Comments by riandouglas

401. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170654 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Bizarro,
1) Yahweh = morality
2) we have Yahweh's morality written on our hearts
3) yahweh = genocidal maniac
3) yahweh's morality != the morality written on our hearts

Can you see the slight contradiction?
I'm not great at this logic gig, and am fairly sleep deprived, so I'd appreciate any help you could give me.

402. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170652 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Bizarro: The point I am trying to convey is simply that God's character (and Bob's) have no significance regarding the probability of their existences. If they exist, then I could no more attack God's character than I could Bob's on a moral basis. So if Hitchens and Dawkins want to show how it is unreasonable to believe in God, they need to stop using such intellectually bankrupt arguments. Keep in mind that I am not trying to prove anything about God's existence. I am not claiming that this morality defining attribute of God makes His existence more probable. It really has no bearing on His existence at all.

I see where you're going here. Thankfully the reality I live in (not sure about you) does not correspond to a reality created by a genocidal control freak because I can criticize the character of Yahweh as portracyed in the bible.

403. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170649 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Bizarro: I don't disagree that it is certainly convenient to define God as such. I'm not the one who defined Him though; take that up with the authors of the Scripture. Now, you could certainly make up a god of your own. Call him Bob. You could say that Bob is defined as the essence of morality, even though Bob commands us to eat other, weaker people. Now, if I wanted to call Bob immoral I could not; I would be committing a contradiction (I imagine this is akin to your "Satan = everything moral" argument). If indeed Bob existed (which I must assume for the sake of my argument) and was defined as being the definition of morality, then I could not call him immoral or I would no longer be addressing Bob. It's rather abstract reasoning, but it is totally valid.

Ok, I've already done you definition thing. Serves me right for getting ahead of myself.
Ok, withing the context of the collection of myths and legends you refer to as the bible, Yahweh cannot be immoral.
Back here in reality, I can judge the actions of that monster as being terrible, even though I can understand how the characters within the story are forced to think he's all good.
So, The bible does not depict reality, therefore Yahweh is a fictional character.

404. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170648 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Bizarro: Not at all. Nowhere have I left out a necessary middle premise. The Christian God is, by definition, the definition of morality. If His existence is to be assumed for the sake of argument, then it must be accepted that He is the definition of morality. If He is anything but perfectly moral, then He cannot by definition be the God of the Bible. Therefore, to call the God of the Bible immoral is a contradiction, plain and simple.

Can I play too. The invisible pink unicorn is by definition the definition of morality. He also thinks your an idiot.

405. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170647 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Bizarro: If God's nature is all-loving and He must be consistent with His nature to be defined as God, then any action perpetrated by God is a loving action. It doesn't matter if you think it is loving behavior; that is totally irrelevant.

Wrong, it's very relevant. Remember Yahweh is supposed to have written HIS moral laws on our hearts. Those moral laws are said to come from HIS nature. Using my morality (which under your demented fantasy is derived from Yahweh) I can plainly see that Yahweh's actions are immoral, and are certainly not all loving, as can most every human being, expecially if you introduce Yahweh as a mysterious mr X, so that people don't get tipped off.
So, if the moral laws from Yahweh don't match the moral behaviour by yahweh, we have ourselves a contradiction. It's about that time I ignore you're baseless assertions concerning your contradictory god until you can resolve this connundrum. Remember, his actions need to line up with our morals, or your definitions for him are completely meaningless.

Thanks for playing

406. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170644 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Brian English: Can't I put words in the mouth of TruthID?

Thats a question you'll have to ask Truth, as I can't speak for him.
Truth, don't fall for it, you don;t know where his words have been :-)

407. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170643 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:35 pm

MaxD: Then your view, once it is suitably researched, and replicated will be taught alongside Darwin as another possible explaination.

Hell, if it's a better explanation than we currently have, you might just get darwin out of the classroom for good!
We'll even help you. You run the theory by us and we'll see if there are any problems, if they can be resolved easily etc.

408. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170636 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Brian English: No I didn't take my meds. But that's beside the point. Isn't excremental the adjectival form of excrement? I didn't use the word. :)

Is was your implication concerning Dawkins. You know that's not allowed around here. You'll get us into trouble. Shhhhh! :-P

409. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170632 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Brian English: Or do you think Dawkins talks excrement?

Carefull brian, your latent ID leanings are leaking out. Did you take your meds this morning? :-)

TheTruthID: Yes. Many many small changes over very long periods of time add up to a large change (just not all at once).

410. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170631 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Oh, I let it slip. Funky, if you're wife is a scientist, she'd know the meaning of "theory" in the scientific community. As you seem to be ignorant of it, I doubt your wife is what you say.

411. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170629 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:25 pm

mesomodel: That struck me as odd, too. But, I don't care necessarily who writes papers. I generally have more confidence in papers written by an expert in the field.

Neither do I, but it would be unusual. I wasn't happy with him calling any scientist who actually does science instead of assuming creation an "evolutionist". Retarded meme that that is, it should be stopped.

mesomodel: Since funkymaniac has a problem with Dziembowski et al's findings, I'm curious to see how his paper specifically refutes this. In particular, I note that Dziembowski et al took into account the magnetic issues of the Sun and came up with at best a 0.5by difference if they assumed the sun was an extremely fast rotator (it's not). Funkymaniac claimed the answer could be off by 4.5 by because of this. I'd like him to back this up with evidence.

Any news on that paper Funky?

412. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170628 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Funky:
I hate to be the one to break it to you - but a great deal of these "idiots" are most likely smarter on a great deal of things than you! What does this say?

They probably are, what's your point?
Newton was a fan of alchemy, and he was most certainly smarter than both you and i.

Funky:
My point is merely this, lets have a realistic scientific debate about these issues. Stop patronizing these people merely because they don't believe what you do.

The debate has been had in the scientific community. What we're seeing is the losers whining in public.

Funky:
If they believe in a fictional or non-fictional God - whats the problem? It isn't proven or dis-proven - AND NEITHER IS DARWIN!!! Stop acting like this shouldn't be a debate. Square peg in round hole - come on. Everyone is dogmatic in this debate.

Which god are you talking about, because we've got pretty good reason to think most of them are fictional.
EDIT: The "God Hypothesis" is not scientific. I thought the whole point of ID was that it was not religious. You're not letting the cat out of the bag are you funky?

Funky:
Put the FACTS on the table and the THEORY on the table and at least differentiate them. My wife is a scientist leading the way in some genetic research, and a great one at that, and she is constantly disgusted that both sides of this argument are presented as fact when IN FACT - they are BOTH theory!

Facts are on the table. No one is stopping ID'ers from doing research, showing the flaws in evolution etc etc.

Funky:
BOTH UNPROVEN BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Get a life - the lot of you.

Behaving badly always puts your argument in a poor light. Continue that and you'll be ignored or abused, and you'll certainly deserve it. Oh, I see Goldy has already started.

So funky, why are you here? In support of ID, or simply "Teach the controversy"?

413. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170623 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Funky:
Looking in the mirror - buddy - I'm not saying I believe either way - in fact - if you were to really question me, I'm probably more along the lines of evolution, but that really isn't my point about the whole debate. I'm glad you are willing to try and make scientific arguments for what you believe. I am still stuck on the whole matter thing - where did it start - and this is pre Darwin theory anyway - but still a legitimate argument that these ID guys make... Just can't get my head around it is all.. Feel free to change my mind... I'm open to even theories at this point... But I really would prefer to have scientific debates about what is considered fact. Just prefer that we call apples apples is all.

Seems you have a problem with abiogenesis. It seems a common error to conflate these two theories. You also seem to be ignorant of differing fields of speciality, implying that a biologist would write a paper concerning stars.

414. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170622 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Funky: I read a paper - and will find it and post it, that was done by reputable (evolutionary) scientists on the deterioration of magnetic fields in different types of stars (including blue stars).

No idea if this is mentioned (playing catchup)
Why would a biologist write a paper concerning stellar objects?

415. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170613 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Diacanu: That "Girls Gone Wild", is sub-standard porn wrapped in a Mardi-Gras package, and they charge as much for it as proper porn, which you can get on the internet for free?
And that the grinning idiot who started it is a millionaire, and I'm not?
EVIIIIL!!!
;)

As for R rated movies, yeah, glad we have 'em.
The Hayes code was religious fascism.

standard.

Around these parts you can only get pr0n from the nations capital. Well, there and the interwebs.

416. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170610 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:02 pm

TheTruthID: No I'm not smellhound.

Cool. 2 calm reasonable conversations in one day, and one great apology to go along with it.

I'm a happy man :-)

417. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170608 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:00 pm

TheTruthId: No I disagree that we all share common moral standards. Is it right for an adult man to marry a minor. In some societies it is. Is porn right? Some say it is degrading to women. Others say if they are adults, it's their business.

There is a large amount of shared "morality" - altruism etc. These are shared by most (all?) human societies (and of other animals).
The feelings which "moral" transgressions trigger in people - "outrage", "disgust" is shared by all humans.
The little tweaks we add on to the top of this shared moral basis can be different for different societies - this is the bit we need to work on - as DrB said, we have to work towards goodness.

418. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170599 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:56 pm

TheTruthID: Is not that an assupmtion, the fact that there are not as many soft-bodied fossils is due to they don't fossilize well

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think there are some hard bodied fossils from the pre cambrian.
Wonder what wiki says?

419. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170596 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:54 pm

TheTruthID, are you also smellhound?
It seems coincidental for smellhound to have stopped posting, and for you to have had this change of heart at similar times.
No problem if thats the case, just curious :-)

420. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170591 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:50 pm

TheTruthId: In regards to moral standards. How can a society sustain if there are no acceptable universaly agreed upon standards? If we all have our own, then anything goes. There is no right from wrong.

We have standards that we've agreed upon. Some are codified as laws, some are "standards of behaviour". The agreement was not always a conscious thing. Kind of grew "organically" as things which helped social cohesion (or at least helped the genes of the individuals) survive and become more numberous.

421. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170585 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:48 pm

TheTruthID: What are your thoughts in regards to the Cambrian explosion used by ID proponents as proof of spontaneous origin vs. gradual evolution?

The Cambrian explosion took place over some 80 million years.
As a comparison, humans and chimps have been separated for less than 10 million.

EDIT: Just checked wiki. Brian, it turns out I'm a much better you than you are - 80 million stands :-)
EDIT EDIT: Well, as far as wiki is concerned. Take that for what it's worth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

422. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170583 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:46 pm

TheTruthID: What do you think that limit is?

Short of something obtaining x-man like powers, why should there be a limit.
Adaptations are randomly tried out (mutations).
Those that provide an benefit will tend to produce more offspring, and so will increase in frequency in the population.
Those hinder will tend to produce less offspring, and the frequency will drop (or be removed) from the population.
Those that do nothing, will not be selected for or against. These may couple with other mutations to provide a further benefit. Then again, they may not.

I'm no kind of scientist, but I think that's a summary.

EDIT: Brian did a much better job on this than me. Thank you the artist currently known as brian english

423. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170574 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:42 pm

DrBenway: So if we want goodness, we have to make it happen. And we make it happen by holding each other accountable.

Quine: Dr. B, this is one of the very best things I have ever read here.

Very uplifting.

Group hug? :-)

424. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170573 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:41 pm

TheTruthId: I understand the eys's are not identical. But the mere fact that they independently separately involved but yet are so similar is astounding to me considering the variables and circumstances.

Some of them arent't very similar - mammalian vs insect or mollusc.

425. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170570 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Diacanu: A christian probably sees "Girls Gone Wild", and Enzyte commercials, R rated movies, and reality game shows as "evil".

I just see them as stupid, but the dumbing down of our culture, and the bloodless business interests that profit from that dumbing down as evil.

I see the 1st and 3rd items as evidence of our moral maturity.

Diacanu:
And the antidote to that, to me, is education and awareness.

And that's the one thing religion is attacking.
Thus, I don't take kindly to it.
And then we end up with the arguments we have here.

Completely agree. People seem to be "happy" with the status quo. A friend of mine recently remarked that one of the worst things he'd seen on TV recently was a couple of guys fishing (or similar), opening a beer and saying "It doesn't get any getter than this".
Well, yeah, it can and does!

426. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170564 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm

MPhil: The eye didn't evolve "by chance", not even once. Light-sensitivity of cells can provide a benefit for the individual... if that is the case, natural selection will favour that, and given enough time, eyes can evolve. Hugely different eyes at that. Compare the eye of a hawk with that of a fly - the differences are immense.

And for a bit of a sneak peak into evolution, walk outside into the sun and close you eyes tight (perhaps put your hands over them). Can you tell, generally, which direction the sun is?

427. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170560 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm

brian English: And you may refer to me as Brian, so long as you don't presume it's my name without me telling you it is.
Now, to end my silliness, I'll refer to you as riandouglas or valdermort. OK? :)

"Tosswad" is also acceptable, but only from you "brian" :-)

428. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170559 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Goldy: Behe, as far as I remember, is still employed. So's that bloke in Leeds.
It's just that we all know the Designer is God. Christian fundies thought this theory up, Christian fundies promote it - what are we proper scientists to think?

There's also Lynn Margulis, who I learnt of recently. Has a whole different mechanism she thinks is of greater effect than "natural selection" (if I'm reading it right).
She's also highly respected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

429. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170550 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Brian English: The eye has evolved separately several times. Some animals have lost the evolved eye over time. Time is the important factor. Given enough, lots of things can happen.

As an example, truth, octopus's have a different eye layout to us. They don't have the same blind spot as us due to this.

TheTruthID:
That's a real problem for me. That the eye can evolve separately several times by chance and be so alike. It just does not reason with me.

Eyes and vision are VERY useful things. Any organism possessing them has an advantage over others, even if that "vision" is simply recognition of light and dark.
With something this usefull, you'd probably be surprised if it DIDN'T evolve more than once

430. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170547 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Brian English: Couldn't it be a pseudonym? For example, Mark Twain was a pseudonym of Samuel Clements I believe. :)

But while operating as Mr. Twain, you'd refer to him as Mark :-)

431. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170543 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:26 pm

TheTruthID: I have done number 3. I have read, combined, over 20 books on the subjects of Evolution and ID. I realize, that a far more number of scientists are pro evolution,but it seems that the ID scientists are able to poke holes or weaken the Evolution theory enough to cause doubt, at least to me. Yes the lack of true scientific, observable, Etc. for ID is true but should I automaticaly accept evolution? If evolution is set-in-stone, why are so many scientists rebutting it and causing this controversy? Is it not career suicide? What motivation do they have? Has there been in the past a scientific surety that has resulted in so much debate and controversy? This is not an attack. I'm just looking for your opinion.

I was going to say it, but quine beat me.
I'll do it anyway.
Scientists poke holes in theories all the time. No theory is perfect or absolute such that our understanding of the phenomena is absolute.
They're running models, or best guesses, though guess is a little loose, as those which are very well attested (evolution) or provide fantastically accurate predictions (relativite, QM, evolution?) are given far and away more confidence than a simple "hunch".
As an example (which you've probably seen) - we don't actually understand the mechanism which causes gravity. Sure we can make stunning predictions on it's effect, but the cause is still something of a mystery (as far as I've seen. No news on it recently?)

432. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170538 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Greybishop: ID vs. Evolution is one battle that I'd love to see put to bed. There are other things that scientists and educators should be dealing with that are much more interesting and important.

I don't know fighting for the side of good* I'm getting the opportunity to learn a lot of stuff.

* Note: The good guys defined as the side you happen to be on :-)

433. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170535 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm

TheTruthID: Why the change of heart. I realized I let my frustrations get a hold of me. That perosn is not who I am. I am a very spiritual, loving and caring person who is very frustrated. My real issues are more philosophical in nature. I feel our society is gradually deteriorating when it comes to our universal moral standards.

Not too sure about the decline of morality in society. Then again, I define morality differently to you :-)

434. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170530 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Brian English: Apologies Riando :)
What makes you think my name's brian by the way? A bit presumptive of you.

The space in your user name. In english, the language I speak, we use a space or gap between letters to denote separation of words.

435. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170512 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:56 pm

TheTruthID: I understand. Honestly, my personal opinion is not based on the bible. I admit I am not a scientist or claim to be one, but the complexity and evolution of life just seems so unlikley to of happened by chance.

You've got 3 options as I see it.
1) you stay as you are and stick with creationism, wondering about evolution.
2) you accept evolution, but remain somewhat ignorant of it.
3) you begin to read, to find out why people seem to accept this thing which you find so unlikely and unbelievable.

Personally, I'd choose 3. The other 2 are not very interesting or rewarding. And hey, if you choose 3 and still end up not accepting evolution, thats fine. You should have found some reasons not to accept it apart from "unlikely" or "unbelieveable"

A have to say I was somewhat in your shoes not too long ago. I didn't really understand evolution or creationism, I guess I was something of an "evolutionist".
I chose #3, and I'm happy with that choice

436. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170508 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Brian English: MPhil, can I have a squiz at those links that rian referred to?

What makes you think my name is rian?
Could be riando uglas, or ri andouglas. A bit presumptive of you brian!

437. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170504 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Roland_F: (or pray 5 times daily towards Mecca)

I'd need some help to do that. From my back of a napkin calculation (just making stuff up), I'm somewhat directly opposite to mecca (well, not quite, but it ruins my joke), so which direction do I face?

438. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170500 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:47 pm

TheTruthID: Evolutionary Theorists (please correct if I'm wrong with the title) claim that ID proponents strategy is to merely attempt to poke holes and show weaknesses in Evolution. This is absolutely true. We have nothing else. Many times things become accepted, through the process of elimination. I realize there is nothing an ID proponent can offer, in way of science, using accepted scientific principles that will be accepted by Evolutionary proponents. The supernatural is not, and cannot be accepted in scientific protocols. This leaves ID proponents with only one option. That is to attempt to poke holes and show weaknesses in Evolution.

A more accurate term term would be "people who accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origin and diversity of species". As that is pretty long winded, "people" will do just fine.

As for science and the supernatural, there is the opinion of at least one PhD here http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews- Final Author's Copy (Fishman 2007).pdf

It boils down to something like "yes science can study the supernatural, but not directly", unless I'm reading it wrong.

Thanks for the appology.
I thank you not only for myself, but for my mother, who you were willing to condemn to eternal torment :-) EDIT: just teasing

can I ask what caused the change of heart? Simply time to reflect, or something happened?

439. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170483 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:30 pm

smellhound, you mentioned you're a christian and you said you believe there is an objective moral standard, presumably deriving from the nature of Yahweh.
Could I ask you how you know the bible is an accurate representation of Yahweh, and that the moral code espoused in it (well, there appear to be several, but whichever you draw from it) is a representation of Yahweh's moral nature?
If my assumptions are incorrect, then how do you know of an objective morality?

440. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170480 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:24 pm

MPhil:I myself haven't gone through the entire exchange of papers between Craig and Oppy... and it's hard to find exactly where Craig is wrong. As I said, he is competent - albeit his character is more than questionable, and his position wrong.

But he does provide food for thought.

As I said, can't often pin him down, but intuitively he doesn't seem honest or "right". Lacking the ability to argue it (which I do), it could be ascribed to personal prejudice - I don't want him to be right (which is also true), but I don't think it is that. Anyway, doesn't matter for now

441. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170475 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:10 pm

MPhil, just finished the critique of Kalam form the link you provided earlier.
Thanks.
I've been (attempting) to argue the correct points, but there is no chance I could have actually justified those positions. At least not to someone who knew what they were doing.

*Note to self: Must save link*

442. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #170474 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Robert Carnegie: Because- we're better than them

Not to be a pain, but why are we better? If it's simply that we're smarter or similar, then that's all cool, forget I asked.

443. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170472 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Diacanu: Nothing personal, I just see that argument being made seriously sometimes, and I always wanted to counter it, and had a rant in my head ready to do so, and your post gave me that opening.
I was ranting it not just to you, but anyone who may be reading.
It might make people think, I dunno.

Think! What are you doing making people think? This is "A beer drinking oasis" mate, take you're thinking and book learning elsewhere.

Rant was good, but you do have a confronting presence. I like it

444. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170464 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:48 pm

MaxD: Is it this a natural belief at all?

I;d say that possessing that belief appears natural, though not neccesary. I'm not sure how it could be "unnatural" actually, though I'm new here so...

EDIT: Natural in the same way that both fluffy bunnies and herpes are natural.

445. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170461 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Oh, smellhound, I'm going to save your comment concering evolution being reasonable. It is something which doesn't seem to happen often around here (not that I've been here long).
If you stick around, you'll see the "irrational" arguments pop up.

446. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170457 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:43 pm

smellhound: Ok, so your problem is more with following the particular tenants of any religion than with belief in God period?

Kind of, but not really. Why believe a god (in your case Yahweh) exists? If there is no reasonable explanation for that belief, the belief is unreasonable.
I believe there is no reasonable explanation for any gods, not just those man has dreamt up, so I see the supernatural as an unreasonable proposition. It seems to be jumping the gun a little, given lack of supporting evidence.
Do I hold unreasonable beliefs? I'm sure I do. I can't think of any right now, but if and when I encounter them, I try to reason them through and see what comes out of it.

447. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170454 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:39 pm

smellhound: dude, i wasnt trying to start an argument with the breeding comment. Was just pointing out something funny. calm down

That's just Diacanu - you've got to love him.
Being told what to do, that you're evil, deserving of eternal torment etc etc etc, simply because you don't follow something you have no reason to believe in is very frustrating. In fact it can seriously fuck you off

448. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170450 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm

smellhound: very true, but then shouldnt your argument be against using faith as an excuse to do things that we generally see as unacceptable rather than just against faith period. The vast majority of believers in any religion don't use it as an excuse to kill someone.

The books and doctrines are immoral.
They could be said to be waiting to be used as justification.
And besides, there is no supporting evidence for any of it. Cheers!

449. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170445 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Abhishek: And I've been perusing this website for some time now, and thought I'd get involved in the discussion. Hello everyone!

I thought the same thing a couple of days ago. Since then I've barely slept or left the house.
My advice is to forget you ever made a comment. In fact, forget you ever saw the site.
Run away! :-)

450. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170442 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:32 pm

smellhound: the point I am making regarding faith is that it is natural and makes you feel good just like doing what you see as "moral." I just feel like if you are fighting one you should fight both.

But faith can result in immoral actions. The belief that you're doing something because some higher power commands it can override your morality. You end up behaving in an immoral fashion even though you believe you're following the commands of the source of morality.

EDIT: I guess the effects of no sleep are beginning to show.