Intrigued

You've got over 3,000 posts. I've got just over fifty. I'm trying to find my way around the written and unwritten rules of the forum as fast as I can. You've made much the same points as I made in my report. I don't know. I think one of my strengths is knowing when I don't know and then either shutting up, or asking someone who does. That's what I did here. (Asked. Generally I don't shut up.) Rebuttal would certainly take us off topic. I'm happy to agree to disagree, at least until a suitable venue comes up to pursue the discussion. On your defence of Dawkins I stand by my earlier assertion that he pumps to much emotion into his rhetoric. I adored The Ancestor's Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable was good, but contained as I recall too many assumptions, or more probably too many gross simplifications. The Selfish Gene left me unconvinced in part because of his style that reminded me of a con man. I stumbled onto a documentary featuring him without knowing that the presenter was Dawkins. It took me about two minutes to ask myself, "who is this jerk?" The point of the foregoing. I only saw the reactions to foolish YECs long after I had formed my opinion of the man - good storyteller (great in Ancestor), but too smug for his own good and overfond of show over substance. Remember, like your view, it's just an opinion. You speak as if you have never dealt with fundamentalists. They don't have arguments. They have beliefs. These beliefs are unassailable. If it is a choice between the Bible and Reality, the Bible wins everytime. Circular arguments do not disturb them, since ultimately they have their faith. The ones who can be reached are those who are undecided. Ridicule just drives them into the waiting arms of the fundamentalists. Calm, open, respectful argument, mindful of their nascent beliefs can bring rationality to their world. Dawkins style rhetoric, not so much. Dawkins has perceived a genuine danger to Western Civilisation. It's just that his approach is exacerbating it.

No. I think that may be what the OP only wanted to discuss. See my previous post.

Who posted the OP? Who am I? You might want to check that out. I am not speaking of generic attacks, but rather specific attacks. These are usually so whimsical one dismisses them on the spot. I would need to dig into posts on another forum to find examples. If you wish me to do so I shall make the effort. There are some instance of generic attacks. For example an individual makes the claim that science has proved there is no God. Since science is not in the business of proof and does not concern itself with the supernatural, this is a flawed attack. Not all Christians assert that every word in it is the infallible word of god. The holes remain if you adopt the view that only a fundamentalist interpretation is valid. As such, you fall into the same trap as the fundamentalists. Irrelevant to what I said. As I understood the OP we were discussing a specific question of Dawkins'. However, since the member seemed greatly taken by Dawkins style then our conversation here might just be relevant. That's why I asked for moderator guidance. As someone who is atheistic towards the God of the Abrahamic religions, highly dubious about all the gods of other religions, despite an affection for Aphrodite, and agnostic to the general concept of gods I'm quite confortable with how things are going, apart from the limitations to the points you made in your earlier post. I've addressed those, so once you've figured out how misdirected your post was we can proceed.

Some good points. Here are some counterpoints. Some attacks on religion I have read or heard are not well researched and present as "facts" stereotypes, strawmen, misinformation, etc. If the Bible is said to be the inerrant Word of God thent pointing out the "holes in it" that do not "stand up to scrutiny" is valid. If, however, it is taken as in part at least a mythology conveying important moral and philosophical truths then many of those holes vanish. I have talked with several rational Christians who have no trouble reconciling the findings of science and the meaning of scripture. I suggest the charge of irrationality applies primarily to the those who insist upon a literal interpretation, such as the Young Earth Creationists. It would definitely be even more off topic to review which religious claims you believe are refuted by science, but I suggest again that may be restricted to those fundamentalist interpretations. Note: we seem to be drifting off topic, so I have reported this post and asked for moderator guidance.

True. When one is criticising others for populating their arguments with emotional rhetoric it makes sense to avoid it onself. Dawkins, in his enthusiasm, seems often to overlook this. Consequently he is generally just singing to the choir and, in the process, encouraging some people to join the a capella group down the road.

Do not go to gentle into that good night, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Dylan Thomas

If you had knowledge of the "Rosalind Franklins and Caroline Herschels" you would be far less likely to make such ill informed comments. I say that not as a barely concealed attack on your intellect, but as a hope that it might trigger you to take a closer look at the two examples I have given. If you are interested in science I hope you are also interested in the history of science. But this is already way off topic. Send me a pm if you wish to discuss further.

I'll drink to that!

Ease up. It's a charming story and one that might encourage other youngsters to enter the field of science. And its a minor compensation for the Rosalind Franklins and Caroline Herschels of the world. (For the record, since you asked, I didn't give you the downvote. I'm not competent to comment on the physics of postulated singularities and an ill judged opinion doesn't merit a downvote.)

As an Englishman there is a good chance you have some Viking DNA. Perhaps you can solve the issue by paying yourself reparations.

Of course, it could turn out that the greatest risk of war would be the consequence of an over simplified assessment of the potential causes of such a war.

The key words there are "seems to", but that "seems to" relates to you. It is the expression of an opinion. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion on the matter, but you "seem to" be asking that we accept your opinion as being the most likely situation, without providing the evidence to support it. Of course, at the root of this contrast of views may be what you mean by "meaning" and thus Alice steps into the rabit hole. (While you feel we may not solve this tonight, I feel we shall not solve it this morning. By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't really have an opinion either way. I am simply pointing out what "seem to be" weaknesses in your thesis.)

You are the one making the claims. I haven't seen any evidence from you to support those claims. They remain merely unsubstantiated assertions. I suppose you will be telling me next there is no meaning in DNA, despite the fact that no cat ever gave birth to a rhodedendron.

The meaning in your mind and mine, is nothing but "marks" upon neurons. Demonstrate that there is a significant difference between a bit and a neuron.

What would your reaction be if I found you at work one day and told you that you were doing it wrong. Your plaster was too wet, your tools were inappropriate and your application technique was wrong? On enquiry you would learn that I had never plastered anything in my life. The closest I had come to it was nailing some plasterboard to a wooden framework. You would, I suspect, shake you head and dismiss my thinking as silly. In reality I would not question your plastering tools or technique, since they would be based upon the evolved practice of thousands of plasterers, coupled with your own practical experience. I'm not sure why you would think it makes sense to doubt a theory that has been validated by experiments, observations and practical processes, carried out by thousands of experts. I guess you have the right to be wrong, but it won't change the facts.

This seems to me to be elitist and politically incorrect . . . . . . and absolutely accurate. Further, while teaching methods of the staff are important, of vastly greater importance are the learning methods of the students. Self motivation, commitment and persistence are major contributors to academic success. The reason the 2%-5% are at the top is that they have one or more of these attributes in abundance and have worked out how to learn. If we focused on developing those skills in all, then the teaching style of staff would be of even less importance. Note: these are opinions and as such I can offer no research to justify them, though they are based not only on personal observation, but many opportunities to absorb conclusions of studies in the education field.

In the UK, where gun laws are strict and (famously) few of the police are armed, I have several friends who have shotguns. Some favour their use on game birds, others on clay pigeons. But a shotgun is not a highpowered rifle, or a small handgun easily concealed. I understand - and sympathise - with the notion that this is "just a way of life that we're just trying to protect". Unfortunately, it has become just a way of death that you are trying to protect. What would it take for you to say "enough is enough"?

(I added bold font to your last sentence.) Yet here I am, reading a bunch of words, put there by flipping bits. Are you acknowledging your posts lack meaning?

Is the essence of your suggestion that since AIs "feed on data" then natural selection, in a competitive environment, would favour efficient data processing and that might well correlate with sentience?

The day they develop religion and start sacrificing calculators.

Which would necessarily be either repetition or off-topic!

Aha! That's an entirely different matter. Had I been aware of that reason I probably wouldn't have been mildly confused. Thank you for the clarification. Since my questions are now answered and my confusion removed the thread could now be locked.

As I said, fair enough. Yes, I'm aware of that. I may not have expressed myself clearly. Who gets to decide what the thread is about, the OP or the moderators? By (apparently) extending the scope of the example thread the OP implicitly stated "This material is also relevant to the OP". In this specific case that implicit wish was made partially explicit by the inclusion of the word "Apologetics" in the thread title. Now, it seems reasonable to me that an implicit wish, on the part of the OP, is insufficient to permit the deviation. It seem equally reasonable that an explicit statement by the OP that such and such a matter is relevant to the thread should be accepted and that material not be considered deviant. However, I recognise that it would be perfectly sound to hold a contrary view on the last point. I think that's what I'm looking for some guidance on. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers with the use of the word draconian, it's just that there seem so few opportunities to use it and it is one of my favourites.

My confusion relates to the application of Rule No. 5, in the Guidelines, specifically the part in bold: " Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument." In the thread Religious Diversity and Biblical Explanation (Christian Apologetics) swansont made the following moderator intervention: " The question posed by this thread is why religions are diverse. It is NOT an issue of the "correctness" of any religion, and further discussion along those lines will end up in the trash." That seems straightforward, however, the deviations from topic stemmed from and were maintained by posts from the OP. So, am I correct in thinking that threads may not deviate in a slightly different direction based upon the wishes of the thread originator? That seems a bit draconian as the OP has some investment in the thread and might wish to develop it in further directions, as long as these didn't break other rules. If that is the rule, fair enough, it's just that I'm sure I've read some threads that ran on off-topic for several pages without being brought into line. Hence my confusion. To summarise, I'm asking two questions. Can the OP extend the scope of the thread as the discussion develops? Is the rule applied consistently? Thank you in advance for any illuminating replies.

The evolution of the Christian religion can be studied historically. No historical data support the claims of divinity and rersurrection for Christ. If such evidence exists, present it now. This is a circular argument and as such is worthless. I shall not be amazed, I openly declare you are mistaken. All you need do to disabuse me of this notion is to present appropriate references supporting your claim. If I concede, for sake of argument, that these statements are correct, in that Christ did these things, it in no way proves he told the truth. I maysay that I am unique in being the only Englisman to have swum the Channel and climbed mount Everest. That does not mean I have actually done so. And there is no independent evidence to prove that the Bible is divinely inspired and that your interpretation of it is accurate. I doubt your hurt is as great as the pain I feel that an intelligent person like yourself is capable of such self delusion. Some of which are contested and none of which demonstrate conclusively that Christ was divine or that he was resurrected. I admire your faith. I regret your attempt to support it with faulty appeals to historical evidence that does not exist. Note: I see I have expressed very similar views to Strange, who beat me to the Post button by a minute or two. Do not feel obliged to reply to both of us. Your replies to Strange will likely addess all or most of the points I've made.