Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Rhizomorph13]

Yeah, um, Adrian,

I am sure Pippy has read that and hasn't really answered it yet. He probably won't. Your approach allowed Pippy to play the victim. You did appologize but it didn't read as sincere to me. This is Arcanus' intro thread so it might be good to start a new thread?

Pippy,

How do you walk to work without tripping on your tampon string? (See I can help increase the weight of your cross)

Arcanus,

Congratulations on an epic intro thread.

Clap.
Clap.
Clap.

Rhizo

[Tiberius]

I don't care if it didn't read as sincere; it was, and that should have been the end of it. Pippy refused to acknowledge any of my points on multiple occasions, and opted to instead play the victim whilst simultaneously sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you". That might have worked for him on other forums, but it doesn't work here.

[Rhizomorph13]

I don't care if it didn't read as sincere; it was, and that should have been the end of it. Pippy refused to acknowledge any of my points on multiple occasions, and opted to instead play the victim whilst simultaneously sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you". That might have worked for him on other forums, but it doesn't work here.

Adrian,

Really? you don't care. I would think that would be important.

He is taking your goat for a walk though, so maybe he is winning his game.

Rhizo

[Tiberius]

I apologized multiple times, each one was sincere. If anyone "reads into" it otherwise, it is their problem; they are reading something into it that simply is not there.

From my point of view, I have apologized and wished to continue a civil discourse. Pippy has rejected those attempts, and has simply kept on playing the victim. It's pathetic behaviour.

If Pippy is playing the game "let's see how much I can piss off an admin until he bans me", trust me, he is doing exceptionally well. Pippy wanted a response to his post, I gave him one that refuted all of his points. Instead of discussing it, he (on multiple occasions) said it wasn't a very good argument (without saying why), kept telling me to stop using a wiki quote (even though it was clear I was using it to demonstrate a point), and has repeatedly told me to "make a valid point" (even though I have made that valid point 3 times now with no response from him).

Every time I challenge him to answer, he backs into his little corner and plays the thing like he has done nothing wrong; like I am the big bully, over one insult that happened at the start of all this, and one which I have repeatedly apologized for.

Absolutely pathetic (and he's not getting an apology for me calling him that, because his behaviour deserves such a remark).

[Pippy]

Hey,

I think that to respond to the points that you did raise in the second or third post would be kind of tired and like beating a dead horse. I admit that I acted poorly, and regardless of what strange perceived motives I had, it is still a check on my self. Could we rest with; "The argument got out of hand. I apologize for that. Let's just let it go, and move on,"? I mean it in the most sincere, and I of course took your statements as sincere as well. It is a benefit of the doubt I afford most people, and I do maintain that i respect you. We disagree almost tantamount, but I have seen you make very valuable contributions, and don't doubt you have had a log history with this forum before I arrived.

I also don't want this to seem like an ass kissing post, I still stand by my reaction to what I felt were 'not nice posts'(don't dissect this poor phrase anyone), but take full responsibility for my long winded and a little overdrawn e-actions. I don't need to be banned, nothing so formal. I am certainly not here to get banned, that would be kinda trolling, and I don't like bridges. If I should leave, ask or say so, and we'll see. I don't mean to be a spectacle, I kinda mean to just pop out of the background now and again.

And yes, something I have been thinking the whole time as well. Greatest intro thread ever, and I am one of the most guilty parties.

That is all. I don't want to talk about weasels any more. Not in a mean, victimy way. Just, for my thin honour, let's stop while were behind?
Shake hands?
Respectability but disagreeableness,
-Pip

PS oooh, make it a poll. 'Is Pippy Worth Keeping Around'.

[Tiberius]

Apology accepted, and I agree; let's leave this issue for now. Hopefully in the future we will remember this discourse and not act in the ways we did.

*shakes*

[Pippy]

Thank you kindly.

[Purple Rabbit]

This is preposterous. So the Christian world fills the heads of millions of children with information that is incomplete ... [snip rest]

First, this has zero relevance to the point I made. An advanced course in X is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of X. You can substitute X with nearly any subject (as I said, "such is the case for pretty much any subject"). Advanced courses are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of biology, of history, of mathematics, of literature, etc. Advanced courses in biochemistry are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of life's building blocks. In precisely the same way, advanced courses in theology are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of God. This was supposed to be practically self-evident: to delve deeper into a thing requires advanced learning about that thing.

This is quite interesting. The question at hand here is what set of statements on the god concept is enough to evaluate its truth sufficiently. This is relevant to assess the approach taken by Dawkins in TGD. On my observation that it seems that an advanced course in theology is needed to assess the god concept in full you answered that such of course is the case. You replied that you need to have the wit of an advanced astrophysicist to understand the god concept in full. But now you basically respond that anyone can assess the god concept sufficiently to validate its truth. This implies that there is some clear, compact and easy to understand set of statements describing the god concept, that is sufficient to evaluate the very big claims that come along with the god concept. I reckon such a set also facilitates a weighed assessment of the god concept (whatever it is) in relation to other religious views or is it necessary to first study all religions and flavours within in it before coming to a delusion-free conclusion. So is there or is there not a simple compact set of statementsthat accurately enough describes the god concept to sufficiently evaluate the truth claims being made, claims with rigorous consequences and impact on human well-being? If there is such a simple set please provide it here. It would also make clear what vital parts Dawkins is missing or misinterpreting and help us understand where Dawkins got it completely wrong.

"We cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field," I said, "but that is why we rely on those who have. If I am going to speak about 'X', I had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter." Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.

To rely on the argument of authority (a logical fallacy and therefore not proof for your claim that Dawkins' interpretation of the god concept does not capture it adequately) in matters of extreme importance such as in religious claims is really a very bad advice for truth finding and shows the weakness of your position. Especially since there is an utter lack of independent verifiability of these religious claims. The statement “you have to rely on the lord” thus becomes “you have to rely on what the alleged wise say about the lord”, most of which is formulated in unfalsifiable statements. This is totally unacceptable by any standard. Scientific claims however are open to direct investigation and empirical falsification and that is where your analogy between Dawkins and Comfort becomes laughable.

Second, anything children learn is incomplete, in virtue of them being still children.

Presenting children with god concepts as truth is common practice in most parts of the world. This should stop immediately if our aim as parents is to give children a fair chance on an unbiased assessment of such important questions especially when full appreciation requires the wit of an astrophysicist.

Third, Christianity has never pretended to be an all-encompassing discipline. Christianity does not teach Algebra, but then English Literature does not teach Biology. Would you rage against Geology for filling the heads of millions of children with information that is incomplete because it taught them only Geology?

I haven’t stated that religion needs to be an all-encompassing discipline. I have stated that it tells us nothing about the reality that is observable to us. Isn’t understanding reality (an alleged product of divine creation) in anyway part of the assessment of the veracity of a god concept? That really is a dangerous road paved with gullibility you walk.

Geology makes no pretences or claims about english literature or about frying in hell for eternity. Its models are not teached to young children and when it is in high school it is not presented as absolute final truth but as the best possible answer science can come up with at the moment. Science does not claim final truth. Christianity does claim final truth, but I’d be happy to hear you denounce that. Please do not embarass yourself with these non-sensical analogies in Ray Comfort style.

You are rowing the boat upstream, my friend, for statistics show that higher education means lower rates of belief in the supernatural.

First, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I had made. See above.

Oh yes, my friend, it has. When high intellect and education is needed to really grasp the full god concept, it is to be expected that higher education leads to better appreciation of the consistency, coherence and moral supremacy of the god concept and thus to higher rates of belief. Of course assumed here that there is a consistent, coherent and morally supreme god concept to begin with. It also means that turning to the wise as you proposed is a rather selective process, we are not to turn to the wise in general but only to the wise that professionally claim knowledge of it. Looks like asking the butcher if we should eat meat. What if we asked buddhist monks to read the bible?

Second, that says something about what they are being educated with, and nothing about the supernatural (in the very least because their education likely had nothing to say about the supernatural). I should not be surprised that if someone is taught extensively about A, B, and C, but not a thing about D, they would exit their education affirming A, B, and C while demonstrating remarkable ignorance about D.

This is the special pleading fallacy. To explain the correlation between higher education and lower rates of belief you suggest that education implies denial and/or neglect of the investigation of supernatural claims. Please substantiate this claim. One of the aims of higher education is to install critical thinking skills that are not subject specific. Are you implying that critical thinking skills are excess baggage when it comes to assessing the god concept? Implicit in your words again there is the claim that only a thorough study on academic level will suffice to understand the god concept good enough to assess its truth value. So, how much education exactly is needed to start with non-delusional belief?

You suggest that there is a relation between the complexity of nature and the complexity of god

No, I didn't. I suggested that delving deeper into X requires advanced learning about X. At no point did I ever suggest that no matter what you substitute X with it will all be equally complex. Your apparent distate for anything that so much as smells like Christian theism is causing you to hallucinate, seeing arguments no one made. It is almost embarrassing to observe.

The really embarassing part is that you claim complexity of a concept that has no verifiable relation to reality. This is a classic case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Well, you are not the only emporer around the block, they come in all sizes, colours, flavours and denominations. Ascribing hallucination to me when I ask of you explicitly to show me where your claims touch on observable fact is hilarious. I suggest you do away with emotional outbursts and think again.

The God concept as invented by academic theology is not capable of explaining any detail of the complexity of nature at all. Nada, zilch, nope, nothing. There is not a shred of relevance, of all academic theologian effort, on questions still open in the study of nature. And that while ... [snip rest]

First, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I had made. See above.

You made no point, you simply asserted that to really understand the god concept you need an advanced theology study. What is your evidence for that? The corpus of theology does not even constitute one single version of the truth. It's a mish mash of opinions interpretations and dogmatic rules. It seems the expansion of this corpus is trying to keep up with the expansion of the universe right now, every year new material of unverifiable statements are added, material not available to early theologians. They surely must have been wrong in their incomplete assessment.

Second, this is all true given your presuppositions. However, your presuppositions are not a given.

The presuppositions refer to the best standard for evaluating evidence for claims known to man: science. Now, of course you can say "hey that's not my standard, I have my own for these special claims". But then show me that it is better equiped for this job.

Emptiness is what you get if you try to sum up the tenets of Christian dogma without compromising certain ... [snip rest]

So my point stands unrefuted: Dawkins not only admits ignorance about theology in his writing about theological issues, he is proud of said ignorance. Furthermore, the fact that you seem unaware of Christian orthodoxy (i.e., theological tenets affirmed across every Christian tradition and denomination) merely testifies to your own theological ignorance. With my point unrefuted and your apparent ignorance exposed, there is not much left to say.

After reading and debating several theologians Dawkins concluded that the theological corpus has very little to offer that make sense:
Richard Dawkins Wrote:I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

If you claim that some advanced consistent and coherent god concept can be found in this mess, then please let me know.

You are content to believe that none can be found. I feel no pressing need to disrupt that.

To say it in your words: my claim that theology does not constitute a single version of the truth stands unrefuted!

... the god concept that ... offers no verifiable statement regarding the plain reality we live in.

In order for a God concept to offer a "verifiable" statement regarding "the plain reality we live in," it would have to conform to the presuppositions of your worldview (e.g., what constitutes reality, verification criteria, etc.), which you have not provided, which likely preclude the supernatural even prior to investigation, and which I am given no reason whatever to accept as coherent in the first place.

Well I have provided it now (see above). Science does not preclude the supernatural but studies everything that somehow has effect on our reality. If there is something that has no effect on our reality whatsoever (i.e. a purple rabbit in the 26th dimension) science cannot study it and you cannot claim to have knowledge about it. Plain and simple.

To state that the belief in this God concept is delusional is legit when (a) there is strong evidence that contradicts a number, but not necessarily all, of claimed characteristics and capabilities of that God and (b) there is no positive evidence for remaining characteristics.

I may have listed some of the fallacies he committed.

It didn't impress here. You just stated that Dawkins qualification of biblical god "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully", for which Dawkins quoted several bible passages "is not in any sense representative of what Christianity actually affirms". Well, that's an impressive argument! Christianity does not agree with Dawkins on the god concept and therefore Dawkins is wrong. This is a clear logical fallacy of begging the question.

And I may have mentioned something about Dawkins freely admitting ignorance with respect to theology.

We 've seen that this is a result of simply ignoring non-sensical statements which fill the universe of theologians where every theologian has it's own universe.

1. The claim that the bible is the word of god and shows his impeccable moral
2. The claim that the bible is consistent throughout showing divine origin
3. The claim that god answers prayer
4. The claim that god's existence is traceable through the supposed irreducible complexity in nature
5. That there is evidence of god's purpose with man in nature (anthropic principle)

Even granting these for the sake of argument,

1. An immoral Christian God does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
2. A partially divine Bible does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
3. Some unanswered prayers does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
4. Refuted ID arguments do not prove a non-existent Christian God.
5. Finding no divine purpose for man does a not prove non-existent Christian God.

1. He is not claiming proof for the non-existence of god. He is proving the delusional character of belief by showing that there is not sufficient proof to back up the claim of impeccable divine moral.
2. He is not claiming proof for the non-existence of god. Selecting parts from the bible to fit the claim whilst ignoring others is cherry picking behaviour and special pleading iow delusional.
3. He is not claiming proof for the non-existence of god. An experiment on the effect of prayer that indicates a slight negative correlation under scientific conditions invalidates any posteriori anecdotal claim of positive results from prayer untill shown otherwise
4. He is not claiming proof for the non-existence of god with the refutation of ID.
5. He is not claiming proof for the non-existence of god. Asserting divine purpose for man and claiming from it a central place for man in the universe is contradicted over and over again by astronomical evidence and shows the delusional nature of such skyhook assertions.

Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.

Asking theology if god exist is simply begging the question. Stating that only advanced theology has access to the truth about god a silly attempt to mask vanity and sheer emptyness.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Er, I am expecting the VERY SAME standards for both .. try paying attention for once in your life Pip!

I think you are expecting opposing standards for each situation, that is why I said so. You accuse myself and others of being uninformed and having an invalid opinion because we do not read your precious 'science papers', that you never seem to name a publication.

I am treating them the SAME because I NO MORE EXPECT ARCANUS OR ANY OTHER THEIST TO READ AN ACTUAL SCIENCE PAPER THAN I EXPECT TO READ AN ACTUAL THEOLOGICAL PAPER!

Are we clear now?

Kyu

[Pippy]

Yes, sir, clear as a bell, sir.

I know that is what you are saying. I am poking at trying to discredit your opinion on theology based on an admitted failure to read the right "papers", because it seems only logical after you dismiss our scientific opinion for the same reason. The fact is you are allowed to have an opinion, an interpretation of theology. And we of science. For better or worse. I only try to hold people to the standards they set.

Yes sir, we are clear now. P-P-Please don't yell at me.

Thank you,
-Pip