Theistic Scientists

[Phi for All]

This is embarrassing.

 

Also true.

[Iggy]

Also true.

iNow saying that God is equivalent to dragon poop is embarrassing? That's what you're agreeing to?

 

Yeah. Quite true.

 

Tar saying that God is equivalent to the 'majesty of the universe' is embarrassing too.

 

Where do these people find the time to make such embarrassing arguments?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I just made a slur? I just made a slur against half the world? Dear God. Please quote exactly where I did that, and please prove I did.

 

Thanks.

Again?

OK, (and thanks for clearing up any doubts about whether you read responses to your posts.)

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78072-theistic-scientists/?p=768262

 

Edited September 23, 2013 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

As far as me saying they're different. Popularity is a difference.

Hence, the caveat at the beginning of the question I've asked you like 25x now... "Besides popularity, in what way(s) are claims that god(s) exist functionally different than claims that dragons of various intestinal abilities exist?"

 

I'm not talking about how people interpret gods versus how people interpret dragons. I'm not asking if society itself would be the same if belief in one were replaced with belief in the other. I'm asking specifically about claims regarding their existence, and I ask that you at least attempt to cease from being intentionally obtuse any longer regarding this point.

 

 

 

They are both different in that they have different meanings to people.

 

They are both different in that they are worshiped differently.

 

They are both different in that they are said to have different bowel movements.

 

All three, also true.

Of course, but (as I'm quite sure you already understand) that's unrelated to the point being made. I've focused my point on claims of existence.

[Phi for All]

iNow saying that God is equivalent to dragon poop is embarrassing? That's what you're agreeing to?

 

No. I'm saying it's embarrassing that you both continue to misrepresent each other's stances.

 

Neither of you wants to take my two question test:

 

1) "There is no difference between God and dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

 

2) "There is no difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

 

Personally, I think it's because both of you would answer 1) False, and 2) True. And that would probably cause some kind of universal implosion.

[iNow]

The video is rather contrived. It's just misdirection.

In what way(s) do you believe your hearsay evidence of god(s) is not? Eye-witness testimony is notoriously flawed, and you don't even have that.

[Moontanman]

I can make a better case for the existence of alien space craft visiting the Earth than can be made for god, God and Dragons are equivalent in one undeniable way... the amount of evidence for their existence, to show I am wrong you must show evidence for one the other doesn't have and yes dragons have books that say they are real, most of them date back a few centuries but they are there... oops, so does the written evidence for god...

[iNow]

At this point, I'd just like to point out how much more productive and civil this discussion might have been absent one specific contributor. I will also note that there seem to be a lack of warnings for this continued behavior, even though other members have been warned at points in the thread.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

your argument is patently absurd.

Your response was the following:

Which couldn't have been worse.<...>

It wasn't even worth replying to.<...>

You're going to have to try much harder.

Are you serious with this bullshit?

Are you even following the thread?<...>

You're like the third person to ask that stupid question.<...>

If you'd care to compare the two then I'll put you in the same boat as him, in the mean time, please butt out.

You understand that I just said something that was really stupid. That isn't too hard for you to understand, right?

Honestly! This type of thing isn't worthy of discussion.

God, I like the way you talk.

I realize you're all bluster as well. You can't prove anything you've said. It's all well accepted bluster.

 

Good for you. You've found your niche.

I'm not sure what you have against Australian people... I guess that's your thing...<...>

 

You're hardly trying.

 

too funny

that's a really stupid thing to do, and not something that can be scientifically explained in the least. It makes all of us atheists look bad....

 

But the cheer leading squad doesn't think so.

 

Let's see how many -1's this post can get. You can't make an argument so you just do that. Let's do it. Let's count them. All you freakin cowards.

Ringer can demand emotional meaning, and iNow can demand empirical evidence... but they are both exactly as guilty, and couldn't be more wrong. Don't give an inch.

You and I were reading a different post. Do you need me to quote the part about the kid's blanket? Do you need me to point you to it? What are you talking about.

 

Again, I can only say... Pears... don't give an inch to this type of ?#@!.... whatever, just don't give an inch.

No, I read it this time. Now I've read it a second time.

 

I'm going to ignore it again. The green color was nice though. Threw some red in. Looked like christmas.

And you... whoever you are (I'm not willing to look up at your name again... that sounds nauseating)... comparing him to a kid needing a blanket... you should be disgusted with yourself.

 

Baboonery. Not worthy of science. I'm going to step out of the thread for a while. I can't deal with this level of ignorant hostility.

 

Saying you're going to "help him". Disgusting! You need help!

What form of cowardice does this -1 shite take? You can't seem to hit "reply" and make an argument, so you just figure on doing that. Retarded.

White noise. <...>Please don't ask me any questions first.

What an amazing amount of faith you have.<...>

 

I think what happened is that a bunch of atheists got together and started saying "god is equivalent to pixie farts" and "god is equivalent to leprechaun erections". They had such a good laugh and felt so good about it that they actually started to believe it. Sort of like mass hypnosis. Someone should do a case study. This is fascinating to watch in real time. A myth is being born and people are willing to have faith in it. Beautiful.

It's dirty every time. I get that you're trying to drag religion through the mud. You're trying to be smutty. <...>

It's just that your attempt to do it is so crude and wrong... "God is equivalent to pixie farts"... I mean... it's laughable. You're making us look bad.

shut the hell up with that particular claim.<...> It's disgusting. Hypocritical and disgusting.

Honestly, iNow.... did your father rape you in the bathroom?

Where do these people find the time to make such embarrassing arguments?

Read the above sentence again. Then read it two or three... maybe four or five... more times. Still don't understand it?

I'm sure you're about to press him just as hard to show his ridiculous claim. <...> Go ahead and drag that guy through the mud for doing such a stupid thing.

Yeah, you're going to compare me to a small child. In a bit you're going to compare me to woman, and after that it'll be every other nasty thing you can think of.

 

And this last one I included just for the sheer obliviousness and lack of self-awareness of it:

It's like you're attacking me, and I honestly don't know why.

Honestly? You honestly don't know why?

[Phi for All]

At this point, I'd just like to point out how much more productive and civil this discussion might have been absent one specific contributor.

 

But you both have spent SO MUCH time trying to get the other to say something wrong, it's been like watching bad court TV! Iggy seems to want you to say "There is no difference between God and dragons" and you seem to want him to say, "There is a difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons". You both KNOW what the other really means but have done nothing to further the discussion, other than to repeat your arguments and misrepresent his (talking to both of you).

 

I've been fending off the Mod's warnings, hoping to accomplish something as a contributor, but nobody wants to listen at this point.

[iNow]

But you both have spent SO MUCH time trying to get the other to say something wrong, it's been like watching bad court TV! Iggy seems to want you to say "There is no difference between God and dragons" and you seem to want him to say, "There is a difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons". You both KNOW what the other really means but have done nothing to further the discussion, other than to repeat your arguments and misrepresent his (talking to both of you).

But that's not true. I've stipulated that point a few times already throughout the thread, including as recently as post #479:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78072-theistic-scientists/?p=768405

And come on... Me trying to get an answer to a specific question is hardly the same as asking if his father raped him, calling him retarded, or saying how stupid people are being.

[pears]

And a big problem with this "evidence" is that it's more easily explained by our need, our evolutionary need, to imagine things that might exist but we can't see. In the distant past, those who could imagine a lion in the shadows may have been wrong a lot, but they were right enough to keep themselves (and those of the tribe who listened to the warnings) alive to pass along those imaginative traits.

 

We see evidence of this kind of development everywhere. Isn't this a much more natural explanation for this same evidence? Why make the leap to omnipotent but worship-hungry gods who conveniently don't want to be observed?

 

There may be a more natural explanation but it comes down to personal opinion at the end of the day, and what makes sense to one person, doesn't necessarily make sense to another.

 

I think you're right but I don't think many of them would agree. Doubt may be part of everyday life for theists, but since it's something that they want to eradicate as much as possible (even knowing they can't attain that kind of "perfect" faith), aren't they still obliged to declare their belief in as strong a way as possible? Aren't they encouraged NOT to doubt by believing ever more strongly?

 

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

-- Mark 11:24

 

If you ask a devout Christian (OK, non-Catholic, and a tip of the hat to the current Pontiff) if you can get into heaven by just sort of believing in Jesus, aren't they going to tell you this isn't a semantics issue, that you truly have to believe it with all your heart?

 

 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps purity of faith is more important than I think it is. But I would have thought that honest doubt is better than dishonest faith. And perhaps faith that sits alongside doubt does have a kind of purity, because it doubts, but continues to believe in spite of it.

[Phi for All]

There may be a more natural explanation but it comes down to personal opinion at the end of the day, and what makes sense to one person, doesn't necessarily make sense to another.

It's hard to imagine a theistic scientist preferring even his own opinion over a natural explanation backed up by trusted evidence, but I see your point.

 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps purity of faith is more important than I think it is. But I would have thought that honest doubt is better than dishonest faith. And perhaps faith that sits alongside doubt does have a kind of purity, because it doubts, but continues to believe in spite of it.

I completely agree with you here. If religion could entertain doubt the way science does, and not make so many unsupported assertions, I don't think there would be as many problems. And quite honestly, that's exactly the way I feel about the few things I believe through hope; I doubt they're true but still hope they are.

 

But that's not true. I've stipulated that point a few times already throughout the thread, including as recently as post #479:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78072-theistic-scientists/?p=768405

And come on... Me trying to get an answer to a specific question is hardly the same as asking if his father raped him, calling him retarded, or saying how stupid people are being.

I'd say Iggy has been more emotional about his misrepresentations, but from my POV neither of you has done much to get off your stupid stumps. And my evidence is that neither of you STILL wants to take my simple test, something that would show that you probably agree on this point in spite of all the crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap.

 

Both of you seems to think the other looks foolish in their adamancy and you both seem content to let that continue for ANOTHER brazilian pages. To hell with you both! There are more interesting conversations here.

[doG]

It's testimonial evidence.

he said he said is not testimonial evidence, it is hearsay...

 

Yes but we have many" hand me down" stories of Shakespear and Einstein etc etc. We believe they existed and spoke wisely. Why not the words heard and written in the Jewish happenings and early Christian happenings ? Not many have seen the Cosmic background radiation, the maths results from the Large Hadron Collider, the H5N1 virus etc , yet we believe it

I believe there was a man we call Jesus of Nazareth but I do not believe he was any kind of deity as there is no evidence to suggest he was.

[iNow]

1) "There is no difference between God and dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

 

2) "There is no difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

1 - False, there are clearly differences, but I also addressed this earlier in the thread. Those differences are moot since it's like arguing whether unicorns are pink or if they are purple, whether Harry Potter wears boxers or briefs. One must first demonstrate that unicorns exist before those differences matter.

 

2 - True, and self-evidently so.

[Unity+]

 

There may be a more natural explanation but it comes down to personal opinion at the end of the day, and what makes sense to one person, doesn't necessarily make sense to another.

 

 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps purity of faith is more important than I think it is. But I would have thought that honest doubt is better than dishonest faith. And perhaps faith that sits alongside doubt does have a kind of purity, because it doubts, but continues to believe in spite of it.

From a theistic perspective, I don't think God wants a person to live on dishonest faith and rather on honest doubt. Though questioning his existence does come up from time to time on a regular basis(and sometimes for me), but at the end of the day there is always a conclusion, whether the person believes at the end of the day or not.

 

If there were not honest doubt, you might as well have everyone believe in a false prophet, which even the Bible warns followers of the faith about.

1 - False, there are clearly differences, but I also addressed this earlier in the thread. Those differences are moot since it's like arguing whether unicorns are pink or if they are purple, whether Harry Potter wears boxers or briefs. One must first demonstrate that unicorns exist before those differences matter.

Actually, it does matter because in order to find the evidence their needs to be a set of standards for that evidence. If there is no statement of what the evidence would look like, the evidence would be meaningless.

 

For example, the problem with finding evidence of God is determining what the evidence should look like in the first place, and clearly at this moment(and probably never) there isn't something we can actually say "Oh, if this is found, then this must be true".

 

It is like trying to declare that A = C when we know that A = B, but we wouldn't know what it meant by B = C.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Unity+

[Phi for All]

1 - False, there are clearly differences, but I also addressed this earlier in the thread. Those differences are moot since it's like arguing whether unicorns are pink or if they are purple, whether Harry Potter wears boxers or briefs. One must first demonstrate that unicorns exist before those differences matter.

 

2 - True, and self-evidently so.

Yay! I retract all those bad things I said about you. And when the guy rings your bell delivering 20 pizzas, pretend you don't speak English.

 

One down....

 

Iggy? IGGY!?

[iNow]

I've already shared this twice. Maybe third time is the charm:

 

 

Since this is a discussion rooted in reality and facts it's important to note that the nature and content of the idea is ultimately irrelevant until the idea itself can be shown to have any merit whatsoever. Until then, or until a relevant difference (other than popularity) is cited, then the ideas are functionally equivalent.

 

Look at it from another angle. It's relatively straight forward to see that it doesn't matter if someone claims that unicorns are pink or if someone claims unicorns are purple. They must first demonstrate the existence of unicorns and then follow-up by providing a method of testing their color. Without a real unicorn to actually reflect light into a measuring device of some sort we never get to that next level of arguing over their color. There is no functional difference or distinction between the pink unicorn and purple unicorn outside of someones imagination. We're talking about objective reality here, though, not what someone happens to imagine.

 

Likewise, it doesn't matter if someone claims that magical beanstalks grow in Transylvania or if someone claims that magical beanstalks grow in Pennsylvania until they first demonstrate the existence of magical beanstalks. Until they do, they're arguing over fictions and could equally be saying that the puppets from Fragile rock could kick the ass of the Smurfs. Similarly, it doesn't matter one bit in this instance if I say Harry Potter wears boxers or if I say Harry Potter wears briefs.

 

These are all equally hollow, equally baseless, and equally fictional assertions that have no foundation in reality against which to test them or validate their truth and validity. They are functionally equivalent.

 

However, based on your argument and stated positions these things ARE fundamentally different. You're here suggesting that in this reality we share there is some sort of relevant difference between a pink unicorn and a purple one, the ass kicking ability of a Fragile and a Smurf, the type of undies a wizard from a fictional series of books wears... even though there is no reason to assume any of these things even exist in the first place.

[Unity+]

I've already shared this twice. Maybe third time is the charm:

 

 

Is this a response to me or to Phi for All?

[iNow]

Yes.

[Unity+]

Yes.

...Did you even read the question?

[Phi for All]

...Did you even read the question?

 

He means yes to both.

 

I've already shared this twice. Maybe third time is the charm:

 

I have problems with words like "merit". If you're talking about people making assertions they can't support, or claims that differ wildly from a simpler and more natural explanation, it's fairly easy to judge the merit of those claims. If you're talking about "the nature and content of the idea", but no assertions are made about it, then it's an opinion or a hope or something taken on faith, and may actually have the same element of doubt that skeptical science requires. In that case, it's fairly easy to show the merit of the idea. Some folks are better off for their faith.

 

I sure don't want to argue semantics and definitions anymore. I'm fairly certain you think people shouldn't believe in god(s), but as long as they aren't trying to push some kind of Truthy agenda that tries to affect non-believers, I'm also fairly certain you're willing to be tolerant of what they privately believe.

 

I think the problem really lies with people who assume faith requires adamancy. They're the ones making assertions based on faith, assuming absolute Truths regarding things no one can possibly know with certainty. Scientists don't normally make assertions unless they've got a metric ass-ton of high-quality evidence in hand. Can faith show doubt without simply becoming what I would call hope or wishful thinking?

[Ringer]

I sure don't want to argue semantics and definitions anymore. I'm fairly certain you think people shouldn't believe in god(s), but as long as they aren't trying to push some kind of Truthy agenda that tries to affect non-believers, I'm also fairly certain you're willing to be tolerant of what they privately believe.

While I agree with you for the most part, sometimes even when not pushing agendas that affect non-believers can be detrimental. While I don't have a problem with faith or belief in god(s) in itself, some belief systems are detrimental to the believers themselves (for example not allowing blood transfusions). While an adult can make this decision to die on faith and I wouldn't bat an eye, if a child who may only be part of this faith system due to circumstance is pretty much negligently killed intolerance of faith rears its ugly head. It can easily be argued that this sort of thing isn't the norm for faith based systems anymore, it's still enough of a problem that those who argue against faith based claims tend to have those examples in mind when arguing against faith.

 

After writing all that I have to say that it is largely off topic as I seem to be almost every time I post on this thread, so I'll return to my self imposed exile from this thread

[Phi for All]

While I agree with you for the most part, sometimes even when not pushing agendas that affect non-believers can be detrimental. While I don't have a problem with faith or belief in god(s) in itself, some belief systems are detrimental to the believers themselves (for example not allowing blood transfusions). While an adult can make this decision to die on faith and I wouldn't bat an eye, if a child who may only be part of this faith system due to circumstance is pretty much negligently killed intolerance of faith rears its ugly head. It can easily be argued that this sort of thing isn't the norm for faith based systems anymore, it's still enough of a problem that those who argue against faith based claims tend to have those examples in mind when arguing against faith.

 

I see your point, but I still think in this instance we're talking about one of those adamant, Truthy, agenda-based decisions. Made by ignorant parents for their trusting children. I have a hard time seeing actions like these as "opinion" based.

[Iggy]

Yay! I retract all those bad things I said about you. And when the guy rings your bell delivering 20 pizzas, pretend you don't speak English.

 

One down....

 

Iggy? IGGY!?

Yeah, I think two.

 

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent.

there are clearly differences

No hablo.

 

Combining such sentences truly confuses me as much as the Spanish bellhop who once tried speaking English to me while I spoke fluent Spanish. He made no sense at all, but was clearly looking for a bigger tip. It was embarrassing.

 

I can't figure it out. I think we'll just get past this. No hablo.

[Phi for All]

500th reply!

Yeah, I think two.

Fortunately, I speak Iggtalian. This means, "I agree with iNow's answers on your oversimplified, unemotional and annoyingly controlling little test. So you're wrong, it's not just one down, it's two. Yeah, I think two."

No hablo.

Combining such sentences truly confuses me as much as the Spanish bellhop who once tried speaking English to me while I spoke fluent Spanish. He made no sense at all, but was clearly looking for a bigger tip. It was embarrassing.

I can't figure it out. I think we'll just get past this. No hablo.

Fortunately, cunning linguist that I am, I also speak iNowvajo! He's saying, "Iggy, you loveable knucklehead, like many things, there are multiple ways to show how something is, at the same time, like AND unlike something else. It all depends on the context. Gods and dragons ARE equivalent IF you're talking about the evidence used to support their existence, or how we can't make either appear at will. And they are NOT equivalent IF you're talking about how popular they are, or how many heads they have, or how corn-intolerant they are. So let's agree to bury the hatchet somewhere far away from either of our enormous heads and agree that we're on the same page technically." *




* If I'm directing, this scene flips back and forth using tight head shots, with both iNow and Iggy using a few clipped, unintelligible words while the screen below them fills up with subtitles. Eventually, both become so annoyed at my feeble sense of humor that they start eating their own words. See you in Cannes!