RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   
  Topic: Crackers Don't Matter, Formerly Kick the cracker< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,09:26   

Not threaten to kill people?

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,09:28   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,09:21)
So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else?  What if those beliefs were desecrated?  What would you do?

I believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way.

My beliefs have been desecrated by the Bush administration.

What I will do is vote Democratic. :angry:

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,09:29   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,09:21)
While I do not agree with many of the Catholic beliefs, I would not desecrate their beliefs.

Catholics only real problem is they follow the papacy who unfortunately support evolution over the Bible.

So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else?  What if those beliefs were desecrated?  What would you do?

Can you rephrase your non sequitur so it makes some sense?

Substituting an actual belief, gives us as you phrased it, "How would I feel if The Law Of Gravity were desecrated"?

Doesn't make a lot of sense.  Sort of like a belief in Magical Sky Fathers and Moldy Old Books from the Iron Age.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,09:37   

In other crackergate news, anyone seen PZs stalker, Jason, spouting off anywhere? He apparently came to the pharyngula chatroom and got 'dirt'. What that would be I've no idea.

Our tongue-in-cheek topic? (Wacky cult wants magic biscuit back.) Some friends joking around? Those those not used to it, that can seem kind of odd to come in to. It can be kind of like the joking that goes on here.

I really can't think of anything that was discussed that counts as "dirt", unless they're just going to try and embarrass Skatje again over out of context jokes.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,10:05   

Excuse me if I am a little short fused but I have a terrible headache.

What I was trying to say is why is it ok to belittle, demean or otherwise make fun of a person's beliefs?  Why is Christianity such a source of amusement?

As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,10:10   

lcd, do you believe the Earth is flat, pi equals 3, and the sun goes around the earth? Those are all the "Word of God".

Do you believe children should be stoned to death if they don't obey their parents? Do you ever wear mixed fabrics? Those are the Word of God.

You seem to have no problem ignoring the bits of the word of god you don't like, or that are obviously wrong. It's only when something comes along that means you, personally, are not all that special, that you resist it.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,10:11   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,15:21)
While I do not agree with many of the Catholic beliefs, I would not desecrate their beliefs.

Catholics only real problem is they follow the papacy who unfortunately support evolution over the Bible.

So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else?  What if those beliefs were desecrated?  What would you do?

The issue that has caused me to comment is not whether or not some catholics have got upset, or have a right to be upset (they have and do if they so chose). The issue is not whether PZ's comments or that young chap's (Woods, Cook, what the bloody hell was his name again?) actions were offensive, inoffensive, rude, not-rude, tasteless or not tasteless (your decision will vary according to your subjective tastes as much as anything...how logically consistent those tastes are and your actions based on them is a different issue). The issue that concerns me is that so many people seem to be keen to "justify" (very illogically) the worst kinds of hyperbole, threats, perhaps even violence, and demonstrably terrible argumentation because they claim to be "offended" or "offended for someone else".

And to answer your question, since I don't have "beliefs" in anything like the same sense that a standard catholic belief in the sanctity of the host might be construed, feel free to go ahead an desecrate away. I expect my ideas and claims to be challenged (in a rational, evidence based way, not merely as some form of gainsaying for example). In fact I demand that they are so challenged, I desire that challenge for only under the intense scrutiny of such challenges can the ideas I have be honed to accuracy. I possess no sacred cows, no ideas that are off limits and certainly no idea that I am incapable or unwilling to defend on a rational, evidenciary basis. If it turns out that some of my ideas are wrong, as it has on the past and undoubtedly will again in the future, then I change those ideas based on the evidence.

I realise this is quite probably anathema to you, and evidently something you don't understand based on your behaviour here.

My issue with Dr GH performance on this issue is not that I disagree with his conclusions or claims per se (some of them I vehemently do as it happens, some I don't) but that I disagree with his tactics. He has seen fit to distort what other people have said, flat out lie about other people's arguments and refused to engage in something I know him to be capable of, i.e. civil, reasoned, rational discourse. Whatever his reasons for doing so, that is unacceptable, just like your own idiocy on another thread is. Not because it is offensive, far from it (it takes a monumental amount to offend me, and even then offense is no excuse for anything) but because it destroys any opportunity for anything approaching a rational discourse about any of the subjects relevant to the topic. It muddies waters that need no more muddying.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,10:14   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,16:05)
Excuse me if I am a little short fused but I have a terrible headache.

What I was trying to say is why is it ok to belittle, demean or otherwise make fun of a person's beliefs?  Why is Christianity such a source of amusement?

As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

No.

One does not "believe" in science. Belief is not necessary.

And there is no emotional investment in the sense you are claiming. If all of science was overturned tomorrow I'd be just as happy as if it weren't. If god exists I'm perfectly happy, just as happy as if he/she/it/they doesn't. It makes no difference WHAT is real. The only thing that's important is how we claim to know what is real. Look at the sig, it might explain it a little better.

So feel free to take a crack at any aspect of science you like. Just make sure you do it well and with evidence. Nullius in verbia.

Louis

ETA: Try to understand that science is provisional,not absolute.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,10:15   

Quote (Nerull @ July 14 2008,15:26)
Not threaten to kill people?

Well, that would be a good start.......

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,10:30   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:03   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:05   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,13:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

Because your aren't trying to replace it with evidence. Your trying to replace it with religious decree.

As you've found, there is no evidence. ID has lots of buzzwords, and none of which the proponents even know what they mean. There are no experiments. There are no test cases. There is nothing.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:11   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,12:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

stranglehold over science = failure of any information to provide evidentiary support for another theory

got it.  stranglehold aside, you are still missing the bus my friend.

Quote
fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism


the fight, dear lowest common denominator, is not over new ideas that threaten darwinism.  the fight, good sir, is over old rehashed debunked ideas that threaten the machinery of science itself, and that have no evidentiary support for any other theory, whatsoever.

irreducible complexity?  it appears that complexity, as far as has been explored, is often reducible.  in the big picture this futile exercise of finding 'IC' systems is just chasing Zeno down the rabbit hole.

explanatory filter?  can't even yield a robust conclusion that a peanut butter sandwich is designed.  also begs the question of design, chasing Bertrand Russell down the rabbit hole waving a fuzzy proposition.

so, when it comes to cracker, O LCD, do you think it should be against the law to point out that crackers are in no way whatsoever pieces of the flesh and blood of Jesus or any other god?

should we privilege this nonsense and place criticism of such a nonsense proposition beyond the pale?

don't you think that the fact that people are willing to threaten PZs life for ridiculing cracker belief is a testament to how stupid those claims are to begin with?  

you are being rather silly, and i suspect that it is due to your desire to maintain unanimity under the big tent, that makes you fellow travellers with those who wish death threats upon social critics.  Nice One.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:13   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,12:03)
[quote=carlsonjok,July 14 2008,10:30]
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

There are no new ideas that threaten "Darwinism." The fight is to keep religion out of public schools. If you (or anyone else you know of) comes up with a new idea that threatens "Darwinism," please let us know.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:24   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,18:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

LCD,

The problem is that creationist ideas are:

a) Demonstrably not new ideas. Go back to the older creationist "generations" like the "scientific creationism" of George McReady Price for example, or the Natural Theology of Rev William Paley.

b) Demonstrably not scientific ideas. Even though describing what science is can be a very technical and complex philosophical enterprise, we have a huge series of things we know fail to be science. Creationisms of all known types fail the basic criteria needed to be science. Little things like having evidence supporting them, being falsifiable in the Popperian sense, providing a testable, coherent model of the observed universe. Tiny insignificant things like that.

c) Almost exclusively ideas that demonstrably arise from a very narrow set of specific religious traditions. Taking the species of creationism that infects the USA, it is most commonly of christian fundamentalist origin, but you guys also get Harun Yahya's islamic creationism (which differs slightly) fairly frequently. Further afield the vedic creationism of hindus is wildly different from its judeo-christian-islamic counterparts, yet still unsupported by the evidence, i.e. demonstrably wrong.

d) Demonstrably wrong. I.e. in the vast majority of cases creationist ideas don't merely fail to have the support of the available evidence, they are actively contradicted by it.

e) Frequently espoused by people trying to legislate religious claims as science. No one really cares if someone believes creationism in the privacy of their own head. What people DO care about is creationists trying force their demonstrably erroneous and non scientific claims into the scientific and educational arenas AS SCIENCE. Read (the very nice) book "The Creationists" by Ron Numbers. He's infinitely more charitable to the creationist cause than I would be, and far more dispassionate. You'll learn quite a bit about the history of US creationism.

It's advisable to check your facts before spouting off. The (false) canard of "darwinism having a stranglehold over science" is a lie sold to the religiously motivated/gullible. You've been lied to by whoever told you that. And the good thing is, if you go out and find the evidence, you can demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt. Start working.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:35   

If this thread ends up centering around LCD, may I suggest a title change in order to maintain a non-hostile atmosphere?

Edit: I write like yoda sometimes.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:39   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,13:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

"new ideas"

What do you even say to that?

The ideas you're talking about are new ideas in the same sense that astrology is "a new idea".

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:40   

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 14 2008,13:35)
If this thread ends up centering around LCD, may I suggest a title change in order to maintain a non-hostile atmosphere?

Edit: I write like yoda sometimes.

Quite right.  Let's move the discussion back to something interesting, like the original topic.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:41   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,12:03)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
     
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "overturning science", now doesn't it?  Science is not a thing that can be lost or destroyed.  It is a process by which our world is investigated.  That process results in a body of knowledge that, as Louis pointed out earlier, is provisional.  When I speak of overturning science, I speak of the process by which that investigation leads to new, and better, explanations for our world.  I suspect that you do not share that definition and I have to wonder if you are operating from the idea that science and religion are locked in a conflict from which one must emerge victorious (thus overthrowing the other).  So, why don't you be a little less circumspect and define what it is you mean?
   
Quote

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.

Darwinism?  You know, there is about 150 years of additional science that you might want to farmiliarize yourself with.
   
Quote

I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

Others have addressed this more parsimoniously than I could, but the direct answer is there is no such fight when the idea has merit as a better explanation.  But ID has no merit. It is a rhetorically sophisticated God-of-the-gaps argument (life is sooooo complex, it just must have been designed).  The only thing ID explains is the dogmatic grasping at the idea of a personal god* and, secondarily, the lack of curiousity about the workings of our world in the mind of the proponent.

* Before you get your knickers in a twist, I am a deist not an atheist.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,12:52   

My $0.02 as a Catholic environmental scientist.  Desecrating the communion host is rude and offensive to me and to other Catholics.  Not because God is somehow threatened, but because it shows disrespect to me.  Is this illegal? No. Is it a hate crime? No.  Should people be allowed to do or say such offensive things?  Of course, and I'll defend their right to do so while criticising their choice to do so.  In my opinion, people who threaten violence on the offensive person have the lower moral ground.

Should people be highly offensive in ridiculing religious beliefs?  Depends on what you want to achieve.  If you only want to entertain yourself and like minded readers, fire ahead.  But I think highly offensive ridiculing of beliefs is not the best way to convince people about evolutionary biology.  Emphasis on *highly offensive*, as some mild ridicule can be a good thing I reckon.  Also caveats on the convinceability of people - some are just lost causes.

I suppose my main point is on tactics.  PZ and others often acts like assholes on religious matters, which is sometimes funny and perfectly fine up to a point.  But I don't think they're winning us any friends.

PS I've only been really offended by another poster once in my time in this place, and that was a misunderstanding.

PPS  As a native of Tennessee, I also thought "kick the cracker" referred to Georgians before I started reading the content of this thread.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2137
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,13:05   

Quote (George @ July 14 2008,10:52)
PPS  As a native of Tennessee, I also thought "kick the cracker" referred to Georgians before I started reading the content of this thread.

It is a pun. Having lived in Georgia some years, I qualify as a honorary" cracker." Although, more than one friend said, "Are you sure you aren't 'passin'?" or words to that effect. So the racist undertone, and the fact that I am fully aware that my opinion is opposed by PZ's fanclub (and that they would not look in the mirror), and that the last host I ever saw as a Christian (~40? years ago) was literally a soda cracker, made the title inevitable.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,13:10   

Quote (George @ July 14 2008,12:52)
Should people be highly offensive in ridiculing religious beliefs?  Depends on what you want to achieve.  If you only want to entertain yourself and like minded readers, fire ahead.  But I think highly offensive ridiculing of beliefs is not the best way to convince people about evolutionary biology.  Emphasis on *highly offensive*, as some mild ridicule can be a good thing I reckon.  Also caveats on the convinceability of people - some are just lost causes.

I suppose my main point is on tactics.  PZ and others often acts like assholes on religious matters, which is sometimes funny and perfectly fine up to a point.  But I don't think they're winning us any friends.

Thank you for putting into words what I have been struggling with.  The beauty of free speech is that everyone is free to be as loud and idiotic as they want.  And I say God bless both PZ and Bill Donohue for taking full advantage of that freedom.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,13:26   

Quote (George @ July 14 2008,18:52)
My $0.02 as a Catholic environmental scientist.  Desecrating the communion host is rude and offensive to me and to other Catholics.  Not because God is somehow threatened, but because it shows disrespect to me.  Is this illegal? No. Is it a hate crime? No.  Should people be allowed to do or say such offensive things?  Of course, and I'll defend their right to do so while criticising their choice to do so.  In my opinion, people who threaten violence on the offensive person have the lower moral ground.

Should people be highly offensive in ridiculing religious beliefs?  Depends on what you want to achieve.  If you only want to entertain yourself and like minded readers, fire ahead.  But I think highly offensive ridiculing of beliefs is not the best way to convince people about evolutionary biology.  Emphasis on *highly offensive*, as some mild ridicule can be a good thing I reckon.  Also caveats on the convinceability of people - some are just lost causes.

I suppose my main point is on tactics.  PZ and others often acts like assholes on religious matters, which is sometimes funny and perfectly fine up to a point.  But I don't think they're winning us any friends.

PS I've only been really offended by another poster once in my time in this place, and that was a misunderstanding.

PPS  As a native of Tennessee, I also thought "kick the cracker" referred to Georgians before I started reading the content of this thread.

Well as an atheist, chemical scientist there isn't really much of your $0.02 that I would disagree with.

At least not too strongly, and even then I reckon it would be an "ironing out of details" rather than a disagreement. ;-)

Although the tendancy to claim that you have been personally insulted by someone not cherishing the ideas and things you do in the manner you do is, to be blunt, a very destructive error however heartfelt. An error we ALL are liable to commit (myself included) but nonetheless, to some extent, an error.

Like I said above, the thing that interested me was/is the hyperbole, poor argumentation and strawmen being chucked about. Whosoever is chucking it about. Ascribing positions to people that they simply do not hold, and dogmatically insisting on adhering to that misattribution is the hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.

Do I sympathise with PZ's comments? Perhaps in some instances. Would I do the same thing the same way? Perhaps in some instances. It rather depends on whether or not it needs to be done. Does this mean I agree with every word and nuance. NO! And I suppose that is the crux of it all.

One of the things that PZ has 100% correct though is that there is a carapace of protection surrounding religious ideas and claims. The cry of "offense" is terribly easy to make and so often made that any power it has is lost on those of us who have sussed the trick. Is such protection needed? Will revealing the Emperor's nudity cause cataclysmic social decoherence? I'm not sure. But what I AM sure of is that that protection, and those ideas, demand challenge like any other idea. They need to evolve. No pun intended.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,13:28   

I like it George.

The questions in my mind are "Is it alright to kick the lost cause" and "Does kicking the lost cause lose you any friends".  Of course "Who needs friends like those" is also a valid question.

I would suggest that these are all questions that are asked in particular contexts and in no way are generalized robust deductions may be made from their answers.

In this case, although PZ has a rhetorical style that I may find abrasive (actually, it is the braying den of squid that I usually ignore, just like Tony Rice is awesome but his disciples I wish to never meet another), I think pointing out the absurdity of cracker worship (in the theological sense, and not in the personal sense of "Haha, george worships a cracker) is an activity with desired ends not orthogonal to the desired ends of pointing out the absurdity of the claims made by anti-evolutionists.

The social context of consecrated communion may have other benefits real or perceived, but at the intersection of the faith claim and empirical reality we should not obscure reason behind warm fuzzy feelings about place and family or whatever is comforting.  

The wafer either is or is not God (although there has been some interesting dualist theology waffling about on the internetz since this event).  To me it seems obvious that there is a connection between this sort of compartmentalization and the sort that goes with the argument regarding design.

ETA negatives

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,14:13   

Quote (Louis @ July 14 2008,13:26)
Well as an atheist, chemical scientist there isn't really much of your $0.02 that I would disagree with.

At least not too strongly, and even then I reckon it would be an "ironing out of details" rather than a disagreement. ;-)

Although the tendancy to claim that you have been personally insulted by someone not cherishing the ideas and things you do in the manner you do is, to be blunt, a very destructive error however heartfelt. An error we ALL are liable to commit (myself included) but nonetheless, to some extent, an error.

Like I said above, the thing that interested me was/is the hyperbole, poor argumentation and strawmen being chucked about. Whosoever is chucking it about. Ascribing positions to people that they simply do not hold, and dogmatically insisting on adhering to that misattribution is the hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.

Do I sympathise with PZ's comments? Perhaps in some instances. Would I do the same thing the same way? Perhaps in some instances. It rather depends on whether or not it needs to be done. Does this mean I agree with every word and nuance. NO! And I suppose that is the crux of it all.

One of the things that PZ has 100% correct though is that there is a carapace of protection surrounding religious ideas and claims. The cry of "offense" is terribly easy to make and so often made that any power it has is lost on those of us who have sussed the trick. Is such protection needed? Will revealing the Emperor's nudity cause cataclysmic social decoherence? I'm not sure. But what I AM sure of is that that protection, and those ideas, demand challenge like any other idea. They need to evolve. No pun intended.

Louis

To clarify, it's not the "not cherishing" that's insulting, it's the action or the words coupled with intent.  And really, if someone's intent is to insult, then in one sense, the "incorrect" one, it's definitely not an error to feel insulted.  But in the "mistake" sense, I would agree that it's best not to take things personally.  I've thick enough skin in that way.

I'd agree with your and PZ's view of the privileged position of religion wrt the defense of "offense".  I'd widen it to say that those claiming moral offense without explicitly bringing religion into it are similarly privileged.  Why is it that the most prudish and squeamish members of society get to make the rules on things like "foul" language and "indecent" dress?  Goes without saying here at least that any religious based empirical claims should be examined just as rigourously as secular ones.

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,14:36   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 14 2008,13:28)
I like it George.

The questions in my mind are "Is it alright to kick the lost cause"


Depends on who the lost cause is, where you kick 'em and what your footwear of choice is.  For those like DaveScot and Sal, the metaphorical steel-toed Doc to the wobblies is called for.

 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 14 2008,13:28)
and "Does kicking the lost cause lose you any friends".


Depends on who's watching.

 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 14 2008,13:28)
Of course "Who needs friends like those" is also a valid question.

I would suggest that these are all questions that are asked in particular contexts and in no way are generalized robust deductions may be made from their answers.


I knew this question would come up.  This is the question that the "honey" and "vinegar" factions always fall out on.  For e.g.,PZ has argued that we don't need the help of the theistic evolutionists.  I think the answer to that depends on who the we is.  Are you fighting for atheism?  For evolutionary biology free of religion? Different goals mean different friends can be useful.  I reckon some of the more committed atheists forget or disregard this point.  

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 14 2008,13:28)
In this case, although PZ has a rhetorical style that I may find abrasive (actually, it is the braying den of squid that I usually ignore, just like Tony Rice is awesome but his disciples I wish to never meet another), I think pointing out the absurdity of cracker worship (in the theological sense, and not in the personal sense of "Haha, george worships a cracker) is an activity with desired ends not orthogonal to the desired ends of pointing out the absurdity of the claims made by anti-evolutionists.

The social context of consecrated communion may have other benefits real or perceived, but at the intersection of the faith claim and empirical reality we should not obscure reason behind warm fuzzy feelings about place and family or whatever is comforting.  

The wafer either is or is not God (although there has been some interesting dualist theology waffling about on the internetz since this event).  To me it seems obvious that there is a connection between this sort of compartmentalization and the sort that goes with the argument regarding design.

ETA negatives


I know what you're saying wrt compartmentalization above.  However, I reckon a problem common to creationists is a lack of compartmentalisation of a sort.  The inability to recognise that faith has absolutely nothing to say in certain spheres, like natural science.  I like the NOMA framework, though granted it may not be perfect.

[Edited to sort out quotes]

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,14:37   

(Edited to delete duplicate msg.)

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,14:49   

Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?


I am outraged at the continuing attempts, not to overturn science (which is simply evidence based reasoning) but to replace it with superstition, fabrication and mythology.

Homeopathy, astrology, mediums, faith healers, fundamentalists, crystal healers, ear-candlers, cerealogists (crop circle nuts) UFO's are all offering the same snide coin.

Dembski's story of his pilgrimage to the charlatan Todd Bentley is truly pathetic (in the original sense) and is an example of how an otherwise intelligent person can be held hostage by faith.  Unfortunately Dembski is offering the same thing to his follower but he doesn't see the irony.  He feels he's being more open minded:  "Unlike Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, James Randi, and the skeptical community in general, I don’t throw out all miraculous healings." As a result of his credulity he has financially supported the odious Todd Bentley and profited from other credulous beings.

When you throw out the need for evidence (from controlled experiments and observations) then exploitative people profit whether from 'donations' to 'cure' an autistic child or profits from evidence-free books.

What does Dembski demand from Bentley? Evidence.  What does he fail to provide for ID? Evidence.

Science cannot be 'over-turned' - we would need evidence for that which would simply replace science with new science. But it can be discarded for wishful, woolly thinking.  

I find that profoundly disturbing and I will fight to prevent it.

--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,15:30   

Quote (Quidam @ July 14 2008,14:49)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?


I am outraged at the continuing attempts, not to overturn science (which is simply evidence based reasoning) but to replace it with superstition, fabrication and mythology.

Homeopathy, astrology, mediums, faith healers, fundamentalists, crystal healers, ear-candlers, cerealogists (crop circle nuts) UFO's are all offering the same snide coin.

Dembski's story of his pilgrimage to the charlatan Todd Bentley is truly pathetic (in the original sense) and is an example of how an otherwise intelligent person can be held hostage by faith.  Unfortunately Dembski is offering the same thing to his follower but he doesn't see the irony.  He feels he's being more open minded:  "Unlike Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, James Randi, and the skeptical community in general, I don’t throw out all miraculous healings." As a result of his credulity he has financially supported the odious Todd Bentley and profited from other credulous beings.

When you throw out the need for evidence (from controlled experiments and observations) then exploitative people profit whether from 'donations' to 'cure' an autistic child or profits from evidence-free books.

What does Dembski demand from Bentley? Evidence.  What does he fail to provide for ID? Evidence.

Science cannot be 'over-turned' - we would need evidence for that which would simply replace science with new science. But it can be discarded for wishful, woolly thinking.  

I find that profoundly disturbing and I will fight to prevent it.

Hear, hear and well said.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2008,17:39   


http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/14/mass/

--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
  147 replies since July 12 2008,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]