God and Bananas

[JasonFox]

Hooray! The thread is still open! Man I'll bet ALL the mods have been watching this one in the background

The value of theism vs. atheism can never be proven, or vice versa... it's a personal decision that everybody is (fortunately) free to make. I hope we can continue to respect one another's freedom of choice in this matter.

Now let's sit back and see how thin the ice gets before somebody gets offended and we break through from an angry stomp.

Haha. Actually, it can be proven. Problem is, when you finally see definitive proof, it's too late to change your mind.

And I would have been offended by now, but I suffered through the election season on Facebook, so this is really nothing. I do wish Anhar was on here more, though.

 

[MattinSTL]

The thing I like about Anhar is that he is clearly REALLY intelligent... and he's better then most people at keeping his cool. It's pretty obvious when somebody is attacking you instead of making a case... this ties in to my original point about how much I'd like to hear a genuinely good, and logical debate on the issue... Christopher Hitchens called it "believing in the flying spaghetti monster"... and in this thread somebody compares what is perhaps the largest concept in the universe... to fairies. When I ran sound on that debate (which I HONESTLY am neutral on)... I wanted to hit the slate mic and take over the entire event's audio (which I could have easily done) and say "D'nesh... don't keep letting him get away with comparing the most complicated idea in the universe to an insultingly simplified personification... it's junior high-school level fallacy... A is ridiculous... A = B... so B is ridiculous." Good debates can't happen if one, or both sides are allowed to build their case on fallacies.

It's not even a logical fallacy with 3 lousy steps of debate... it's the way an average 13 year old argues to go to a concert or something.

That makes those people sound as simple-minded as the guy on the other side... that used bananas as proof of God... (which is the same A = B level logic)... and THAT guy gets even MORE on my nerves, because he's acting like it's a profound observation... like when Kirk Cameron shows his illustrations of the "croca-duck" or whatever... that's as bad as the banana people... and that sends a message that they're looking for stupid people to spread the "good news" to... because it's the same junior-high level argument.

Anhar is pretty good at staying mostly logical... so I always read his posts, no matter how long they get I hope he doesn't get discouraged, because in these circles you're pretty much guaranteed an uphill battle.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

There really is no debate.
When your time is up the spaceship will return and take you home.

 

[Batutta]

As I said earlier, this discussion will, and has gone NOWHERE. When you get down to the fundamental question of why we are here, it can never be proven, nor disproven, neither by religion or science that we came from God, so no debate between theism and atheism will ever be settled. Anyway, there really aren't many hard core atheists in the world. Most non-religious people are really agnostic. They don't know if there is a God and they don't care. And I suspect what they most object to are the convoluted dogmas of organized religion, not the actual concept of God.

 

[MattinSTL]

Dude... I've met plenty of hard-core atheists! I recently lost a friend of years, for simply asking him his thoughts on the issue! He was pissed that I'd even consider anything beyond current science... and there are a couple hard-core atheists in this very thread.

Although I agree that the conversation can't go anywhere... because if either side made any serious attempt at breaking down the other's viewpoint (which is necessary to win a debate) then the other side would be highly offended... and the thread would be closed. It would be cool if this thread dies of old age.

I've felt the boredom and pointlessness of this thread in my last few replies... but I posted anyway because it somehow feels good that this thread didn't get immediately censored/shut down. When I feel like one side or the other is getting angry I post a little more beige blandness, but I'd love to make an assault on one side, and then the other, just to see how deep their ideas really go.

 

[Batutta]

Dude... I've met plenty of hard-core atheists! I recently lost a friend of years, for simply asking him his thoughts on the issue! He was pissed that I'd even consider anything beyond current science... and there are a couple hard-core atheists in this very thread.

I'm not saying there are none, I'm just saying a far greater number of non-believers are more likely agnostic, and they are more likely to not even get involved in this discussion. This is the problem with a lot of debate on television. Only the extreme sides of issues are represented by the pundits, so people get a skewed view of the world as only compromising two extreme choices. The middle, tolerant view is not represented, probably because it would make boring television.

 

[Mark Harris]

Dude... I've met plenty of hard-core atheists! I recently lost a friend of years, for simply asking him his thoughts on the issue! He was pissed that I'd even consider anything beyond current science... and there are a couple hard-core atheists in this very thread.

Although I agree that the conversation can't go anywhere... because if either side made any serious attempt at breaking down the other's viewpoint (which is necessary to win a debate) then the other side would be highly offended... and the thread would be closed. It would be cool if this thread dies of old age.

I've felt the boredom and pointlessness of this thread in my last few replies... but I posted anyway because it somehow feels good that this thread didn't get immediately censored/shut down. When I feel like one side or the other is getting angry I post a little more beige blandness, but I'd love to make an assault on one side, and then the other, just to see how deep their ideas really go.

The problem here is there is no debate. Atheism vs theism is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

The problem with the banana video is that it claims to prove something that is only knowable through faith. And when you claim to prove things, you enter the realm of science. ID, on a larger scale, commits the same sin. It tries to force EVERY debate to be about one thing, because in ID, there is only one answer to every question. They use semi-scientific terms to make this more palatable to modern ears, but it's the same stuff. Look up where ID came from, by the way and its agenda becomes crystal clear.

So that's the problem, I think. There is no debate here, except one manufactured to forward agendas.

When you talk about things you can prove, you are in science. When you talk about things you can't, you're not. Simple as that.

It devolves into a debate about atheism/theism, because people forget, that's not the question at all and that is an easy question to get wrapped up in.

 

[MattinSTL]

Philosophy can't be debated?

That's a pretty bold assumption!

I agree that the often-overlooked reason why theists are attacked when they present ID is because they aren't presenting ID with an open-mind to science... they are usually using ID as the tool for which to pry open the endless can of worms they want to dump on you... but not every believer of ID does that. Some just want you to consider some ideas that are outside of every box.


I don't care if the people are extremists if they can argue their side logically. The problem is that people start creeping in insults... and that derails the opponent, which is the intent anyway... but the debate suffers.

People like Hitchens (regarded to be one of the TOP pro-atheist debaters) uses fallacies like "the flying spaghetti monster"... and D'souza (again... considered a TOP pro-theist debater)... uses his own intellectually insulting premises.

I'm all for extremes in a debate... but more often then not I get bored because people don't know the difference between a debate and an argument.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I think this thread has proven what Harris is getting at.
It's been intelligent, fairly respectful, and it has gone absolutely nowhere.

There's really no point to it.

Just my 2 cents.

MAH

 

[Mark Harris]

Philosophy can't be debated?

Come on. Of course. But not along with science.

 

[Mark Harris]

Philosophy can't be debated?

That's a pretty bold assumption!

I agree that the often-overlooked reason why theists are attacked when they present ID is because they aren't presenting ID with an open-mind to science... they are usually using ID as the tool for which to pry open the endless can of worms they want to dump on you... but not every believer of ID does that. Some just want you to consider some ideas that are outside of every box.

Well that's where we differ. What I said before was that ID in and of itself simply has no place in scientific debate. Period. It doesn't make me closed-minded. It makes me able to discern between science and philosophy.

An idea out of the box was quantum theory. But it was a theory, and has since been proven to be real. Adding: "God did it" adds nothing to any scientific discussion. that;s more the point I'm making. It does not open anyone's mind. It does not make people think harder, because it is an answer to its own question. No thought necessary.

You and I can have a philosophical discussion about god or no god, but for a science discussion, it simply adds nothing. Because think about it. If we are arguing different theories of Electromagnetic Radiation, and you bring up ID as part of your argument. Where does that get us? It has no bearing on our argument about the mechanics of each theory.

 

[Sad Max]

Sad Max, we can debate around in circles endlessly if thats what you want, you happen to be on the atheist camp, that's cool that's fine, I happen to be in the theist camp.

This presupposes that the two "camps," if that's your preferred term, are equivalent. They are not.

Both camps have struggled since the birth of man

Wrong. The application of the Scientific Method is a very, very recent innovation, in human history. This 'since the birth of man' business is horrible pseudo-intellectual nonsense; do you *really* believe that the earliest Cro-Magnons (or Neanderthals, or Australopithecines; wherever you want to put the 'birth of Man') were divided into camps advocating the Scientific Method vs. Superstition?

no one single man in history of humanity has been able to possibility prove conclusively with absolute certainty either case based purely on evidence and logic:

Thousands upon thousands of working scientists, theoreticians and researchers have proven conclusively and with absolute certainty that if you want to understand the mechanisms by which the physical world works - and there is presently zero falsifiable evidence, supporting the existence of anything beyond the physical world - the Scientific Method is the way you get there.

This is demonstrated by the fact that, while you can point to many thousands of inventions, therapies, devices and functional Laws and Theorems that are all direct results of applied Scientific Methodology, you can point to precisely zero such accomplishments deriving from Scripture, or from faith-based beliefs that, after all, aren't designed to rigorously describe the physical world, and are therefore useless and unproductive, for the purpose.

Strip away all the layers of complex arguments, strip away all the logic and it will always boil down to faith regardless of which camp you happen to be in,

This is complete nonsense.

Do you believe that antibiotics, lasers, electrical generators, gene therapies, anti-cancer medications, and all of the other benefits derived from a Scientific understanding of the world, just sort of manifested themselves, as a consequence of faith? As a person living in a technological society, do you *really* think that, say, the Laws of Thermodynamics were achieved via mere faith that that's how such systems work, or are you aware that the Laws are derived from observation and from experimentation?

It's depressing to think that there are people so completely unaware of the foundation underlying modern technologies and the societies dependent upon them.

Scientific Methodology is not a faith-system. It is a tool whose primary utility lies in its effectiveness for evaluating the truth-content of propositions placed before it. I mourn for any educational system which fails to impress that, upon its students.

the ONLY difference is the atheist camp is based upon intellectual hypocrisy because they are fundamentally based upon the same principle they claim to be against!

What principle is that? I'm sure you have one in mind; please be explicit as to which one you mean.

 

[JasonFox]

Well that's where we differ. What I said before was that ID in and of itself simply has no place in scientific debate. Period. It doesn't make me closed-minded. It makes me able to discern between science and philosophy.

An idea out of the box was quantum theory. But it was a theory, and has since been proven to be real. Adding: "God did it" adds nothing to any scientific discussion. that;s more the point I'm making. It does not open anyone's mind. It does not make people think harder, because it is an answer to its own question. No thought necessary.

Saying ID has no place in scientific debate absolutely makes you closed-minded. And so what if it does? Why does everyone insist on being open-minded about things? If you believe something, believe it! I personally think ID has a great deal of scientific backing (no, I'm putting up examples :beer, but if you want to dismiss it all as religious poppycock, go ahead. But don't pretend to be open-minded about things or claim to have advanced discernment on the issue. Go read something like "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel (a former atheist) with an open mind and if you thinks it's a bunch of crap, fine. But there are a lot more learned men on this side of the aisle than yahoos like Bananaman would lead you to believe.

 

[Sad Max]

Saying ID has no place in scientific debate absolutely makes you closed-minded.

No, it absolutely does NOT mean that you are closed-minded. It means that you understand that ID is not a Scientific theory, and that it's therefore not amenable to investigation using Scientific methodology.

You might as well say that a person is closed-minded if they say that a football has no place in a regulation hockey game.

 

[JasonFox]

No, it absolutely does NOT mean that you are closed-minded. It means that you understand that ID is not a Scientific theory, and that it's therefore not amenable to investigation using Scientific methodology.

You might as well say that a person is closed-minded if they say that a football has no place in a regulation hockey game.

Well, then knock yourself out using scientific methodology to prove macro evolution. And let me know how the cryogenic freezing works out so you can be around to see the test results.

Seriously. Anhar was referring to the debate about the origins of life, the universe and everything. Not where lasers come from.