…and this is a 
As I've already mentioned, the makers of the Expelled movie have gone bankrupt, and the movie itself is on the auction block…and a few people on the side of goodness, light, and knowledge are making a bid to buy it. There's some reasonable interest there: the Expelled crew did a lot of interviews, and only a small portion of them actually made it to the screen. Personally, I can tell you that they spent about three hours with me one afternoon, and maybe a minute of that total made it to the movie. I was actually surprised that that one bit was all that made the cut, and even it was absurdly innocuous — it made me suspect I'd been doing my teddy bear imitation that afternoon again.
Anyway, it's a reasonable interest to get all the other stuff that was left on the cutting room floor, as the Panda's Thumb bidders have already explained:
The auction promises that besides all available rights and interests in the finished film itself (there is an existing distribution contract), the winner will get all the production materials and rights to them. Want to know what was in the rest of the interviews with Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers? I know I would like to have that material archived and made available to the public, among other things that Premise Media found inconvenient to include in their film.
Alas, one of the writers for the movie, Kevin Miller, is having a hissy fit over this right now. It's pathetically amusing. He's now comparing his dishonest failure of a movie to The God Delusion, which he claims was also a forgotten flop, just like Expelled.
That said, it does strike me as rather odd to see all of you obsessing over gaining access to this film. If Expelled truly is an inconsequential piece of horseshit, I fail to see why it's so important to gain access to the archives. I can't imagine how pathetically you would view Christians who set about to do the same if they had the chance to get their hands on the original drafts, notes, etc. behind Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," for instance. The book was a full frontal attack on religion. But it's arguments were so easily defeated that its relevance (and perceived threat to theism) quickly faded from view. I defy you to find a group of theists hunkered down in a shady corner of the internet talking about it right now. And I can hardly conceive of a group of Christians gleefully plotting to gain control of the rights so they could publish their own annotated version of the book. And if they did, I can hear you people mocking them mercilessly. And it would be well deserved, b/c it would be a pathetic form of behavior fear-based behavior. It would also be extremely telling in terms of the perceived threat "The God Delusion" represented. The fact that you're still hunkered down over here chortling about "Expelled" three years later, full of vitriol and immediately defensive at the slightest criticism of your behavior is the most telling of all. Just an observation.
A full set of drafts and notes for The God Delusion would be a fascinating bit of scholarly minutia! It's fairly common for well-known scholars to leave their notes and works to a library, because many people will be interested in how the ideas formed. And I think a collection of unused footage of Dawkins would have some interest; he's also made public unused footage from his documentary "Root of All Evil?" in the past, to good reception. He's not afraid to reveal the full content of his interviews.
It's extremely silly to claim that The God Delusion has lost its relevance and faded from view. It's sold over two million copies, and was on the New York Times bestseller list for almost a year. I'll note, too, that Richard Dawkins isn't the one gone bankrupt and left with a dud property on his hands that he's trying to sell off to appease his creditors. And yes, Christians obsessed and are still obsessing over it. Look up "Dawkins' fleas": he practically sparked a whole industry of Christian apologists writing desperate rebuttals of the book. The Dawkins Delusion, Beyond the God Delusion, The Dawkins Letters, The God Delusion Revisited, Deluded by Dawkins, The God Solution, A Catholic Replies to Professor Dawkins, Darwin's Angel, The Argument Against Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, The New Atheist Crusaders, The Truth Behind the New Atheism, The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion, God is no Delusion, Challenging Richard Dawkins, Mysterious Reality: God, the World and Ourselves in the Light of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, God and the New Atheism…you get the idea. I guarantee you, there are theists hunkered down right now kvetching about it.
We're chortling over Expelled now, but for a different reason. It was a flop. It's backers lost money and their reputation over it. It's writer was exposed as an incompetent hack. The content of the movie was revealed to be a dishonest hash of mangled interviews. Their PR was a disaster from day one. And now my side is considering seizing it as a trophy. We're chortling because it was a triumph for our side. I can understand why poor Kevin Miller might feel disgruntled about evolutionists cheering over the tattered corpse of his beloved baby…just as I can understand how Napoleon might have been a bit disgruntled about Waterloo, and found the British revelry entirely unsettling and annoying.
Too bad, Kevin. You lost.
Comments
Posted by: druidbros
|
June 25, 2011 10:34 PM
Please exit out through the gift shop Kevin.
Posted by: Insufficient Cringe
|
June 25, 2011 10:42 PM
I see a very educational movie on 'how to quote-mine' in sombodies future.
Posted by: Phil65
|
June 25, 2011 10:42 PM
Personally, I can tell you that they spent about three hours with me one afternoon, and maybe a minute of that total made it to the movie.
I don't doubt that the filmmakers mangled some interviews and otherwise misrepresented people, but I should point out that, having produced a few documentaries myself, this ratio of raw footage to finished cut is pretty common. When it comes to interviews, it's not unheard of to wade through literally hours of footage looking for something that fits the desired narrative.
"The desired narrative" being the operative phrase here, of course.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 25, 2011 10:44 PM
Wow, comparing the failure of Expelled to The God Delusion? It's easy, Mr. Miller - one was a failure, one was not. :chortles in a gnevil way:
Dawkin's Fleas, unholy cow, I had no idea there were so many!
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 25, 2011 10:47 PM
Hee hee hee.
Schadenfreude pie time!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 25, 2011 10:51 PM
Now, now PZ, gloating like an arrogant gnu atheist? Well, there is good reason to. (When's your book coming out? Amazon or B&N doesn't have it listed yet.)
Dawkins fleas? Haven't heard of any of them. Maybe they suffer from lack of readers and intelligent writing.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 25, 2011 10:52 PM
Come to think of it: Is Beware the Believers part of the deal?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 25, 2011 10:52 PM
I know, I've done this a few times, and am well aware that throwing out most of an interview for print or video is pretty much the norm. I even made a joke of it when they were leaving and asked if they knew which sentence of mine would make it to the final movie. So no, I'm not faulting them for that at all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 25, 2011 10:56 PM
Awwww pooor Kev.
He's just never gotten over the fact that his movie was a giant piece of shit in every way.
It sucks when you try so, um... hard. And fail miserably.
Posted by: Kevin
|
June 25, 2011 10:57 PM
For the record, I am not Kevin Miller.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 25, 2011 10:59 PM
Right! Of course they were. Because God Himself was so embarrassed at being called a "delusion" that He personally made a press release on live television, asserting, rather defensively, that He did too exist, and Richard Dawkins was very mean and unfair indeed. Yes, the world was shocked by that. Temples and churches and synagogues and mosques were filled to overflowing as everyone rushed to grovel before the Big Guy...
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Doc Bill
|
June 25, 2011 11:02 PM
Kevin has already admitted that his screenplay was a lie, although I don't think he wrote that part in Portal 1 about the cake.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 25, 2011 11:02 PM
Gotta watch out for that behavior fear-based behavior. Much worse that plan behavior, or plain fear-based behavior.
Posted by: jaranath
|
June 25, 2011 11:04 PM
Miller is shameless. He creates one of the sleaziest documentaries of all time, and yet has the gall to feign ignorance of why we'd like a peek behind the scenes of its creation. It's one thing to be genuinely deluded. I can pity that sort of creationist. But Miller's level of dishonest sleaze disgusts me.
I hope it hurts to make a movie that loses money and bankrupts a company while your enemy manages not only a profit but probably a higher gross...with a book.
I hope it hurts a lot.
Posted by: squelart
|
June 25, 2011 11:04 PM
Miller: "But it's arguments [...]"
How typical...
But then, PZ: "It's backers lost [...]" and "It's writer was [...]"
PZ, you have been infected!
Posted by: ted
|
June 25, 2011 11:07 PM
Does a creationist intro to the Origin of Species count?
Posted by: davej
|
June 25, 2011 11:12 PM
Kevin Miller wants to pretend stupidly that he can't understand why anyone might want to put all those interview excerpts back into their proper contexts and reveal the clearly evil and dishonest nature of the film makers? Gosh.
Posted by: Phil65
|
June 25, 2011 11:16 PM
Does a creationist intro to the Origin of Species count?
Oh for fuck's sake, does such a thing actually exist? I can only guess at what it says:
Posted by: Insufficient Cringe
|
June 25, 2011 11:17 PM
What? Atheist money not good enough? If Atheists need to plot to get the rights, whom are they plotting against? Is there a bunch of non-atheists also plotting to get the rights? Does the seller not appreciate a bidding war?And who doesn’t plot gleefully? Maybe someone who buys out of obligation. Who would be obligated to buy the rights, and why? Oh. Burial maybe. Lets forget this thing ever happened. So we can do it again later maybe?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 25, 2011 11:19 PM
Phil65:
Yep. Ray Comfort did it.
Posted by: TB Tabby
|
June 25, 2011 11:19 PM
When do we start work on the Rifftrax?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 25, 2011 11:26 PM
Phil65, you can read about it here.
Posted by: Daz
|
June 25, 2011 11:27 PM
Don't know why, but this seemed apt.
Posted by: Weston Bortner
|
June 25, 2011 11:28 PM
Has Dawkins even read HALF of the books that were written in response to his one book? It seems that when the New Atheists put out one book, the whole religious community kicks up a shit storm and throws down a ton of books to refute them. And, most likely, none are hardly as well known as the "God Delusion" itself.
Also, what's the update on Expelled? Are we about to win the auction?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 25, 2011 11:31 PM
Dear Kevin,
Things can be more than one thing at once. Yes, it's true: more than one adjective can apply to the same thing.
In the world of business and finance,
ExpiredExpelled is truly inconsequential.In the world of science,
ExplodedExpelled is a piece of horseshit.And science is very interested indeed in analyzing things. Yes, even horseshit.
Even your disgusting and despicable horseshit.
Hope this helps!
Posted by: AKron
|
June 25, 2011 11:33 PM
The God Delusion faded from view? I had to put a hold on the audio version. But when I was looking at all the book versions, look what I found?!?!
The Devil's delusion : atheism and its scientific pretensions / David Berlinski.
On shelf! Cool! Tomorrow the library awaits me.
BTW: The God Delusion is rated five stars (max) at the Arrowhead Library System. Expelled had exactly zero stars.
It's presently on-shelf, and collecting dust no doubt.
Posted by: Insufficient Cringe
|
June 25, 2011 11:34 PM
Numerology? Didn’t get the memo. New, Old, Please distinguish. Missed the poll. Is that how we decide things these days?Posted by: AmVik
|
June 25, 2011 11:44 PM
If the good guys do acquire the rights, will it be ok to finally see it?
I refused to give them any of my money when it came out, and relied on reviews from others (like RD, and others here). My plan has worked just as I hoped it would. Muahaha!
Sweet, sweet justice if the Forces of Reason can get the rights, and somehow make it profitable!
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 25, 2011 11:45 PM
What horrible bombshells would that contain? The fifty-three pages that are nothing but "All Science and No Pray Make Dick A Dull Boy?"
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlTWrEykrKsZRYG8-FLuIjBh-cZDwzRu1M
|
June 26, 2011 12:00 AM
You'll find a poll on the German EXPELLED pages that needs to be corrected. Follow the "Stimmen Sie ab!" link. The question is if you are aware of a single experiment that would prove the origin of life in Darwin's sense
Actually, a stupid question because evoultion theory would be still valid if we wouldn't have any idea of how life could have originated. Still, I would appreciate if you would vote "Ja" (currently it's 124 (No/Nein) to 66 (Yes/Ja).Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
June 26, 2011 12:06 AM
How pathetic. This is along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Well your mother went to college." I mean really, Kevin Miller. Really now.
Posted by: Weston Bortner
|
June 26, 2011 12:11 AM
"Didn’t get the memo. New, Old, Please distinguish. "
Which one do you think?
"Missed the poll. Is that how we decide things these days?"
Wasn't really trying to make a point. Just making an observation.
Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2011 12:14 AM
What an outrageous lie from a delusional psychotic.
Between 1 and 2 million people leave US xianity every year. Hardly a week passes without more evidence that...US xianity is dying. I post it as I run across it. The latest from a few days ago.
I'd say that Kevin Miller's brain is so destroyed by toxic religion that it looks like swiss cheese.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2011 12:27 AM
I wonder how many of those books are serious rebuttals worth reading. Greg Ganssle's sounds like one.Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2011 12:28 AM
Blatant lie. My smallish public library had 7 or so copies because they were always checked out. The copies also kept disappearing. Far as I can tell, fundies would steal them so no one else could read them. It took me almost a year to get a copy.
While Kevin Miller can't count or tell the truth, there seem to be a few Southern Baptists who can. Their membership is dropping steadily, retention rates of young people are 30%, and baptisms have fallen off a cliff. Their own projections have them cut in half in a few decades. Not bad for one of the more evil and looney cults on the planet.
Posted by: victimainvictus
|
June 26, 2011 12:32 AM
My favorite Dawkins flea has to be The Delusion Delusion, a strange, short-lived meta-flea that cropped up a while back.
Posted by: Brownian
|
June 26, 2011 12:38 AM
Whatsa matter Kev? Bible doesn't teach you how to google? And that's seven years after the book was released. The only reason anybody's talking about Expelled is that it's on the auction block because even your god forsook you and left you to your creditors. It must really suck when even your god thinks you're a hack.
Get bent, you dumb, sleazy pile of shit.
Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2011 12:43 AM
I'm in for a few bucks, donated at Pandas thumb.
I really despise these Liars for jesus. I suspect jesus would despise them too if he ever bothered to show up again. Why does the most powerful (allegedly) Fairy in the universe need weird, twisted idiots like Kevin Miller, Ben Stein, and Walt Ruloff anyway?
Hard to say whether Talkorigins and PT will win or not. But it felt great to take a poke at them. The worst that can happen is Talkorigins Archive Foundation gets a few badly needed dollars.
The auction ends Tuesday, June 28. It uses "extended bidding" which means bidding keeps going until there are no more bids in a predetermined period of time. Probably not a lot will happen until the very end.
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 26, 2011 12:47 AM
I think the chances of getting substantial unused footage are modest.
First, the preservation of said footage relies on the competence of the people involved. That should lower your expectations a great deal.
Second, the preservation of said footage also relies on it perceived future utility. That's a function of foresight, something creationists are not known for, and a function of one's ability to understand the limits of one's foresight, something creationists are also not known for.
Third, the preservation of said footage also relies on respect of history. Do I need to go there? These are creationists.
Fourth, the preservation of said footage relies on no ideologically-minded individual(s) deleting material that might embarrass them later.
I can see plenty of good reasons to strive to purchase the film and its associated materials, but let's not get our hopes up too high.
Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2011 12:50 AM
That's stupid.
Theists don't "hunker down on the internet". They live under rocks and crawl out every once in a while.
They don't talk very much either. That requires IQ points they just don't have. Mostly they babble, sometimes they gibber, and every once in a while they get it together enough to play Pascal's wager like no one ever heard it before. The more ambitious tell everyone they are going to hell and occasionally toss off a few death threats.
Posted by: Nij
|
June 26, 2011 12:51 AM
I thought they had learnt from the cdesign proponentists thing and hired a new copy-editor?Oh wait, right: godbots cannot handle education as PZ's rather repetitive smackdowns of MacLatchie show.
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 26, 2011 1:08 AM
raven | June 26, 2011 12:28 AM:
Surely they will soon receive a revelation that they ought to head down to Amazonia and start converting all the Hindus that have been reincarnated as beetles.
Posted by: cag
|
June 26, 2011 1:11 AM
Ignore the fleas. Until the big
doggod lays the hammer down it is just yapping from the toothless. Any reply from anyone except god is meaningless.By the way, why do christians pray? Isn't it all pre-ordained, as in god knew from the beginning how everything would unfold? Are they implying that the big guy is so stupid that he forgets the play book. Prayer is like saying that god you screwed up. Which is it, christians, does your god know everything till the end of time or can it be changed through prayer so he isn't omniscient after all? If the argument is that god knew that there would be prayers, then he already knew what the answer would be and arranged things to suit, so prayer is still pointless or even insulting.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 26, 2011 1:25 AM
Me, me, me, me too!
Stoopid fucks. I went to see expelled at the local theater, I expected it to be packed, cheek by jowl. Nothin. Where were all the goddists?
My town is full frontal fundies they didn't turn out for expelled, but the parking lot was full of church buses for Mel Gibsons sick circle jerk Passion of the Christ .
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/4XoT3O0XxNUw9LuveBs5E3H_c3U8OL8-#37267
|
June 26, 2011 1:41 AM
Screw the stupid movie, I just want to watch the completed interviews.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
June 26, 2011 2:14 AM
Oh man, when I got to the part about Dawkins' Fleas, I had to take a moment just to read the list out loud to myself. It's brilliantly comical in a way that simply reading the text doesn't quite convey. Try it yourself and see.
Posted by: butterflyfish.heidi
|
June 26, 2011 2:27 AM
Wait, he defies us to what? He just brought the thing up himself. Since it's the first thing he thought of for comparison, I'd guess he disproved his whole point.
Also, he made me want to buy another copy.
Posted by: ckitching
|
June 26, 2011 2:29 AM
Well, they can use a new quote when they re-release it:
It's only fair, right?
Posted by: SteveL
|
June 26, 2011 2:39 AM
One thing I don't like about the god delusion is the awful sentimental nonsense about the anglican church in the beginning. He even commends the fact that it's an official state religion. Hitchens is much more balanced.
Posted by: Stonyground
|
June 26, 2011 3:05 AM
"I defy you to find a group of theists hunkered down in a shady corner of the internet talking about it right now."
Well obviously, all the ones that actually understood it aren't theists any more. You will however find the book cited in quite a few deconversion stories over at RD.net.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 26, 2011 3:26 AM
The original material would be great if it's all there - imagine "Expelled: The Real Story". I wouldn't expect it to make it to the movies, but I imagine it would be a popular 'Tube film. Personally I'd have the recut version to show how the interviews go etc, then put the original cut at the end to see how the producers twisted everything to suit their agenda.
Posted by: Flapjack
|
June 26, 2011 3:58 AM
What Kevin Miller neglects to mention is that it wasn't just evilutionists who thought Expelled was a big pile of horseshit.
Its avarage rating between the professional film critics on Rotten Tomatoes was 10% and the summary of their various reviews was "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary."
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
Yet more evidence that the creationist crowd probably want to ignore.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2011 4:14 AM
I think one important thing to point out is that there's a market for Reefer Madness.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2011 4:23 AM
Not that Expelled has any quality that would make it a cult film - it was pretty boring, caught between trying to make an intellectual case and ripping off Michael Moore and failing at both.
I have a hope that whoever gets the rights and the footage will re-edit it into making it into a watchable movie. It's pretty sad that Expelled was the best they could do with several million dollars.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2011 4:28 AM
Oh and lose all that holocaust stuff too.
Posted by: ScottDogg
|
June 26, 2011 4:33 AM
squelart @15:
But don't you see — they're not an apostrophes, they're Dawkins' fleas! They lay their eggs in expressions like "Best. Episode. Ever." and feed on the blood of punctuation nazis. Gotta kill them while they're still young! ;)Posted by: Cosmic Teapot
|
June 26, 2011 5:00 AM
Not having seen it, but wouldn't some audience partici -pation, as in Rocky Horror help?
Posted by: dgerard
|
June 26, 2011 5:05 AM
The really fun thing about The God Delusion is that Christians caution each other against reading it.
I mean, The God Delusion doesn't look that great a book. The arguments are simple and the writing is didactic. I enjoyed it, but felt it appealing straight to what I already believed.
But somehow it inspires fear in the forces of darkness, to the point where they hand each other predigested opinions on it.
What I do now when Christians who should know better put it down: ask if they've actually read it. They invariably haven't. Then I offer to email them a copy (I have a dodgy OCRed bootleg PDF here). They stop talking about it after I've sent it to them.
(I hope Prof Dawkins will forgive the bootlegging, given these are book nerds who will hopefully buy a copy. And I have to SAVE their nonexistent SOULS!)
So: next time you hear a Christian complaining of The God Delusion, ask them if they've read it. If they say yes, ask them to show it.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2011 5:10 AM
I don't think that's the kind of thing that would save it. It needs the MST3K treatment - preferably done by George Hrab.Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKzS29qHe78bUKYjj9yjs7yNCAWKXEaTU
|
June 26, 2011 5:22 AM
The full documentary Expelled (Parts 1-10) can be found here:
starting at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4&feature=related
I might add it's pretty ordinary and it is sour grapes at its core.
Cheers
Papalinton
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot
|
June 26, 2011 5:41 AM
I had to look up MST3K on google. And then on youtube, as I've never seen the show. I like the idea.
Posted by: Gordon
|
June 26, 2011 5:46 AM
I made the mistake of stepping into the quicksand at Christian Post and there's a guy there who keeps bringing up Expelled and how there's a conspiracy to ignore "evidence" of a creaor and to ignore all the flaws in evolution.
Some creationists missed the memo
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 26, 2011 5:52 AM
3 years onwards from the now legendary Mall of America post, and we're talking about buying the rights to this pile of crap that so spectacularly failed. Quite amazing, if you think about it !
Posted by: tkreacher
|
June 26, 2011 5:56 AM
If I had a shit ton of money from previously being an idiot and taking advantage of people, which is a simple fucking matter if you are unethical, I would buy the piece of shit outright.
I would then make a Mystery Science Theater out of it (I know it was said in the thread already, but I said it earlier in my retarded rant of a blog) and release it with all proceeds going to secular working foundations.
Posted by: Gordon
|
June 26, 2011 5:57 AM
Eric MacDonald took on the hard work of filtering a while back. But he hasn't done them all.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 26, 2011 6:02 AM
Rorschach,
PZ and Clinton Dawkins (heh) did their bit to help that outcome, I reckon.
Posted by: rod-the-farmer
|
June 26, 2011 6:14 AM
I just tried to register so I could watch the auction. Beware. The site where you enter your name, address and credit card info is not a secure site. So I stopped right there.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2011 6:29 AM
I suggested it to George back in December last year.Posted by: The other Tim
|
June 26, 2011 6:40 AM
It begins to look like the auction will feature those who want to buy Expelled in order to publicize it, vs those who want to buy it in order to give it a proper burial.
Odd, though, that its critics are among the former, don't you think?
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 26, 2011 6:55 AM
ToT:
No.
Posted by: KG
|
June 26, 2011 7:21 AM
Bicentenary coming up! Be sure it will indeed be celebrated. I admit I thought it was a bit much that the initial British terminal for the cross-channel rail link was at Waterloo!
Historically, Waterloo wasn't that significant: even if Napoleon had won that battle, it's most unlikely he could have held out against the coalition that had already defeated him in 1814. The Russian and Austrian armies were on their way, the British navy completely dominated the sea. Britain might have had Catholic emancipation a bit later and the first steps in electoral reform a bit sooner without Wellington as PM.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 26, 2011 7:31 AM
I admit I thought it was a bit much that the initial British terminal for the cross-channel rail link was at Waterloo!At least the French didn't put their terminal at the Gare d'Austerlitz.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 26, 2011 7:33 AM
Oops, blockquote failure in #72
Posted by: tkreacher
|
June 26, 2011 7:50 AM
Kel #68
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean I must have been the first to ever suggest it, I was just clarifying that I didn't get it from here and wasn't riding a coat tail purposefully.
Nice, though, the entire issue wasn't even on my radar back then.
Posted by: jbrock
|
June 26, 2011 8:37 AM
Expelled was the main catalyst that started my slide from a solid 2 on the Dawkins scale to roughly a 5.6 today. (This is a snippet of the condensed version; I'll spare you the long story.) This astonishingly cynical and disingenuous work is what finally provoked me to read TGD, and I've got a little news flash for Kevin Miller: Ramming your fingers in your ears and shrieking "La, la, la, I can't hear you" is only an effective counterargument from a certain (profoundly brain-damaged) point of view.
Quoth Miller, re TGD: I can hardly conceive of a group of Christians gleefully plotting to gain control of the rights so they could publish their own annotated version of the book.
Considering his CV, I would have expected Mr. Miller to have a more flexible imagination. Christians, e.g. Bananaman, did something rather similar to that with Darwin, fairly recently.
Regarding "Dawkins' fleas", the only one I bothered trying to read was, IIRC, titled Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God. Unfortunately (for my faith), the authors' facility with logical fallacies didn't hold up very well after I'd actually read TGD.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
June 26, 2011 9:25 AM
Well, of course not. They have far more important things to gain control over - school boards, public school science classes, university science faculties, state legislatures. Duh, Miller. Didn't you even watch "Expelled"? It told the horrible story of how evil secular atheist evilutionists were trying to thwart the godly CreoID scientists plan to take over the world (but not in a bad way).Posted by: Lyr
|
June 26, 2011 10:11 AM
'Expelled' needs the MST3K treatment!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 26, 2011 11:07 AM
FIFY.
I so love this...
Posted by: Zinc Avenger
|
June 26, 2011 11:16 AM
Expelled is one of those arguments that doesn't need to be refuted, just underlined.
Posted by: Sunday Afternoon
|
June 26, 2011 11:50 AM
Donation made to TalkOrigins Foundation - hope that the unedited interviews find their way into the public realm.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 11:56 AM
As the author of one of those books, PZ, let me tell you, you completely mistake the spirit in which it was written.
I was living in Oxford, walking past Borders bookstore every morning. Dawkins' book was on the best-seller rack facing me as I strolled by. I started reading a bit, then broke down and bought the thing at exorbitant UK prices. For several nights after my own studies, I wrote rebuttals of Dawkins' points on my computer.
It was fun! The New Atheists provide what an informed Christian can only see as a "target-rich environment" for rebuttal. Dawkins is so ignorant on so many subjects, in some ways its unfair to attack him -- but it's out there, people are reading the thing, and I saw it as a useful teachable moment. He's also a good writer, and touches on many interesting subjects -- what's not to enjoy?
Lots of books have been written on the New Atheism on BOTH SIDES, of course. Most, of course, will only sell in the thousands; best-sellers are not the norm in publishing. One can call the opposition "fleas" without reading their books, as Dawkins seems to do. That doesn't strike me as a very scientific attitude, but then, GD doesn't strike me as a very scientific book.
David
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2011 12:19 PM
DBM, flea is a good word to describe you and your work. And given the logic you show here, Dawkins was in no way challenged by your idiocy. Try going somewhere where folks don't see you as a liar and bullshitter, and may actually care what you say. We don't.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 26, 2011 12:46 PM
In order to make the analogy to The God Delusion work, Kevin Miller would have to be saying that Dawkins rough draft contained material that made it clear that the writer had first included -- and then excluded -- really good arguments for the existence of God. The assumption then would be that he was cherry-picking, and knew it.
Ironically, many critics of Dawkins easily conceded that everything he said about the stupidity of creationism and ID -- and the religions who pushed them -- was spot on. Instead, the problem was that Dawkins failed to take account of the sophisticated theology that oh-so-rightly sneers at the trivial need for rigorously demonstrable empirical evidence.
An oh-so-sophisticated group like that would not include Kevin Miller.
The analogy would also hold if Miller wanted to suggest that early notes on The God Delusion included evidence that evolution didn't happen -- but it was scratched out with frantic margin notes like "evolution makes no sense so delete" or "No! This must be kept out of the public's hands!"
Dream on, oh mental artist...
Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2011 12:56 PM
David Marshall: "It was fun! The New Atheists provide what an
informedignorant, brain damaged, crazy Christian can only see as a"target-rich environment"grey blur for rebuttal."Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 26, 2011 1:14 PM
David googlemess #81 wrote:
One of the most significant themes of The God Delusion was the assertion that the existence of God should be approached as a hypothesis and, in light of the discoveries of modern science, it fails.
If you think you can refute this, is it because
1.) The existence of God should NOT be approached and treated as a hypothesis and proposed model of reality, but like some other sort of belief, perhaps psychological or philosophical.
or
2.) The discoveries of modern science support the God hypothesis and now give it the status of a confirmed theory.
Which? Or a variation?
Posted by: cag
|
June 26, 2011 1:25 PM
Sastra #83 - as all theology is wishful thinking, how does one differentiate between sophisticated wishful thinking and run-of-the-mill wishful thinking? Does one use the smell test - does sophisticated theology have a more sensitive or less sensitive nose? I'm assuming that the hoi polloi need a more potent bullshit while the sophisticated can expound on the full range of bullshit. While we may recoil at the smell of BS, it is pleasing to the
Lordchristian.Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
June 26, 2011 1:42 PM
Isn't this the same Kevin Miller to took a dinosaur bone to a lab to carbon date it - shellack and all?
That was a howler. Peter Hadfield did a wonderful take-down in the video: Carbon Dating Doesn't work Debunked
BTW, I recall PZ posted this video shortly after it's appearance on YouTube last year but I could not find that post searching on science blogs. Many may recall this is the video that gives us the wonderful line: "You can't carbon date it because THERE'S NO F*CKING CARBON IN IT!" Yeah, that Miller, I'm pretty sure.
Posted by: Travis
|
June 26, 2011 2:06 PM
Steven Dunlap, that was Hugh Miller.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 26, 2011 2:08 PM
cag #86 wrote:
"Sophisticated" wishful thinking involves being sure that the real issue isn't whatever the skeptic thinks it is: critics of religion aren't so much wrong as they're not even wrong.
Run-of-the-mill wishful thinking has a lamentable tendency to keep getting back on topic.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
June 26, 2011 2:19 PM
Another very basic argument in The God Delusion is that until there is actual empirical evidence that God actually exists, sophisticated theology is irrelevant to the discussion.
Sophisticated theology is like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Sure it's pretty, and sophisticated. And lots of hard work and human intelligence was applied to its construction. But it's foundation doesn't pass muster. We might want to preserve it for as long as possible for its artistic merit, but we sure as hell aren't going to use it as a model for future construction.
And no matter what we do, it's going to fall down some day.
Posted by: KG
|
June 26, 2011 2:20 PM
I don't think someone who finds it necessary to lie about the reception his own largely ignored books received, is really in a position to a best-selling author who knows far more than he does.
Posted by: KG
|
June 26, 2011 2:24 PM
Premature click on submission. Here's the intended version:
I don't think someone who finds it necessary to lie about the reception his own largely ignored books received, is really in a position to condescend to a best-selling author and respected scientist who knows far more than he does.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2011 2:27 PM
Well DBM, you still haven't provided conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, so you are the one making the basic and totally ignorant mistake. Evidence trumps sophistry every day, and if you and your philosophy aren't based in reality with solid and conclusive physical evidence, all you have is wacky-backy pipe dreams. Which is all you present here.Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 26, 2011 2:45 PM
Mr Marshall, you have demonstrated to have very poor reading comprehension. Your book ascribes silly claims to Dawkins that Dawkins never made. You have never acknowledged that fact. Shame on you.
"Oy! Hovind! You can't carbon-date this! There's no BEEP carbon in it!"
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
June 26, 2011 2:58 PM
cag wrote:
A good rule of thumb is: if it's unfalsifiable it's sophisticated, if it's falsified it's garden variety.
(If it's neither unfalsifiable nor falsified, it's probably either meaningless or not theology in the first place.)
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 26, 2011 3:30 PM
cag | June 26, 2011 1:25 PM:
If you have to read it twice before you laugh out loud, it's sophisticated.
Posted by: cd
|
June 26, 2011 3:39 PM
- David Marshall
- Richard Hofstadter
Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2011 4:32 PM
I came to a similar conclusion after his first few posts!!!
I have David Marshall down as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They are often paranoid as well and he shows that.
Marshall is quite disengaged from the real world and there is something not right there.
Posted by: kimpatsu1
|
June 26, 2011 5:02 PM
It's writer was exposed as an incompetent hack.
Agghhh! Warning! Apostrophe abuse alert!
Posted by: jbrock
|
June 26, 2011 5:39 PM
Sophisticated theology template:
Blah blah blah [carefully mined quote]. Blah blah blah [logical fallacy]. Blah blah blah [tangential anecdote]. Blah blah blah [obscure allusion]. Blah blah blah [uncredited ripoff from C.S. Lewis]. Blah blah blah [mangled science]. Blah blah blah [urban legend]. Blah blah blah [bafflegab]. Blah blah blah [ad hockery]. Blah blah blah [non sequitur]. Blah blah blah [handwave].
Random variations for color: (1) Change order of square-bracketed meta-components. (2) Misattribute quotes. (3) Manufacture quotes outright.
Lather (a lot). Rinse (lightly). Repeat (ad nauseam).
Posted by: daniel.schealler
|
June 26, 2011 6:23 PM
@David #81
Firstly: People here have been responding to you as 'David Marshall'.
Is that correct?
If so, are you the same David Marshall I was arguing with under the Scientism post at WEIT a little while ago?
That's very general and vague. This is something that I've found to be common coming from religious critics of Dawkins.
If you are the same David Marshall I am thinking of, this is something I've seen from you as well. If you're not that David Marshall, then treat that as an example of the kind of thing I am talking about. More on this below*.
Regarding the quote above: Could you please be specific?
Can you give an example of one or two points presented by Dawkins that you felt able to rebut?
What were those rebuttals?
I do not read the comments at Pharyngula very often. From other comments in this thread, I gather you're a regular.
So it could be that you've discussed these specifics elsewhere and I haven't seen them. If so I apologize for my lack of familiarity.
But all the same: I would be very interested to know some specific details around your assertion that you found some Dawkins' points to be so easy to refute.
--
*The David Marshall I am thinking of asserted that there was a long history of Christian theologians citing evidence in argument.
When pressed for examples, he provided a link to an essay he had written. That essay was a compilation of quotes from notable Christian writers throughout the ages.
These quotes took the form of assertions that those thinkers had lots of evidence for their arguments, and that evidence was important to them.
But none of those quotes - not one - actually referenced what that evidence actually was, or how it could be replicated or otherwise verified.
It was high on assertion and thin on specifics. Just as your earlier comment here (#81) was.
I'm yet to come across a critique of Dawkins that was both specific and holds up to close scrutiny.
Given the rate of failure, I usually dismiss people who make vague claims about refuting Dawkins automatically.
But it's important to remain open-minded all the same, which is why I'm pressing you for specifics now.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/scientism/
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 7:45 PM
Sastra (#85): Your question assumes a false dictotomy. Not every hypothesis is scientific, as indeed PZ seems to recognize in his letter to the little girl. Most of known reality falls into the cracks between the two alternatives you allow.
David
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 7:54 PM
David Marj (#94) "Mr Marshall, you have demonstrated to have very poor reading comprehension."
If you tell a writer that, try to do so in a sentence that makes a better stab at being grammatical. But this is bull. The only objective measure of my reading comprehension so far, my last GRE score, was the highest possible; I do just fine, thank you very much.
"Your book ascribes silly claims to Dawkins that Dawkins never made. You have never acknowledged that fact. Shame on you."
Such as? Dawkins made so many; please do narrow it down a little.
"*#%#@ carbon date %& no carbon . . . %#"
????? What on earth are you talking about?
David
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 8:03 PM
CD (#97) That explains everything! I said I had fun rebutting Dawkins, and explained how it came about that I did so: therefore I am "paranoid." Q. E. D.
The world is unworthy of a mind of such incisive analytical faculties, CD. Please don't waste it on drugs.
David
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 26, 2011 8:09 PM
I'm not a native speaker, it's late at night, and I've been unusually tired lately because I'm ill. How about: "you have demonstrated very poor reading comprehension"?
LOL. The only objective measure is the number of your misunderstandings per page of text you have read.
Who did Dawkins call "the American Taliban"? Hmmm?
Not about you. I'm capable of talking to different people in the same comment...
Posted by: Doc Bill
|
June 26, 2011 8:09 PM
Jerkwad David wrote:
Unless I missed something, I think we're talking about the fact that you are a total, fucking idiot. I hope that sentence is grammatically correct enough for you to comprehend.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 26, 2011 8:51 PM
David what's your address? I want to mail you a step ladder so you can jump up my butt.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 8:52 PM
Daniel(101): Yes, my last name is Marshall. Apparently we have talked before, though I don't remember your name. I don't know what WEIT means.
"That's very general and vague. This is something that I've found to be common coming from religious critics of Dawkins."
Hardly surprising -- this is an informal blog.
"Can you give an example of one or two points presented by Dawkins that you felt able to rebut?"
Sure. I've posted a list of 160 errors, exagerrations, and misleading claims in Dawkins' book, which you can find easily enough. Of course some of my claims are disputed; others are pretty straightforward and undeniable, like his misreading of Pascal, his phony citation of Pat Robertson, and his claim that theism (at least Christianity) promotes "loathing" of women:
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-jesus-has-women-i-intro-one-of.html
"I do not read the comments at Pharyngula very often. From other comments in this thread, I gather you're a regular."
I've posted a bit the past few weeks. But frankly, most of the responses to my posts have been light on substance, heavy on Anglo-Saxon -- no sweat off my nose, but it means you can be pretty sure of breaking new ground.
*"The David Marshall I am thinking of asserted that there was a long history of Christian theologians citing evidence in argument."
I don't remember saying exactly that. It's certainly true, but that is not the issue in the chapter referred to -- chapter one, "Have Christians lost their minds?"
Obviously, Christians and atheists disagree about the merit of Christian arguments. Let me make it clear: I don't at all claim to prove, in that chapter, that Dawkins is wrong to say Christian faith is based on bad evidence. The error I claim to refute lies in asserting that Christians "make a virtue" of believing, "not only in the absense of evidence, but in the teeth of evidence."
That I see as a gross misunderstanding of what Christians mean by faith, itself made in the "teeth of evidence."
"But none of those quotes - not one - actually referenced what that evidence actually was, or how it could be replicated or otherwise verified."
That's because that wasn't the issue. One has to take big arguments step by step. The claim that article refutes is Dawkins' claim about what Christians mean by "faith," not about its factual merits.
But that's only one chapter in the book. And that's only one of several good books (I haven't read them all) debunking the New Atheism.
"I'm yet to come across a critique of Dawkins that was both specific and holds up to close scrutiny."
You're looking at one right now, and seem to be misunderstanding its nature.
"But it's important to remain open-minded all the same, which is why I'm pressing you for specifics now."
I appreciate that. Aside from myself, several people whose rebuttals I have read, are accomplished scholars in different fields. You should be able to learn something of value by reading Lennox, Hart, McGrath, Aikman, as well as (I hope)myself. There are also some specifics in that on-line list (though of course, in less depth than the book) that I hope even the most hard-boiled atheist can admit to: The God Delusion is, in my view, at times an uncommonly sloppy book.
David
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 26, 2011 8:55 PM
That is undeniable to you? Fuck off.
David, you are a cargo cult scholar. No one gives a shit what you think; because you really don't.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 8:56 PM
David Marj: Fair enough on the language. Please give me the specifics of my alleged misreadings of Dawkins after you've had a good night's rest, and had a chance to think it over more clearly.
David
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 26, 2011 9:10 PM
David you are an ahistorical bigot. Fuck off. People could learn more by masturbating and interpreting the squirt patterns than by listening to you.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 9:11 PM
Ing: "That is undeniable to you? Fuck off."
I actually shouldn't have included that one with the other two: it is an equally false claim, IMO, rebutted as linked, but involves much more complex issues, and therefore more room for debate, than the other examples.
As for the sexual overture, thanks all the same, but I'm good, already.
David
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2011 9:16 PM
This from a fuckwitted loser too sloppy to be able to provide conclusive physical evidence for his imaginary deity? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAWhat an idjit. You are a boring pompous twit without any cogency. At best, you are a submediocre thinker, who is proving to be an egotistical bore. But all the mental masturbaters tend be that way...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 26, 2011 9:24 PM
David googlemess wrote:
Considering that Dawkins wrote the book to outline the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Christians and not the tiny, self-styled 'informed', Christian minority, that's hardly an achievement.
How, if you're so 'informed', have you managed to miss that significant – and frequently reiterated – point?
But it's also important to note that an 'informed' Christian has neither evidence or compelling arguments for the existence of their god, just like an 'uninformed' one doesn't; the only difference is the amount of sophistry they have at their disposal to try and convince people (themselves included) otherwise.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2011 9:29 PM
Most of known reality?
So... you can give a few examples, right?
=========
So much for your (self-)acclaimed reading comprehension (note the link included for your benefit).
Oh, what the heck, you obviously need all the help you can get: Why Evolution is True.
=========
So despite the fact that no-one sees God, no-one hears God, and no-one sees any evidence whatsoever that God exists, or is necessary to explain anything at all... Christians believe based on "evidence".
And that evidence would be...?
If it's a gross misunderstanding, then it's a gross misunderstanding that starts with Paul of Tarsus.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 26, 2011 9:43 PM
Owl: History is not science. Philosophy is not science. Mathematics is not science. Looking out the window is not science. Asking an air-traffic controller, or a teacher, or Grandpa, for information, is not science.
Science can inform historical arguments, but they do not reduce to science.
Paul of Tarsus did not recommend believing for no reason. Every time he preaches at any length in the Book of Acts, he gives evidence for his claims. (When he preaches in Athens, he's probably recycling some Stoic arguments, perhaps from Balbus in Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods. He's also doing miracles, which are "signs," a term that implies probative content.) You may think his arguments are bad, you may disbelieve the miracles, but if you have confused yourself into thinking he makes no rational appeals, that shows a lack of perception on your part, which may call into question your other views.
David
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2011 9:48 PM
Hint fuckwitted loser, nobody here gives a shit what Paul recommended or not. Nobody gives a shit what a loser who can't show their imaginary deity exists with solid and conclusive physical, evidence, thinks either. You see fuckwit, without your deity, the babble is mythology/fiction, and theology is the same as discussing Roman deities, telling tales. Until you show you have something true to talk about, you talk mentally masturbating with fiction.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 26, 2011 9:49 PM
David googlemess wrote:
And yet no-one's managed to counter the chief point contained within it, which is the same point atheists have been making for centuries: there's neither evidence nor compelling argument for believing in any of the gods invented by humanity; ergo, doing so is irrational.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2011 9:52 PM
incorrect; all of those can be practiced as sciencePosted by: Alex, adv. diab.
|
June 26, 2011 9:53 PM
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 26, 2011 9:56 PM
David googlemess wrote:
Gandalf the Grey warned that wizards are subtle and quick to anger.
What's your point?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2011 9:58 PM
He wants to hear himself talk. There is no other point to his inane, repetitive, unneeded, and evidenceless posts.Posted by: Alex, adv. diab.
|
June 26, 2011 9:59 PM
To play the David's advocate for once, Owlmirror above invoked Paul as the original writer promoting belief without or against reason, and David is now arguing against this claim.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 26, 2011 10:06 PM
from #85:
One of the most significant themes of The God Delusion was the assertion that the existence of God should be approached as a hypothesis and, in light of the discoveries of modern science, it fails.
If you think you can refute this, is it because
1.) The existence of God should NOT be approached and treated as a hypothesis and proposed model of reality, but like some other sort of belief, perhaps psychological or philosophical.
or
2.) The discoveries of modern science support the God hypothesis and now give it the status of a confirmed theory.
Which? Or a variation?
David googlemess #102 replied:
Your response here seems to be a variation of #1. The existence of God IS a hypothesis. However, you seem uncomfortable accepting it as a proposed model of reality, an objective state of affairs.
Is God not supposed to be a fact?
#116:
If science contradicts or fails to back up an historical claim, we do not accept it. The same holds true for philosophy, math, what's outside the window, or Grandpa's stories. Science (objective inquiry) can indeed be applied to all these areas.
How would you state the God hypothesis? Do you think the discoveries of modern science support it? Do you think the discoveries of modern science lead to it?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2011 10:21 PM
????
This is an absurd and meaningless non-sequitur. The point of what Sastra wrote was the existence of an alleged thing; a thing labeled "God". Everything you write above exists as a human activity!
Your alleged reading comprehension fails miserably. Try again.
Of course not. He recommended believing for the reason that he said so, or the logical fallacy of argument by fiat.
He makes many arguments by fiat, yes.
Besides, Acts is historical fiction. His letters give no sign of approving of evidence.
Magic tricks, yay.
So, "Believe me! Because I say so!" and "Ooh, look at the bunny I have pulled from my hat!" count as "evidence". I see.
Heh. They were such good evidence that people were fooled into thinking he was a God himself. Yeah, that's real evidence of good human reason.
Why then screeds in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere that believing without signs is all that Christians need?
He makes no arguments that are not logically fallacious, that's for certain.
Posted by: daniel.schealler
|
June 26, 2011 10:24 PM
@David Marshall
WEIT: Why Evolution Is True. Jerry Coyne's blog. I provided a link.
As you did not provide a link, I had to do a Google search for 'David Marshall 160'.
The top link was from Arizona Atheist. He pretty much pulls your 160 to pieces here. I love Google so much. ^_^
http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2010/12/david-marshalls-141-instances-of.html
It seems that your 160 'refutations' weren't quite so ironclad as you just led me to believe.
It seems that there has been some substantial back and forth, with responses to criticism on both sides. Catching up on the full thing would take a long time, time I don't have to invest right now given that I engage in these kinds of discussion on my break periods at work.
However, and I place that in bold because this is a big however, I'm finding myself somewhat distrustful of your claims
because you just misrepresented the context of our previous discussion.
Even assuming this was a mistake: I told you what the context was, and provided a link to the original discussion.
To misrepresent our discussion so easily in this context leads me to seriously doubt how scrupulous you are regarding your fact-checking.
I'm sorry David, but evidence was, in fact, the issue.
Jerry Coyne challenged you directly with the following:
I always try to be as generous as possible when interpreting someone's arguments.
In your case, and regarding your track record? I'm coming up against a wall here.
* You routinely refuse to follow through on your claims regarding evidence with the evidence itself.
* Instead, respond by providing very long lists that don't actually do nearly so much to support the conclusion you claim they do.
* When people point out that your supplied lists don't actually justify the conclusions you claim they do, you turn around and justify this by claiming that we couldn't handle the full argument if you were to give it to us.
* You follow this up with a mention that your arguments - which you refuse to cogently summarize in an accessible format - are available on Amazon. So we have to pay to get them.
* And then you act surprised that people remain... unconvinced by all of this.
Clearly you must have some experience of people not accepting your full arguments upon which to base this notion that you have to spoon feed us (with huge, unreadable lists - O_o) in order to prepare us for the actual evidence that backs up your conclusions.
Have you considered seriously the notion that maybe one of the reasons why people remain unconvinced by your full arguments is because they aren't good arguments?
Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruegar effect?
There is a very short, concise, and very accessible summary of the Dunning-Kruegar effect at the link below.
This video is only ten minutes long.
It would take me more than ten minutes to read all of your 160 points, or your entire list of quotes from historic theologians.
Since you seem to expect me to invest more than ten minutes in reading your resources, I think that my request that you spend ten minutes watching a very accessible and well-presented video on YouTube is entirely fair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
I want you to consider the Dunning-Kruegar effect very carefully, and look to your own history of argumentation very carefully, and question yourself as to whether or not this applies to you.
Because speaking for myself? If I have evidence to support a claim I want to make? I present that evidence. I present it clearly, with big bold headings and a link coming in from a table of contents.
So even if my argument is bad, or badly presented, or even logically invalid - I can still present the evidence upon which I was basing that argument.
This is a pattern common to good arguments.
It is also a pattern that you refuse to emulate.
I want you to watch that video and ask yourself, critically: Why is it, really, that you refuse to emulate this sound argumentative practice?
Is your evidence (which you refuse to show us) really as good as you think it is?
If it wasn't as good as you think it is - how would you go about getting independent verification of this this?
And finally: Ask yourself a question.
What does being wrong feel like?
Most people answer things like: It's embarassing, you feel stupid, it makes you blush and makes your hands sweat, and so on.
But that's not what being wrong feels like.
That's what finding out you have been wrong feels like.
To the contrary: Being wrong feels indistinguishable from being right.
So we should always, always be skeptical of how good our reasons actually are.
If people have a habit of dismissing your arguments... Is that because something is wrong with the people?
Or is it because something is wrong with your arguments?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 26, 2011 10:29 PM
Googlemess David,
The vast majority of Christians believe in The Big Guy In The Sky, an interventionist god who answers prayers*, decides who wins the high school football game, and has an unhealthy fascination with masturbation. TBGITS's presence is testable because, according to the propaganda, he makes himself manifest in the natural world. There have been numerous tests for TBGITS and the results have been, at best, ambiguous. Usually the results show no presence for TBGITS.
Of course, there's also the philosophical, deist god who poofed the world into existence and then disappeared into the background, never to reemerge. But such a god, one who doesn't do anything and could care less about your sex life, is indistinguishable from a non-existent god.
So which is your god? TBGITS with flowing white beard and the ability to save one airplane passenger while letting all the others die an agonizing death? Or the one who just faded out and stays faded?
*Except prayers from amputees, for some reason.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 26, 2011 10:31 PM
David googlemess #116 wrote:
Of course: very few religious people are strict fideists. They instead believe that they believe on sufficient evidence. They have a reasonable faith.
The problem is that the evidence for a 'faith' belief is not rationally sufficient for a neutral observer/seeker. By definition ... or we do not call it "faith." It is only sufficient for someone who has emotionally engaged in a search for confirmation. "Seek, and ye shall find." It requires conscious bias
Religious faith is the "substance of things hoped for, evidence for what is not seen." It is a commitment to remain loyal to an idea by making a leap of trust -- as if one were standing by a friend, or trying to remain firm in the face of great odds.
But, ethically speaking, faith has it backwards.
" ...testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues." -- Dawkins
Posted by: Alex, adv. diab.
|
June 26, 2011 10:35 PM
Asking him to give a straight and unambiguous answer is totally a false dichotomy, because unambiguous answers always exclude the other aspects of god! Also, there are many true things that are not questions that need answers, like purple, flatirons and twinkies, therefore you are wrong.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 26, 2011 10:43 PM
'Tis:
I'd go with Tiamat. Sacred Marriage and Chaos. What's not to love?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 26, 2011 10:44 PM
You're right, Alex. I shouldn't expect someone obviously au courant with Sophisticated Theology™® to give a simple, straight-forward answer to a simple question.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2011 10:46 PM
Note that the above is a quote from Paul of Tarsus. Hebrews 11:1.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 26, 2011 10:54 PM
No, I'll be good. I won't make the obvious comments. :-þ
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 26, 2011 10:55 PM
I think even the religious recognize that there must be an extreme nature to religious faith, because contrast the implications of these sentences:
Barbara has faith in her boss.
Barbara has a religious faith in her boss.
I have faith in my favorite football team.
I have a religious faith in my favorite football team.
And note the problem between:
The scientist had faith in his pet theory.
The scientist's faith in his pet theory was a religious faith.
That first scientist is confidently setting up a fair test. That second scientist is confidently throwing out the results of a fair test.
Having a "religious faith" in something is almost always considered a flaw -- till you get to religion. Why?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 26, 2011 10:58 PM
Early in the morning comes too early in the morning. I think I'll see if my pillow still works. G'night all.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 26, 2011 11:01 PM
'Tis:
Darn.
G'night, 'Tis.
Posted by: Alex, adv. diab.
|
June 27, 2011 12:09 AM
"Because thou shalt not have any gods before me", quoth teh God.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 27, 2011 12:20 AM
Because people see how crazy it seems to try to argue with someone who has a religious belief in the infallibility of their country/company/parent/toaster/ideology.
I mean how often has discussions with libertarians come down to "THE MARKET WILL WORK BECAUSE IT ALWAYS WORKS!!!!"
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 27, 2011 6:40 AM
Caine, Fleur du mal | June 26, 2011 10:43 PM:
It's the multiple heads and multifarious breath weapons that turn me on.
Posted by: Old Yippie
|
June 27, 2011 9:39 AM
I'm reminded of a Gary Larson Far Side cartoon with two dragons in bed. One dragon is saying "I'm sorry, it's your breath. It's too fresh and minty."
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 9:59 AM
Sastra: No, that's not quite it. I'm saying the two alternatives don't cover all the ground. Among other things, Christianity is certainly "a proposed model of reality, an objective state of affairs." It does not follow that the only, or best, way to verify or falsify that claimed state of affairs is scientific. (And no, philosophy is NOT science, unless your definition of science is extremely broad, which I do not assume.)
"If science contradicts or fails to back up an historical claim, we do not accept it. The same holds true for philosophy, math, what's outside the window, or Grandpa's stories. Science (objective inquiry) can indeed be applied to all these areas."
Yes, but they do not reduce to science. My window is open right now, and I hear two or three crows making noise in the walnut tree next door. They are there: if you doubt me, you'll be wrong. But while my auditory observation of them might (to stretch the term a bit) be called science, your second hand belief (or disbelief) cannot be called that. Yet if you have reason to trust me, it is a rational belief, the kind of rational belief that most of what we know rests upon, as PZ implicitly recognized.
"How would you state the God hypothesis? Do you think the discoveries of modern science support it? Do you think the discoveries of modern science lead to it?"
Science is too limitted an epistemology for the answer to define the rationality of belief in God. But I'd give a very qualified "yes" to your second question, and "possibly, but not usually by themselves" to your third question. As for the first, I define God essentially as theists around the world have defined him for thousands of years: I'm not a pantheist.
David
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 27, 2011 10:14 AM
Inconsistently?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 10:23 AM
They can if suffiently defined. Which is why you fail to define your imaginary deity, in order for it to be scientifically tested. You know it will fail.The only thing too limited is your bravery, so you won't have your imaginary deity refuted by lack of evidence. No matter how you wiggle, your cowardice shows. And the gnu atheists stepped over that line and looked at the real and solid lack of physical evidence for your imaginary deity.The only way the gnu atheists will listen to your cowardly drivel is after you supply the conclusive phyisical evidence to show your deity really exists. Everybody here is waiting. Until then, we laugh at your delusions, your mental wanking, and your play acting that you have something cogent to say. You don't.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 10:39 AM
Daniel: Oh, Coyne's blog! Yes, I posted there once.
It's a sad thing when skeptics find the likes of Arizona Atheist persuasive. He's an earnest but oftern rather silly young man whom I usually frankly ignore. But maybe I should attend to his arguments, finally.
"It seems that your 160 'refutations' weren't quite so ironclad as you just led me to believe."
It seems you are not so objective a reader as you led me to believe. I said plainly that many items are disputed.
"Of course some of my claims are disputed."
Did you not read that?
"I'm finding myself somewhat distrustful of your claims because you just misrepresented the context of our previous discussion."
And I'm now a bit distrustful of how you read things.
"To misrepresent our discussion so easily in this context leads me to seriously doubt how scrupulous you are regarding your fact-checking."
The shoe is on the other foot, where you have now put it. I said some items are beyond dispute, while others are disputed.
"Jerry Coyne challenged you directly with the following:
"Now, since I require this of all religious people who claim that there is evidence for God on this site, I require it from you. If you wish to keep commenting here (without flogging your book), please give us a list of what you consider the ten best pieces of real evidence for God’s existence. Don’t write an essay; a simple list will do."
In fact, I once volunteered exactly such a list on the Amazon site for God Delusion. But Coyne's request (following many insults) was arbitrary and irrelevant, so I did not answer it. Who is to say there must be ten pieces of evidence? What good is posting a list in a hostile forum without explaining the items on the list? And why should special demands automatically be applied to the few people who dare post on Coyne's site, who do not fully agree with him? If he wants to send the few theists who dare show up through a kangaroo court before they are allowed to express their opinion, that's his right, since it's his blog. But I found the style of his demand obnoxious, did not reply, and have not visited the site since.
"You routinely refuse to follow through on your claims regarding evidence with the evidence itself."
Baloney. I've been debating atheists for more than a decade on-line. These debates are easily available on-line, and I'm usually the one to give the most evidence for my position. I have written books debunking the New Atheists, the Jesus Seminar, and Elaine Pagels. I have debated Carrier, Avalos, Loftus, Price, and other skeptics in various fora,(the first two really hate me), giving substantive rebuttals of their positions, and linking the debates from my web-site.
You found two contrary instances, and generalized unreasonably from them. This is not good historical practice, and I hope you do better in the future.
Thanks for the video. I'll take a look, if you can tell me what the relevance is.
"Is your evidence (which you refuse to show us) really as good as you think it is?"
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Do you want a link to the site for my prior list on Amazon? I don't know what PZ's policies are for that kind of debate here; maybe I'll post it on my website, for easy access. But I have made no such refussal.
"So we should always, always be skeptical of how good our reasons actually are."
Of course. I'm glad if you live by that: I respect the thoughtful tone of some of your principles, if not the sloppiness with which you sometimes seem to do research.
"If people have a habit of dismissing your arguments... Is that because something is wrong with the people?"
On the contrary. Thoughtful people, people with Phds, for instance, almost never dismiss my arguments, which is why my books are almost always rated highly by educated people. Fanatics do, because that's what fanatics are like.
I've been arguing with atheists for years on-line. I've made some enemies. Usually I'm badly outnumbered; often I have to pick and choose which arguments to respond to. Yes, I do see print arguments, and my own developed arguments on my website, as the primary repository for solid arguments. But even on-line, I usually offer more evidence than most other posters.
With all due respect, please research more carefully, next time.
David
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
June 27, 2011 10:49 AM
If it helps any, David listed what he believes to be rational reasons for believing in god here.
Can you provide an example of a better approach with which to examine Christianity, and how it might be applied to any of the claims of Christianity? Can the same approach be applied to other religions? Will it provide meaningfully different results? Er, no. The claim of three crows on the tree outside your window is a truth claim about reality, that is best tested by scientific means. Said claim is probably too mundane for anyone to bother to question it or apply scientific rigor to it, but that doesn't change the fact that the best approach to verify or falsify it, if one were inclined to do so, is the scientific method.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 10:54 AM
Sastra (128): "Very few religious people are strict fideists."
All right, we agree on that, then. On to other issues.
"The problem is that the evidence for a 'faith' belief is not rationally sufficient for a neutral observer/seeker."
Who are you talking about? I remember a poll of those who attended a God debate, I think involving William Lane Craig. Responses to the question, "Who won?" fell into three general categories: atheists, who thought Craig lost, theists, who thought he won, and undecided, who also almost all thought Craig won.
One could take the success of theism as evidence that most seekers do, in fact, find sufficient reason for theistic faith. Even those who are raised in Christian families eventually have to think about why they should or should not believe, and if we go to college, we all hear the other side.
" ...testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues." -- Dawkins
But Dawkins is just begging the question. Some of his assumptions seem to involve the same confusion as above, between science and rational warrant generally. Others involve highly disputable assumptions. See, for example, my responses to John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith -- being a scholar of world religions, I know some things about theism and "independence of cultural milieu."
David
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 27, 2011 10:55 AM
David googlemess #141 wrote:
Science evolved to eliminate subjective bias as much as possible. Are you saying then that trying to determine whether God exists or not should not begin from an assumption of neutrality and rational common ground?
Could you please give some states of affairs which are similar to the claim "God exists?" I would like to know what sort of category of "states of affairs" you place "God" itself in.
My trust in your word varies depending on the nature of what you are claiming. I'm sure you would agree that if you claimed that there were 3 elephants in the walnut tree next door -- or 3 angels -- I would need to apply more rigorous criteria.
Why? If the model of reality science is forming is not only consistent with, but indicative of, the existence of God, then why is it so important to distance the hypothesis from cautious and critical inquiry?
What would falsify the existence of God, and why?
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 27, 2011 11:08 AM
Here are some 'states of affairs' -- proposed facts about reality:
Reality.
The Universe.
Brains.
Extra-sensory perception.
Black holes.
Trees.
Loving your mother.
Your mother's love.
Your mother.
Chocolate tastes better than vanilla.
People prefer chocolate to vanilla.
Chocolate ice cream.
Love is a good thing.
Love.
Ghosts.
Vital energy.
Energy.
Measurement.
The number "4."
PZ Myers.
Abraham Lincoln.
I need a hug.
I hugged my cat.
Abraham Lincoln hugged his cat on April 4th, 1860.
Which ones are in the same category as "God?"
Note that I am not asking an epistemic question. Yet. I am asking about what sort of thing God is. Is it like "needing a hug?"
Posted by: Brownian
|
June 27, 2011 11:09 AM
From the other thread:
I see why you have been arguing on the internet for a long time, David, since it would be impossible for anyone to resolve a discussion with you the way you write.**
What a fucking condescending, bait-and-switching asshole you are.
You know what? Here's the list of books David Marshall (I'm assuming that's you) have written on Amazon. Since you're not going to be otherwise forthcoming about anything here, I guess you're done wasting our time and yours here. So either fuck off or start ponying up some real arguments. Either way, stop with the half-assed "Evidence that Jesus in the Gospels fulfills deep truth in many cultures" but I'll answer any requests for evidence to support this contention with hand-waves and whine."
*Like lists of ten things rattled off, the evidence for each being "too long to get into"?
**Post modernists, on the other hand, must love you.
Posted by: Brownian
|
June 27, 2011 11:13 AM
And you're extrapolating from that one poll on a WLC debate?
Just how many fucking lobes are you missing?
To quote an earlier comment, by a smug, dishonest asshole, "You found [a] contrary [instance], and generalized unreasonably from [it]. This is not good historical practice, and I hope you do better in the future."
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 27, 2011 11:15 AM
David googlemess #146 wrote:
So believing in God is not a matter of faith?
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 27, 2011 11:19 AM
Sastra mentioned:
True fact! Abraham Lincoln never grew a beard. What people assumed was a beard was actually a series of lovingly combed hairballs loaned to him by his beloved black Persian, Smudgy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 11:23 AM
Yawn, still no evidence for his imaginary deity from the boring mental wanker. Try this DBM. Make a a decision on how to test the validity of the concept that there is physical evidence for your imaginary deity. A solid test that will either prove or disprove the concept. Then, live by the consequences of said decision, when the evidence is either shown or not, like any mature person would do.
Or, is all you can do is to waffle and change goal posts so your "faith" is never, ever, challenged with reality? Cowards do that.
Posted by: The Archive, Repository of Random Information
|
June 27, 2011 11:39 AM
Owlmirror @132:
Actually, Paul did not write Hebrews. It differs greatly from his style, contains none of his usual emotional outburts, and unlike other books he claims no authorship. Also, unlike Paul, who wrote in Greek, Hebrew, and other languages, the author uses only the Greek Septuagent.
Suggestions as to the author have ranged from Barnabas, to Apollos, to Priscilla. No one will ever know for sure. The date is easier to pin down, and is before 64 C.E., when Nero began to persecute Christians.
I vote for Priscilla.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 11:51 AM
Sastra: "Science evolved to eliminate subjective bias as much as possible."
Yes, so did philosophy, history, accounting, and Bible translation. That does not mean all that is not accounting, is irrational.
"Are you saying then that trying to determine whether God exists or not should not begin from an assumption of neutrality and rational common ground?"
No, I said just the opposite. Rational common ground, absolutely. Neutrality? Fairness and honesty, anyway.
"Could you please give some states of affairs which are similar to the claim 'God exists?'"
Tough question. How about, "A universe outside of myself exists?" This is similiar because it is possible to rationally deny it, it is difficult to prove scientifically (without begging the question), but it is rational and supported by many kinds of good evidence, which however can also be interpretted in other ways.
"My trust in your word varies depending on the nature of what you are claiming."
And on your own assumptions about reality, which might be wrong. But sure, is is reasonable to ask for stronger evidence to support claims that you think improbable on prior grounds. Both evidence itself, and background beliefs, have to be part of the calculus.
"What would falsify the existence of God, and why?"
What would falsify the claim that there is a real universe out there? Ultimate claims are often harder to falsify or verify than they appear at first glance.
David
Posted by: viggen
|
June 27, 2011 11:59 AM
It amuses me that a group of Christians has done exactly this with Darwin's "Origin of the Species."
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 12:06 PM
Brownian: PZ Myers offered some comments about books rebutting Dawkins, including my own:
"Christians obsessed and are still obsessing over it. Look up "Dawkins' fleas": he practically sparked a whole industry of Christian apologists writing desperate rebuttals of the book . . . "
That's the topic.
Having been described as a "flea" by two eminent biologists, and false motives ascribed, I explained how and why I actually wrote one of the rebuttals PZ mentioned. You're a fool if you think that obligates me to trot out some arbitrary number of arguments for God on this thread, for any foul-mouthed little imp who gets his pants in a wad because he can't follow an abstract discussion more complex than a paint-by-numbers cartoon.
If I make a claim about God here, and someone I respect challenges it, sure, I'll support it.
David
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 12:13 PM
Snowflake: Thanks for the link.
My claim that there were crows outside the window was not, in fact, scientifically verifiable for you. (Unless you live in my neighborhood, which is possible.) They are gone, now. By the time you get here and search for DNA or feathers, rain will have washed the evidence away, probably, even if the neighbor will let you climb his tree. (And they seem pretty private.)
It's not a question of what the best evidence is. The question is, what evidence is available. Sometimes, human testimony is all you have to go on, but that doesn't make belief irrational.
David
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 27, 2011 12:22 PM
David googlemess #155 wrote:
Tough question indeed, since I strongly disagree with your analogy. I think your error starts here, then: "God" is not like the clear, obvious, and base-level "the universe." It has specific attributes and characteristics which distinguish it from universal universes.
The claim "A universe outside of myself exists" is NOT analogous to the claim that ":... there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it." (I am using Dawkins' version of "God essentially as theists around the world have defined him for thousands of years." If you want to use a different definition let me know.)
The first is only rationally denied by resort to radical solipsism, a narcisstic violation of occam's razor.
People otherwise do not and cannot deny that some form of reality other than themselves exists: they may argue over its form and specifics, but they do not, cannot, rationally deny it as a whole. As for proving it "scientifically," the demand itself is self-contradictory: it assumes what it purports to deny.
Your analogy makes atheism perverse. Not mistaken, but willfully perverse.
The definition of God, however, is a hypothesis which might or might not be true. It can be questioned without throwing out assumptions as basic as 'the universe exists.' It relies on beliefs about the nature and formation of Mind, and the means and method of agent causation.
If you are going to commit to this form of presuppositionalism, then you cannot reasonably engage in attempts to convert the atheist -- or anybody at all. You are forced to deny us the common ground of honest inquiry from experience. You make a mockery of our discussion -- and I do not think you want to do that.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 27, 2011 12:22 PM
Considering the source of the human testimony involved with your particular belief, is sure doesn't make it rational.
Posted by: Brownian
|
June 27, 2011 12:24 PM
That might have stung more if you haven't played that card on every thread you've engaged in here.
Look, we all know you see yourself as a rational and philosophical David who's been demolishing atheist Goliaths on the internet since emails were sent with Pine. Did you think I thought you'd respond any other way?
Just because you think you've got a reasonable excuse to waffle and hand-wave doesn't mean it actually is. And if you're only going to respond to the posters you, heh-heh, 'respect', then how come I see your fucking name on so many fucking threads?
So then, why don't you list the names of those posters you respect, and we'll find a thread just for you and them, and the rest of us plebeians won't have to wade through your shit?
As for foul-mouthed, then I think even you can understand that I (or anyone else here) am hardly obligated to restrict my language so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of someone whom I don't respect.
You're question-begging here. The same problem applies to all objects within the universe itself, so it's trivial to say that anything we call 'real' is rational to deny, difficult to prove scientifically, and supported by many kinds of good evidence.
I mean, really? "How do we know we're not brains in a jar?" therefore I don't have to answer?
Yeah, you're a real whiz at this.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 27, 2011 12:29 PM
Ah, but the existence of "crows" is scientifically verifiable. Once we have them established, then we can discuss your experience with them using less rigorous criteria.
Theology is category error made into an art form.
Posted by: You_Monster
|
June 27, 2011 12:32 PM
Are you conceeding that the only evidence for Christianity is in the form of testimonials?
How do you deliniate the "true" testimonials given by Christians from the false ones attested to by people of other religions?
Posted by: obfguy
|
June 27, 2011 12:45 PM
Because there has to be a pony in there somewhere!
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 27, 2011 12:55 PM
@Brownian
What you said. People who haven't tried to talk to this twit have no idea how Sisyphean it is. He's trolling, he wants to come into threads, fart and shit over everything, and then not have anything challenged or questioned.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
June 27, 2011 1:00 PM
However, we shouldn't calibrate our standards of proof to the quality of available evidence. The goal is not to be convinced, but to make the best possible approximation of the truth, and that precludes giving excessive weight to weak evidence just because we have nothing else to go on.Posted by: Kristine
|
June 27, 2011 1:16 PM
Heh. Thanks for setting out Kevin's rant, PZ. Between him and Mabuse showing up every 5 minutes, I was getting pretty riled.
The nature of archives is that they have a secondary purpose, different from their primary use during their "active life." Even the most biased archives can, and usually do, paint an accurate portrait of their creator(s). The archives in South Africa are a good example - they reveal the apartheid mindset from the point of view of the day-to-day bureaucrat.
Even if there is no "Wedge Document 2," there is undoubtedly material for a "The Creationists 2" (after Ronald Numbers' book). And I think poor Kevin and the Disco Dudes are not prepared for how much scholarly mileage I can get out of their shenanigans even without the ephemera from Expelled. Their behavior comes under the purview of information science, and now they are all my little bugs under a microscope - or stamps in my stamp collecting book, if they prefer. ;-)
They're trying to fight the same old fight, whereas I have moved on.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 27, 2011 1:18 PM
The failure of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" wasn't just financial. The promise of this movie was that they'd overturn the current Darwinian paradigm.
Even if this were to happen, it wouldn't mean that "intelligent design" or "creationism" would be true which is another mark of their poor thought processes.
Someone commented that they won't pay to see the movie until it's bought by non-creationists. You can see it for free now as it is on Youtube. As it was written and produced as a piece of "intelligent design" propaganda; it has been on the internet almost from its opening. If this movie were a truly valuable property, its owners would have had it removed by now.
Posted by: cd
|
June 27, 2011 1:19 PM
Elsewhere Craig admits that he doesn't actually persuade people, he appeals to preexisting biases in favor of theism/Christianity that average people were indoctrinated into as children.
Is all your 'evidence' tautological or presuppositional? Actually, I think I know the answer to that....
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 1:21 PM
Yes it does. Belief without evidence is delusion. Be that delusion leprechauns, bigfoot, nessie, thor, or yahweh. Delusions all, as there is no solid and conclusive evidence for any of them.Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 27, 2011 1:22 PM
Why do I doubt that David doesn't take the same standards of evidence for UFO abductions as he does Jesus?
Cause you know...anecdotal evidence for that is far stronger.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 27, 2011 1:34 PM
There's no evidence Paul could write Hebrew. He could probably read biblical Hebrew, and he likely spoke Aramaic, a closely related Semitic language, but all his writings are Greek. And Paul uses the Septuagint for biblical citation no less exclusively than any other New Testament author. It's purely on stylistic and thematic grounds that we know Paul wasn't the author.
Such certainty! and based on what? The more salient date is probably 70 CE, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Identifications with Rome are by no means certain. The persecution under Nero, being occasion for some of the earliest references to the movement to be found in ancient secular sources, holds way too much sway over these kinds of questions for a lot of people. It's like looking for your missing keys where the light is best regardless of where you lost them. The sort of state-sanctioned lethal persecutions that are supposed to have taken place c.64 are not in view in Hebrews in my opinion. Any number of local persecutions could have taken place throughout the late first century in numerous locations of the Jewish diaspora and almost certainly did.
As for the dating and the destruction of the Temple, I say that's more of a concern because of the many references to Jewish cult practice and the temple that would seem to put an operating temple and High Priest in the author's present. However, I'm not so sure. The treatment of Jewish practice throughout the letter is so academic and so utterly dependent on the Septuagint that I'm not sure Jerusalem and actual operations at the temple are a part of the author's experience or particularly of interest. There were more Jews in the diaspora than there were in Palestine throughout the 2nd Temple period. Many of them were focused on Jerusalem, the temple, its sacrifices, the temple tax, and making pilgramages; many were not. It's common to see the diaspora reaction to the events of 67-73 CE considered as an existential crisis, that suddeen, momentous changes in worldview had to be quickly assimilated, but, again, I'm not so sure. I think it's pretty easy to imagine the author of Hebrews living in the Eastern Mediterranean Jewish diaspora a generation after the siege of Jerusalem (that is, between the revolts). For him (or her), "the Temple", "the sacrifices", "the high priest" are literary, known purely from the scrolls of the LXX, and so in a sense present realities, for the purpose of the exhortations in the letter, which is just to denigrate them as markers of an outdated and obsolete covenant with God that has been superceded. It could be dated any time from the 60s CE to the middle of the 2nd century. (Depending on how much weight one puts on the parallels in 1 Clement: if Hebrews is copying 1 Clem then it must be early 2c.; if vice versa, then Hebrews can't be dated any later than the 90s CE.)
Based on any line of evidence or argument not found in the Wikipedia entry? Because what's there is pretty weak.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 27, 2011 2:55 PM
You are not a scholar, David. You are an apologist. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, I will allow, as a scholar can engage in apologetics as a sideline, with N.T. Wright as an example. But I see no evidence in any of your output that you are interested in any such compartmentalization, or that you even understand the difference between the two approaches. Your intellectual activity, such as it is, is directed solely at Christian apologetics without even the stated aim of making any novel contribution to secular scholarship.
You're also an arrogant jackass for going around the Web calling yourself a "historian" and a "scholar of religion." It's not true, but even if it were it wouldn't lend any force to your tedious bloviations.
Posted by: Brownian
|
June 27, 2011 3:33 PM
I well remember when he was called David Heddle.
(Oh, they're two different people? Hmm. You don't say. I'll make sure to jot that down for handy reference.)
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2011 4:05 PM
@The Archive, Repository of Random Information: I goofed, plain and simple. Mea maxima culpa.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2011 4:14 PM
I remember that at one point, I asked heddle -- if he were granted access to some sort of time-viewer that could look at any time in the past, and could see that the events described in the NT had been either misinterpretations of some natural event, or had been completely fabricated, would he agree that Christianity, at least, would be falsified?
He agreed that it would be, at that time.
He also stated that proof that the universe was eternal would falsify theism -- it would "destroy" his faith in God, were his words.
I wonder if David Marshall would agree with either of those two falsifications?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 6:46 PM
Owl: If you found bones that could be shown to be those of Jesus, Christianity would be falsified. This is a difficult task, but playing defense is a bore, anyway: if there is no strong positive evidence for Christianity, one should not believe it.
David
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 6:56 PM
Let the lies and irrationalizations commence as the proselytizer is back.
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity and mythical/fictional babble DBM. Evidence for both are required for the gnu atheists not to consider you a psychotic and delusional fool...
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 7:05 PM
Sastra: "The claim "A universe outside of myself exists" is NOT analogous to the claim that ":... there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it."
No analogy is perfect. But within the limited terms of comparison I mentioned, I think the analogy holds.
"The first is only rationally denied by resort to radical solipsism, a narcisstic violation of occam's razor."
And what is Occam's Razor? A preference for simplicity in explanation. I see a vast number of phenomena of which the existence of God makes simple sense. The pejorative use of terms like "narcissistic" and "soliptical" does not by itself RATIONALLY discredit "Brain in a Vat" or Matrix-type scenarios, though they work as description.
"Your analogy makes atheism perverse. Not mistaken, but willfully perverse."
I didn't intend it that way. While I reject Brain-in-a-vat scenarios, there are philosophies that hold to them that I find intellectually respectable, though wrong-headed -- some forms of Zen, perhaps. I have great respect for some expressions of atheism.
"If you are going to commit to this form of presuppositionalism, then you cannot reasonably engage in attempts to convert the atheist -- or anybody at all. You are forced to deny us the common ground of honest inquiry from experience. You make a mockery of our discussion -- and I do not think you want to do that."
This is an intelligent objection. But I wasn't committing to presuppositionalism, nor attempting to insult atheists. I was answering a specific question about the kind of statement that I see "God exists" as being. I explained where I see the analogy as lying:
"This is similiar because it is possible to rationally deny it, it is difficult to prove scientifically (without begging the question), but it is rational and supported by many kinds of good evidence, which however can also be interpretted in other ways."
If you want to compare it in other ways, then I may need to find a better analogy to answer your question.
David
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
June 27, 2011 7:12 PM
How so? That a variety of different phenomena can be described by something so complex it's unimaginable and cannot be contained by everything that we now know is not making sense of them. It's pushing all the things we can't explain together and saying 'I dunno' in loving terms.Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 27, 2011 7:27 PM
CJO: "You're not a scholar . . . Your intellectual activity, such as it is, is directed solely at Christian apologetics without even the stated aim of making any novel contribution to secular scholarship."
Hmmmn. Since we're talking about the nature of scholarship, and how one knows things -- how do you know this? You've read a few informal comments of mine on the Internet, and that qualifies you to claim I am making no contributions to scholarship?
"You're also an arrogant jackass for going around the Web calling yourself a "historian" and a "scholar of religion." It's not true, but even if it were it wouldn't lend any force to your tedious bloviations."
The arrogant bloviator is yourself. For a scholar to call himself that is is no more "arrogant" than for a mailman to say he works for the post office. But for someone who has never read a person's scholarly work, or probably even his popular stuff, and probably didn't understand the posts he did read, to shoot his mouth off like you're doing, about someone he doesn't know, really is arrogant, and if wrong (as it is), makes you the jackass.
David
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 7:31 PM
*Vorlon pseudo voice* And so it begins....
What a proselytizing loser....
Posted by: CJO
|
June 27, 2011 7:34 PM
Fuck, that's stupid. Only if they don't need explaining. Anything that does need explaining, and your argument falls apart as obviously begging the question. You appeal to the very thing ("phenomena") that needs explaining as evidence for God, and you can't see that you're chasing your own metaphysical tail?
You clearly think you're having a different sort of discussion with Sastra than you are, one in which this sort of sophistic delaying tactic will work. But it won't. You can't make vague appeals to "phenomena" and claim God makes sense of them, because her central question (the one you keep trying to make out as meaningless or ill-formed) boils down to how would you know if you were wrong about God?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 7:43 PM
DBM, the difference between discussion and proselytizing, is the consideration you can be wrong. If you are discussing, the concept you can be wrong must be front and center, which isn't the case at the moment. If you are proselytizing, no way can you be wrong, which is where your cowardice and equivocation puts you. And proselytizing is one of PZ's banhammer points...
Posted by: CJO
|
June 27, 2011 7:45 PM
Fuck you, David. I've held my nose long enough to read some of the dreck you're proud to call a blog, and I know enough about your intellectual resources and the limited aims to which they are directed as well as about the realm of legitimate scholarship in the humanities to know you're full of shit.
On what fucking basis do you declare that I "probably don't understand" a single goddamn thing? As I said upon one of your earlier forays here when you pulled this high-handed shit (to the answering sound of crickets): Try me, asshole. Go ahead and see what I do and do not understand.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 27, 2011 7:45 PM
David googlemess #179 wrote:
No, the analogy does not hold, because you are comparing something which is almost universally granted, uncontroversial, rife with evidence, empirically well-grounded, and directly experienced to a controversial hypothesis involving new categories of phenomenon which is indirectly inferred from evidence -- and which deliberately separates itself from other theories by invoking the special need for "faith."
No, Occam's razor (ontological conservatism) is not about simplicity as such: it's a tool that forces us to not make claims that are unfalsifiable. It's not based on whether an answer is aesthetically simple or the universe is uncomplicated: it is based on our acknowledged human ignorance and its tendency to over-reach itself.
Do not confuse a "simple" explanation with a "simplistic" explanation.
If your analogy equates believing that the universe exists with believing that the universe does not really exist -- it's all in the mind -- then your analogy is fatally flawed. The average reasonable person could see that (regardless of whether they believed in God or not.) Your analogy makes atheism perverse -- like a Matrix scenario, a brain-in-a-vat, or some other faith-based, unevidenced speculation.
Believing in a natural universe is a common ground belief. It is not similar to denying that there is a natural universe. Atheism is NOT a form of solipsism.
And I explained why your analogy does not hold. "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it" rests on complex inferences and specific attributes from a basic starting ground. It cannot be categorized as -- or treated like -- a basic starting ground itself.
I thus reject this analogy, and consider it defeated. Believing in God may be important to you -- you may think it's important to everyone and everything -- but it's simply not the shared common ground from which all inferences start, or "like" it.
Perhaps you could go back to my list at #148?
Is God a Mind?
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
June 27, 2011 7:46 PM
Sastra @162:
I just wanted to repeat that little jewel for the sheer fun of it.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 27, 2011 7:55 PM
And peddled by those for whom special pleading is a job description.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 8:05 PM
What???? DBM asked to be believed without providing conclusive physical evidence he is right????? Sounds par for the deluded fuckwit.Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 27, 2011 8:07 PM
I'll simply repeat by talking about one particular misunderstanding of yours. It's true that Dawkins called somebody "the American Taliban". But whom?
When done right, history uses falsification and parsimony – it is science.
How would you do that with mathematics or philosophy? They don't use empirical falsification.
I have a PhD...
The theory of the existence of a universe outside of myself is not falsifiable, but it is more parsimonious than the alternative (solipsism).
So...
...do you want us to apply Ockham's Razor to God?
Because then you'll land at Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse more quickly than you can pronounce it.
What? Why does the person who makes a challenge to a claim matter at all to whether the challenge should be met?
That's a category error. It's an argumentum ad hominem.
What I would have to go on would be parsimony: you had no discernible motive to lie, and I don't know of evidence that would suggest you're delusional, so you probably had evidence for crows.
Of course, this is all I can say. Neither belief nor anything else will reliably take me any further towards certainty that there were crows in front of your window. I must live with this uncertainty, period.
But as comment 162 points out, atheism isn't concerned with whether there were such mundane beings as crows in front of your window, but with whether gods exist at all. And there, Ockham's Razor outweighs testimony any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
The assumption of a disembodied mind with (at the very least) superpowers is anything but simple.
What part of enta non sunt multiplicanda super necessitatem do you not understand? (Do I need to tranlate it?)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 27, 2011 8:12 PM
And so do I, and several others criticizing you idiocy here fuckwit. In fact, I would say most PhD's think you are full of shit. Welcome to reality delusional fuckwitted fool...Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 27, 2011 8:47 PM
No wonder Googlemess David won't engage me. He doesn't respect me because I only have an MA. :-(
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 27, 2011 8:53 PM
Ah yes. I remember you pulling that PhD shit the last time you decided to ejaculate all over a thread.
I gotta say, it is my favorite baseless argument ever*. It'll be even more effective when you finally realize that it's "PhD"/"Ph.D." not "Phd".
*Do you even know how many positive reviews came from PhDs vs people without advanced degrees? I'm looking for hard numbers here.
Oh wait, you don't have any hard numbers, do you?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 27, 2011 9:47 PM
"You need to have a PhD to tell me how dumb I am!"
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 27, 2011 9:58 PM
I've got no chance then; I've only got a BPsych and a BA.
Anyone who is actually interested in seeing how someone's already kicked David Marshall's ass all over the internet - several times - check out the Arizona Atheist blog; someone linked to one of his posts upthread, but there are a couple more entries where he's made Marshall and his vapid books/blog posts his personal chewtoy.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 28, 2011 12:11 AM
Sastra: Isn't it a trifle overblown to speak of my off-hand analogy as "overthrown" when it proves problematic to extend it beyond my original, limited intent?
"Do not confuse a "simple" explanation with a "simplistic" explanation."
I don't think I did. A hypothesis also has to cover all the data. And that is my problem with atheism. My view (a bald contention in this thread, of course) is that atheism, like brain-in-a-vat, does not cover all the data -- though no doubt the failure is more spectacularly obvious in the latter case, especially to you.
The point is, "God" explains (I think) a lot of disparate data-- though alternative explanations can (I admit) be found. An analogy, by definition, is not an "equation."
But I'm not sure we're arguing about anything very real, here. You asked a question: did you have a further point or question you were leading up to?
David
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2011 12:28 AM
Not just "alternate", but ontologically simpler.
Is a God necessary to explain anything at all?
No.
Therefore, God is sliced into nothingness.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2011 12:35 AM
Consider the following:
This morning, you wrote about hearing crows in the walnut tree.
An explanation which invokes unnecessary entities is that you only thought you heard crows. What you actually heard were demons, which sounded exactly like crows. (They were discussing whether they were actually real, or only illusions of Satan).
Are demons necessary to explain what you heard?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 28, 2011 12:44 AM
David Marj: If you have a point to make about Dawkins and the "American Taliban," please make it, already. If you're asking me to make your argument for you, sorry, I decline.
"Science" can, of course, be defined in more than one way. It is tedious to banter over semantics, when my implied definition of science is (I'm sure you know) widely used. You can call history a "science" if you like, as I already admitted, if you want to stretch the meaning of "science" to include "using subjective judgement to evaluate another person's trustworthiness."
"Because then you'll land at Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse more quickly than you can pronounce it."
That's the second Christian scholar cited to chop God out of the equation in this thread: but as Sastra or someone pointed out, simple does not mean simplistic, as I think both Occam and Laplace recognized.
"What? Why does the person who makes a challenge to a claim matter at all to whether the challenge should be met?"
Surely you're jesting. "Do not cast pearls before swine." Even Richard Dawkins understands, and acts upon, the validity of that bit of scripture.
"What I would have to go on would be parsimony: you had no discernible motive to lie, and I don't know of evidence that would suggest you're delusional, so you probably had evidence for crows."
That's true. There's also the issue of my character -- several posters here having accused me of being a liar. If that's untrue, I might not lie, even with a pretty good motive.
"But as comment 162 points out, atheism isn't concerned with whether there were such mundane beings as crows in front of your window, but with whether gods exist at all. And there, Ockham's Razor outweighs testimony any day of the week and twice on Sundays."
Really? Razors are usually thought of as being thin and light. So you maintain (a la Hume) that no amount of human testimony for, say, miracles, would sway you an inch from denial? Or is there some point at which human experience COULD outweigh your presumption against miracles?
"What part of enta non sunt multiplicanda super necessitatem do you not understand? (Do I need to tranlate it?)"
No need to be patronizing; I've mentioned the principle already in this thread, myself.
David
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8
|
June 28, 2011 12:52 AM
Wow: Ken ("Arizona Atheist" "Prime Truth" "Gifted Writer") will be pleased to have another gullible fan. Do avoid the places where we dialogue, though; you won't find that so pretty. But maybe I will have to stop ignoring the young pup's "rebuttals." It's a painful thought; he's a chore to read.
David
Posted by: Kseniya
|
June 28, 2011 12:54 AM
So you've arbitrarily decided that a godless explanation is undesirably "simplistic", while a godful explanation is desirably "simple", and speculatively cite Occam himself as indirect support for this decision? (Or have I misread you?)
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2011 1:15 AM
And God is a simplistic answer, not an ontologically simple one.
Who are you calling a pig, exactly? Everyone who is not a Christian?
So why not just argue as honestly as you can?
What, exactly, are you defining as being a miracle?
Have you read Carrier's essay on the supernatural? Is a miracle something performed by the nonphysical action of a mind?
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
Going by Carrier's definition, I think God speaking clearly to everyone might count, or speaking to me personally in such a way as to be distinguished from a hallucination.
I strongly suspect that you have not understood it. Perhaps because you have a psychological commitment to a definitely non-parsimonious idea.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
June 28, 2011 1:31 AM
Asking you to repeat your claim is "asking [you] to make [his] argument for [him]"? Really?Why can't you just answer? (not a rhetorical question)
Is that what you reckon "history" is? Just taking whoever's word on it? From what this lowly B.Sc knows, there's a lot of cross-referencing and examining of material evidence that goes into the study of history.
"Simplistic" to me means "simpler than as simple as possible". Do you consider God to be the simplest possible explanation of the things of which you consider him to be an explanation?
Jebus, the things I do to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition...
But you would not be answering just the person who challenged you. You would be giving your answer to everyone who is reading this thread, a group which includes the commenters you respect, the ones you disrespect, and the people lurking this thread, who are the majority.
Under such circumstances the wisest thing to do is to just address serious objections, regardless of who they come from. Otherwise it will just become an "I'm not talking to Brownian, so I'll just ignore his question until Sastra repeats it" kindergarten scene. (oops, was that ageist?)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2011 1:42 AM
There are a number of things your god could do:
Have prayers said for an amputee, entreat god to heal the amputee by replacement or regrowth of the missing limb. Never happens.
God speaks a simple message to all humankind, and everyone hears the message in their own native language. Never happens.
I write down a 16 digit number. Theist prays for god to reveal the number, because I have stated I will acknowledge god's existence if the theist writes down the same number I did. Never happens.
I could go on. That god of yours never makes the slightest effort to show that it exists. The only place it does "exist" is in the imaginations of theists.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
June 28, 2011 2:00 AM
Ah, but God needn't do those things, for all He demands is that the faithful believe that he could.
Overt Divine Action would destroy Faith.
It's a perfect con.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2011 2:06 AM
Kseniya:
Yes, it is. Especially as theists believe in miracles, because god performed them left and right in the bible. The fact that it hasn't done a single thing since doesn't seem to get up their noses at all.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
June 28, 2011 2:28 AM
So true. And yet, year in, year out, the likes of Zeus and Thor race to and from across the globe, indiscriminately dropping their thunder-and-lightning thing on the heads of the both the good and the wicked. But what kind of worshipful awe and respect do they get? None!
It's just not right.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 28, 2011 2:40 AM
David googlemess wrote:
I did, and you're correct to say they weren't pretty - however, it wasn't in the way you implied; instead, it was very similar to what you've been doing here, which is disingenuously avoiding all the questions you either don't have an answer to, or are afraid to answer because you're aware that it would fail to support your claims.
I imagine it must be a chore to have to face someone having taken apart every single claim you've made and demonstrated where you've been wrong, and backed up those demonstrations with links and references.
Perhaps if you didn't make so many poorly-thought-out claims you wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of having them refuted.
And while he's by no means the best writer I've read, he one-ups you constantly on the more important aspect: actually responding to the issues raised - something you rarely do.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 28, 2011 2:48 AM
Kseniya:
No, it isn't. Especially as seeing some of those thunderstorms are bloody spectacular. A fabulous show, and not only are there no temples or worshipers to show for it, people don't even buy tickets. Ungrateful lot, humans.
Posted by: Sastra OM/COR
|
June 28, 2011 12:17 PM
David googlemess #196 wrote:
No, because your original, limited intent was to explain why the existence of God cannot be approached and treated like other empirical claims: saying "God exists" is like saying "the universe exists" (or even 'reality exists.') Those claims would be equally exempt from being treated like ordinary hypotheses if they share the relevant critical feature: they are BOTH basic, foundational inferences which are only denied by assuming that ALL evidence is suspect, and everything is but an illusion ... an assumption which is perverse, and violates parsimony.
I pointed out that no, God and the Universe do not share that feature in common. The existence of God is not a clear, obvious, universally recognized sum-of-all things like "the universe." It can be denied without violating parsimony or rejecting all evidence all together. To repeat: "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it" rests on complex inferences and specific attributes from a basic starting ground. It cannot be categorized as -- or treated like -- a basic starting ground itself.
Let me clarify what I mean by a "simplistic" explanation. A simplistic explanation is one that is so vague, featureless, non-reducible, and content-free that it could explain everything -- and nothing. It's not an actual "explanation" because there are no predictions, no mechanism, no details. It's a question re-stated as if it were an answer.
Here is an example of what I'd call a simplistic explanation:
Q: How does the engine make a car move?
A: Through giving it the power of movement.
Q: What is the power of movement?
A: It is the force that moves things.
Q: How does the engine use this force?
A: By giving it to the car.
Q: How?
A: Through its movement power.
And so forth and so on. You get the idea.
I think God "explains" a lot of disparate data in just this way. It is not simple -- it is simplistic.
Is God a Mind?
I am trying to discover if mind/body dualism is an integral feature of your God hypothesis.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 28, 2011 12:24 PM
"God" explains (I think) a lot of disparate data
That's inane. An invisible being with arbitrarily powerful magic abilities can be invoked to explain anything. That is, both P and not P, for any P. An "explanation" that could explain anything, actually explains nothing. Is a non-explanation. It is the epitome of precisely what parsimony excludes from consideration as a valid empirical explanation.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 28, 2011 1:47 PM
Let me guess.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2011 3:39 PM
I am reminded of how the notorious Alan C invoked "Occam's Razor" to defend YEC.
LOL.
Yeah, it's easy and "simple" to just say "GODDIDIT". Therefore, GODDIDIT.
Posted by: noodles2375
|
June 28, 2011 4:46 PM
Awwww...no more squeaky?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2011 9:33 PM
DBM, you are a liar and bullshitter. It started with lying to yourself. Your whole arguments are presupposition. You fail at evidence, which is why you were getting creamed here. We know evidence. You have presupposition.
Here's how you prove you have presupposition. Start with the appropriate null hyptheses that god is imaginary and the babble is a book of mythology fiction. Now, use outside sources and conclusive physical evidence to show your imaginary deity actually exists. No evidence for that, other than your desire for it to exist. That is presupposition.
Same for the babble. Show conclusive third party evidence it is inerrant. Nope, can't do it. No flud, no exodus, no jebus, mostly written well past the fact. Ergo, it isn't inerrant. Ergo, it can't be used as a witness to anything. If you believe it can, that is presupposition. Which you do.
Presupposition arguments are for idjit losers. By using that argument, you showed yourself to be a liar and bullshitter. End of story. The rest of your verbiage is rationalization to convince yourself, but not us. In order to convince the gnu atheist, you must present CONCLUSIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE WILL PASS MUSTER WITH SCIENTISTS, MAGICIANS, AND PROFESSIONAL DEBUNKERS, AS BEING OF DIVINE, AND NOT NATURAL (SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINED), ORIGIN. Equivalent to the eternally burning bush. That's for the deity. Similar level of evidence is required for an inerrant babble. Anything less than that, you might as well fold up your presuppositions, and go elsewhere, and you knew it. Only liars, bullshitters, and presuppositionalists can't put up, and can't shut up. And your historical bullshit is bullshit. Fade into the bandwidth. Your lies have been exposed to world.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm5AEig2r1dnQZ7jFDyKdX0BxxpU-9pEpE
|
June 29, 2011 8:09 PM
It looks like whenever you sign in with Google it doesn’t present your user name or email, just some gibberish. That’s kind of annoying, so I apologize for the “google mess.” Any how...
I’m Arizona Atheist and I just want to thank those who linked to my work and I hope you all enjoyed it. It looks like you guys stomped him good. Good job! Marshall is a piece of work isn’t he?
Take care all!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2011 8:26 PM
Arizona Atheist wrote:
Thanks for putting all that effort in. Marshall is such an evasive creep that it's nigh on impossible to get anything out of him; having something to link to that demonstrates the weakness of his arguments - without buying his crappy books and doing it ourselves - is handy.
He's certainly another good illustration of the intellectually dishonest Christian habit of incredibly shallow thinking posing as deep.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2011 8:32 PM
[meta]
Arizona Atheist:
I draw your attention to noodles2375's comment @214; clearly, that annoyance can be overcome.
Posted by: Mr.Kosta
|
June 29, 2011 8:43 PM
Googlemess @ 216
I had the same problem. You can simply try with a Movable Type account.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 29, 2011 8:58 PM
Yep, his head is so swelled there is no way he call pull it out of his ass...