BS: The Delusion delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 06:20 AM

I think it is a great mistake to believe that science equals athiesm.

Indeed. Science need not concern itself over-much with religion at all. That's the way ahead. If only religion would stop fretting about science, that would be brilliant.

Einstein ("I am definitely not an atheist", Darwin ("I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist" are two highly respected scientists I gave earlier in this thread (or the other delusion one) who at least questioned.

So what? Their opinions on religion are no more than slightly interesting. It is outside their spheres of work. I expect their opinions on the best way to put up kitchen shelves would be mildly interesting too. I doubt that either Darwin or Einstein would admire you much for putting them on pedestals for their religious views. There's a website somewhere that lists hundreds of eminent scientists who are avowed atheists. That isn't particularly interesting either.   

It seems odd to me that some will use evolution for example as positive proof that there is no God

I don't know of any who use evolution in this way (and good scientists will seldom, if ever, claim "proof" for no God in any case). However, the uncomfortable fact for believers is that natural selection does, at best, make God entirely redundant. It explains the whole of life on Earth is all its beauty and complexity entirely within the laws of physics, without the need for divine interventions of any kind, and is coming very close to elucidating the origin of life similarly. When you think about it, natural selection is probably a very good bet for explaining life wherever it pops up in the universe. God is just twiddling his thumbs on the sidelines, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 06:49 AM


So what? Their opinions on religion are no more than slightly interesting. It is outside their spheres of work.

But science was very much inside and they did not believe it held all the answers.

I doubt that either Darwin or Einstein would admire you much for putting them on pedestals for their religious views.

I think they would be intelligent enough to read through your distortion of what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:39 AM

I didn't distort what you said. I quoted it directly and then commented on it. You appear to be confusing "distort" with "disagree with."

If they really said that science doesn't have all the answers (have you a direct quote?) then I shall have to make so bold as to disagree with them. Scientists may never find all the answers but that doesn't mean that the "answers" aren't out there, all couched in the lingo of the laws of physics I'll be bound.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:41 AM

Hi Steve. So you believe that the use of logical tools is only necessary if you believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 10:08 AM

How would I know?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:22 AM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:28 PM

even i know that natural selection does not "explains the whole of life on earth..."steve.
and on a previous post you said yourself that the theory has gaps and full stops.

agree entirely jon that believing is not always the easy option,but i read a quote recently which is bound to illicit denials

"atheism is the crutch leaned on by those not wanting to face the reality of God"
i wonder..?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:45 PM

even i know that natural selection does not "explains the whole of life on earth..."steve.
and on a previous post you said yourself that the theory has gaps and full stops.

Oh yes it does. All of it, all the diversity, the beauty, the complexity. Natural selection explains all that very elegantly and it does it by making very few assumptions. All you need is time, and four and a half billion available years has sorted out that issue. Certainly there are gaps in the fossil record and there's plenty of evidence of evolutionary dead-ends, but that's all grist to the mill. Natural selection cannot be undermined. You need to look into this far more than you do. It's wonderful and it's impressive.

"atheism is the crutch leaned on by those not wanting to face the reality of God"

It's hard to see how, in this religion-infested world, in which in some circumstances it can even be quite brave to come out as an atheist, atheism can ever be described as a "crutch." Atheists reading your post will be thinking how arse about face you have this. Hows about "God is the crutch leaned on by deluded people who are not wanting to face reality"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 02:10 PM

Your final statement is fine Steve provided there is not a God!!!
God is not my crutch.. God became my springboard to a far better life than I had before.... I do lean on Him sometimes I have to admit because He can handle the problems I can't and He does answer prayer.... God may not be your reality but He is certainly mine.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 02:30 PM

Far better, during the bumpy ride through life, to stand up to your full height instead of leaning on "God." You get to see far more of the scenery that way. When the pianist/composer Moscheles brought the manuscript of the piano arrangement of Fidelio to Beethoven for his final approval, Moscheles had written on the last page "Fine mit Gottes Hulf" ("finished with God's help"). When Beethoven returned the manuscript to Moscheles, Beethoven had added the inscription "O, Mensch, hilf dir selber!" ("Oh, man, help yourself!").

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 03:06 PM

You have to consider that I do stand up to my height as a result of being able to lean on God.... Maybe my life is not so bumpy! Having God in my life has simplified many things and allowed me to live a fuller richer life than I would have done as I was. In fact I would no doubt be dead now!
Not sure what you think the reference to Beethoven and Moscheles is... bit of name dropping proves nothing does it... There have been many famous men Christian and non Christian. I am sure many of them have given their own opinions too................

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

As I said before "I suppose the biggest delusion is the belief by the contributors to this thread that the other side will actually understand the points they're making."

Personally, I'm having fun seeing which side (out of how many?) can produce the most non-sequiturs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:51 PM

Yoiu carry on having your fun, Dave. Perhaps one day you'll grace us with one of your opinions as well, instead of affecting to sail above us all in superior fashion. You do have views, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:59 PM

I do express my views when I think they're relevant. The trouble with thread's like these is that Atheists operate within a universe of discourse in which it is axiomatic that God does not exist. Creationists exist within a similar universe of discourse where completely contrary axioms pertain. It is therefore logically impossible for either side to convince the other.

Usually, when I express views, they are either misunderstood or ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 06:08 PM

I know what you mean, Dave MacKenzie:
I check by once and awhile, as with other threads. I gave up commenting some time ago.

Folks are just too "fired up", agressively defending their "firm" positions" (on either side) to consider that the "religious" topics may not be as "black or white" to many others. It reminds me of a war, where there is no room for the middle ground. (You must be either for us, or against us). If you are, and post as such, you could get shot at by either side.

I am sure that both sides will deny being so rigid, or agressive. That is why folks try new threads, that eventually get overtaken by the same suspects.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:35 PM

Gosh, Dave, you must be so pleased to have Ed jump to your defence so promptly! With friends like that... A couple of thoughts. First, if you're scared of putting your point of view lest your message be misunderstood, then why post to these threads at all? Second, the rigidity in these debates is all on the side of the Christians. Just look at Pete, for example. Debating with him is like trying to grab a greased pig at best and, at worst, like trying to piss into a strong wind. I'm not rigid at all. I have my convictions, 'tis true, and I'll argue for them, but I am open to persuasion. All I need is evidence. I've said it so many times. You'll find an awful lot of atheists just like me. We don't do rigid dogma but we do require evidence for claims made apropos of God/visions/miracles/cures/apparitions and the rest. A very reasonable stance. We positively eschew the rigidity of religious doctrine, which is executed with hands joined, eyes tight shut and face skywards. In fact, we hate rigidity!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:51 PM

I'm not scared of putting my point of view - as I said I've done it many times. You claim not to be dogmatic but that's not how you come over - belittling William of Occam's contribution to philosophy and logic because he was a Franciscan friar. No doubt you would also denigrate Lewis Carroll's contributions to mathematics because hr was an Anglican clergyman. Most of my posts have been to point out the flaws in Creationism, but if you get things wrong, you shouldn't be surprised if someone points them out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:26 PM

Well, you got a bit obsessed with owld Occam in a fairly pointless context. I certainly didn't belittle him, and, I hate to admit, I didn't even know he was a man of the cloth at all. I mean, who cares. The points made were the points made. I'm no scholar of ancient logicians, to be honest. I know bugger all about Lewis Carroll and his maths either, to be honest, and I'm seasoned enough when it comes to putting my head above the parapet to be relatively fearless about anyone pointing out if I get summat arse about face (I'll admit it, generally speaking). I don't expect much credit for being relatively steadfast, but so be it. Just give me some evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:00 PM

Is there an echo in here?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:15 AM

Well a lot of blathering blah blah, from Steve!...Probably doing the bullshitter's two-step to avoid confronting, and answering:

GfS: "Well being as you are so bent on people 'proving' the unseen, such as God, or that they might have had an experience with God, right?, and you seem to not agree that "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..." then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!

"MAKE MY DAY!!!

On top of NOT being able to answer it, he STILL is NOT displaying any signs of 'intelligent' activity going on between the ears! Not only that, EVERYBODY is shootin' him down..on almost every subject he uses as subterfuge!!

So, until then, We're still waiting!!!!
(Maybe he'll take the first 'plunge' and figure it out that somewhere along the line, he's errored........oh yeah, that damn fear and pride, I mentioned earlier, keeps him trapped.)

Try life.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:15 AM

Like Thomas in the New Testament Steve, who wouldn't believe his friends in spite of overwhelming circumstantial evidence ... it is not 'evidence' you want as you have already had some... you want definitive proof.. Nothing less will do for you because of your mindset. The only way you will get proof is to find it for yourself because you basically can't 'trust' other peoples words only your own opinion. I guess what you will find in life will be of your own making.... I just hope you find the real truth...... whatever it is.........................
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:37 AM

Mike, Nice to see you on while I'm on.....I think that folks who adopt atheism do it for three reasons, primarily. One is the confuse 'religion' with having ANYTHING to do with God, and vice versa...so they come up empty, and SOME of their resentments are true. Sometimes they are raised in a religion, that was powerless, so it all looks to be fraudulent.
Some have adopted it, as part of their 'political co-optation'. (I mean if there is no God, the Constitution is obsolete for them, because it acknowledges a Creator, and having unalienable rights from the Creator....and 'Libs' want to believe all their rights are from an ideology, and government.
And the third, is unlike those who have seen or experienced something which is undeniable, and compare notes with others, who have that in common, they just don't know...and are left to their own understanding..and impaired 'data processing'(intelligence).

Does that sound about right to you??
I'm open....(while I'm still waiting).

Give me some feedback,
Warmest Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:19 AM

"I don't expect much credit for being relatively steadfast"

No, not steadfast. You have a tendency to assume that if you don't fully understand a point it must be contrary to your views, so you should attack it. My original posting was mildly supportive of you, but pointing out that your post of 03 Jan 11 - 08:01 AM was a rather inaccurate generalisation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:43 AM

Dave, Can't find a post of '03 Jan 11 - 08:01'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:36 AM

Steve said "It never ceases to amaze me that, in the ordinary world, you'd try to solve a mystery by looking at the apparently likeliest explanations first. In religion, on the other hand, you seek out by far the most improbable and outlandish explanation of all (and the more you can break all the hard-won laws of the universe, the better), and you reinforce your position by telling those people who would much rather investigate the more mundane and earthly (and infinitely more likely) ones that they have closed minds. It beats me why this God chappie of theirs has bothered to give us all such mighty brains when he then requires us to stop using them and resort instead to whimsy, fantasy and magic."

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:35 AM

So what was wrong with that, Dave? Huh??

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:01 AM

Like Thomas in the New Testament Steve, who wouldn't believe his friends in spite of overwhelming circumstantial evidence ... it is not 'evidence' you want as you have already had some... you want definitive proof.. Nothing less will do for you because of your mindset. The only way you will get proof is to find it for yourself because you basically can't 'trust' other peoples words only your own opinion.

That particular story is the most blatant example of the tendentious gospel writer telling people to believe without question and shut up. Proto-catholicism! It flies in the face of the whole of Jesus's ministry, in which he asked his audiences to ask critical questions, think outside the box and take nothing of the old received wisdom as read. It asks for blind obedience, something which Jesus fought against throughout his ministry. You just know that story's a big fib, don't you! I would also question your interpretation of the "evidence" his friends presented as being overwhelming. We all saw a bloke dying the other day, but now we're all telling you that he's back walking and talking. Dunno about you, but, like sensible Thomas, my first reaction would be that you were taking the piss. Actually, I'm surprised he caved as easily as he did (you may glean from this that I think the whole of that particular yarn is a complete fabrication - cherrypickers unite!).

And I don't want definitive proof, as I'm tired of telling you. I want some evidence. Proper evidence. Not your say-so or your friends' say so. You're all Christians who are heavily inclined to believe a lot of stuff without demur that I would be severely sceptical about. You're biased. I'm not. You're the one with a fixed mindset (joined hands, closed eyes...), not me. I'm all ears. I'm standing here, arms folded, waiting for evidence. Yes, you have an uphill task all right with people like me, but it's one of your own making. You believe in a supernatural being who breaks all the laws of physics, who's infinitely more complicated and inexplicable that all the things he's supposed to be the explanation for - and there's never been a single sighting! I'm wide open to conversion, I assure you. But I want evidence. Not proof - I promise to settle for a lot less. Let's have one of these Lourdes miracles happening before our eyes on the telly. Something like that. Strip away all the delusion and dishonesty about all this stuff. All those moving virgins and quaking suns "witnessed" by thousands - but no video!! Never a Beeb cameraman in sight! Why is it so hard? I'll tell you why. Because you're all making it all up, that's why! You've had millennia to produce plausible evidence, but not once...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:08 AM

Well a lot of blathering blah blah, from Steve!...Probably doing the bullshitter's two-step to avoid confronting, and answering:

GfS: "Well being as you are so bent on people 'proving' the unseen, such as God, or that they might have had an experience with God, right?, and you seem to not agree that "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..." then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!

"MAKE MY DAY!!!

On top of NOT being able to answer it, he STILL is NOT displaying any signs of 'intelligent' activity going on between the ears! Not only that, EVERYBODY is shootin' him down..on almost every subject he uses as subterfuge!!

So, until then, We're still waiting!!!!
(Maybe he'll take the first 'plunge' and figure it out that somewhere along the line, he's errored........oh yeah, that damn fear and pride, I mentioned earlier, keeps him trapped.)

Try life.

GfS

I quote the whole of this piece of crap as a prime example of pointless, useless, aimless, insulting, inexplicable waffle. I can just about imagine myself typing that calibre of stuff (then shamefacedly deleting it) after about eight pints of Doom Bar. Actually, reading it again (so painful) it does make one wonder...

Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:10 AM

If you didn't get it the first time, Steve, you won't get it the next time. You've made your mind up, and nothing anybody's going to say will make you change it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:16 AM

"I don't expect much credit for being relatively steadfast"

No, not steadfast. You have a tendency to assume that if you don't fully understand a point it must be contrary to your views, so you should attack it. My original posting was mildly supportive of you, but pointing out that your post of 03 Jan 11 - 08:01 AM was a rather inaccurate generalisation.

Well I didn't pick up much support. Never mind. Please stick to attacking me, Dave, even though you appear to have difficulty in articulating exactly what it is you're attacking (as with this above post - I note lack of supporting examples, as ever). Better still, why not let us have some of your own views for a refreshing change (second request), instead of affecting to preside over the thread in, er, a godlike manner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:17 AM

Get what, Dave? Do you ever do anything other than "clever" one-liners?
Why don't you get GfS to explain it to me for you? Heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 11:01 AM

Steve you say >>>>>>>And I don't want definitive proof, as I'm tired of telling you. I want some evidence. Proper evidence. Not your say-so or your friends' say so.<<<<<< and at 2.15am on 6th Jan I said >>>>>>>>The only way you will get proof is to find it for yourself because you basically can't 'trust' other peoples words only your own opinion.<<<<<<< And Steve it is proof you want not evidence so why keep telling us you want evidence.... evidence comes from people... proof comes in many forms... You don't accept evidence from people (other than perhaps those of your own mindset who themselves may well be deluded) so you want proof. If you think I am off beam with this... what kind of 'evidence' do you want... please be specific.
PS I gave you evidence that my apple was delicious....... was it???

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:09 PM

It was your opinion that the apple was delicious, but "delicious" is a rather subjective issue. I happen to like apples, so there's a fair chance I would have agreed with you, but I can't know that you had made a useful judgement unless I had further evidence. In this case that would be be perfectly possible to achieve. I could have had a bite of your apple, or, failing that, a bite of an apple from the same lot as your delicious one. That wouldn't have proved that your apple was delicious, but there would have been enough evidence to satisfy me.
God is also a rather subjective issue, though in a different way. Also, in this case, unlike with the apple, I'm disinclined to accept your assertion that God cured you. For a start I'm very sceptical about God anyway and there's a lot more at stake here than the flavour of an apple. That doesn't mean I think you're a liar, but let's say that I am going to take some persuading. I hope you can accept that as a fairly rational viewpoint, after all, I simply can't go around believing automatically every yarn that's spun to me by all and sundry. As with the apple, I really need a bit more backup evidence. In this case all you've offered is your mates, who are Christians just like you and, therefore, potentially at least, biased, and, at worst, your henchmen. If I knew your mates in person, which I don't, the barrier might not be so high, but as I don't it is. Now there no use in your getting offended because I won't automatically accept your word or that of your mates, because what you're offering, unlike with that apple, is not evidence. It's you say-so. No judge or jury would settle for something that flimsy, especially as you're claiming what appears to me to be some kind of miraculous divine intervention, at odds with all natural laws. So I want something a bit more concrete. I find it difficult to suggest what that could be, but really, if you want to persuade me, which you possibly don't, the ball has to be in your court. So - evidence, please!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:23 PM

Steve Pshaw: I quote the whole of this piece of crap as a prime example of pointless, useless, aimless, insulting, inexplicable waffle. I can just about imagine myself typing that calibre of stuff (then shamefacedly deleting it) after about eight pints of Doom Bar. Actually, reading it again (so painful) it does make one wonder...

Shame on you."

Steve Pshaw: "Better still, why not let us have some of your own views for a refreshing change (second request), instead of affecting to preside over the thread in, er, a godlike manner."

Steve Pshaw: "Get what, Dave? Do you ever do anything other than "clever" one-liners?
Why don't you get GfS to explain it to me for you? Heheh!"



Steve Pshaw: "I find it difficult to suggest what that could be, but really, if you want to persuade me, which you possibly don't, the ball has to be in your court. So - evidence, please!"

Steve the Bullshitter: "Never a Beeb cameraman in sight! Why is it so hard? I'll tell you why. Because you're all making it all up, that's why! You've had millennia to produce plausible evidence, but not once..."

Steve Pshaw: "You're all Christians who are heavily inclined to believe a lot of stuff without demur that I would be severely sceptical about. You're biased. I'm not. You're the one with a fixed mindset (joined hands, closed eyes...), not me. I'm all ears. I'm standing here, arms folded, waiting for evidence."


GfS: Did I ever say I was a Christian?..You assumed it..probably because when people talk about 'God', you think 'Jesus'--Christian---run and argue. (funny, you equate the two, eh??)

OHHH, and all the post quotes above from you....you are just dodging MY question, and blathering typical responses, from some idiot with nothing to really say!!!

But you didn't answer it, because you CAN'T...and still, just spout insults to those who DO have an experience, that you know NOTHING ABOUT!
Knock it off....and stop embarrassing yourself. It isn't working. You've come off like a blithering fool....and don't have the 'intelligence' <<(you remember,..'INTELLIGENCE'??) to even guess a right clue!

Steve Pshaw: "Well I didn't pick up much support."

That's because we all know, what you don't see...stay stupid!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:23 AM

He says, referring to me: ...some idiot with nothing to really say!!!

Then he says: But you didn't answer it, because you CAN'T...and still, just spout insults...

Tee hee. And these statements right next to each other. Are you about twelve? At least I've never called anyone an idiot! Now stop blustering (though it is quite entertaining on the few occasions one can actually follow it). I seldom resort to this, but I can't honestly see any further point to having an exchange with you. Well, I'd exchange views, but my views for your spews don't cut it for me I'm afraid. Ta-ta!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 09:58 AM

i am quite happy to be known as fixed in my position.i hope i am considered respectful in defending such.i dont see it as my job to prove my faith.we are called to witness to it.steve is surpassing himself in insults;had to laugh-watwasit;greasy pig or summat!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 02:07 PM

I didn't call anyone a greasy pig. I used that common simile to characterise the slippery, moving-of-the-goalposts nature of one particular individual. Actually, Pete, it's greased pig. If you don't know the difference between imaginative use of clichéd similes and direct name-calling (which I try to avoid, unlike some around here, whom I note you are excusing from criticism - are you biased or what!), then I can't help you.

By the way, it might surprise you to know (in spite of my saying it several times, but you never do seem to notice the less convenient things I say) that my notions are not rigid. I'm open to conversion - as soon as I've seen the evidence. I promise.