The Empty Chair

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You have more bile than sense, Agerg. I can see why you'd prefer brainwashing (i.e. "education" ) and ridicule over rational debate. If the truth of atheism is as painfully obvious as you claim, then it should be a cinch to defend, right? Well, it's not. Whether atheism is true or not, it should at least be clear to you that nothing is settled questions left unanswered by science and naturalistic metaphysics to be ridiculing anybody.

It's not a cinch trying to debate with creationists for the simple reason they live by the mantra "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" - RJHinds is a classic example.

A live debate is all about your ability to perform and your ability to sell - as opposed to how factual your arguments are. Richard Dawkins is correct in avoiding fighting his battles on the wrong battleground.

and yeah...I haven't one shred of respect for the creationist position (and in some cases, those who support it - RJHinds an example) similarly I have no respect for the belief that we all came from thetans 50,000,000 years ago. The creationist is not after rational debate, they are after shoring up support for their position by performing to the gullible - if they can ask some well rehearsed question for which a suitable answer requires a verbose response they win. Conversely, if they are hit with a question which requires a verbose answer they need only point to some damned scripture verse and profess their faith in god...again they win!. Debating with them with any expectation the debate has any point is silly.

Originally posted by divegeester
]I wonder if there has been an example of a dna mutation which has increased the genetic information.

It is very common and well documented. Everything from genes being copied to insertions by virus's and even whole DNA strands being copied (the last one usually leads to speciation if the resulting organism is viable.) Several well known genetic diseases are a result of the these effects eg Down syndrome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I can see why you'd prefer brainwashing (i.e. "education" )

Education is "brainwashing"? You clearly went to a very bad school.

If the truth of atheism is as painfully obvious as you claim, then it should be a cinch to defend, right? Well, it's not.
It is. We do it all the time in these forums. Even those of us with poor debating skills find it remarkably easy to defend.

Whether atheism is true or not, it should at least be clear to you that nothing is settled one way or the other regarding God's existence; at any rate, not as settled as you clearly believe it is.
The question was settled for me at the age of about 13 (and has been ever since). Why do you think it is not settled, and why do you think I should think it is not settled?

There are too many vital questions left unanswered by science and naturalistic metaphysics to be ridiculing anybody.
I fail to see the connection. How does the existence of unanswered questions lead to the conclusion that I should not be ridiculing people that clearly hold nonsensical views?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Education is "brainwashing"? You clearly went to a very bad school.

If the truth of atheism is as painfully obvious as you claim, then it should be a cinch to defend, right? Well, it's not.
It is. We do it all the time in these forums. Even those of us with poor debating skills find it remarkably easy to defend.

Whether atheism is true o o the conclusion that I should not be ridiculing people that clearly hold nonsensical views?

Education is "brainwashing"? You clearly went to a very bad school.

It is brainwashing if the only goal is to make people into atheists. There are many, many people who are educated—professors among them—who find theism more tenable than atheism. An educated person does not an atheist make.

It is. We do it all the time in these forums. Even those of us with poor debating skills find it remarkably easy to defend.

If you say so.

The question was settled for me at the age of about 13 (and has been ever since). Why do you think it is not settled, and why do you think I should think it is not settled?

A few reasons to think the question is not settled: (1) science cannot account for the origin of the universe; (2) materialistic theories of mind fail to account for the intentionality of consciousness; (3) naturalism itself is a self-refuting presupposition; (4) the major theological arguments for God's existence have yet to be refuted; (5) the failure of atheological arguments (such as the problem of evil) as defeaters for theistic belief; (6) the failure of atheologians to explain away Christ's empty tomb, etc., etc...

I fail to see the connection. How does the existence of unanswered questions lead to the conclusion that I should not be ridiculing people that clearly hold nonsensical views?

Of course, you have every right to ridicule anyone you wish, even if you haven't any rational basis for doing so. In an atheistic universe who's to say the ends don't justify the means, right?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Education is "brainwashing"? You clearly went to a very bad school.

It is brainwashing if the only goal is to make people into atheists. There are many, many people who are educated—professors among them—who find theism more tenable than atheism. An educated person does not an atheist make.

It is. We do it all the time in these forums. doing so. In an atheistic universe who's to say the ends don't justify the means, right?

It is brainwashing if the only goal is to make people into atheists. There are many, many people who are educated—professors among them—who find theism more tenable than atheism. An educated person does not an atheist make. Many of those theists believe in mechanical explanations for how the world operates, including evolution, they fill the gaps with God. As for the "professors" who are also creationists, well...they do their education a discredit, especially if the domain of their education includes the natural sciences, mathematics or logic.

(1) science cannot account for the origin of the universe
Neither can God (other than goddidit - which is as vacuous as magicdidit)
(2) materialistic theories of mind fail to account for the intentionality of consciousness
Not quite sure what loaded premises we have to accept by your decree before we can see you've bullied this one through - i.e. elaborate please.
(3) naturalism itself is a self-refuting presupposition
As per your recent thread on this issue (which I don't think I participated in) - your premise is that the mind is aimed at increasing survival and not producing true beliefs (why can't the latter be a byproduct of the former???), thus to support naturalism is to accept the premise our beliefs cannot be trusted on this issue to begin with (you seem to do little other than assert this - see my first question), you then conclude there must be a specific god - namely yours! Sophistry and nothing else.
(4) the major theological arguments for God's existence have yet to be refuted
They have been, over and over again.
(5) the failure of atheological arguments (such as the problem of evil) as defeaters for theistic belief
Because creationists are ill-equipped to see the force of a logical argument
(6) the failure of atheologians to explain away Christ's empty tomb, etc., etc...
elaborate please - at any rate I'm absolutely sure magic Jesus never existed (as sure as I am sure that gravity exists as opposed to the `invisible elastic theory'😉

Of course, you have every right to ridicule anyone you wish, even if you haven't any rational basis for doing so. In an atheistic universe, who's to say the ends don't justify the means, right?
This is in reference to another thread of yours a while back that asserts the life of an atheist is meaningless - whilst ignoring the counter claim employing your own reasoning that theism is equally meaningless.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Education is "brainwashing"? You clearly went to a very bad school.

It is brainwashing if the only goal is to make people into atheists. There are many, many people who are educated—professors among them—who fin[/b]d theism more tenable than atheism. An educated person does not an atheist make.

It is. We do it all the time in these foru ...[text shortened]... . doing so. In an atheistic universe who's to say the ends don't justify the means, right?

(6) the failure of atheologians to explain away Christ's empty tomb, etc., etc...

I can do that one for you. It's just a story made up by mere mortal humans.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is brainwashing if the only goal is to make people into atheists.

Education is never brainwashing whatever the goal. Only brainwashing is brainwashing. Are you saying that if I teach you mathematics with the aim of making you an atheist, then you will be brainwashed after learning mathematics? If my aim was to help you get a University degree would you be less brainwashed?

There are many, many people who are educated—professors among them—who find theism more tenable than atheism. An educated person does not an atheist make.
And I have never claimed otherwise. There is however a higher percentage of atheists amongst the more highly educated. It therefore does make sense for someone pushing atheism to push education as a means to that end. That does not however make said education brainwashing.

A few reasons to think the question is not settled:
(1) science cannot account for the origin of the universe;
(2) materialistic theories of mind fail to account for the intentionality of consciousness;
(3) naturalism itself is a self-refuting presupposition;
(4) the major theological arguments for God's existence have yet to be refuted;
(5) the failure of atheological arguments (such as the problem of evil) as defeaters for theistic belief;
(6) the failure of atheologians to explain away Christ's empty tomb, etc., etc...
So you essentially believe that a "God of the gaps" may be considered to possibly exists as long as "gaps" exist? Sorry, I don't buy that argument. I bet you would not accept the same points as reasons why the question of existence of the tooth fairy is not yet settled, yet most of your 'reasons' are no less relevant.

Of course, you have every right to ridicule anyone you wish, even if you haven't any rational basis for doing so.
Correct. Even more important, when I do have a rational basis for doing so, the existence of unanswered questions has no relevance whatsoever.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]It is brainwashing if the only goal is to make people into atheists. There are many, many people who are educated—professors among them—who find theism more tenable than atheism. An educated person does not an atheist make. Many of those theists believe in mechanical explanations for how the world operates, including evolution, they fill the gaps with G ...[text shortened]... g the counter claim employing your own reasoning that theism is equally meaningless.[/b]

Many of those theists believe in mechanical explanations for how the world operates, including evolution, they fill the gaps with God. As for the "professors" who are also creationists, well...they do their education a discredit, especially if the domain of their education includes the natural sciences, mathematics or logic.

Neither the natural sciences, mathematics nor logic require an atheistic worldview. Methodological naturalism is perfectly compatible with a theistic worldview. To assert otherwise as you do only proves my point, that your ridicule of theistic belief is unfounded.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b](6) the failure of atheologians to explain away Christ's empty tomb, etc., etc...

I can do that one for you. It's just a story made up by mere mortal humans.[/b]

Are you here to claim that the entire matter is settled as well? If so, I regret to inform you that you are doing so on bad information (which only goes to prove my point). The majority of New Testament scholars accept the historical reliability of the empty tomb. There are, of course, alternative explanations about how the tomb came to be empty, besides a miraculous resurrection, but regardless, it is definitely not a "made up" story, as you mistakenly claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Education is never brainwashing whatever the goal. Only brainwashing is brainwashing. Are you saying that if I teach you mathematics with the aim of making you an atheist, then you will be brainwashed after learning mathematics? If my aim was to help you get a University degree would you be less brainwashed?

There are many, many people who are educa basis for doing so, the existence of unanswered questions has no relevance whatsoever.

It therefore does make sense for someone pushing atheism to push education as a means to that end. That does not however make said education brainwashing.

Good point. I admit "brainwashing" was an unnecessary overstatement.

So you essentially believe that a "God of the gaps" may be considered to possibly exists as long as "gaps" exist? Sorry, I don't buy that argument. I bet you would not accept the same points as reasons why the question of existence of the tooth fairy is not yet settled, yet most of your 'reasons' are no less relevant.

Give me a break. There is a big difference in plausibility between a necessary being creating the universe and the tooth fairy creating the universe. Further, I presented no God of the gaps arguments, only reasons to doubt atheistic naturalism. Granted, atheism may be true, but again, it is not even remotely settled that it, in fact, is. The more you insist otherwise, the more irrational you sound.

If atheism is so clearly true, prove that it is true. Show us, right now, how and why your ridicule of theists is so eminently justified. Let's hear it: give us your best case for atheism.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If atheism is so clearly true, prove that it is true. Show us, right now, how and why your ridicule of theists is so eminently justified. Let's hear it: give us your best case for atheism.

In fact, I'll create a whole thread just for you...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Give me a break. There is a big difference in plausibility between a necessary being creating the universe and the tooth fairy creating the universe.

And there is an equally big difference in plausibility between "a necessary being creating the universe" and God. But you never mentioned necessary beings anyway, you merely stated that science cannot account for the origin of the universe, which you haven't proven anyway.

Further, I presented no God of the gaps arguments, only reasons to doubt atheistic naturalism.
Which largely consisted of "there is a gap - therefore God", so yes they were God of the gaps arguments. Certainly 1,2,4,5,6 all seem to fall into this category.

Granted, atheism may be true, but again, it is not even remotely settled that it, in fact, is. The more you insist otherwise, the more irrational you sound.
That depends entirely on what you mean by 'settled'. It is settled in my mind, it is not settled in yours. What would make it 'settled' without reference to a given person?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Many of those theists believe in mechanical explanations for how the world operates, including evolution, they fill the gaps with God. As for the "professors" who are also creationists, well...they do their education a discredit, especially if the domain of their education includes the natural sciences, mathematics or logic.

Neither the natural ...[text shortened]... otherwise as you do only proves my point, that your ridicule of theistic belief is unfounded.[/b]

Neither the natural sciences, mathematics nor logic require an atheistic worldview. Methodological naturalism is perfectly compatible with a theistic worldview. To assert otherwise as you do only proves my point, that your ridicule of theistic belief is unfounded.
Firstly I "asserted" no such thing and you bloody well know it - stop lying epiphinehas, you did this in another thread and on two occasions I had to correct you on some glaring lies (or ahem..."mistakes" ) about what I said. Furthermore even if they don't "require" an atheistic view (which again I never asserted) they should damn well guard against a creationist view. Note that I mark out a difference between
1) normal everyday theists who believe what science has found, fill in the gaps with some god, and otherwise get on with their life peacefully; and
2) daft and dangerous creationists who defy science at every turn and see it as a source of pride that they fail to understand what it is they are attacking, generally have a prejudicial dislike or hatred towards those of other beliefs/cultures/race/...with a particularly strong distrust of atheists, who given the choice would gladfully curtail freedom of speech as they usher in blasphemy laws, see virtue in some twisted shards of Biblical `morality', feel the only reason to help others is for some magic reward after they die (and are frothing at the mouth in anticipation for some bloody apocalypse), and I could go on... purely because of the words of some damned book of magic written by primitive man.

Fundamentalism (of which creationism is just one particular brand) is a scourge upon humanity and damn well needs to be marginalised and ridiculed into insignificance. Even if it is gold that motivates leaders into war, it can be argued that it is usually religion that motivates the common man to fight them.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It therefore does make sense for someone pushing atheism to push education as a means to that end. That does not however make said education brainwashing.

Good point. I admit "brainwashing" was an unnecessary overstatement.

So you essentially believe that a "God of the gaps" may be considered to possibly exists as long as "gaps" exist? S ed that it, in fact, is. The more you insist otherwise, the more irrational you sound.

As a result of your bias for Bible God, you really don't understand the extend to which we find your belief in God irrational if you're willing to impose upon us the view that the tooth-fairy should be taken less seriously.

I can quite easily, with a straight face, equate the two as equal in terms of plausiblity, substantiation, necessity, and tenability - and yes I could defend the existence of the tooth fairy if I so wanted to.