BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Steve Shaw says that it's not what you believe. It's what you DO with those beliefs, especially to children.

Well, that's nice, Steve. While I realize others do similar things without being believers, I've used my beliefs and the wisdom of those who taught me in religious schools as a starting place to work to end racism, warfare, capital punishment, poverty, homelessness, capital punishment, and mass incarceration - and I've encouraged my children to do the same. My belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ has led me to oppose these evils and to work against them.

I've also worked a lot to promote environmentalism and pacifism.

Others work for these causes for other reasons, but my religious faith is a primary motivator for me.

Oh, and I taught my children the same principles of critical thinking that I learned in seminary. Note that none of them practice any religion - but they do respect mine. They don't waste their time on rude, vicious, silly attacks on faith like what I see so often here.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:55 PM

"I find Pete's contributions interesting and thought provoking, he certainly has an arguable position and he never calls other members "ignorant oafs"..."

"Interesting and thought provoking" eh, Ake? Not the words I would have chosen ... I would have chosen "bigoted and wilfully ignorant" ... but that's just me!

As for calling him names, I think I've explained, somewhere above, that my default position is to treat everyone with respect. Nevertheless, I occasionally run into some character who forfeits my respect - and Pete is definitely one of those! I feel no guilt whatsoever about treating him with contempt.

As for an "arguable position"! You do realise, don't you, that silly stuff that he spouts is not even his own opinion? He just 'parrots' stuff from Creationist websites and then expects us to regard him as some sort of expert or authority. Pathetic!

And as for: " ...we need a stronger spiritual dimension for humanity to survive". Words (almost) fail me! Are you saying that we should throw logic, reason and evidence out of the window and rely on wishy-washy notions, like faith, in order to survive? What planet are you on?!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:18 PM

Yep, socialism is a definite -ism, Keith. A set of tenets, principles and aspirations. Not an undeniable phenomenon of nature, like evolution. Which is why evolutionism, whilst a perfectly real word, is not the right one. Evolution is a natural phenomenon with a rather good theory for explaining it. People who specialise in its study do not regard evolution as a set of beliefs. Those people are termed evolutionary biologists. As ever, you always side with the wrong people. It's quite instructive that you now have pete on board. I'd hate that if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 12:10 PM

And your point is, KAoH?

When was the last time The Profesor had a point?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 12:03 PM

Pete... you used the phrase "fish to philosophers", and on a hunch, I Googled it. It seems to be a major catch phrase for all those who want to cast doubt on the evidence of science. For example this site, which says in part

"If you are an atheist then you believe that we are advanced protoplasm that evolved by evolutionary methods of chemical reactions from a fish to philosophers. A process that no one has ever observed. I have never heard of anyone witnessing a fish become a different animal, i.e. a fish becoming a racoon in Darwinian evolution.

We have gone round & round on this for several years... " fish to philosophers" is a straw man error! It is a mis-statement of what evolutionary theory actually claims. By picking an absurd example and making fun of that, you think you are showing something about the entire concept. NO ONE who takes evolution seriously pretends that fish become racoons! You are, whether you realize it or not, exemplifying the "ladder vs. bush" debate in evolutionary theory.
   There are no direct 'steps' from fish to racoon... or to man, or tiger or any other silly example.

Read this... if you dare... and see how it applies directly to humans.
http://www.academia.edu/6168378/A_bush_not_a_ladder_Speciation_and_replacement_in_human_evolution

No one has seriously posited the 'ladder' model for over a hundred years, but that is essentially what you are holding up as a flawed idea.

Along with the "my belief is just as good as YOUR belief" game... which is an example of the "equivocation" fallacy [they are NOT both beliefs], "fish to philosopher" is a lame attempt to pin an error on someone when it is not even what they said!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 11:24 AM

Nice one keith !. I don't think Steve thought that through .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:51 AM

And your point is, KAoH?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:02 AM

full of pejorative undertones. Think Thatcherism, Stalinism, Naziism. It implies adherence to a creed.

Socialism?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:57 AM

Not believable, Donuel. Checkupable, investigateable, researchable, admirable. Real.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:01 AM

Still with the creation ism stuff?

The far better theory is Ithappenedism.
At least its believable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:58 AM

Well, Pete, creationism is a good word because it characterises a creed, a set of beliefs predicated on faith rather than evidence. You and Joe are accusing us of playing with semantics whereas, in fact, we're calling for the clear and appropriate use of careful
English. You wouldn't appear from the evidence of your posts to be the man to be making accusations of that sort. Still, I suppose you have to try something.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:48 AM

Hmm. Nuclear power (as distinct from nuclear weapons) may yet save the planet, as it relies on carbon-free energy generation. Antibiotics have saved hundreds of millions of lives and cured hundreds of millions of cases of miserable diseases. Oddly, God has never bothered to do that, all because one woman stole one of his apples. I hardly think that either nuclear power or antibiotics is the numero uno threat to human existence. Still, your interventions are nothing if not amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:42 AM

If it is a loaded word, no more so than creationISM. But I don't get on tender hooks about it.   The reason being, I prefer to engage on substance rather than semantics of isms. And the flow of accusatory words directed toward Christian believers could just as well be applied to you and your belief system with just a few word changes, Steve . It is you , IMO, who has hands clapped over ears , not engaging on the debate beyond sloganeering.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:58 AM

"Evolutionism".....Well shim, I've started to use it, tho' I haven't given the issue much thought before.

I find Pete's contributions interesting and thought provoking, he certainly has an arguable position and he never calls other members "ignorant oafs"......I think most of those have been pointed in the direction of the door.

For the last few hundred years society has been encouraged that the most important thing in life is the acquisition of wealth and the promotion of self.
I think we are moving into a phase where materialism will be impossible to sustain....we need a stronger spiritual dimension for humanity to survive.
Science has produced procedures which look good in the short term but have turned out to be a curse on humanity.....typical examples being nuclear power, antibiotics etc ......proposed as ways of making life better, but containing the threat of the extermination of human life

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:35 AM

"Don't know that you have a leg to stand on, Shimrod. No matter how hard you protest, "evolutionism" certainly seems to be a legitimate word. And most certainly, there are many who believe the Theory of Evolution to be true, to be factual. Certainly, belief in evolution can be called "evolutionism," as opposed to those who don't believe evolution to be true. The fact that you aver that it is not a legitimate word, does not make the word invalid. If Pete uses the word, people understand what he means."

"Irregardless" is a real word too, but it doesn't mean you should use it. Evolutionism is a loaded word, full of pejorative undertones. Think Thatcherism, Stalinism, Naziism. It implies adherence to a creed. Well, as we keep patiently pointing out, the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation we have for a phenomenon of nature that definitely occurs. There is nothing immutable about the theory, in fact a huge amount of new evidence to add to it has been discovered in genetics, physiology and cell structure and biochemistry that Darwin hadn't even dreamed about. It is not a creed or a belief system, and Joe and pete equating it to one is dismal and dishonest, and utterly ignorant. No-one who understands science "believes the Theory of Evolution to be true" and the fact you can type that nonsense shows all too clearly that you don't know what you're talking about. It seems that you negotiate your way through the thread with your hands clasped over your ears. It isn't exactly as though we haven't tried to explain this to you ad nauseam, is it? But, you see, this is what happens to people with belief systems. Their thinking and their understanding becomes rigid and stunted, immune from challenge. That's the way you've been told to think, thinking outside the box discouraged lest the faith be threatened. Intellect wasted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:26 AM

Joe, the only person I know who uses the word "evolutionism" is Pete. And Pete seems incapable of expressing himself clearly - so much so that he now appears to be telling us that the term "evolutionism" is invalid. Now in the normal course of events I would ignore such terminological faux pas but Pete wants us to believe that he is some sort of expert or authority on evolutionary biology. Such an expert or authority is OBLIGED to express himself clearly. He is also OBLIGED to educate himself about current mainstream scientific thinking on his chosen subject; he can't JUST rely on his religious faith and material published on dubious websites (sources of 'information' which are VERY far from the mainstream!).

Above all, as Steve, I and others, have been telling him ad nauseum, he is OBLIGED to learn the difference between BELIEF and EVIDENCE!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:45 AM

Two dreadful posts from Joe, ignorance mixed with bitterness and frustration. Take this:

"... but it's clear to me that they're sincerely worried that what Pete and I and others believe is going to do serious harm to the universe."

It is not dealing in semantics to remind you that I've said at least twenty times, maybe as many as eight, that it's not what you believe. It's what you DO with those beliefs, especially to children.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:29 AM

Don't know that you have a leg to stand on, Shimrod. No matter how hard you protest, "evolutionism" certainly seems to be a legitimate word. And most certainly, there are many who believe the Theory of Evolution to be true, to be factual. Certainly, belief in evolution can be called "evolutionism," as opposed to those who don't believe evolution to be true. The fact that you aver that it is not a legitimate word, does not make the word invalid. If Pete uses the word, people understand what he means.

Belief is most often based on evidence, whether you think so or not. The members of a jury weigh the evidence, then believe the defense or the prosecution.

Why do you people put so much faith in semantics? Don't you have anything of substance to talk about?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:43 AM

Pete, twice now you've informed us that "evolutionism" is impossible or doesn't exist. For example on 09 Nov 15 at 11.45 AM you wrote:

"This is why I bring up the evidences that evolutionism is impossible, and contrary to observable science."

And on 18 Nov at 05.35 PM you wrote:

" ... we would say there is zero evidence for evolutionism."

So there's no such '-ism' as "evolutionism" is there? So why do you keep using the term?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:38 AM

It's interesting. Ordinarily, I would never talk about this stuff outside of a religious setting. But since Steve & Co. are so sure they know what I'm thinking and that what I'm thinking is a danger to the universe, I find myself in a position where I feel forced to say what it is I really think, even though they think it horrible.

I can't see how it's horrible, and it still seems to me that they're spouting off a lot of bigoted antireligious propaganda; but it's clear to me that they're sincerely worried that what Pete and I and others believe is going to do serious harm to the universe.

These Dawkins/Hitchens guys, are they kinda like the liberal British equivalent of the Rev. Jerry Falwell? Hell, I may do permanent damage if I say a Hail Mary, I guess....

It's all kinda silly, I think. Melodramatic describes Mr. Shaw's mindset quite well, I think. Too bad, that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:18 PM

"So you should never tell someone to believe something"

Correct. You should always advise people to be sceptical and ask for evidence. Anyone who tell you to believe something without that should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

.."but it's fine to tell them not to believe something?"

No. People who tell you to believe something, or not believe something, without evidence are seeking to control you. Your convictions should always be predicated on evidence and reason, not belief or faith.

"Or is it that it's wrong to tell someone that you believe something"

No, that's fine. As long as there's no pressure on them to believe it as well, pressure that can be quite subtle, derived from your position of authority, for example. Parents, teachers and priests have particular responsibility in this regard. Lamentably, that responsibility has been denied in this thread by people of alleged integrity, which is very sad.

"...but fine to tell them that you don't believe something?"

Well, speaking personally, I don't "not believe" things. I'd rather tell them that I dismiss certain notions on the grounds of evidence and reason. Belief and unbelief are predicated on lack of evidence, or at least lack of any evidence that you happen not to have considered, either through prejudice or through ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:14 PM

Anyway, Pete, as I was saying, if God is unknowable, how do you know that He created everything? And if you don't know because you can't know (plus the fact that you've got no evidence, of course) should you be teaching kids that God created everything? I suppose that you'll tell me (or you would tell me if you were talking to me) that you have 'faith' that God created everything but 'faith' is the fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence and should you be polluting kids' minds with such bullshit?

Oh yes, for the umpty billionth time, evolutionary biology is NOT a "belief system" - you brainwashed oaf!

Finally: " ... we would say there is zero evidence for evolutionism."

I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted it! There is no such '-ism' as "evolutionism"!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:58 PM

So you should never tell someone to believe something - but it's fine to tell them not to believe something?

Or is it that it's wrong to tell someone that you believe something, but fine to tell them that you don't believe something?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

Seems to me that shelving data that contradicts the belief system is what is "sloppy"   Just as you say there is zero evidence for a creator , we would say there is zero evidence for evolutionism. Of course you can point to certain recognised phenomenon , but nothing that demonstrates what is needed to change fish to philosophers. It is an article of faith on your part that organisms can change beyond the observable limits seen in nature. THE latter is an observation consistent with the creation model of reproducing "after their kind".   Interesting you are now saying the "theory will never "be true""" after all those interactions with snail in the past. Or perhaps you differentiate between the ...theory ..and the (supposed) ...fact... Of evolution. That would be convenient I suppose , but it is not just the details that have to be changed or rescheduled , but the supposed fact of the general theory of evolution that is questionable and speculative. I suspect also that you are not being quite straight when you say... theory... , since though the word can legitimately mean something might or might not be true, in science it is also used of gravity and other things generally considered observationaly verified . IMO though , evolutionary ideas are closer to the speculative meaning !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 02:36 PM

No-one should ever tell anyone else that they should believe anything, pete. No-one teaching about evolution can do that because the theory will never "be true". That is not what theories are for. In science we weigh up probabilities (using reason) on the strength of evidence. We are always open to revising our conclusions, which are never final. If you had a science teacher who did it differently, he wasn't a good science teacher. It does happen. In science we are pretty strict about what counts as evidence. Applying our rules to the things that are claimed as evidence for God, well sadly you haven't actually got any. Unwisely, you rely solely on faith. As I was telling Joe, Puff the Magic Dragon has precisely equal merit with God in the likelihood of existence stakes. Now we don't set the bar high in order to exclude God. We set the bar high so that science can progress human knowledge. Unlike you, we can't afford to be sloppy about this.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 02:01 PM

"why is it wrong for Christian parents to tell their kids what they believe is true, but not for a teacher to tell us that we are merely chance accidents that just happened to evolve from the slime over eons of time."

Because it's NOT a question of BELIEF - you ignorant oaf!

"Not only is that unproven philosophical assertion , ..."

First, is it even possible to 'prove' a philosophical assertion?

Second, do the Theory of Evolution and evolutionary biology involve philosophical assertions? Probably only in the minds of creationists.

Third, where's the proof that God created everything? Surely, if you creationists demand proof from scientists then you should be able to provide it for your own "philosophical assertions". But then, God is 'unknowable', isn't He, Pete? So, if He's unknowable, you'll never know if He created everything or not, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:35 PM

Not only is that unproven philosophical assertion
Jesus wept. As it were....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:29 PM

So Steve, why is it wrong for Christian parents to tell their kids what they believe is true, but not for a teacher to tell us that we are merely chance accidents that just happened to evolve from the slime over eons of time.   Not only is that unproven philosophical assertion , but is no basis for saying anything is right or wrong. Surely to say anything is wrong you need to have some kind of objective standard.....or maybe borrow from a Christian one !   So , being as you like to rail against Christians as evil, on what objective standard do you thus ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:32 AM

Joe's two views of God:

"One is a view of God as an external entity guiding or controlling the universe from outside - more likely doing things by miracles rather than by following the laws of nature. My view is of a God tied more directly to the essence of ourselves and of the universe that surrounds us. In my view, God is the essence of the laws of nature, and thus there is no contradiction between God and nature."

Overwhelmingly, the first view is what is taught to children, and, I'd bet, the one that most grown-ups who haven't actually ditched religion hang on to. The second is the one that you have to work out for yourself if you can be arsed to rethink the original, or the one you get taught in seminaries. It's the one that is used mostly to try to stave off people like me, who "don't get God's true essence", "think he's just a bearded man in the clouds", etc. It looks intellectually attractive, doesn't it, but its attractions are meretricious. It's a substitute for the search for the magic of reality (as Richard Dawkins puts it). Take the "essence of God" from your wonderful starry night and not only have you removed a totally unnecessary bolt-on but also you've opened the way to a lifetime's quest for the real truth, far more scintillating a prospect than the abject, mind-cluttering deity. Of course, first of all you may have to unteach yourself the doctrine of not thinking for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:30 AM

And no doubt you told them that Puff had to be prayed to and worshipped, had a virgin mother and could breathe life into dead bodies with his hot fiery breath and would have eternal life. That it would be a sin to fail to worship him in a service every Sunday, and, if you denied his existence you'd be frowned on by the Puff Club and would never know happiness. That he's up there among the stars in the sky. Come to think of it, he's exactly as plausible as God, isn't he, only you can't see it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:14 AM

Yep, and I sang "Puff the Magic Dragon" to 'em, too. Ruined their lives forever.
-Evil Dad-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 09:03 PM

Oops, bloody iPad. I shall try to continue in a more sensitive direction!

Well tell me what's wrong with it. OK to lie to children about the existence of an extremely unlikely God? OK to tell them to read dodgy scripture, full of uncorroboratable stories about heroes and demented visionaries? Well good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 08:49 PM

Well tell me what's wrong with it. OK to lie to children about the existence of an extremely unlikely God? OK to tell them to read dodgy scripture, full of uncorrobotabke. storjres about heroes,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 08:34 PM

wrap-around horrors of indoctrinating religion.

It is hardly believable that could anyone conceivably describe that as "melodramatic"!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:46 PM

"bigoted melodramatic language"

Well now he's vying with pete for who can use English more inanely. Care to work "paradigm" into your frustrated rants too, Joe? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:21 PM

Yes, Steve, and to think that you were subjected to all this crap until you became enlightened and liberated at the age of thirty. And you became so adept at the use of bigoted melodramatic language then!

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:02 PM

There is no such thing as a Catholic child. Or a Muslim child, or a Jewish child, or a Hindu child, or a Protestant child. A child is too innocent to espouse all the wrap-around horrors of indoctrinating religion. This is what you guys serially fail to understand. A child is born innocent of your polluting notions, far wiser than you will ever be, but that isn't enough for you. Your urgent desire to pollute children's minds overrides all other considerations. Or maybe some of you do understand, but are evil enough to ignore what's self-evidently right and proceed to indoctrinate anyway. Everything you say here, Joe Offer, betrays the way your mind has been strangled by your faith. You don't understand science, demonstrated by your inability to leave a mythical God out of it. Instead of a beautiful universe, ripe for exploration by the best of human endeavour and imagination, when you look at a starry night you "see God." But the fact that you actually think that there can be such a thing as a "Catholic child" clinches it once and for all. Dismal in the extreme. Very sad, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:39 PM

Goodnight to you too Steve. Maybe if you sleep on it you may be able to come up with a more constructive reply !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:18 PM

Damn, Steve. You sure must have had a messed-up Catholic childhood. I was a Catholic child, too, and my experience was very different from yours.
Sorry it happened to you that way. I certainly have known of situations where children have had your kind of experience growing up Catholic. I also know of other situations that were very positive. It's a big world, and different things happen to different people in different ways.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:06 PM

Paradigm! Pretty Polly! Squawk, squawk! Paradigm! Squawk, squawk! Pretty Polly, pretty Polly! Paradigm, paradigm!! Squawk!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:50 PM

I suppose speaking and talking could be synonymous...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:48 PM

Let me graciously dismiss you in a sentence, Pete. You don't know what paradigm means. Sleep well.

Joe Offer, your God of the Essence is even more dismal than the God of the Gaps. He's inserted into a place where there aren't even gaps, and he adds absolutely nothing to either our knowledge or experience. As of live and let live, tell me when you Catholic aficionados have ever allowed your children to live and let live. You send them to faith schools to sit under crucifixes, to be told lies and to chant prayers and sing hymns to a God (not to speak of his son and his "virgin" daughter-in-law) who almost certainly does not exist. They are told what to believe and told of the penalties for demurring. They are christened into your club before they can speak, walk, talk, argue back or think for themselves. If this is your idea of live and let live, well think I'd rather toddle off to live under some military dictatorship or other, where I just might be better treated than your poor kids are.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:15 PM

Steve says ....evolution is not a science....!    Are we getting somewhere !? Of course he qualifies this by claiming natural selection evidences it.    But in this he is playing the bait and switch game. Natural selection evidences just that...natural selection. It does not, and it cannot evidence microbes to mudcatters evolution.   He also has great faith in the impartiality of himself and his fellow believers that they are open to new evidence.   BUT not only is the history of science (dis)graced with countless examples of the paradigm being painfully slow (sometimes fatally for some) to take on board fresh evidence that threatened the ruling paradigm, but he is not dealing with the evidence that threatens evolutionism now. How many counter evidences are needed ? The answer cannot be known, because this paradigm is religiously accepted and will take much more to break therefore than previous entrenched ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:05 PM

We have two very different understandings of God on the table here, which makes the discussion multi-faceted. Steve has a very difficult time arguing against both at the same time, so I guess I ought to have some sympathy for him.

One is a view of God as an external entity guiding or controlling the universe from outside - more likely doing things by miracles rather than by following the laws of nature. My view is of a God tied more directly to the essence of ourselves and of the universe that surrounds us. In my view, God is the essence of the laws of nature, and thus there is no contradiction between God and nature.

Is there a "right" view? Well, I'd say they are different views, and leave it at that. I still can't see why these evangelistic atheists are so hell-bent on refuting the views believers have of God. Seems to me that "live and let live" would be a better approach. We can't know what's in the hearts of others. Maybe we'd be best off just respecting them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:30 PM

"People who study evolution as a science eventually have to put up or shut up. They know that. They may have 'faith' they are or aren't on the right track, but they will need proof eventually."

Your general drift is fine but this little section is shaky. Evolution isn't a science. It's a phenomenon of nature. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation we have for evolution, arrived at by the scientific method. We put up, but we don't feel the need to shut up, as we are exceptionally willing to take on board new evidence, following which we are only too happy to adjust the theory. No need for faith and no search for proof. It's quite important that we stay on track here, as we need religion finding holes in our logic like we need a hole in the head. As for me, I study evolution and I won't need proof 'til the day I die. The path is beautiful and I don't need an end to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

"It is not Christian faith that is being challenged by observational, repeatable and testable science . . . ."

That's one proposition, but faith itself isn't reasonable as a factor in debate. Faith--which I don't mind in people--is simply the magic card that gets played when facts aren't convenient.

"It is not Christian faith that is being challenged by observational, repeatable and testable science but the evolutionary faith."

That's another argument. People who study evolution as a science eventually have to put up or shut up. They know that. They may have 'faith' they are or aren't on the right track, but they will need proof eventually. And there's the rub.

I challenge anyone to watch and record the next twenty license plates they encounter. Record only the first two numbers on the plate. Stop when you get to twenty numbers. I'll give fhree to one odds that two of the two digit numbers will match. (Remember, there are all the numbers between 00 and 99 that could come up.) If anyone will play ten games, you're on. I will most likely win, no faith involved. It's just how the odds are and odds are just a short way of saying probability.

I have many friends who are religious--one brand or another. I am happy for them because in general their god is kind. But I don't stick around too long when one's faith gets into any discussion about science. That is something I feel my friends should talk about with others who feel as they do. I have great tolerance for people whether or not they agree with me, but soon as their god gets into it I'm outta there. It's tough being the only atheist at the church service :-)

Anyway, pete, you keep being the guy you are, because if faith works for you that's cool with me. I disagree with your science, but then I disagree with much that humans think and do and so far it ain't changed nothin' ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

In conflict

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

"We were also taught that since the essence of the laws of nature, physics, and science flow from God, it is impossible for God and science to be in conflict.

So, whether one does or doesn't believe in a God, the laws of nature, physics, and science are exactly the same.

Where's the conflict?"

Well I don't know who these people are who don't believe in God. Not me for a start. I don't know whether there's a God or not. Belief don't come into it this end, one way or the other. Now you claim that God and science can't be in inflict. Well God relies on sheer faith. Science is predicated on evidence, reason and progressive open-mindedness. The potential for conflict is huge, and, because of the history of religion's opposing science for centuries and the current trend for misinformed accommodation with science, the potential is realised. "Evolution works through God." I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:00 PM

"As to the absurd notion that religion is a hindrance to science , ..."

Well, religion is certainly a hindrance to you UNDERSTANDING of science, isn't it, Pete?

I'm here, Pete, I'm on your case and I'm not going to go away! Yoo hoo! I'm here, parroty Pete!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM

Yes, nanoseconds away from the Big Bang. That's how close we are to understanding what happened. We know what happened to the universe nanoseconds after it began. Nanoseconds in fourteen billion years and no sign of God, poor fellow. Deny the science and celebrate your ignorance. As for science blossoming in Christianised Europe, why, do you think Europe is Christianised now? If bums on pews is any measure, it doesn't come close and probably never did. One difference is that doubters had to shut up in the good old days. You could even get your head chopped off for having the wrong kind of Christianity! If we could ask Darwin, tortured by the realisation that his growing doubts about religion had to be suppressed, or Galileo, a less diplomatic fellow who took on the establishment and found himself incarcerated, I somehow doubt whether they'd be crediting Christianity with any blossoming of science. The very opposite.