Universe must have been caused by something that supersedes the natural laws. It's only rational.
66. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42198 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Alright guys, cut it out with the straw-men. I never said that I agreed with all of Falwell's comments. In fact, there's much that I disagree with him on (including his misguided stance on global warming). However, when he made a remark that was obviously inappropriate, he always apologized and was not above admitting shortcomings. There was even a time when he discriminated against blacks (as I'm sure you all know), and he admitted later that it was a despicable practice.
Understand that I am not saying the man was a saint. I'm only saying that your responses to his perceived offences are shameful. He has never killed anyone in gas chambers, and claims that he discriminates against gays are exaggerated. People often confuse disagreement with discrimination. Falwell certainly disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle, but no more than he disagreed with someone actively engaged in adultery.
As for Liberty, I'm sure you all know that it is a fully accredited liberal arts university. While it may also be a Christian school, I fail to see how this would adversely affect the quality of education. Of course, as a biology major I am taught all views regarding origins, including (gasp) evolution, but I can still tell you how DNA replicates itself even if I believe God created it, right?
Christianity does not equate to ignorance. All of your claims that I have been "indoctrinated" are superfluous and short-sighted. First, none of you know me or my background. Second, I struggle with my faith daily with hard questions I am hard-pressed to answer. There is never a moment I don't question, and I don't think that there should ever be a moment that I don't question.
I must believe what is most reasonable. I cannot accept the scientifically and philosophically absurd notion that matter created itself or possesses aseity. I cannot accept that molecules can organize themselves into complex life that we are just beginning to understand. I cannot accept a world with no logical justification for belief in a transcendent moral code. My journey has thus led me to a belief in Christ. If you think I am ignorant and uneducated, or that I am not receiving a proper education at Liberty, then I invite you to come to the campus, sit in with me in all my classes, and have a nice discussion afterwards over Starbucks (I know, how cliché).
67. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
Comment #42121 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 17, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but there's a fair amount of hypocrisy going on in this forum. Dawkins has said many things that would qualify as extremely distasteful (hence his EXCELLENT PR record), yet I wish no death on him. He's called my savior very many nasty names, and he's called me ignorant and stupid.
In addition to this, you are now all calling a dead man the "scum" of the earth, hoping that he "burns in hell". Now, if you perceive that someone has made inappropriate comments, is it then right to wish a horrible death on that person? Do two wrongs make a right? What ever happened to golden rule, Dawkinites?
Granted, as I've stated before, doc said some stupid things from time to time. We all make mistakes. What people often fail to understand is that the culture doc grew up in was much less sensitive than the modern culture. People said what was on their minds, and there was nothing wrong with that. Doc was still used to that culture, and he admitted many times in convocation that adaptation to this culture was a difficult thing for him. Folks, it's easy to criticize someone whom you happen to disagree with for a few inappropriate comments. It's easy to jump on the band wagon and hold up your pitchforks and torches, but it takes an insightful person to understand why something was said the way it was. I didn't always agree with Falwell, but I respect him greatly for many of his achievements. It's easy to focus on the bad, but let's not forget the good.
I'm very disappointed. It saddens (and worries) me that such malice and hatred exists in people's hearts. If this is the face of atheism, then God forbid it ever becomes the dominant religion in America.
68. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73
Comment #41327 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 15, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I must say I'm more than disgusted with the verbal barbarism going on in this forum. Listen to yourselves. You're rejoicing over another human's death. Christian or not, gloating over the death of someone whom you happen to disagree with is not the way civilized humans are supposed to act. Doc may have said some stupid things from time to time, but he didn't eat babies. Shame on all of you.
"I'd like to be there when he doesn't "wake up"in the presence of his "lord and savior" and realized he has wasted not only his own like, but contributed to his many followers doing the same..jcw"
I would elaborate, but I think you can all see the contradiction. Unfortunately for you, you will never have the satisfaction of knowing that Jerry found out he was wrong.
And yes, Liberty is fully accredited. I don't see why you all have a problem with the school. Sure, it's a Christian school but I fail to see what bearing this has on the acedemic aspect.
69. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe
Comment #41028 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 15, 2007 at 11:09 am
"How did the guy from answers in genesis get the money to do this?"
Hehe, a few hundred of that came from me ;-)
Comment #39064 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 9, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Something smells fishy to me. Is it at all possible that Dawkins is now trying to present a softer image after taking so much criticism for his attitude towards God and religion? Forgive my scepticism, but from all that I've seen of Dawkins, this interview just seems very atypical.
72. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith
Comment #38849 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 9, 2007 at 10:16 am
*phew*
I have to admit, I was very worried when I read that Sharpton was debating the existence of God with an atheist. It really bugs when preachers debate the existence of God with people like Harris or Dawkins. They're just not qualified to engage in a debate that relies heavily on philosophy and science. Of course, once I saw who Sharpton was debating all my fears blew away. I sure won't be losing any sleep over it.
73. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US
Comment #37982 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 6, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I must admit that reading this article makes my stomach turn. But then I have to remember the fact that everywhere I have traveled in this country, there is a church within 10 minutes. I also have to remember that one person can make a difference, especially in a technology saturated society. Just as Dawkins has spread his hyper-dogmatic vitriol and hatred through the internet and the air waves, people like myself can show the public that one can be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.
74. For Motherly X Chromosome, Gender Is Only the Beginning
Comment #37418 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 4, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Hehe, very cute.
75. Ape gestures 'show human links'
Comment #37379 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 4, 2007 at 10:03 am
Speculations, speculations, speculations...
"A male chimpanzee may beg for food from another chimpanzee by gesturing with an extended arm and open hand."
I think the principle discontinuity between human language and animal communication concerns the motivation. Animals are motivated by survival, whereas humans use language for a variety of purposes, including many that have no clear utility. When evolutionists can provide examples of chimps debating the rationality of a belief in God's existence, I'll be impressed.
76. New Noah's Ark ready to sail
Comment #35787 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 28, 2007 at 9:29 pm
"There's no fool like a religious fool!"
I absolutely agree. Religion is dead, as its common understanding implies a stagnant set of rules and traditions.
Of course, I imagine you are probably ridiculing all who call themselves Christians. Granted, some "Christians" certainly deserve to be confronted on the basis of innaproppriate behavior (maybe not ridiculed, as that simply leads to more bitter feelings and seems to confer arrogance to the person doing the insulting), but I would not call all Christians fools. Was Galileo a fool? Or Newton? What about Pascal?
What about me? Am I a fool?
77. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston
Comment #34888 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 25, 2007 at 2:05 pm
"Bizarro! How nice to have you back!"
The pleasure is all mine. In one of my classes the students are required to debate about various topics, and the professor assigned me to debate over the existence of a creator. The only problem is, I was assigned to the atheist position. If I lose, I get a B on the assignment, so I came here to try to get some good material. Looks like I'm gettin a B ;-)
As for your claim, care to back it up?
78. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston
Comment #34846 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 25, 2007 at 12:43 pm
"Faith and reason cannot co-exist."
I see this repeated so often that I have lost all faith in the appeal to reason that atheists often make. Seldom do I encounter a more philosophically shallow assertion. I believe that the claim above reveals a profound misunderstanding of the concept of faith, as well as a very crude perception of reason.
Now I've said it before on this site so forgive me if I sound like a broken record, but keep in mind that new people visit this site everyday and this is a very important concept to understand if any progress is to be made in the debate between theism and atheism. When understanding faith, it is necessary to de-lineate reasonable faith and blind faith. Blind faith does necessarily imply believing in something for which there is absolutely no reason or evidence, whereas reasonable faith involves rational thinking and evidential support.
To say that faith and reason cannot co-exist is absurd because in every belief that we adhere to, there exists an element of faith. The assumed existence of your next-door neighbor even hints at a smidgeon of faith, for you cannot prove that your experiential faculties are even sometimes reliable. What is there to fill this void of knowledge, however small it may be, but faith?
Reason therefore ultimately leads to the recognition of not only the importance, but rather the necessity of faith if we are to make any rational progress in our understanding of the world. Not blind faith, but reasonable faith. I believe, even as a biology major (philosophy minor) finishing my 3rd year in school, that the evidential and rational basis for a belief in God exists in more than the ignorance of unquestioning believers' minds. There may not be any surefire way to prove God's existence, but there is certainly no lack of good reasons to believe it.
Faith does not entail believing in something for which there is no evidence or reason. Rather, it is simply the bridge in the gap between uncertainty and belief. Even Richard Dawkins has faith that, in the distant future, scientists will figure out how all this matter created itself, defying (and creating at the same time) all the laws of nature and in spite of the collective intuition and experience of the human race. Can I be blamed if I lack his unwarranted confidence in the scientific community that gave us such intellectual beauties as spontaneous generation and Piltdown man?
79. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal
Comment #34184 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 23, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I left this comment on Youtube under "Snarky15" and have decided to post it here as well.
"Hey Brian, Bizarro here. Nice movie, but the arguments aren't really very creative. When I saw your comment on RD's forum, I must admit I was expecting something a little more, innovative...
I have only two questions for the makers of this video. 1) Would God have been more loving if He had made us to be robots totally incapable of disobedience? -and- 2) Why do you blame God for the evil in this world (evil that we incidentally cause) and yet never praise Him for the good?"
80. Atheists split on how to not believe
Comment #34104 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 23, 2007 at 8:31 am
I strongly disagree with these "moderate" atheists. I think that true atheists need to be even MORE dogmatic and arrogant than ever before. If atheists want to win the hearts and minds of the public whom they so fervently desire to realize the truths of the godless world we live in, then they're going to have to step it up. Mere ridicule and snide remarks built on hollow strawmen just isn't working people. Burn effigies, mock God in the streets, and call anyone who believes in any form of a deity an incompetent ninny to their face. Only then can the people see how stupid they truly are, and only then will they change their ways. We all know that insults always elicit positive responses from people; it's basic psychology!
81. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals
Comment #33904 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 22, 2007 at 3:20 pm
"Ridicule is far more effective than any other weapon."
And that's why atheists like you and Richie are renowned for their absolutely stunning PR...
82. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals
Comment #33888 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 22, 2007 at 1:11 pm
"Besides, hate is a biblical value. Try Romans 9:13 - "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" ."
C'mon man, you're too easy...
"Loved" and "hated" are not matters of emotion; they are matters of God's will. In other ancient documents the terms "loved and "hated" are used in the context of adoption. If a man could only afford to adopt one of two orphaned twins, he is said to have "loved" the one and "hated" the other. Therefore, all that is said in this passage (although admittedly not worded the best in the KJV) is that Jacob was the one whom God chose to bless.
I get a little irritated sometimes when atheists take verses out of their historical, cultural, and/or literary context. Of course God forbid that you mention such verses as John 3:16 (for God so LOVED the WORLD that he gave His only begotten Son...) and 2 Peter 3:9 (...God is willing that none should perish...). Granted, it's easy to pick and choose which verses you want to use in your attack/defense of scripture, but when the Bible is taken as a whole and understood in its proper context, there can be no mistaking that Christians are to love everyone. This love does not necessitate that we always agree with everyone's philosophy or view or that we never share out beliefs, but it absolutely requires respect and sensitivity (II Peter 3:15).
83. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals
Comment #33642 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 20, 2007 at 9:21 pm
"I love when people say things like "you are committing the logical fallacy of overgeneralization" instead of just saying, you are overgeneralizing."
Sure, but it seems to drive the point a little harder don't you think?
84. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals
Comment #33628 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 20, 2007 at 7:13 pm
"Seems like Love and Fundieism are mutually exclusive."
It also seems that you, along with the majority of your brethren on this forum, are committing the logical fallacy of overgeneralization...
Comment #28953 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 31, 2007 at 10:42 pm
"Great essay, but he has to admit that it's mostly religion that motivates people to violence."
I was under the impression that it was greed, hatred, and jealousy. What about Stalin, Hitler, and Mao? They clearly defy your biased assumption. I can't speak for the other religions, but Christianity in itself does not motivate people to violence. There have certainly been those in the past who have shamefully twisted the Christian scriptures in order to concoct a half-baked justification for violence, but I assure you that nowhere does Christ order us to "kill them thar' infidels!".
What's interesting to me is the inherent inconsistency in atheists' accusation that Christianity should be shunned due to its violent past. Using this line of reasoning, I could just as easily declare atheism to be responsible for the deaths of untold millions, citing such things as communism and eugenics. I believe that a careful examination of atrocities committed under the banner of Christianity and atheism alike accomplishes little more than to inform us of our own nature. Humans will use whatever they can to justify whatever they will. History has shown that people will continue to commit detestable acts, regardless of what they have at their moral disposure to justify them.
Comment #25200 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 10, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I find it inconsistent that Dawkins would apologize for scorning a passage from a book that has been taken out of context, yet he continues to actively engage in the exact same sort of behavior by attacking verses from the Bible that have totally been taken out of context. It's certainly effective in destroying a strawman version of the Bible, but in all respectfulness, it just doesn't seem very honest.
On a side note, if you (Dr. Dawkins) happen to catch this comment, would you mind answering some questions for an origins class assignment I'm taking at LU with Dr. David Dewitt? They aren't trap questions or anything of the sort; they're just general questions that are supposed to reveal and contrast the views of Creationists, IDers, and Evolutionists. I understand if you don't want to answer them, but it would be much appreciated. God bless.
87. British Book Awards shortlists 2007
Comment #24731 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 8, 2007 at 8:49 am
Actually Billy, I've carried on numerous civil discussions with those such as Mouthalmighty and Janus. I don't often respond to you because, no offense intended, but there is usually nothing worth responding to in your comments as I think you've demonstrated rather well. I respond only to those who at least express some semblance of an open mind. If someone wants to make themselves look hatefully intolerant and closed-minded, I'm not going to stop them.
88. British Book Awards shortlists 2007
Comment #24722 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 8, 2007 at 8:01 am
Wow, I didn't know a book containing little more than strawmen and hyper-dogmatic vitriol was considered higher literature, even in Europe.
You know, I think I'm going to write a book over the summer. I've already thought of a title and cover. I'll call it "Strawman", and there will be a caricature of a strawman sitting in the middle of a white backround with a little target painted on its stomach and a sign around its neck that says "Kristianity". I think the title explains the content well enough. What do you all think about that?
89. Why there are almost no genuine atheists
Comment #24650 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 7, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I can't say I've ever met an atheist who fully understands and acknowledges the implications of their belief system. I applaud Paul Campos for his intellectual honesty.
"You know why atheists can be moral? Because the claim that a deity exists and interferes with the universe is an EMPIRICAL claim."
This is certainly true, but you must keep in mind that empirical claims can and often do carry certain metaphysical and normative implications, especially concerning the claim for the existence of God. Besides this, you've still failed demonstrates how atheists can have a rational drive to be "moral". Please understand that I'm not accusing atheists of being immoral, but I fail to see their logical justification for behavior based on any concept of a universal "ought".
Granted, one could say that it is rational to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But I would ask, "why is this rational?". Is rationality based only on our wishes? If that's the case, then Mao was being perfectly rational. I'm sure that his intentions were even noble, but it resulted in the slaughter of millions.
On a previous article that touched on this matter, someone on this forum argued against my position on the source of ultimate morality on the basis that, whereas I procure my morality from a higher power (God), atheists make man the ultimate decider of what is considered moral. I can see how this argument makes sense in that I seem no more justified in appealing to God than atheists do to mankind, but I believe there is an important distinction that this argument fails to take into account, and that is this: man is inconsistent. Whether it be on a societal or individual level, people are inconsistent. Within society, there are those who say that killing babies before they are born is moral, and there those who say it is not. There are those who believe that the ends justifies the means (which is actually perfectly rational), and there are those who do not believe as such. I could give many more examples, but I think my point is obvious.
On the individual level, we as human beings often have trouble being consistent with our own set of morals, whether we believe them to be assigned by God or created in our minds. I often, as a Christian, do things contrary to what I believe. I am also sure that Atheists fail to live up to their own standards (which interestingly enough raises a very serious ontological argument for the ideal of an Atheists moral standards, but that can wait).
God on the other hand, assuming He exists (which is not an unreasonable assumption), lies in stark contrast against the passing whims and glaring inconsistencies inherent within human behavior. The Christian God of the Bible is described as never changing, perfect, and right in all that He does. We therefore have a source of objective morals that is not inconsistent or irrational to accept. There is a set standard. I believe that although both claims (morals from God vs. morals from humans) have the appearance of being equally as valid, one is quite a bit more reasonable as well as practical.
When you say that I ought not to steal, I could just as easily tell you "you ought to steal". Sure you could argue that if the world got together and drafted a Universal moral code then we'd have a source from which to derive our morality, but such a decree would be just as arbitrary as if we each held our own account of morality. At that point it would simply be majority rules, and what would happen to those not in the majority? Would you say they were wrong simply for not believing as the majority did? We as a people always need something higher than ourselves to be accountable too. That's why children have parents, parents have the government, and the government…well, consider what code of ethics this country is based on, and you'll get the point ;-).
Comment #24117 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 4, 2007 at 10:17 pm
"Oh, there are certainly people who lie to defend religion."
That may well be, but there is little reason to believe that I am lying. There is no way for you to know either way (unless you were me, but then I would be debating with myself wouldn't I?), so I would suggest that you lay off the superfluous accusations.
"Exactly the same thing could have been said (indeed *was* said) about the details of planetary motion 300 years ago."
This is where the distinction between empirical science and historical science becomes of the utmost importance. We can repeatedly observe planetary motion for it is not a one-time event, but rather is continuous. This allows us to formulate models of planetary motion which can be verified through repeated experiments and observations. This is only possible with events or processes that occur in the present and/or occur repeatedly.
Considering this, it is easy to see why the God explanation is the most reasonable. We simply don't observe matter creating itself, nor is the existence of such a phenomenon implied by any existing evidence. Likewise, all of the natural laws, as well as the principles of logic, strongly suggest against the occurrence of such a phenomenon. Therefore, since the event was a one-time event that occurred in the past, it is most reasonable to infer a supernatural creator.
Now, assume for a moment that there was a phenomenon that could spontaneously produce matter. We would still be left with the question of what caused the phenomenon, for we have observed that phenomena are always caused. They do not cause themselves. This would violate the Principle of Universal Causality. Therefore, proving the existence of such a phenomenon would bring one who assumed the non-existence of God only one step closer on an infinitely regressing causal chain.
"I don't know if and how the universe started, and neither do you."
Nor did I ever claim to. I only assert the reasonability of the God explanation.
"Do you believe with "reasonable faith" that your hypothetical "supernatural creator of the universe" is the perfect and truthful author of the Christian Bible and is exclusively described by the Christian religion?"
Yes, but I would rather not digress. The Bible is a very complicated literary work, and going through all of the percieved inconsistencies would take years. Not to mention, how can we even begin to discuss a book claimed to have been written by God Himself when you won't even believe in some sort of supernatural creator? One step at a time Kkant, one step at a time.
"The only thing worse than an arrogant theist is an ignorant arrogant theist."
Please explain how I am being "arrogant". If jokingly correcting someone on a perceived mistake (I thought you were referring to Daniel, who was thrown into a den of lions for praying to the Hebrew God) qualifies someone as "arrogant"…
It seems to me as if you are being hyper-sensitive for the purpose of throwing around unfair accusations.
"It was a sport, now, sadly, out of favour, for Romans to throw christians into the Arena to be savaged and eaten by lions."
Wait, I thought that only religious nuts were the violent folk who wished death to those who disagreed with them? What an absolutely vitriolic and hateful statement!
"You seem a little frustrated Bizarro."
I wasn't aware that telling someone to be realistic about my time constraints immediately qualified one as being "frustrated".
And no, I'm the only person on my "team". It would be nice to have some help, but there just aren't many people I know who are willing to make the time to do this.
"OK, accepting your premise for the moment, on what objective grounds is an event judged to be "clearly supernatural?"
Well, as I've stated before, an event can qualify as supernatural if it denies the natural laws. Since the creation event would have had to defy a whole slew of laws, then it qualifies as supernatural. Now I can understand your caution, but I fail to see the slippery slope here. For example, it would be unreasonable to attribute lighting to a supernatural cause because it is an occurrence that clearly complies with the natural laws. However, postulating a naturalistic cause for the origin of the Universe is first of all un-scientific, and second calls into question the basic laws of logic and nature.
"And if you mean that Collins was doing the question-dodging then, yes, I agree with you too."
Hm, I don't think that's what I meant…
So how is setting up a premise on which one is going to argue for the existence of God question-dodging?
"Your method of reconciling the a priori existence of god with contradictory evidence…"
What contradictory evidence? At least my explanation complies with the natural laws, not to mention the laws of logic.
Also, I may assume the existence of God, but you also assume the non-existence of God. We both start with a priori assumptions; the only difference is that one has more explanatory power than the other.
"However… to then deal with the demonstrable non-existence of said designer by simply asserting his existence and attributing "non-accessibility" as one of his inherent characteristics is a complete departure."
Whoa, hold on a minute. I assert that God's existence can logically be inferred from our observations. Then using the same method of inference, we can also reason that God's nature (i.e., His personality, how He exists outside time, etc.) cannot be known because His (supernatural) nature implies such. If a being is supernatural, then it follows that we, being confined to the natural realm, cannot know everything about said being without some form of communication on the being's part. In other words, since God must be supernatural to have created the Universe, then it follows that His nature cannot be fully known.
Also, why do we have to know everything about God in order for Him to be a logical explanation? Do we know everything about gravity? Sure we can understand its effects, but do we know what exactly it is? We know it's a force, but we don't understand the nature of its existence. We don't even know why it exists; it simply exists, yet no one challenges gravity's existence. Likewise, I don't see the problem of saying that God's existence does not necessitate that we explain every aspect of His existence.
"If one of the designer's fundamental characteristics is "unfindability" then I should not expect to find him. This would then neatly explain how he could exist, design and yet be entirely unobservable."
No, I wouldn't say that the designer's fundamental characteristic is "unfindability". That would imply that He could never enter the natural realm, but would be confined only to the supernatural. Of course, the Christian would argue that God has given us a way to "find" Him. I would say only that God's existence necessitates that He be unexplainable using naturalistic methods of inquiry (naturalistic method of inquiry to explain a supernatural being? 2 + 2 = 5).
"Hey! I really can't find the designer!"
Hey, I really can't find gravity!
"Just like the 'space outside' the 'time before' and all the 'things' that might be posited to exist on this intuitively sound though logically specious spatio-temporal basis, do/did not in fact exist."
I have no problem with this. This only works however in the natural realm, and it fails to take into account the supernatural.
"What is there outside the universe? There isn't."
This is flawed in that the premise it is built on fails to take into account the supernatural. This statement only proves that there is nothing natural which exists outside the Universe. Existence does not necessitate existence in the natural realm. The supernatural may seem not to exist to us, because we cannot see it. But then, is existence defined only as that which we can see and hear and feel, etc.?
While that which exists "outside" the Universe may not be directly apparent to us, it can certainly be inferred. Your argument is somewhat irrelevant in that it only demonstrates that were there no reason to invoke a supernatural causation for the Universe, we would have no reason to believe in it. I will have to say though that your argument is certainly a good attempt, and I can honestly say that I've never encountered it, at least not exactly as you stated it.
"how do you respond to Polkinghorne's view?"
I don't know enough about Polkinghorne to really give you an accurate answer, so I'm going to have to dodge this. When I find the time, I'll Google him.
"It looks very much like you're trying to say that "supernatural" is just another kind of "natural""
I must say I'm stumped. I just can't see how my defining something that defies/supersedes/exists outside of the laws of nature as supernatural can be construed as meaning another kind of natural, seeing as how the two definitions of the two concepts are diametrically opposed!
"The reason us narrow-minded stick-in-the-mud atheists get so tetchy about this kind of equivalence is that "supernatural cause" propositions require no hard work to come into existence, they require no foundation in reality, they spring spontaneously from an enthusiastic imagination and demand 'equal rights' yet they do not admit of critical reasoning."
Eh, most of this is conjecture. Supernatural cause propositions do require that they follow the rules of logic and are in compliance with the evidence in order to be valid. I think I've shown that the case for God, while not proven, is alive and well. I've already dealt with the whole slippery slope argument, so I don't think it applies.
"The fact that you can logically posit a beginning of the universe derived from your intuitions about the nature of space and time does not constitute "overwhelming evidence.""
If you're saying that we can't know that human reason is reliable, then there's no reason for us to be having this discussion. A beginning of the Universe is implied by all available evidence and reasoning. Granted, the concept of a "time" before the beginning of the Universe is ontologically absurd, but I never assert this. I only assert that God created time, along with the rest of the Universe. What is "before" that doesn't really matter. If logic points to a beginning of the Universe, then it is logical to believe in a beginning of the Universe.
"You fail to see it because you see the intuitions inherent in your conception of the universe as self evident facts."
Mouth, they're not just *my* intuitions. They're the intuitions of a vast body of scientific knowledge. Science confirms that matter can't create itself. Science confirms that events are never un-caused. You keep making it sound as if I just assume the existence of God without any good logic to back up my assumption, but I've clearly shown that the very existence of the Universe necessitates a supernatural agent. I will not claim the existence of God as fact, in that there is still a level of inherent uncertainty, but I will say that there is certainly a good deal of reason to suggest that I believe in Him.
"In doing so it highlights the inadequacy of our current conceptual tools, not the inadequacy of the laws of physics."
Ah, now this doesn't make sense. If our current conceptual tools are not adequate enough to understand the nature of the physical laws, how are they adequate enough to inform us that our conceptual tools are not adequate enough to understand them? That's just absurd.
"As H. L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.""
Popeye also said, "I yam what I yam!"
"Shirley – you can not be serious."
My name's not Shirley (by this time, Ryan's becoming tired and lazy and doesn't want to bother—oops, I just used my real name…oh well…if you watched the Dawkins video in Lynchburg, you'd have figured it out anyway…)
"However, in all honesty, doesn't the fact that this enormous weight of 'evidence' is completely meaningless out here in the real world, not cause you to question the rational you apply to achieve its internal consistency?"
Not really, no. If I choose to believe in God because I am compelled by evidence and logic to believe in Him, and then after I believe in God my belief becomes exponentially strengthened from my own personal experience with the Savior, then I fail to see how this is inconsistent. Maybe you should try it sometime!
Actually, digressing for a moment, I'm going to go ahead and argue that you should become a Christian in the name of consistency because if you really want to examine every piece of evidence before you, then you'd have to become a Christian in order to experience God firsthand. Then you'd have all the evidence to consider, and only then would you be informed enough to make your decision.
(Just being facetious)
*Phew* I believe this is going to be the last post on this article. If any of you reply, I will certainly read it, but I probably won't respond. I'll still be commenting on other, more current article though.
91. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming
Comment #23755 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 2, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Indeed, that was a rather...unfortunate thing for Dr. Falwell to say. As a Christian biology major, I recognize the need for us to be good stewards of the earth. Unfortunately, Dr. Falwell simply isn't as educated on the issue as he should be to comment on it.
Of course, there are many good things that he has to say. He does have a rather rough exterior, but having seen the balanced view of him (I go to LU), he's really not as terrible as the media makes him out to be. Yeah, sometimes I find myself cringing in convocation, but there are other times when he can be very inspirational.
I think what alot of people forget is that he comes from a backround where coarseness is not necessarily looked down upon. I know I'm going to get alot of flack for this, but understand I am no way defending his statement; I'm just pointing out that the media presents a rather unbalanced view of him.
Comment #23637 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 1, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I mean, honestly, you have to admit that I've at least brought a little bit of action to this otherwise philosophically homologous forum ;-)
Comment #23636 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 1, 2007 at 10:28 pm
And Kkand, let's go easy on the accusations of lying and the such. If my arguments turned out to be false, then it is not probable that it would be that I was lying (why would I desire to propose what I knew to be false?), but rather that I was honestly mistaken. You make yourself sound very dogmatic in these incredible accusations, and it does nothing to help your credibility.
Comment #23633 by Bizarro Dawkins on March 1, 2007 at 10:24 pm
"Is it possible too have an overwhelming urge to laugh and cry at the same time."
I see you're not big on making justified claims. Please, if you don't want to take the time to answer my arguments correctly, don't waste it making snide remarks. It only makes you look hyper-dogmatic, and I assure you it doesn't lend to your credibility. Nowhere have I been disrespectful to your beliefs, so I would appreciate the same attitude towards mine. You can disagree all you want, but do so in a civil manner, please.
"Black Holes are so named after a star of sufficient mass has collapsed in on itself to produce a gravity well strong enough to prevent light itself from escaping. As we 'see' with light, it's fairly obvious that we cannot 'see' directly if there is no light."
I understand this, yet we have still never actually observed a black hole; we have only observed its effects on light and stars. My point was simply that direct observation of X is not necessary for belief in X. Often, even in the natural world, X is inferred from its effects. The supernatural may not be directly observable, but it could easily be argued that we can infer it from its effects.
"Without this particular verification act, you can make up anything and that's dangerous."
As I've already argued, the supernatural explanation can only be given on the condition the event in question was clearly supernatural. Therefore, your "slippery slope" argument does not apply.
"Dawkins addresses this directly in the Q&A he has on the "Randolph-Macon Woman's College" video on this site."
I actually thought that he answered *my* question rather shoddily, and I think he demonstrated his misinformed concept of faith to 1500+ people that night. It certainly was not a case of mere semantics. What else would he call a mental decision to overlook a certain amount of uncertainty in order to believe in a certain idea, as is necessary for any belief we hold? If you didn't have faith, even on the smallest level, you could believe in nothing save your own existence and you would be wasting your time responding to a fictitious character that could very well be a product of your own mind.
"This is a familiar argument."
…But in the rest of your comment you failed to even try to demonstrate why my argument is inconsistent; you simply went off making unsubstantiated accusations that I adhere to blind faith. If you're going to make such claims, please provide at least an attempt at justification.
"For example, you may SEEM to be human, but you might, in reality, be a troll!"
This accusation is quite unnecessary and unsubstantiated. Wiki defines a troll as: "…a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."
Now, if I started writing things like "Atheists are all stupid fatty-heads!" then sure, I would obviously be a troll. But nowhere have I been uncivil or off-topic, and I assure you I don't do this simply to ellicit a negative response.
"Bizarro didn't find the time to reply to that, but he did find the time to post a slew of new comments on Whittenberger's article. This is a poor kind of debate - flitting from one thread to another, and not following up replies."
Now that's a little unfair. Honestly friend, look at the situation. I'm clearly not in the majority, and I just feel like posting on articles that have out-lived their lifespan would be a poorer use of time than engaging in debate over a more current article. Not to mention, this is simply not the place where an issue is going be resolved in one article. If I comment on that old article, I'd just get more comments that I'd have to respond to and the cycle would never end. I therefore feel that the best use of my time is to post on current articles and not beat a dead horse.
"Does Bizarro really seek the truth about God's existence?"
Do you?
"Or perhaps there is an open-minded LU student within the Bizarro cloak."
Hahaha, that's just funny imagery.
"Collins merely states that god is beyond the tools of rational enquiry and hence cannot be reached by the tools of rational enquiry."
If you are meaning to say that God's inherent properties cannot be explained using naturalistic methods of enquiry, yes, I would totally agree with you. But that is dodging the question of God's existence. I argue that God's existence is inferred from Creation, but no theist (including myself of course) will try to argue that the complete NATURE of God can be inferred from nature. In other words, you are confusing the properties of God with God's existence itself. The two are very different concepts.
Now, I will say that there are certain aspects of God's *existence* that can be understood in a sense. For example, as I've stated before, we can understand from reasonable inferences that God does not necessitate a cause. He exists because He exists. Now this is obvious question begging, but my argument is still valid in that at the beginning of the causal chain, there must have been an un-caused cause that simply existed because it existed. Atheism does nothing to solve this, for Atheism's starting point is matter. But can you explain why matter exists? No, you can only say that it exists, well, because it exists.
""something above/beyond/outside and certainly not 'confined' within the realm of the natural.""
I fail to see how this definition is significantly different from the one I provided. My point was that the term "supernatural" implies an existence of a process, concept, etc., that is not bound by natural laws or principles, and is able to supersede them. We understand the natural laws and properties of matter and space to a good enough degree to understand what clearly defies them, therefore we can infer supernatural causation for certain events. Granted, the natural realm is not defined as only what we know of the natural realm, but given that we can only discuss the issue in terms of what we do know, the Universes' existence clearly points to a supernatural cause.
"Which scientific discipline should we be employing to achieve this?"
Theology, perhaps? ;-)
"As it stands, simply labelling the as yet unexplained elements of cosmology as 'supernatural' and the posited 'uncaused cause' as god is little more than a 'god of the gaps' argument."
Here's what I find interesting. Atheists accuse Christians of having blind faith, when they are the ones who will argue on the basis of what *might* be discovered in the future, despite overwhelming evidence against such a concept as say, a self-creating Universe. In fact, research in the realm of astrophysics continuously re-affirms that the creation event cannot be explained using naturalistic methodology. In other words, you are arguing on the basis of evidence that you simply DON'T have, and against all the evidence that suggests against your conclusion and/or the possibility of such evidence existing. I fail to see how this does not qualify as a less than reasonable faith.
"You're begging the fuck outa that question! :)"
Come now, unjustified claims aren't going to get us anywhere. Please elaborate (although I might have answered your claim a few paragraphs above).
"Or are you really trying to tell me that you're belief that god exists is the same as my belief that my mother exists?"
It may not be as easy to see, but yes. I may be able to see your mother, but I can certainly see the effects of God. I could also point out that my own experience as a Christian has indeed served to strengthen my level of certainty in God's existence, but I understand that this is not an evidence to be considered seeing as how I am the only person able to perceive it.
"After all,how common is it for a Christian to throw himself to the Lions?"
Actually, Daniel was a Jew ;-)
"Throwing crap into a thread and then refusing to answer any counter-arguments…"
Please don't be unrealistic. I'm a college student. I don't have 24 hours a day to devote to answering the counter-claims of 10 different people.
Comment #23458 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm
"Collins started on the wrong foot by doing a little question begging; he assumed God's existence from the outset without presenting any evidence for the inference."
I believe you're misinterpreting what Collins said and setting up something of a strawman. His statement does indeed assume the existence of God, but it does so in order to explain a particular attribute of God in order to serve as a premise on which to defend His existence. It was meant only as a proposition regarding the nature of God's existence, not as a proof of God's existence per se. I fail to see how this is improper.
"It is common for religious apologists like Collins to talk about things "outside nature" or "the supernatural," but they always seem to fall short in presenting any evidence that anything "supernatural" exists."
I beg to differ. The fact of our existence is evidence enough for me, and I'm not an easy person to convince. It becomes so tiresome to me when the atheists that I debate recoil in horror at the word "supernatural". It simply means that which exists outside the known confines of nature. The concept of the supernatural is supported primarily by the Principle of Universal Causation, being only one among a list of other supporting evidences. It is rather simple reasoning. If every event is caused, then there must be a cause for every event (of course, we could get into agency theory and the such, but I would assert that agency theory is logically invalid without invoking a supernatural agent). When this causal chain is traced back to the Universal origin, then we are led to a rather obvious inference: there must have been an un-caused cause to "start the chain" so to speak. Now we have never observed any phenomena in nature defy the Principle of Universal Causality, but the logical implication of said principle implies that the creation event did in fact disregard this principle. Therefore, since the creation event defied the principle of causality, then it was a supernatural event. Supernatural events require supernatural causation by their very nature. This seems like good evidence to me.
"Have we ever observed anything outside space and time?"
This is very shallow reasoning. It is not necessary that we observe something directly in order to believe it. We don't observe black holes, but we still accept their existence based on numerous plausible inferences. The supernatural may not be directly observable, but it is certainly not outside the realm of reasonable implication.
"2. it leads to the classic problem of infinite regress. If there must be something outside our universe, i.e. God, to explain the existence of our universe, then there must be something outside of God, i.e. "Z," to explain God. Then something is needed to explain "Z," ad infinitum."
This is presupposing however that God is restricted by natural laws, namely that of causation. This however would cause God to cease to be God. God by His very nature must exist as a supernatural entity or His Creator status, along with his general God status, would be compromised. It only logically follows that God, being defined as a supernatural entity, does not necessitate an explanation. In other words, God is His own cause, therefore His existence does not require further explanation.
"A big problem with this approach is that it tends to put a damper on further investigation."
This statement is highly ambiguous. The God explanation certainly has no bearing on empirical science. Most reasonable scientists, atheist or not, can affirm this. In the realm of historical science however, I would say that the God explanation is necessary to explain supernatural events, as I've stated before. This statement presupposes that every question worth asking can be answered by science using purely naturalistic methodology, which as we've observed is certainly not the case.
"Thus, if not strictly the opposite of one another, faith and reason are certainly incompatible."
Once again, this statement demonstrates very shallow reasoning. Faith and reason are not diametrically opposed concepts. In fact, faith is a necessary condition for belief. For instance, you cannot prove I exist. Your belief in my existence is based on sensory experience, which is not always reliable. People on cocaine feel bugs in their skin, and schizophrenics can see Joe even though everyone else can't, but this does not constitute the existence of either. There is therefore a level of uncertainty in even your most basic beliefs, including your belief that I exist. In order to hold even the most reasonable belief then, one must still involve the element of faith.
A mistake that Dawkins and many other atheists make is that they fail to draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing that for which there is no justification, such as a belief that there resides an indestructible candy bar in the center of the sun. Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic, such as your belief that I exist. You cannot absolutely prove it, but it is a reasonable belief based on the general self-evident concept that our senses can be trusted most of the time. However, there still exists the element of faith.
You also take on faith that your senses are reliable, due to the lack of non-circular justification that can be provided for such a proposition. You take on faith that testimony and memory are reliable. Even though these basic assumptions seem reasonable, there is no supporting evidence that can be presented without resorting to circular reasoning. Of course, we can assert the rationality of such beliefs based on the principle of belief conservation, but they still remain essentially un-justified assumptions.
Comment #22846 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm
You are all demonstrating a very shallow knowledge of the Bible. In the New Testament (which is the covenant we are now under), there are very few commands regarding government and politics, that is, whith the exception of a particular verse that commands us to respect the government. Of course, I imagine you would all like to gloss over that because it doesn't fit your strawman bible.
The New Testament does not make commands involving governments; it makes them regarding people. Freedom of religion is in itself a biblical concept. Nowhere in the New Testament will you ever see examples of forced conversions, nor do any of the apostles (or Jesus for that matter) advocate government control of religion, or religious control of government for that matter. Think about it: would a conversion forced by the government really be a true conversion? God wants US to make the choice of our own free-will, and this is clearly manifested in the fact that under the New Covenant, little is mentioned of politics.
There is therefore no conflict between freedom of religion and the Bible, nor is there any other conflict between the Bible and the Constitution.
And no, God is not mentioned explicitly in the constitution, but this does not negate the fact, that is, the fact that the vast majority of historical and legal experts agree with, that America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.
97. Battle for Europe's secular values
Comment #22836 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 23, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Just so you all know, I'm going out of town for the weekend and probably won't be able to respond to your comments for quite a while. And yes, I am the LU student who asked Dawkins about the reasonability of a self-creating Universe. Isn't it interesting how he totally dodged it?
Comment #22833 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm
"i have a question.. if faced with a dilemma.. to uphold the constitution or to serve one's higher power, god whatever.. what would a religious president do?"
Considering the ambiguity concerning a higher power rather than specifically the God of the Bible, I will not say that your question is flawed. I will say however that there never will be a conflict between the Biblical God and the Constitution. Considering that the Constitution is based on biblical concepts, there will never arise a contradiction between the two documents. I cannot say the same for a number of other religions, but your question does not logically apply to Christianity.
99. Battle for Europe's secular values
Comment #22759 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 21, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Being a full-time college student (biology major no less), I can only answer a few selected statements. I'll try to cover all the main points, but forgive me if I don't respond to each claim.
"I have this picture of him having to lie down after his posts due to the strain of thinking at this level."
I imagine this is why you have provided such a compelling and obviously well thought-out argument against my claim.
"In order for your value judgement to make any sense, you'd need to demonstrate that Jews differ in important and negative ways from normative standards in humans."
Why? What objective truth are you basing this claim on? What if I determined the intrinsic value of a person or group of people by considering religious beliefs, or ethnic backround? History would disagree with your claim. People have always designated human worth based on a variety of criteria, and their criteria, however flawed, are no more arbitrary than yours.
""Humans are equal in worth because we possess a mind complex enough to recognize the rarity and beauty of our experiential faculties, in ourselves and each other - if we didn't, then we wouldn't be able to assert this worth, nor recognize it in our fellow man - therefore, we are important, and all of us are equally so.""
Besides once again relying on circular reasoning, there are several considerations that this proposition fails to take into account. What if someone did not value his or her own self, and therefore valued the lives of others likewise? What if I say that Humans are not equal in worth on the basis that some have a different skin color that I find particularly unappealing? There are many examples of this in history. Also, how can one know that other humans possess complex minds capable of recognizing his or her value? What about the mentally handicapped (who are obviously not capable of deeper thinking, or of assigning value)? This justification serious questions, and due to its lacking explanatory power and scope, should not be considered.
And yes, the anthropic paradigm is based on fallacious logic. It assumes that which it is trying to prove, and does not qualify as a basic belief. It is therefore irrational.
"All human concepts are partly obtained from other humans and earlier concepts."
I'm not talking about generic human concepts. I'm talking about the origins of morals. Morals are indeed shared between cultures and people groups, but there still must have ultimately been an original source.
"OK, first of all, atheism isn't a factual statement; it's not a proposition which can be held to measures of truth or falsity; it merely denotes the state of not accepting the proposition that there exists a supernatural creator/interventionist god/gods."
I don't know, this looks like a word game to me. Oh well…
Atheism is a philosophy, just like all the other philosophies. It makes positive assertions about the world and how it operates. It provides a framework by which the individual can interpret the world around him. Therefore, since a central claim is that God (or god(s)) does not exist, then it logically follows that there is no objective moral standard by which we can argue against what we perceive as evil actions.
"For instance, that it is better to do the right thing because one believes it to be right,"
But what if I feel that the right thing to do is burn Atheists on stakes as I denounce them as witches? Are you starting to see the big picture now?
"I won't dispute that historical science differs from empirical science,"
And yet in one of your previous comments you said, essentially equivocating the two distinct realms of science,
"The distinction is irrelevant in this context.
"All of the experiments that could have falsified evolution (and the Big Bang, and various other things) are just as repeatable as those that could have falsified quantum theory.
"From these experiments we can draw conclusions about what happened in the past; that doesn't make them any less empirical."
Very inconsistent:-(
"…but you're trying to pass off historical science as little more than a story about how things might have been in the past."
Quit it with the boorish strawmen, please. Nowhere do I state or imply this. My point was simply that atheists' implied equivocation of the two realms of science is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters. Empirical science and historical science differ in that one is congruent with standard scientific method, which carries a very high level of certainty, whereas the other relies on the interpretation of stagnant evidence. There are certainly similarities between the two, but the differences are undeniable and must be acknowledged if any coherent dialogue is to occur.
"You imagine that since proof of god's existence or non-existence is equally impossible that both propositions are therefore equally possible."
Not quite. In fact, absolutely wrong. I imagine that God's existence can be shown to be reasonable or unreasonable. I don't like to use flawed words such as "proof". They're so shallow. I believe that in every belief we hold to exists an element of faith whether or not we acknowledge it. You cannot absolutely prove I can exist, neither can I prove you exist, but we can demonstrate each other's existence to be reasonable based on experience. Therefore any belief we have consists of reasonability and faith.
I would go into the reasonability of God's existence, but I feel that would be getting off topic. Maybe on another post:-)
"I think you'll find that many of us 'religious atheists' will gladly relinquish our "faith" in favour of avowed agnosticism just as soon as theists like yourself declare yourselves equally (and logically) agnostic on the existence of all other gods but your own."
Actually, I'm what I like to call a "soft agnostic". I, like many other skeptics throughout history, choose to define knowledge as absolute certainty. I therefore do not believe that I can know of God's existence. I certainly believe it to be reasonable based on a fair amount of evidence and logical justification, but I agree that it cannot be known either way, that is, when absolute certainty becomes a necessary condition for knowledge. Bet you weren't expecting that…
"Your determination to characterise the proposed declaration as some kind of objective, immutable, totalitarian secularist creed is a straw man."
Now see what happens when you let emotion taint your arguments? You start making rationally unconnected claims. Where do I, in the statement you have cited in the box above your statement, even mention the declaration in the article? That statement was a response to a claim made in another comment, not the article. Do get a grip.
"Because your "higher entity" has some very odd ideas about right and wrong…"
On what basis are you judging God? Your own? Very well then. On my own basis, I judge that your ideas about right and wrong are obscene. Without God, it's just my word against yours.
And please, for the sake of intellectual honesty, don't use the words "right" and "wrong". They have no meaning without an objective basis. My "right" can be different from your "right", and there is no logic or evidence anywhere in the Universe to demonstrate that either of us is right.
"You're deliberately conflating religion and science and thereby suggesting that the atheist table is rigged."
No, actually I'm conflating religion and religion.
"If the factual world of science impinges on the acquisition of that belief, well… that's what faith is for, no?"
No, not really. You're implying blind faith, whereas my faith is rational faith. There is quite a distinction.
"Look, Biz, if you don't have the confidence in your own convictions then what you're doing here is little more than trolling. If you want us to continue to take you seriously then at least show us the respect that we've shown you."
Besides the fact that you're overreacting a bit, I think you've misinterpreted my statement (or word?). It was meant somewhat as a joke, but also as an attempt to be discrete. Besides not wanting to get into yet another side-topic, I don't much care for being overly blunt.
And please, no more superfluous trolling accusations. Trolls are simply bent on provoking negative responses for the fun of it. I honestly seek to broaden my own intellectual horizons, as well as to help others broaden theirs. Debating is a fantastic way to do it.
"it's like saying that you would hate all of humanity unless you were commanded not to by some alleged cosmic superbeing."
That's rather inaccurate. Try this: It would be like saying that I would have no logical justification to value other humans unless I was prompted to by the necessary First Cause.
"Bizarro Dawkins, you are making yourself look like a big fat crybaby."
Well, I yam what I yam.
"The No True Scotsman fallacy."
Good try, but your understanding of this fallacy is somewhat shallow. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't applicable here given the context of my statement. It only works when the predicate is not actually contradictory to the accepted definition of the subject, or if the definition is manipulated by the person making the claim in order for it to be a valid claim. Therefore, if anyone who claims to adhere to an ideal and lives contrary to that ideal, then they are then they are obviously mislabeling themselves. Anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian must follow the commands and example of Christ. If he or she fails to live according to that ideal, then he or she ceases to exist as a Christian. I would not attack vegetarianism on the basis of my friend who claims to be a vegetarian and eats hot dogs. Therefore it is irrational to attack an established ideal on the basis of those who claim to follow the ideal being considere