[General Battuta]

While I agree with most of your points, NGTM-1R, I bet the Japanese engineers who built all those miles of fortifications and tunnels on various Pacific islands would be a bit miffed. 

[NGTM-1R]

Which is why I didn't cite them, just Guadalcanal.

[Scotty]

The "old" Hebrew God was evil, when needed, while the Christian God is always supposed to be good.  

<Lewis Black>
"I dunno, maybe the birth of His son mellowed him out or something."
</Lewis Black.>
 

This reminds me of a claim I once heard about how the joke about the joke was on me. Well, no, sorry, that's not how it works. Either way, the joke is still on you because you made it. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, you didn't clearly delinate that it was. This is straight out of the Andrew Schafly School of Argument. It's ridiculous.

But worse than that, it's simply not true.

If you had offered a rationalization, anywhere, in this entire thread, it might have made sense that it is what you say it is. But you haven't. You haven't even tried to invoke God having an Omniscient Morality License so He can do this sort of thing "for the greater good", you've just repeatedly stated "He's God". You admitted that you were not prepared to argue this on its rational merits once already.

From your behavior and your existing admissions, it is not at all a stretch to conclude that you are neither willing nor ultimately able to discuss this subject in a rational manner. So no, my friend. The Pacific Northwest Areboral Octopus is on you, after all.

I invoke the ancient right of forcing other people to drop the stupid arguments of a thread.

You probably wish to invoke the persecution complex here in your own mental defense (nobody else is going to be very impressed with it, I suspect, as it's rather old hat). Only it's not our fault, so sorry.

And yet, I see a marked amount of anti-God or God-is-a-dick discussions and threads.  Maybe you don't see many "God is awesome" and such because the people who would post that kind of thing are al ittle bit more polite to other people's beliefs.

In the battle of reason and magical thinking, reason has forever met magical thinking and demolished it

Of course it has.  That's why we use spiritual reasoning.  They are different.

Scotty is the most capable opponent we've had in some time

Awww, thanks.  

I bet the Japanese engineers who built all those miles of fortifications and tunnels on various Pacific islands would be a bit miffed.

Possibly the same way that scientists are a bit miffed that they still don't know where the matter for the big bang came from, or why it happened.

[Mobius]

The "old" Hebrew God was evil, when needed, while the Christian God is always supposed to be good.

<Lewis Black>
"I dunno, maybe the birth of His son mellowed him out or something."
</Lewis Black.>
 

This better not be true. I can only imagine what the consequences of my birth on his mood are like.

[General Battuta]

Which is why I didn't cite them, just Guadalcanal.

Fair enough!

Possibly the same way that scientists are a bit miffed that they still don't know where the matter for the big bang came from, or why it happened.

Wait, what? Who's miffed? 'Intensely curious', perhaps. But there are always unanswered questions. And they get answered. You can't point and laugh and say 'science fails!' just because existing theories have holes. That's how we make forward progress -- which you have to thank for electricity, refrigerators, GPS, nuclear power, and a hell of a lot more.

Science and faith must coexist. Which means faith shouldn't a) try to compromise scientific reasoning or b) cite unknowns in scientific theory as reasons that science in general has failed. Similarly, science shouldn't give spiritual advice in areas it has not yet explored.

But Scotty, you have to drop the idea that the Big Bang is some kind of scientific failure. There are dozens of theories about where that matter has come from, and if you had the mathematical and physical knowledge to explore those theories, I bet you'd be fascinated. Brane theory, for instance, suggests that the Big Bang occurred due to a collision between membranes floating in a higher-dimensional space. Until you delve into high-order math, you can't speak the language necessary to discuss and understand these questions.

As it is, we don't have the mathematical tools to explore the initial moments of the universe because quantum physics and general relativity are mathematically incompatible. We've been working on better models for some time now, which is why we need tools like the LHC to test predictions. Why do you have to ridicule science for not immediately having all the answers? That's why science is great -- it answers unanswered questions. If we didn't have any more questions, we wouldn't need science.

Lastly, what the heck does the issue of the Big Bang have to do with Japanese military engineering? Linking those two seems a bit like trolling, as if you just wanted to come back to your own talking point. Did you think I was trying to make some kind of point about faith with that remark? It wasn't linked at all, so there's no need to get defensive.

And I think NGTM-1R does have a point when he says that reasoning has always crushed faith. I think that's why so many people get so defensive about religion: after centuries of giving ground, ceding to science, it must seem like some kind of desperate hour. But there is no good reason that science should ever drive faith to extinction, nor any reason the two can't coexist, so long as faith stops trying to tell science its limits and then ruefully later conceding it was wrong.

A scientist wonders why the big bang happened and goes out to try to figure it out; or, alternatively, she wonders why Darwin's finch populations show such diverse beak phenotypes (a great example of evolution in action.) It often seems like religious apologists would rather have us say 'the cell is irreducibly complex; we give up!' or 'something can't come from nothing; we better give up!'

But you can't prove the existence of God by reason, as these critiques of science so often try to do. You have to have faith. That's why attacks on science are so absurd.

[TrashMan]

This reminds me of a claim I once heard about how the joke about the joke was on me. Well, no, sorry, that's not how it works. Either way, the joke is still on you because you made it. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, you didn't clearly delinate that it was. This is straight out of the Andrew Schafly School of Argument. It's ridiculous.

But worse than that, it's simply not true.

If you had offered a rationalization, anywhere, in this entire thread, it might have made sense that it is what you say it is. But you haven't. You haven't even tried to invoke God having an Omniscient Morality License so He can do this sort of thing "for the greater good", you've just repeatedly stated "He's God". You admitted that you were not prepared to argue this on its rational merits once already.

From your behavior and your existing admissions, it is not at all a stretch to conclude that you are neither willing nor ultimately able to discuss this subject in a rational manner. So no, my friend. The Pacific Northwest Areboral Octopus is on you, after all.

You must have taken a wrong turn somewhere in this thread, cause I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

So you make a claim that I can't be be discussed with rationally (you oppinion), and I replay with  that as far as I can see, I could say the same for you, and you come up with this?

Only it isn't. To argue moral relativism, with me, in this context, is the height of folly. If anyone was ever deserving of moral relativism on their own traits rather than on the situation itself, God would be that "anyone", because, as I said, Omniscient Morality License.

Yet here you argue moral relativism on the traits of a person rather than their situation with me, when I have just rejected the very concept totally and utterly.

You can reject any concept as much as you want, doesn't mean people will simply stop debating it, just cause you rejected it.
And again, I'm  bit lost as to what you're exactly trying to accomplish here.

God isn't mesurable, he operates on a level unfanthomable for us...unimaginable, I could say. We're playing with words and concepts we do not fully comprehend or have trouble even defining.
That is why  "good" and "evil" area very good comparison - because you have a very hard time defining them as well.

Actually, I am. You probably wish to invoke the persecution complex here in your own mental defense (nobody else is going to be very impressed with it, I suspect, as it's rather old hat). Only it's not our fault, so sorry.

Persecuation complex? Oh, you mean the atheistic atmosphere? Well, don't knock it if ti's true. Altough that has little to no bearing on this discussion on itself, other than there are more people willing to bash God/religion on this forum than not.

Now, the great pity of this is that we do not shout them or ban them or suppress them. The oroblem are not capable of answering us in a reasonable, rational fashion. A man can only make so many ad hoc assumptions to uphold his beliefs before it becomes a concious effort, and at that point it becomes what was termed in a blog I like to read "chosen to pretend to believe" because, in making a concious effort to continue to believe this, they know on some level that what they believe is wrong.

And to avoid either entering this state, or reminding themselves they are in it, the religious in our midst suppress themselves.

Ahh..the old "you're a mindless fool, deluding yourself. You close yourself deliberately to the truth."
Heck, if I didn't know it any better, I could swear you were preaching here.
You missed your mark, sorry.

In the battle of reason and magical thinking, reason has forever met magical thinking and demolished it, much as science and engineering have destroyed faith on the battlefield.  That is our victory, won perhaps on our terms, but our terms were equitable and fair.

Ours is not an illegitimate trimuph, much as you might like to imagine, and as you have previously tried to claim by insulting the moderating team. It is, perhaps, an easy one; Scotty is the most capable opponent we've had in some time, probably since Liberator (who, despite his easiness to goad, was actually a reasonably good debater when he kept his cool). But victory won easily is still victory. It is not the fault of those who came prepared that the other side did not.

Ours...victory..opponent. Interesting choice of words. You'd think there's a real war out there between atheists and religious people, wouldn't you?

There's not much to say except that you're victory (or what you percieve as one) my not be a victory at all, and that you may not be as rational as you think you are..

Fixed the quotes - Karajorma

[Scotty]

You can't point and laugh and say 'science fails!'

Not even here?    Awww.

quantum physics and general relativity are mathematically incompatible.

Science and faith must coexist.

I agree.  If I came off as a "science is the devil" raving lunatic, I apologize.  I only have issues with evolution because of one man (Dr. Richard Dawkins, because he is the author of The God Delusion and thinks faith should die in the wake of science  ), and the big bang theory because I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.

cite unknowns in scientific theory as reasons that science in general has failed.

 

I don't recall implying that.  I have two general issues, that is all.

But Scotty, you have to drop the idea that the Big Bang is some kind of scientific failure.

Okay.  I didn't mean to say that anyway.  If I did, sorry.

Did you think I was trying to make some kind of point about faith with that remark?

A little.

It wasn't linked at all, so there's no need to get defensive.

Okay.

it must seem like some kind of desperate hour

 
Truly it does (see: The God Delusion mentioned above).  I see a world falling apart due to religious conflicts and the destruction of morals advocated, directly or indirectly, by the increasing dominance of science on society.

But there is no good reason that science should ever drive faith to extinction, nor any reason the two can't coexist, so long as faith stops trying to tell science its limits and then ruefully later conceding it was wrong.

I agree.  Mr. Dawkins does not (I hope you realize that I really do not like that guy).  Similarly, science must stop telling faith its limits.  

But you can't prove the existence of God by reason

Nor can you disprove Him.  </no argument>

[General Battuta]

Right, God is outside reason.

I'm glad to see you don't largely have a disagreement with science. Dawkin's arguments are certainly inflammatory.

With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.

Science doesn't have a moral component, and if you take a purely scientific view of the universe, morality doesn't exist. It's up to us to use the fruits of science in a responsible and harmonious way. Science, for the most part, can't tell us how to do that, although some branches of behavioral genetics, political science, and social psychology are certainly getting there.

Scientists I work with are careful to point out that the empirical, calculating worldview of science isn't everything; it's simply very useful. While everyone could stand to learn scientific thinking, there's no reason you have to stop there.

Scotty should get some kind of award for good conduct in emotionally charged debate. Perhaps a title: 'Scotty: He's No Trashman!' (I mean it lovingly, Trash.)

[Turambar]

I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.

When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god?  Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.

There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe:  We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions.  The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.

[Scotty]

With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.

Never before have people so far away been able to hate each other with such abandon.  As an added bonus, they can now kill from that far as well.  We now have weapons that can destroy the world.  There are hypotheses that a killer flu similar to the influenza epidemic of 1918 will come rampaging back.  AIDS.  A new bush war in Africa every week (This week is Congo/Uganda).  Widespread famine.  

Talking about this gets me depressed.  

Where are the things that make us better off?

[Scotty]

I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.

When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god?  Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.

There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe:  We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions.  The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.

And that is my faith.  I'm still interested that people don't think God can be responsible for something even if we know how it works.  Think of a modern machine, a car maybe.  It looks like it just runs, and maybe a kid thinks God makes it run.  He later finds out it runs through complex mechanical interactions.  He may know how it works, but someone still made it work.  I think that God is what makes science work the way it does.

[General Battuta]

With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.

Never before have people so far away been able to hate each other with such abandon.  As an added bonus, they can now kill from that far as well.  We now have weapons that can destroy the world.  There are hypotheses that a killer flu similar to the influenza epidemic of 1918 will come rampaging back.  AIDS.  A new bush war in Africa every week (This week is Congo/Uganda).  Widespread famine.  

Talking about this gets me depressed.  

Where are the things that make us better off?

Improved measures of longevity, wealth, and happiness across the human population. Decreased infant mortality rates. Progress on women's rights. A general fall in violent deaths (believe it or not.) A decrease in deaths by disease. A dramatic decrease in the number of armed conflicts (almost 40% since the end of the Cold War.) Plummeting instances of genocide. A decrease in human rights abuses. Heck, even the Doomsday Clock is a bit improved.

I know all of these are hard to believe, because it's easy to point out cases where things are getting worse. But the global trends are, in fact, positive.

I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.

When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god?  Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.

There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe:  We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions.  The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.

And that is my faith.  I'm still interested that people don't think God can be responsible for something even if we know how it works.  Think of a modern machine, a car maybe.  It looks like it just runs, and maybe a kid thinks God makes it run.  He later finds out it runs through complex mechanical interactions.  He may know how it works, but someone still made it work.  I think that God is what makes science work the way it does.

Something of a deist?

[karajorma]

And yet, I see a marked amount of anti-God or God-is-a-dick discussions and threads.  Maybe you don't see many "God is awesome" and such because the people who would post that kind of thing are al ittle bit more polite to other people's beliefs.

I've already posted a link to the last of those threads. Are you going to claim that Goatmaster is less polite when it comes to other people's beliefs? Cause while I must say that I frequently disagreed with him I certainly never had to complain about his politeness AFAIK.

Secondly while I respect your right to believe whatever you want I do NOT have to respect your belief. Madness lies that way.

[Scotty]

And yet, I see a marked amount of anti-God or God-is-a-dick discussions and threads.  Maybe you don't see many "God is awesome" and such because the people who would post that kind of thing are al ittle bit more polite to other people's beliefs.

I've already posted a link to the last of those threads. Are you going to claim that Goatmaster is less polite when it comes to other people's beliefs? Cause while I must say that I frequently disagreed with him I certainly never had to complain about his politeness AFAIK.

Secondly while I respect your right to believe whatever you want I do NOT have to respect your belief. Madness lies that way.

I said 'most.'  No where did I say that it does not happen.  I do however, see that quite a few people ARE NOT polite on these threads.  I try my best, and admit I don't always make it. 

Secondly, I can respect your beliefs too.  I do respect your belief, and I choose not to ridicule it.  You could try to do the same. 

'Love your neighbor as yourself.'  Matthew 22:38b
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - The Golden Rule

[Scotty]

Something of a deist?

Not quite.  I believe the Bible is God's word, that miracles can happen.  I believe, about science, that God created the ways of the universe.  He made it, how it works, and what that work does.  God set in motion the universe, and we find out what we will about it.  I find it odd that, aside from you, on BOTH sides of the argument assume that it must work one way or the other.  Either God exists and made and controls everything, or he is a product of our imaginations and to be forgotten or destroyed at the soonest opportunity.  I am deeply saddened by that kind of thinking.

[The E]

With respect to the 'disintegration of the world', there are a number of measures which suggests the world is better off than it has ever been.

Never before have people so far away been able to hate each other with such abandon.  As an added bonus, they can now kill from that far as well.  We now have weapons that can destroy the world.  There are hypotheses that a killer flu similar to the influenza epidemic of 1918 will come rampaging back.  AIDS.  A new bush war in Africa every week (This week is Congo/Uganda).  Widespread famine.  

Talking about this gets me depressed.  

Where are the things that make us better off?

Hmmm. Let's see. Europe has been peaceful (No major war) for 60 Years now. Looking back at History, that is completely unexpected. Yes, Technology has enabled us to kill on a far grander scale than ever before, but so far, we have managed to avoid any large-scale Holocaust. Highly virulent diseases capable of devastating countries have been with us since forever, and while modern airtravel gives these an added danger, modern Medicine puts us in a position there these diseases are actually survivable. Africa.....Well, Africa has been a mess ever since the end of the colonial era (Not that I'd recommend bringing that back), largely due to us Europeans botching the transition.
In every generation, there are people who believe that everything was better in the past, and that mankind, if it continued, would surely desintegrate messily in just a few more years. It hasn't. It won't(*). Just because some things change, doesn't mean everything is going to Hell.

(*) Thats as close to a religious statement I'm about to make.

[Ghostavo]

I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.

When's the last time the real answer to a physics question has actually been god?  Every time people claim that god is the answer, a few years later, we figure out that lightning really is just an electrostatic discharge, or that objects with lots of mass attract other objects.

There's a trend in our knowledge of the universe:  We continue to discover more and more, and in the course we have more questions.  The difference here is that I see knowledge filling in those gaps one day, and you see god filling them in.

And that is my faith.  I'm still interested that people don't think God can be responsible for something even if we know how it works.  Think of a modern machine, a car maybe.  It looks like it just runs, and maybe a kid thinks God makes it run.  He later finds out it runs through complex mechanical interactions.  He may know how it works, but someone still made it work.  I think that God is what makes science work the way it does.

Then why do you think science refuses to accept the possibility of god? Science does not meddle in the affairs of religion. Since god is unmeasurable, we cannot hold his supposed interference into account, and so we cut him off of every theory. In the end, it may be god pulling the strings, but that is irrelevant for the theories that are built.

[Scotty]

Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

Science does not meddle in the affairs of religion.

Seriously?  Once again, I refernce Dr. Richard Dawkins.  Science, or its proponents, does meddle.

On a completely unrelated note, when God is referenced in the single as an entity, the G should be capitlaized.  </unrelated>

[General Battuta]

Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

Science does not meddle in the affairs of religion.

Seriously?  Once again, I refernce Dr. Richard Dawkins.  Science, or its proponents, does meddle.

On a completely unrelated note, when God is referenced in the single as an entity, the G should be capitlaized.  </unrelated>

Dawkins is not science, nor does he represent the scientific community, nor any scientific consensus. Science is not by any means monolothic in its ideology. Dawkins is just one man, and scientists are largely concerned simply with continuing their research and applying for grants. Most scientists only get involved in politics or religion to make sure their work isn't hindered or compromised.

There is no systematic campaign behind Dawkins, and many scientists disagree with him (see the excellent book 'The Faith of a Physicist'.)

[Scotty]

I need to check that book out.

Science is not by any means monolothic in its ideology

Don't we all know it.

Perhaps a title: 'Scotty: He's No Trashman!'

At last I have achieved significance!