Humanist Crusading

[Brian]

Some days I think you wake up, John, and realize that you're out of coffee and have no desire to go buy some more, so you look for hot topics knowing that you'll get a nice little mental rush from debating

[bytech]

In closing, you John have nicely contrasted that religion does indeed attempt to define that in the realm of science, therefore making religion and science mutually exclusive.

There is no evidence that a fetus at 24 weeks (generally speaking, the latest you can get an abortion in the US) can suffer pain, nor contains any consciousness. Your attempt at defining what constitutes a child is strictly biblical. It has no scientific basis, and comes from religious dogma.

Science and religion are mutually exclusive.

[G10]

The bible actually does touch on scientific views and it actually touches on them a fair few centuries before scientists openly proved them.

1 - 8th Century BCE = Earth is circular
2 - 3500 years ago, bible states that the earth is hanging on nothing
3 - 1593 BCE - Talks about sanitation whilst it took our guys until about the 19th century to work that out.

I could go on but that'll do ya

I am not saying I am religious here, just that it does touch on scientific stuff well before even the scientists had worked it out.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

In closing, you John have nicely contrasted that religion does indeed attempt to define that in the realm of science, therefore making religion and science mutually exclusive.



Science and religion are mutually exclusive.

It must be Christmas! You were almost out of here without proving yourself to be wholly intellectually incompetent and that had to post this and remove all doubt.

In closing, you John have nicely contrasted that religion does indeed attempt to define that in the realm of science, therefore making religion and science mutually exclusive.

1. In your intellectual weakness, you confuse the mutual exclusivity of religion and science - which is not debated - with the aforementioned inability of the two to co-exist peacefully.

There is no evidence that a fetus at 24 weeks (generally speaking, the latest you can get an abortion in the US) can suffer pain, nor contains any consciousness.

2. At 8 weeks, an unborn human reacts to pain the same way an adult human does.

3. Since when was humanity defined by ability to sense pain? By that standard, murder is fine as long as we put the victim to sleep first.

4. Why 24 weeks? When we talk about the morality of something, is it standard at moron conventions to just talk about the morality of something based upon laws of certain jurisdictions? Abortion is legal in many circumstances up until the time of birth, so drop the bogus cut off date.

Your attempt at defining what constitutes a child is strictly biblical.

5. In debate, one is generally expected to substantiate one's claims with quotes or sources. How is my definition of what constitutes a human being - human DNA - biblical? Does the Bible even mention DNA?

It has no scientific basis, and comes from religious dogma.

6. DNA has no ground in science? Oh, on the contrary DNA is all about science. Your attempt to define humans in terms of random "consciousness" or ability to feel pain - that's some very non-scientific crap there.

7. And where did I even mention the Bible? I find it extremely telling that you would assume that I am the Bible Belt and go off on a tangent on the basis of that assumption, when most people who know me know that I'm the biggest manwhore in Tokyo, and I really doubt any Church would allow me through their doors without first showering me with holy water.

[bytech]

I'm saying that religion and science, not spirituality and science, are mutually exclusive (Dawkins would agree). Your factual knowledge about Dawkins and his professional status is limited and very biased, definitely not sufficient to make any kind of authoritative assessment of him.

Since you carry a lot of authority around here (case and point: many members believed you that (paraphrasing) in Japan people shower in public), I thought it pertinent to bring forward your lack of qualifications in the assessment, in case some reader believed your claim without evidence.

[G10]

Originally Posted by bytech

I'm saying that religion and science, not spirituality and science, are mutually exclusive (Dawkins would agree). Your factual knowledge about Dawkins and his professional status is limited and very biased, definitely not sufficient to make any kind of authoritative assessment of him.

We don't have to as we can leave it to other scientists to make that assumption.

Stephen Hawking himself stated that it is 'impossible' at present to know whether or not it was created or evolved, nobody has the answer but it seems Mr Dawkins does have

Stephen Hawking - "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

As I said,I am not a religious zealot by any stretch of the imagination, I just dislike people forcing their views on other people by belittling what others believe, even though they have no proof.

[ewomack]

The one thing that "the new atheists" (as the group represented by Dawkins, Harris, and Dennet usually get denoted) have to watch is falling into the same dogma that they criticize religion for. Dawkins is no charlatan, but he can come off as a zealot. He can't prove God exists or doesn't exist any more than the Pope can. In the end, his style may serve as an attention getting device. Publishers like controversy and hot-headedness. We see it everywhere from Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter to Al Franken and Micheal Moore. People pay attention to pointless intellectual tennis matches. Reasoned debate doesn't seem to sell as well.

But Creationism, as G10 pointed out, has always made scientific claims. To take a recent example, a "creation museum" was opened in Kentucky. The people who run it believe the earth was created 4000 years ago and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Those represent claims about the way the world is. There's nothing metaphysical or "special" about them so they can fall into the realm of science. Science has every right to challenge them, just as the museum has the right to challenge science. But who wins out? What will ultimately decide whether the universe is 4,000 or 13.7 billion years old? It seems evidence should rule here. And who has the better evidence? If creationism wants to prove that the world is only 4,000 years old it had better start collecting some solid data to counter the piles of scientific studies that refute it.

Right now science can't outright refute creationism or intelligent design, but it's completely conceivable that it one day will have that ability. Because, in the end, either the world was created or it wasn't (or some special case outside of our current knowledge exists, which, in this realm, is always possible; but we have no way of knowing what that is, so it doesn't serve as a good basis for arguments).

[bytech]

Right now science can't outright refute creationism or intelligent design

Science will never be able to disprove creationism, just the same as it cannot disprove the Russell's Celestial Tea Pot, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, or Thor. Anyone that sees science's inability to disprove god is worshiping a god of gaps.

Dawkins can come as a zealot, but it's due to a double standard people have; If Dawkins' current tone was applied to politics, debate between Linux or Windows, etc, no one would call him a zealot. People are just pissed that Dawkins is blunt when he says "this is your faith, do not expect me to treat it the way you choose to"... that he is rocking the boat on something that cannot rationally defend itself but has grown dear to so many.

[John Scott]

People are just pissed that Dawkins is blunt when he says "this is your faith, do not expect me to treat it the way you choose to"...

Who gets pissed because of that? Nobody. That's ridiculous.

If you don't want to debate honestly, fine. Just don't waste time with nonsense posts.

[bytech]

Wasn't suggesting any people here.

[chicgeek]

Errr, a little serious for the forum lobby. Moved to politics.


Continue.

[StupidScript]

Dawkins is an opportunist. He's not saying anything that Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard haven't said before, and said better than him. Dawkins wants one thing: money. He counts on people getting outraged and spreading his word for him so his little "foundation" can be deemed legitimate, and qualify him for charitable status so he can move toward his goal of establishing his own religion with himself as it's ever-more-wealthy leader.

[Taylor Hewitt]

do you guys like ice cream?

[bytech]

Originally Posted by StupidScript

Dawkins is an opportunist. He's not saying anything that Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard haven't said before, and said better than him. Dawkins wants one thing: money. He counts on people getting outraged and spreading his word for him so his little "foundation" can be deemed legitimate, and qualify him for charitable status so he can move toward his goal of establishing his own religion with himself as it's ever-more-wealthy leader.

If Dawkins wanted money, £800,000 of it, all he would have to do is say that he is convinced that creationism is real. Yes, the Templeton Society, unable to get their own distinguished scientists is resorting to simply buying them with lots of cash. Your theory is a one-size-fits-all attempt to simply discredit Dawkins, mostly on grounds that you have nothing intelligent to refute him with.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

If Dawkins wanted money, £800,000 of it, all he would have to do is say that he is convinced that creationism is real. Yes, the Templeton Society, unable to get their own distinguished scientists is resorting to simply buying them with lots of cash. Your theory is a one-size-fits-all attempt to simply discredit Dawkins, mostly on grounds that you have nothing intelligent to refute him with.

I'm sure he's made much more than £800,000 with his pseudo science.

[Brian]

Can't we all agree that I'm the only one worth listening to?

[bytech]

I think Brian is the only one worth listening to.