And while we're on the Bible ... let's go ahead and reinstate some things from the Bible we've done away with:

- Stoning disobedient children
- Selling your daughter into slavery
- Anybody working on the Sabbath should be put to death
- If a man have long hair is a shame onto him (*cough* JESUS *cough*)
- A man shall not go near a woman on her period.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
- Richard Dawkins

I'm calling it on Sept 11, 2008. This is over. McCain by 8-15 points. If OJ gets off again, 20 points.

DrTorch Wrote:The term "faith" gets thrown around alot, and is often used incorrectly. But, even in your usage, you are wrong. Faith, as you define it, is most certainly the cornerstone of sound reasoning as EVERY logical system is based on assumptions/axioms/givens that cannot be proven, and must be accepted as true.

I disagree. While it is true that every logical system depends on assumptions which must be accepted as if they were true, that's not all there is. Logical systems do not operate in a vaccuum. They are tested and those that give the right answers provide evidence that their underlying assumptions are true. It may never rise to the level of incontrivertable evidence (a standard which we will never achieve for anything), but it is eveidence none-the-less.

The scientific method rest on one basic assumption - that there are laws of nature which are regular and knowable (even if the laws change over time there should be a pattern to it). This statements need not be accepted on faith alone. It can also be viewed as a scientific theory, the most tested scientific theory of all time. Everything else is just part of the process.

If you truly wanted to be a skeptical sort, you could also argue that it depends on our senses being precise & accurate, or at least enough so under the proper conditions. But this again does not have to be accepted solely on faith - there is a great deal of evidence that our sense do reflect the world around us.

Even if we aren't real, even if you're just a brain in a vat & I'm just electrical signals being shot into your brain, the scientific method still works. It would still be the best method for you to find out about the artificial environment that you are "living" in.

Quote:I have a reasonably fair understanding of current evolutionary theory, and what I find is a poor use of the scientific method (lack of empirical evidence, self-selecting empirical results) and overt logical fallacies (circular reasoning, reasoning by analogy, tautological arguments, red-herrings, straw men)

I'd be curious to hear some examples.

*** Edited to correct "qote" tags

jh Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:The term "faith" gets thrown around alot, and is often used incorrectly. But, even in your usage, you are wrong. Faith, as you define it, is most certainly the cornerstone of sound reasoning as EVERY logical system is based on assumptions/axioms/givens that cannot be proven, and must be accepted as true.

I disagree. While it is true that every logical system depends on assumptions which must be accepted as if they were true, that's not all there is. Logical systems do not operate in a vaccuum. They are tested and those that give the right answers provide evidence that their underlying assumptions are true. It may never rise to the level of incontrivertable evidence (a standard which we will never achieve for anything), but it is eveidence none-the-less.

The scientific method rest on one basic assumption - that there are laws of nature which are regular and knowable (even if the laws change over time there should be a pattern to it). This statements need not be accepted on faith alone. It can also be viewed as a scientific theory, the most tested scientific theory of all time. Everything else is just part of the process.

If you truly wanted to be a skeptical sort, you could also argue that it depends on our senses being precise & accurate, or at least enough so under the proper conditions. But this again does not have to be accepted solely on faith - there is a great deal of evidence that our sense do reflect the world around us.

2 problems w/ this. First is your misunderstanding of the word "faith".

Second is the circular reasoning that you employ: that you can validate your senses by data received by your senses.

Curiously, you allude to that here:

Quote:Even if we aren't real, even if you're just a brain in a vat & I'm just electrical signals being shot into your brain, the scientific method still works. It would still be the best method for you to find out about the artificial environment that you are "living" in.

Why? Frankly, in the situation you describe your senses provide no help in describing the real world you live in.

Quote:I have a reasonably fair understanding of current evolutionary theory, and what I find is a poor use of the scientific method (lack of empirical evidence, self-selecting empirical results) and overt logical fallacies (circular reasoning, reasoning by analogy, tautological arguments, red-herrings, straw men)

I'd be curious to hear some examples.
[/quote]

Behe and Johnson provide plenty. Johnson is far from perfect in his critique, however his mistakes don't invalidate the correct points he makes.

[quote=georgia_tech_swagger]
And while we're on the Bible ... let's go ahead and reinstate some things from the Bible we've done away with:

- Stoning disobedient children
- Selling your daughter into slavery
- Anybody working on the Sabbath should be put to death
- If a man have long hair is a shame onto him (*cough* JESUS *cough*)
- A man shall not go near a woman on her period.

[quote]

Good scholars usually look at context.

[quote]
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
- Richard Dawkins
[/quote]

You do know that Dawkins is a puffed up buffoon, who hasn't produced any science in decades, and never produced anything of particular note?

DrTorch Wrote:2 problems w/ this. First is your misunderstanding of the word "faith".

Second is the circular reasoning that you employ: that you can validate your senses by data received by your senses.

Curiously, you allude to that here:

Quote:Even if we aren't real, even if you're just a brain in a vat & I'm just electrical signals being shot into your brain, the scientific method still works. It would still be the best method for you to find out about the artificial environment that you are "living" in.

Why? Frankly, in the situation you describe your senses provide no help in describing the real world you live in.

How do you define the word faith, then? Instead of just telling people they are misunderstanding the word, it would be more beneficial if you would explain what you mean by it.

I am more than happy to conceed that sensory input might not reflect the "real" world. I'm afraid that certainty is not a luxury we are affoarded. There's always a possibility, however remote, that this could all just be one big joke (it would help explain some things). It's not faith that allows me not to worry about this possibility, it's indifference.

Are you really trying to argue that we could realistically be brains in vats? Because other than taking it to that level, arguments about using sense data to validate our senses is rather weak. First, sense data is the only way to get information about the world around us. Really any information at all - even the rules of logic are taught through sensory experience. Additionally, there is an a priori argument in their favor - if they didn't reasonably represent the world we lived in we would be unable to long exist. Finally, there are five different senses, all of which can be used to corroborate the others. There is no more reason to group the five together than there is to view them independently (particularly given that they developed separately & are governed by different areas of the brain).

But if you are willing to argue that there is a real possibility that we are indeed just brains in a vat so therefore are senses are unreliable, I say so what? If I'm just a brain in a vat "living" in an imaginary world, what do I care? What matters to me is the world I'm "living" in, not the one that my physical manifestation happens to exist in. I'd certainly rather be able to move around my imaginary world, to laugh & love, than simply be a blob of gray goo in a jar on the desk of a post-doc student at some intergallactic university, even if it isn't real. And even if the post-doc is the one who sets the parameters of my existance, the scientific method is still the best way for me to find out what those parameters are.

In fact, in the brain in a vat example, in many ways it is more true to say that the created world is the real one, at least for the person in question. In this case "I" don't exist in the real world because "I" am not just a brain in the vat.

blah Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I retract the silly comment....but....not the ignorant. Lack of reasoning and understanding of basic evolutionary and scientific theory is ignorance shrouded in biblical literalism and is not mainstream thought. Faith is the cornerstone of religion...not sound reasoning.

I see no evidence that would lead me to any other conclusion for the wonderful diversity of life on earth than evolutionary theory.

Well that solves it then. Since you are sure, I guess your theory must be true and all others wrong.

Let me make sure I understand, just for the record.

Believing in the Bible = crazy
Believing in wild conspiracy theories that the U.S. government is out to get you = rational thinking

Ok, I think I got it now.

Nice strawman.....But...Ive never said belief in the bible is crazy and I dont need think that the "government" is out to get me.

I do think that "biblical literalists" and "creationists" are ignorant of science...and...I think "those in search of power" could care less about you and I. If that means that I think they are out to get me...well...YES.

DrTorch Wrote:

jh Wrote:I'd be curious to hear some examples.

Behe and Johnson provide plenty. Johnson is far from perfect in his critique, however his mistakes don't invalidate the correct points he makes.

Behe I've found, but I'll need some help with Johnson. That's a little too generic a name for a search. It would be easier if you would just present some of his correct points.

Does Behe have any arguments other than irreducible complexity (that's all that showed up on a quick search)? Most of the examples Behe used in his book as being archetypes of irreducibly complex have since been reduced, and his book is only a couple of years old.

DrTorch Wrote:You do know that Dawkins is a puffed up buffoon, who hasn't produced any science in decades, and never produced anything of particular note?

Way to launch empty attacks at the man and ignore the real debate.

BTW, this is a lose:lose for you if you're bringing the Bible into this.

Those who accept the straight up literal interpretation have to accept the whole thing. If you assert your God is infallable and the Bible is the word of God, you can't throw away parts of the Bible just because you don't like them.

If you accept that the Bible requires interpretation to be accurate ... you have just undermined all organized religion based on the book, and the viability of the book to be taken seriously as the work of an omnipotent being.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:You do know that Dawkins is a puffed up buffoon, who hasn't produced any science in decades, and never produced anything of particular note?

Way to launch empty attacks at the man and ignore the real debate.

BTW, this is a lose:lose for you if you're bringing the Bible into this.

Those who accept the straight up literal interpretation have to accept the whole thing. If you assert your God is infallable and the Bible is the word of God, you can't throw away parts of the Bible just because you don't like them.

If you accept that the Bible requires interpretation to be accurate ... you have just undermined all organized religion based on the book, and the viability of the book to be taken seriously as the work of an omnipotent being.

All of the items you mentioned pertain to the law, which was given to and governed Jews (not Christians).

It is funny to me that you think that by picking out certain passages you can claim an understanding of the Bible.

Also, I am curious to learn how you know Jesus had long hair. Were you guys friends?

blah Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:You do know that Dawkins is a puffed up buffoon, who hasn't produced any science in decades, and never produced anything of particular note?

Way to launch empty attacks at the man and ignore the real debate.

BTW, this is a lose:lose for you if you're bringing the Bible into this.

Those who accept the straight up literal interpretation have to accept the whole thing. If you assert your God is infallable and the Bible is the word of God, you can't throw away parts of the Bible just because you don't like them.

If you accept that the Bible requires interpretation to be accurate ... you have just undermined all organized religion based on the book, and the viability of the book to be taken seriously as the work of an omnipotent being.

All of the items you mentioned pertain to the law, which was given to and governed Jews (not Christians).

It is funny to me that you think that by picking out certain passages you can claim an understanding of the Bible.

Also, I am curious to learn how you know Jesus had long hair. Were you guys friends?

Sorry, I must have missed the one crucifix in the world that shows him with short hair.

And you've not solved the problem. So should we rewrite law so that Jews have one set of laws and everybody else doesn't?

"Picking out certain passages".... hell most of thing is full of such. Go on ... dive in!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Here's a simple question for you GTS, who, out of the TWO, would you rather have in office, McCain? Or Obama? ...and there are only two answers to the question.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

blah Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:You do know that Dawkins is a puffed up buffoon, who hasn't produced any science in decades, and never produced anything of particular note?

Way to launch empty attacks at the man and ignore the real debate.

BTW, this is a lose:lose for you if you're bringing the Bible into this.

Those who accept the straight up literal interpretation have to accept the whole thing. If you assert your God is infallable and the Bible is the word of God, you can't throw away parts of the Bible just because you don't like them.

If you accept that the Bible requires interpretation to be accurate ... you have just undermined all organized religion based on the book, and the viability of the book to be taken seriously as the work of an omnipotent being.

All of the items you mentioned pertain to the law, which was given to and governed Jews (not Christians).

It is funny to me that you think that by picking out certain passages you can claim an understanding of the Bible.

Also, I am curious to learn how you know Jesus had long hair. Were you guys friends?

Sorry, I must have missed the one crucifix in the world that shows him with short hair.

And you've not solved the problem. So should we rewrite law so that Jews have one set of laws and everybody else doesn't?

WTF are you talking about? I didn't say American laws. I said the passages you are referring to don't pertain to Christians, so quoting them just makes you look like an idiot.

It would be like me telling my niece (6-years old) that she can't drive my car because there is a law against it. Do you then infer that you can't drive cars either? No, because that law doesn't pertain to you.

I agree that there were all kinds of things that Jews couldn't do and had to do under the law. It doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with your stated premise.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:You do know that Dawkins is a puffed up buffoon, who hasn't produced any science in decades, and never produced anything of particular note?

Way to launch empty attacks at the man and ignore the real debate.

BTW, this is a lose:lose for you if you're bringing the Bible into this.

Those who accept the straight up literal interpretation have to accept the whole thing. If you assert your God is infallable and the Bible is the word of God, you can't throw away parts of the Bible just because you don't like them.

If you accept that the Bible requires interpretation to be accurate ... you have just undermined all organized religion based on the book, and the viability of the book to be taken seriously as the work of an omnipotent being.

Really examining the bible will make you realize it's not God's word. It's a book written by people full of flaws. If you really look at how God is portrayed in the Bible it's depressing. The bible describes a 'monster god'. Petty, vindictive, evil, and unjust.

I was a very devout christian for 19 years, but then I learned the bible wasn't God's word. Now I live my life according to stoicism and simple theism. I'm much happier now and I know that I'm on a better path.

Rebel Wrote:Here's a simple question for you GTS, who, out of the TWO, would you rather have in office, McCain? Or Obama? ...and there are only two answers to the question.

I don't know man. This is the most important election in my lifetime and in the last 40 years. John McCain is always talking about Country First, yet he chooses someone who is not ready to be president in order to get elected. I really don't think the next president will have much control over things as the house and senate will be overwhelmingly democrat. McCain can only really veto, but that's not his style' he wants to pass legislation. Obama agrees with the dems philosophy, but he doesn't believe in idealogy over getting re-elected.

Rebel Wrote:Here's a simple question for you GTS, who, out of the TWO, would you rather have in office, McCain? Or Obama? ...and there are only two answers to the question.

Write in or abstain.

Palin is epic fail on social issues, and isn't making a serious effort to change fiscal policy in the McCain camp and deal with the core issues of the Ron Paul camp (inflation, the Fed, the debt, the dollar, etc)

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:Here's a simple question for you GTS, who, out of the TWO, would you rather have in office, McCain? Or Obama? ...and there are only two answers to the question.

deal with the core issues of the Ron Paul camp (inflation, the Fed, the debt, the dollar, etc)

All 20 of you? I kid, I kid...

jh Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

jh Wrote:I'd be curious to hear some examples.

Behe and Johnson provide plenty. Johnson is far from perfect in his critique, however his mistakes don't invalidate the correct points he makes.

Behe I've found, but I'll need some help with Johnson. That's a little too generic a name for a search. It would be easier if you would just present some of his correct points.

Philip Johnson.

And it would be easier if you'd read their books rather than ask me for talking points. The subjects can be complex, the material voluminous, and they aren't the hand-waving arguments you might get from Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, or your 9th grade biology teacher.

Quote:Does Behe have any arguments other than irreducible complexity (that's all that showed up on a quick search)? Most of the examples Behe used in his book as being archetypes of irreducibly complex have since been reduced, and his book is only a couple of years old.

Irreducible complexity holds up very well, despite of what they write on talk.origins. In fact it's often supported by what they write on talk.origins

Nevertheless, you don't need other arguments. Quite the contrary, evolution supporters are supposed to be the ones providing evidence, not assuming it true and challenging skeptics.

I've read Gould's and Shermer's responses to this, and they're quite damning with the lack of clear evidence. Certainly small experiments can be threaded together to provide an answer...but that smuggles in all sorts of assumptions (and all too frequently fallacious reasoning) and is far from any sort of reliable proof.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:You do know that Dawkins is a puffed up buffoon, who hasn't produced any science in decades, and never produced anything of particular note?

Way to launch empty attacks at the man and ignore the real debate.

BTW, this is a lose:lose for you if you're bringing the Bible into this.

I wasn't the one who brought in the Bible or Dawkins. Since your quote was one w/ Dawkins launching an ad homenim attack, I'm a bit surprised that you object to the same. Dawkins "science" is poor, that's the crux of the issue. His literary criticsm of the Bible follows that poor scholarship, as he obviously comes in to what he's read w/ a huge bias.

Quote:Those who accept the straight up literal interpretation have to accept the whole thing. If you assert your God is infallable and the Bible is the word of God, you can't throw away parts of the Bible just because you don't like them.

Ironically, the only way Dawkins comes to his conclusions is to throw away the parts that don't fit his criticism.

Quote:If you accept that the Bible requires interpretation to be accurate ... you have just undermined all organized religion based on the book, and the viability of the book to be taken seriously as the work of an omnipotent being.

I am not sure what you mean by that last paragraph. If I do understand you, your reasoning is neither sound nor valid.

There is room for interpretation of the Bible, in fact it's an absolute requisite. That's how language goes. And if you're going to insist on bringing your post-enlightenment, western epistomology and language into a book written by and for middle-easterners from 2 and 3 millennia ago...expect some discontinuities.

The one good thing that comes from the current post-modern zeitgeist is an acknowledgement that you can't accurately evaluate history coming in w/ your own cultural bias and even prejudice. Not that I'm throwing out ethics, but it's a challenge for people to separate their mores from ethics.

Jugnaut Wrote:Really examining the bible will make you realize it's not God's word. It's a book written by people full of flaws. If you really look at how God is portrayed in the Bible it's depressing. The bible describes a 'monster god'. Petty, vindictive, evil, and unjust.

I disagree. The Biblical presentation of God does not depress me in the least, and I don't see a 'monster god' at all.

Quote:I was a very devout christian for 19 years, but then I learned the bible wasn't God's word. Now I live my life according to stoicism and simple theism. I'm much happier now and I know that I'm on a better path.

Stoicism doesn't impress me much. Curiously, it's my observation that stoicism seems to be the prevailing thought among psychology today...at least Christian psychologists. That's an ironic twist!
Not coincidentally, I find that view of Christianity very depressing.