Why We Believe in Gods

[_JohnStuartMill]

JSM:

This is Kevin's favorite game: exclude from "science" everything that he doesn't agree with. There! Now Kevin isn't against science! Pretty neat, huh?

WTF? I have been accused of being anti-science on numerous occasions. When I ask for specific examples, you accuse me of I'm offering a game?

You are opposed to evolution by natural selection, which is about as well-grounded as science gets.

If we know we need calories to survive;

We also need Vitamin K, and yet we have to make a cartoon to encourage kids to eat their spinach.

Vitamin K was much more plentiful in the early human diet than in the artificial stuff we make today. Incidentally, sodium was relatively harder to come by, and our bodies crave salty things all the time, too.

and that people tend to consume more of what tastes good to them; and that 90,000 years ago, the people who consumed more calories usually were more reproductively successful, then it's pretty absurd to not at least tentatively believe that we crave sugar because it contains calories.

Just don't pretend it is science, in the context of criticizing your opponents for relying on pseudoscientific theories, and you'll be free from criticism - at least from me.

It may not be science, but it's certainly the best explanation available.

Incidentally, it is interesting that those who eat the most today are less likely to reproduce due to biological effects directly related to their overconsumption of calories. Some people haven't seen their reproductive organ in years.

Umm... this is the exact point that people like Daniel Dennett make when they use evolutionary psychology to explain religion.

You castigated Dawkins for not treating extraterrestrial panspermia with skepticism, even though he does, because he thinks it is a species of the genus Intelligent Design:

I said he said it was more probable than God. That's what he said.

You castigated him for not treating it with skepticism, although he does. You were wrong. Man up, pussy.

I don't have the time or inclination to go through your countless other misrepresentations.

Countless! Wow. And you don't have the time? Hmmmm.... something smells fishy here.

I just know how it will end -- with you resolutely refusing to acknowledge that your misrepresentation was a misrepresentation. See above.

Somebody needs to get Dan Peterson in here posthaste, because you're just talking out of your ass.

Wow, you really don't know my background on this subject do you? LOL. In a debate with me on things Islamic, is about the last place you will find Dan Peterson.

Oh, you have a Ph.D in an Islam-related field from a pretigious institution, too? Good for you! I had no idea, really, and I apologize for presuming that you didn't.

The Muslim empire came close to conquering the Western world precisely because it was more advanced at the time.

That's not accurate. The fact is Islam is militant from start to finish. It had its own army. Christianity did not, which is why it sat by and watched Islamic forces overrun its most precious intellectual and religious hot spots. For centuries Islam moved across north Africa and western Europe, overruning Christian strongholds by force.

Christianity didn't have a unified army, sure, but I don't see why this matters. You're trying to whitewash history by pretending that armies were never assembled to fight for Christianity -- and not just in self-defense, as you so foolishly asserted a few months ago.

Hey, by the way, you never adequately responded a similar exchange in the Celestial forum:

The Crusades were absolutely in no way comparable to the invasion of Normandy. The Muslims captured Palestine three centuries before Europe retaliated. By this logic, Native Americans could still mount a "defensive war" against the American government if they took up arms today. Unless you would take up arms in a siege against Oklahoma City for the Sioux army, that's a pretty epic reductio ad absurdum.

Either admit that the Native Americans would be right to fight the current U.S. government (or the recent government under Bush, if you prefer), or that the Crusades were not justified, or that you're willingly employing a gross double-standard.

In the Middle Ages, science in the Muslim world outstripped science in Christendom pretty handily.

Well sure, after it pounded Christianity by stealing its bastions of scientific achievement, particularly Alexandria, western civilization was left intellectually crippled. It was also cut off from trades to the east which mae progress difficult. Most of the subsequent achievements were technically within Islam's territory since they pretty much conquered it, but these accomplishments were for the most part derived from non-Muslims serving their masters.

Source? The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam doesn't count.

But my point remains true. The idea of natural laws in the universe was anathema to Islamic philosophers. Al Ghazali was clear on this point. A universe with set laws would limit Allah's freedom.

Many, if not most, Christians believe this as well. That's why you have Ken Miller finding God in quantum uncertainty, and the Pope saying crazy crap like "a maternal hand guided [his would-be-assassin's] bullet".

Funnily enough, Thomas Aquinas probably wouldn't have known who Aristotle was if the Muslim barbarian boogeymen hadn't preserved ancient Greek texts. But you apparently get your information from bigoted revisionist websites, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Don't go there dude. You're wading in waters too deep for you to swim. Head on back to the shallow end because you're in way over your head. I own more books on this topic than perhaps any other.

Good! Now all you have to do is learn how to read them.

Sure, Muslims preserved Aristotle for Aquinas. So what? This has become such a standard "argument" it makes on wonder if this is the best accomplishment that could be listed. And who preserved Aristotle for the Muslims? The Christian priest Probus of Antioch introduced Aristotle to the Arab world. So what?

So you're employing a double-standard, idiot.

Huneyn ibn Ishaq translated Aristotle, Plato, Galen and Hippocrates into Syric and his son then translated them to Arabic. Don't let the name fool you, because he was a Christian. So Christianity gave the Muslims Greek philosophy - which ended up being instrumental in their own theological developments.

Sure, fine. I never said this didn't happen.

Incidentally, did you know that medical science was hampered under Islam since it was crime to publish books that had illustrations of the human anatomy? This is a weakness directly attributed to Islamic theology.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Do you really think that Christian governments never did anything similar, or worse? Does the name "Leonardo da Vinci" and the word "cadavers" come to mind? Christianity hampered medical science because it was a crime to disturb corpses. This is a weakness directly attributed to the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection.

Seriously, Kevin. You've said some epically stupid crap on this forum, but this has gotta take the cake. It's too bad that "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" is no longer taking submissions.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You could say this about ANY scientific civilization, including Europe under the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was born from Christian civilization for a reason. Natural rights, superiority of reason, individual liberties, etc, could only be born from Christian civilization.

Then why did all of these things precede Christianity? Natural rights is of Aristotelian pedigree, the superiority of reason (in the limited sense that it can be ascribed to Christians, who generally believe in a higher truth than reason can access) and individual liberties could be found Buddhism half a millennium before Christ... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

It took a while to take hold only because of the political systems that ruled throughout the centuries.

LOL. "Christianity was conducive to the Enlightenment, except when it wasn't."

Do you think for a second that an enlightment of this magnitude could ever get off the ground under Islamic rule?? LOL. Even today there are no universal human rights under Islam.

Medieval Islam was often more liberal (in the classical sense) than medieval Christianity. The Christians in Spain forced Jews to convert to their religion. The Muslim Caliphate largely left religious minorities alone: "Unlike feudal Latin Christendom, Islamic society held commerce in high esteem and placed no occupational restrictions on non-believers."

None of this changes the fact that Arab astronomy, medicine, and philosophy were all more advanced than their European counterparts at the time, and that without this sophistication, the Muslims wouldn't have come as close to conquest as they did.

Yes, it s best to call it Arab rather than Muslim. But you're wrong if you think the progress that took place within the Arab world had anything to do with their successful conquests. Islam had succeeded in conquering Christian lands long before their first meaningful scientific contribution. The reason they succeeded is a matter of military might. Their armies were much larger, and far more experienced in fighting in deserts.

Well, I doubt that superior Muslim medicine played no part in the war by better healing soldiers, but you may be right that the link between military might and scientific advancement was overblown. But that doesn't change the fact that the Muslims at the time were more scientifically advanced.

This is a transparently invalid argument. That the Byzantine Empire preserved Greek learning does not contradict the idea that it could have been lost without Arab preservation.

I think the point is that your anecdote about preservation is a meaningless one. It doesn't say anything about Islam's superiority in the sciences. All it tells us is that Aristotle managed to survive in the Arab world. Whoopty do. The only reason his preservation was considered to be at risk in the first place is because the Arabs ransacked Alexandria, destroys what they didn't want and stole the rest.

This is not true. The Christians in the area persecuted the Alexandrian pagans hundreds of years before Islam even existed. In 391, a Christian mob burned down a pagan temple in Alexandria, possibly destroying priceless ancient works. Aristotle's works certainly were at risk before the Muslims arrived. They were at risk of Christian violence.

You make it sound like Christianity had no use for Aristotle, and that they had to rely on Islam for his writings, when just the opposite is true. For the most part, Islam ruled by force, and achieved by conquering. What innovation they offered was usually built upon the achievments of those they subdued. Also, you'd be surprised how many of these famous Arab achievers were not Muslims.

Islam achieved by conquering, but so did every other civilization in the era. During its Golden Age, Islam was actually quite liberal -- especially when it came to religious freedoms -- compared to the counterparts of its era.

[_Some Schmo]

It is ridiculous to say my inference is proof of bigotry. If I started a thread entitled, "Why acerolas are better than oranges," it wouldn't be bigotry to suppose I claimed to know the answer. After all, it wasn't presented as a question. To be sure, your presentation does pretend to know why humans are religious. For you to sit there and say "no claim" has been made, is rather stunning.

Wow.

Certainly, you could be forgiven for thinking I'd made a claim with the thread title before actually opening it up and reading it, but once you saw the content, it would help if you actually used your brain for once and corrected the assumption.

And notice how you've gone from active to passive tense, ie. "You made a claim" became "no claim has been made." Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

I got the point he thought he was making, I just found it silly. I quickly recognized this pseudoscience for what it was. I endured more than ten minutes of it, but I wouldn't expect you to sit through an hour long presentation on ID. The two are equally pseudoscience.

I've read a lot on ID, and there isn't much there to absorb. That really is pseudoscience. The difference is that Thomson had much to say on human psychology, backed up by real empirical evidence, but once you'd made up and closed your mind, it was all over for you. Too bad for you.

Oh geez, let's counts the ways I could pummel you with your own logic here. I guess we should expect you to watch an hour long presentation on (pick the topic you despise) before ever commenting on the subject again.

Nope, not if I actually already knew what I was talking about. You've demonstrated a reluctance to even approach it, so we don't know whether you know anything about it or not. Based on your posting history, it's a pretty fair guess you haven't a clue.

Yes, Hoyle's analogy did at first pertain to abiogenesis, but when you made that comment, you were talking about evolution.

Uh, no I wasn't. I was always referring to the first emergence of life.

Well, I have no doubt you remember it that way. But then, you're grasp of reality sucks.

You later tried to backtrack and claimed you were talking about abiogenesis all along. I pointed that out in the other thread, but I noticed you failed to respond to it. I wonder why.

You just contradicted yourself. In one breath you accuse me of disappearing as well as backtracking. So which is it? I was absent for a few days and the thread was lost on me. But I'm glad you pointed it out.

OMG, I admit, I'm still sometimes surprised by how stupid you can be.

You disappeared after I pointed out you backtracked. Oh, the contradiction!

LMAO

And the fact is, creationists have been using that argument against evolution for quite some time now, so I can understand why you're confused.

I can assure you I'm not the confused one. A careful reading of what I said would make it perfectly clear that it wasn't I who was alluding to evolution, but rather those who were trying to find fault with Hoyle's analogy. I said (now pay close attention to the words you didn't highlight):

I've read the so called "refutations" and the primary objection is that the tornado takes place in one event whereas evolution takes place in gradual steps over the course of thousands of years.

You highlighted the word evolution as if that were the only word you could make out. Apparently, understanding context is too much to ask, but it is obvious that I was referring to those offering the "primary objections" (i.e. the atheists!). They are the ones appealing to evolution principles in an attempt to undermine the analogy addressing abiogenesis. You really can't tell that my use of the word evolution, was in reference to their objections? Seriously? Apparently, they assume abiogenesis undergoes some kind of incremental process, akin to evolution. I adjusted the analogy a bit just to satisfy their quibble.

I hate to burst your bubble, but it's creationists who have used it in reference to evolution. What is an atheist to do if they get that argument besides defend it as presented?

As it is the analogy stands firm. The reason people tend to criticize it as if it were an anaolgy about evolution, is because that is precisely how Richard Dawkins represents it in his book:

"Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but his Boeing 747 misunderstanding, and other mistakes in biology ... suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection. At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection. But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.117).

Wrong. See above.

And yes, atheists are just a herd of Dawkins followers. (Yet more bigotry...)

No it is based on my reading of Gould and others who criticize the enterprise. But I watched roughly twelve minutes of it, when the overt bigotry bored me to death. I can get enough of that right here.

Riiiight. It was the bigotry that bored you to death. If you perceived it as bigotry, I imagine that might be so, given nobody does bigotry like you do.

More rhetoric, no substance. Why are you refusing to take the Pepsi challenge? If you can point out how I misrepresented Einstein or whomever, then just do it. Just reiterating the same accusation over and over isn't doing yourself any favors.

Earth to moron... it's been done, many times. Again, you refuse to see it.

You're a quote miner if I ever saw one.

Is that your way of dissing a desire for education on a given matter? I generally quote books that I've read and own. I know it bugs you that some of these citations give you and your ilk fits, but that's the whole point of a debate forum. You guys want to claim the side of science, hold the rest of the forum in contempt, while at the same time refusing your opponents the right to present scientific opinions to the contrary. You want to rig the game in your favor, and I'm not letting you. So what do you do? Just accuse me of being a "quote miner" ad nauseum, as if all I do is scroll the web looking for "quotes," or worse, Youtube clips. Oh wait, that's your job.

Oooo, I'm stunned by your ability to accuse me of what's obviously your favorite pastime.



Dissing a desire for education?! LMAO Sure dart... sure.

And the fact that you don't think you've "never been shown to misrepresent either of them" hardly means it isn't so.

Wow, you accuse me of something and its my job to prove I didn't? What arrogant laziness. If you can't point to a specific example, then just buck up and say so. It will be quick and relatively painless.

I have. Why should I continue to point to examples when you never acknowledge them?

Just because you're unsatisfied with what people say says more about you're rigidness than others' ability to persuade.

Who says I'm unsatisfied with what's been said here? What's said is said. No reason to take it personally.

Seriously, your reading comprehension sucks big fat ones.

Please, point me to the reference where Gould commented on the content of this specific video. I'd be very interested in reading that.

From the grave? Why would he need to when he alredy rebuked the enterprise this presentation was based upon.

Oooooohhh, so it isn't Gould's opinion, its dart's superimposed on someone he finds reputable. Shocker.

I see. You think I need to lash out, and that's the reason I started this thread? Is that it?

It couldn't possibly be because I thought it was interesting, and I wanted to share it with others whom I thought might also be interested?

Sure, its possible, but the way you responded to my criticism (directed at evolutionary biology, not at you) suggests you hold the subject dear to your heart.

Wow... again, you can't read. My criticism is of you making a comment about something you didn't watch.

The fact is, watching the video made me rather sympathetic to supernatural belief.

Yes, I could see how that would be a natural reaction by atheists. But the "sympathy" is more along the lines of, those poor people don't realize how deluded they are.

And again, dart dazzles us with his ability to read minds and know everyone else's thoughts/intentions.

I suppose it would also surprise you to hear that I have several religious friends and that they are among my favorite people.

Why would that surprise me? Are you as open and upfront to them as you are here, regarding the contempt you have for religion? Probably not.

Wait, you don't know?! You sure act like you know all about me!

I talk about it with my friends quite regularly, and tell them what I think. It's no big secret. They are free to tell me what they think, and they do.

You think you've got me so pegged, you've ascribed my motives for starting this thread, and you haven't a clue. If that's not bigotry, I don't know what is.

I just said I don't know anything about you aside from the fact that you're british and you hold religious people in contempt. How is that believing I have you "pegged"? Everything I said about you - which isn't much - is verified right here on this forum. Now you want to pretend you're a tolerant lad, just so you can say I misjudged you, and you can muster some kind of evidence for my so-called bigotry. Too funny.

Dude, there aren't too many people here who don't know from what you've posted that you're a bigot. I don't have to pretend anything. The fact is, you say you know nothing about me, but your posts are riddled with assertions about mine and everyone else's intentions. In short, you're full of crap.

The problem with your thinking is that you're so convinced that “what you believe” is “who you are”, that you equate criticism of belief with personal criticism. You should try to let that go

But I believe I am just an animal no different from monkeys and crickets. Why let go of such a beautiful doctrine?

Huh? Where did you learn to read?

And you took his joke to heart, despite the fact that he was talking about all human beings.

Uh, that's the point. He made exception for atheists, who were not included in the rest of humanity
who he thought would be "vulnerable" to it. No, atheists are smarter and therefore immune. Your attempt to defend this as a mere joke, is telling.

Awww, poor dart. All the atheists are big meanies out to get the poor theists.

And we have finally come to dart's true issue with atheists. He doesn't like that they think they're smarter than he is (even though they don't all think that... bigotry anyone?) This explains so much.

Thanks for proving my point. You really do think you're smarter! And no, not all atheists, just your lot who frequently post the same condescending drivel. How many times do we have to hear about the rise of atheism in the scientific community? Particularly among the "elite" scientists.

This is why it's pointless talking to you (and I'm currently wondering why I'm even bothering). If you can't be bothered to actually read what I say, what's the point?

I ridicule you specifically, dart, for the reasons I've stated on several occasions

I'm the same guy I've always been. You only started attacking me when I first criticized a post you made a couple of years ago. Ever since then you'e had it out for me. We know what this is. Your reasons are undermined by the fact that you never attacked me before that first point of criticism.

Your memory sucks too. When I first responded to one of your posts (at least, the first time I ever remember posting to you), I was commenting on your tone to another poster. You took exception to it and started attacking me. Well, I enjoy messing with internet "tough guys" and I'm not intimidated by morons like you. That's why I started to criticize you. It's just that over the years, you've provided so much more material, it's hard to resist.

You're a joke, man. And I admit, I'm a sucker for an easy punch line.

[_Kevin Graham]

opposed to evolution by natural selection, which is about as well-grounded as science gets

No I'm not. I'm opposed to abiogenesis by natural selection, which is the straw man developed by Dawkins, and propagated by his followers. Try again.

Vitamin K was much more plentiful in the early human diet than in the artificial stuff we make today. Incidentally, sodium was relatively harder to come by, and our bodies crave salty things all the time, too.

I'm not talking about artificial stuff. But the argument has to mutate once more since we can't stand salt by itself; we only enjoy it because it compliments blander foods. So why doesn't salt taste good by itself when it is so necessary? You can't make the argument that sugar tastes good because it is necessary for our survival without addressing examples of things that taste like crap that are equally necessary for our survival. All you can do is suppose a "just-so story" about the diet of our ancient ancestors to explain the gaps in the argument. This is precisely what Gould had a problem with, and it isn't science.

It may not be science, but it's certainly the best explanation available

Oh I'm sure it sounds like that when you're allowed to constantly subtitute supposition for evidence. Religious, philosophical and scientific are the only kinds of truths there are. If it isn't science, then what else could it be if not a religious dogma? It sure as hell isn't philosophy.

You castigated him for not treating it with skepticism, although he does. You were wrong. Man up, pussy.

I castigated him? My original comment was, "Why isn't Dawkins attacking Crick's belief that space aliens planted cells on earth?"

Attacking, as in why isn't he attacking it as he does ID. Dawkins clearly favors panspermia before the God hypothesis, and that is what I have always said he did. You want to equate panspermia with ID and say that's what Dawkins had in mind, well fine. That doesn't help your case because my point is that Dawkins doesn't treat the two equally at all, which should be an obvious fact. Your quibble is that I didn't mention his "skepticism" of panspermia and you act like it is such common knowledge. Well, the Dawkins worshippers at his web forum were unable to figure out his position on it:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop ... =5&t=32320

And he certainly wasn't attacking it at the Edinburgh book festival: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TPQUgUOPhY

You make it sound like he only talked about Panspermia because Stein lured him into it, and that his comments should be understood as criticism when they obviously weren't. Dawkins has addressed it before, but has never ridiculed it or treated it with the same level of "skepticism" as he has ID. You've never provided an instance where he has. All you have is an ad hoc commentary where Dawkins was responding to the uproar over his comments in Expelled.

All you and EA have managed to do is reinvent the point I was making so you could claim I was misrepresenting him. I never said Dawkins was a panspermist. I said he preferred it over God. That was, is, and always has been the point. Whether he has ever been "skeptical" of it has been beside the point, and a rather flimsy claim since scientists could be said to be "skeptical" of just about anything, including theories they believe to be true.

And if I have made a habit of "countless" misrepresentations then why is it that this is the only example that is constantly used to support the allegation?

Christianity didn't have a unified army, sure, but I don't see why this matters.

No, "Christianity" didn't have an army period!

The true rulers were the various kings and princes of Byzantium, and they had smaller armies created to serve their individual interests/kingdoms; not the "Christian" empire, as such a thing didn't exist. You might as well refer to the "Christian empire" of South America, made up of individual governments that are overwhelmingly Christian.

It matters because you're trying to debate the cause of Islam's military successes without addressing the fact that their conquered subjects barely had a military to defend themselves with. Its like Jose Canseco beating up the water boy, and then you attributing his victory to intelligence, not his size or strength.

You're trying to whitewash history by pretending that armies were never assembled to fight for Christianity -- and not just in self-defense, as you so foolishly asserted a few months ago.

I don't have to whitewash history, because I actually know the history. You're just changing the subject, which never had anything to do with whether or not "armies were never assembled to fight for Christianity."

The original assertion, by you, was that "The Muslim empire came close to conquering the Western world precisely because it was more advanced at the time." And that is historically laughable.

Either admit that the Native Americans would be right to fight the current U.S. government (or the recent government under Bush, if you prefer), or that the Crusades were not justified, or that you're willingly employing a gross double-standard.

Why would the Native Americans be right to fight the current U.S. government? They would have been right to fight for their survival 200 years ago, as they were on the brink of destruction. But today it makes little sense to start a war.

Source? The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam doesn't count.

How about Bernard Lewis? He concedes the same point. Why don't you go ahead and list the uniquely "Muslim" contributions to science and I will respond accordingly. There's no sense in me trying to guess what you're referring to. Remember, you're the one making the argument about how Muslims gave us so much in science. You've apparently fallen prey to the myth of the Islamic golden age. So go ahead and provide the usual list. I'll try to be gentle in dismantling that popular argument.

Many, if not most, Christians believe this as well.

Even if they did, the fact is the Christian scientists who gave birth to modern science certainly didn't, and their Christianity was essential to their scientific aspirations.

So you're employing a double-standard, dip****.

Time for a quick recap. You initially bloviated:

JSM: Thomas Aquinas probably wouldn't have known who Aristotle was if the Muslim barbarian boogeymen hadn't preserved ancient Greek texts. But you apparently get your information from bigoted revisionist websites, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Kevin: Sure, Muslims preserved Aristotle for Aquinas. So what? ... And who preserved Aristotle for the Muslims? The Christian priest Probus of Antioch introduced Aristotle to the Arab world. So what?

My point is "so what," whereas you think you've made some kind of important argument. And now you accuse me of double standard!?!?!?!?!

Sure, fine. I never said this didn't happen.

Then what the hell was your point about Aristotle being "preserved" by Muslims? I can name Christians in the Arab world who were responsible for doing the translations whereas all you can do is point to the fact that the Muslims didn't burn them once they got them, therefore the argument must be that the Muslims are the ones who preserved them! Just genius.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Do you really think that Christian governments never did anything similar, or worse? Does the name "Leonardo da Vinci" and the word "cadavers" come to mind?

You're always avoiding the point by changing the subject. You are the one who tried to resurrect the glory days of Islam, and I am showing you how Islamic theology was instrumental in hampering progress. There is nothing in Christianity to prevent a medical textbook from illustrating the human anatomy.

Christianity hampered medical science because it was a crime to disturb corpses. This is a weakness directly attributed to the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection.

Ah, respecting the dead. How awful. And yet Da Vinci actually dissected dozens of cadavers within Christian society, whereas the human anatomy was not permitted to be illustrated in diagrams in Islam. Why? Because that was considered idol worshipping. This is why Islamic art never includes images of humans of creatures, but rather geometric symbols.

Seriously, Kevin. You've said some epically stupid s*** on this forum, but this has gotta take the cake. It's too bad that "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" is no longer taking submissions.

I didn't realize that educating you on that which you know little about constitues "stupid crap."

Then why did all of these things precede Christianity? Natural rights is of Aristotelian pedigree, the superiority of reason (in the limited sense that it can be ascribed to Christians, who generally believe in a higher truth than reason can access) and individual liberties could be found Buddhism half a millennium before Christ... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Did molested children have natural rights during Aristotle? The Greek Philosophers frequently bartered with young boys, recieving sexual pleasure in exchange for their "wisdom." Newborns with any kind of deformity were immediately destroyed. Do you really want to appeal to the Ancient Greeks?

Christianity is responsible for the dignity of all human life and universal human rights. In Islam, by contrast, non-Muslims were always worthy of oppression and non-theists, deserved to be killed, as did all apostates. Again, you have to consider the options at the time. It was either Christianity or Islam. Western civilization was far separated from China or its philosophical influences. If Asians were going to take over Western Europe, they'd first have to go through Islam.

LOL. "Christianity was conducive to the Enlightenment, except when it wasn't.

The defect in your argument is a popular one. You fail to distinguish between Christendom and Christianity. Bernard Lewis was clear on this point.

Medieval Islam was often more liberal (in the classical sense) than medieval Christianity.

Depends on what you mean by liberal, but I doubt it in most senses.

The Christians in Spain forced Jews to convert to their religion.

No they didn't. How can you be this ignorant? Next think you know you're going to try telling us the Inquisition was responsible for "killing thousands of atheists," which was the absurd claim once tried to pass around here. Forced converston was the norm during Islamic raids. Frequently it was a choice between conversion or death, depending on the mood of the Caliph. When subjugated peoples were allowed to live, they were heavily taxed and "subdued" as the Koran requires, so they would know they were an inferior people. Often the social pressures and economic disadvantages became so burdensome, peoples would convert to Islam just to relieve them.

The Muslim Caliphate largely left religious minorities alone: "Unlike feudal Latin Christendom, Islamic society held commerce in high esteem and placed no occupational restrictions on non-believers."

You've got all the usual myths down pat, huh? When taking over an entire country, it makes sense to leave some of the original authority figures in power. In the case of Egypt, we're dealing with a highly sophisticated society, with a wide variety of occupations requiring specific trades that were alien to the desert mongruls who had just conquered them. Why kill everyone when you could just take advantage of a lucrative society and collect outrageous taxes from them? This was all about making the conquest all the more lucrative, it wasn't about a love or tolerance of other peoples.

Well, I doubt that superior Muslim medicine played no part in the war by better healing soldiers, but you may be right that the link between military might and scientific advancement was overblown. But that doesn't change the fact that the Muslims at the time were more scientifically advanced.

And if Cuba took over the entire NE quarter of the USA, with all its Ivy league schools, then it could very well claim to be on the cutting edge in education for a time. But that doesn't really help your argument does it? Islam stole, therefore its theirs? Islam invaded and conquered, leaving its neighboring civilization in shambles, therefore it was superior? Cities they conquered were like Gold to them, therefore Islam had a golden age that it was responsible for?

This is not true. The Christians in the area persecuted the Alexandrian pagans hundreds of years before Islam even existed. In 391, a Christian mob burned down a pagan temple in Alexandria, possibly destroying priceless ancient works. Aristotle's works certainly were at risk before the Muslims arrived. They were at risk of Christian violence.

There is no evidence that this incident of "persecution" entailed the destruction of Aristotle's works. Those writings were in more danger from frequent library fires than anything else. And the destruction of temple idols is hardly on par with the Muslim conquest of 641, whereby Christians were slaughtered left and right.

Islam achieved by conquering, but so did every other civilization in the era. During its Golden Age, Islam was actually quite liberal -- especially when it came to religious freedoms -- compared to the counterparts of its era.

Another popular myth. The Popes' provided more privileges to Jews than Islam did.

Christianity did not spread by the sword, it spread by intensive missionary efforts by the earliest converts. Christianity was already well established in Alexandria before Theophilus ordered the destruction of idols. But what you don't seem to understand is that Christianity existed for three centuries before Constantine made it the State religion of Rome in the early 4th century. For more than 300 years history is void of an atrocity that can be attributed to anyone claiming to be a Christian. That is, until the Roman Empire started using Christianity for political purposes. From that point on, the usual atrocities commited by the Romans had the Christian symbol on it. That was unfortunate for Christianity, but there was little it could do. Before that time Christianity was the recipient of persecution by the same political system that eventually adopted it as its own.

Islam from day one was a miltary force to be reckoned with. Islam was political at its origin. Islam's goal is to conquer the world, as it views the world in only two realms: the house of Islam and the house of war. That which is not already ruled under Islamic law, is subject to invasion by any group of Muslims who feel the duty has fallen upon them. This was never the case in Christianity, or even in Christendom, which was an amalgam of various kingdoms using the same religion as its symbol. Christianity was hijacked by political forces, not vice-versa.

"The founder of Christianity bade his followers 'render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's'(Matt 22:21) - and for centuries Christianity grew and developed as a religion of the downtrodden, until with the conversion to Christianity of the emperor Constantine, Caesar himself became a Christian and inaugurated a series of changes by which the new faith captured the Roman Empire and transformed its civilization. The Founder of Islam was his own Constantine, and founded his own state and empire." (Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam, p.6)

[_Some Schmo]

Whether a scientist believes in God doesn't have much to do with how well they can perform their profession per se, so it's weird to assert either way whether atheists or theists are forwarding the best science.

Well, that's true, assuming theistic scientists leave the supernatural stuff out of their thinking when they are performing the functions of science. I just wonder how well they're able to do that. I imagine some are much better at it than others.

[_Some Schmo]

The best source of science comes from atheists, since they aren't given to fanciful wishful thinking, and actually rely on evidence.

You are full of ****, as per usual. The greatest scientists have been theists, by a wide margin.

Given your habit of making up BS and blindly asserting whatever most appeals to you, I have to ask myself, "Who cares what you think?" You want to believe that, then have fun with it.

*shrug*

[_JohnStuartMill]

opposed to evolution by natural selection, which is about as well-grounded as science gets

No I'm not. I'm opposed to abiogenesis by natural selection, which is the straw man developed by Dawkins, and propagated by his followers. Try again.

You have repeatedly argued that evolution -- not abiogenesis -- couldn't produce this or that characteristic. I'm not going to trudge through the mental swamp of your prior posts, but I happen to remember your insistence that fly wings did not evolve through natural selection.

Vitamin K was much more plentiful in the early human diet than in the artificial stuff we make today. Incidentally, sodium was relatively harder to come by, and our bodies crave salty things all the time, too.

I'm not talking about artificial stuff. But the argument has to mutate once more since we can't stand salt by itself; we only enjoy it because it compliments blander foods. So why doesn't salt taste good by itself when it is so necessary? You can't make the argument that sugar tastes good because it is necessary for our survival without addressing examples of things that taste like crap that are equally necessary for our survival. All you can do is suppose a "just-so story" about the diet of our ancient ancestors to explain the gaps in the argument. This is precisely what Gould had a problem with, and it isn't science.

It's a just-so story that is perfectly logical given what we already know about the natural world.

Imagine that you come home to find that your favorite leather shoes have been mangled. You then remember that you mistakenly left the dog inside the house while you were gone. Would you develop a belief that the dog chewed up your shoes, or would that only be a silly "just-so" story? The fact is, it would be a just-so story, but it would also be pretty absurd to not believe it, given what you know about dogs.

It may not be science, but it's certainly the best explanation available

Oh I'm sure it sounds like that when you're allowed to constantly subtitute supposition for evidence. Religious, philosophical and scientific are the only kinds of truths there are. If it isn't science, then what else could it be if not a religious dogma? It sure as hell isn't philosophy.

Wow. Just... wow. There's far more wrong with this graf than I care to respond to, but suffice it to say that belief in evolutionary psychology is the same kind of belief reasonable people would hold in my "mangled shoe" example.

You castigated him for not treating it with skepticism, although he does. You were wrong. Man up, pussy.

I castigated him? My original comment was, "Why isn't Dawkins attacking Crick's belief that space aliens planted cells on earth?"

Attacking, as in why isn't he attacking it as he does ID.

Kevin, how many school boards are advocating giving equal time to the "theory" that space aliens planted cells on earth? Answer that question, and you'll answer your own.

All you and EA have managed to do is reinvent the point I was making so you could claim I was misrepresenting him. I never said Dawkins was a panspermist. I said he preferred it over God. That was, is, and always has been the point. Whether he has ever been "skeptical" of it has been beside the point, and a rather flimsy claim since scientists could be said to be "skeptical" of just about anything, including theories they believe to be true.

And if I have made a habit of "countless" misrepresentations then why is it that this is the only example that is constantly used to support the allegation?

How about this one?

Let's not entertain ridiculous propositions like "a world without religion would be a world without divisions or war" as Dawkins fantasizes.

Why do you use quotes when Dawkins never said this, Kevin? The fact is that Dawkins has never said this, because he doesn't believe it. He believes that even differences in relatively unimportant things like language can start wars:

Well if you look at what's going on in Northern Ireland, for example, one gets into trouble if one says that the conflict in Northern Ireland is about religion, people argue, "No, it's not religion, it's all about politics, it's all about economic deprivation and the unfairness of things.” and of course it is, but if you ask how do they know who's ‘us’ and who's ‘them’, how do they know who's the one who's been oppressing them economically over centuries, how do they identify that WE have been oppressed by THEM over the centuries, it turns out that religion is the only label. If they were different in colour as in South Africa, or if they were different in language as in Belgium, then that would be the badge. But in Northern Ireland they're the same colour, they speak the same language. Religion is the main candidate for a badge to identify us versus them.

Yours is a blatant misrepresentation, but I'm not going to be surprised when you fail to acknowledge it as such. Incidentally, we've been over this before, and you papered over that like it never happened, too.

Dawkins apparently has done a great job in deluding so many people into thinking no real scientists believs in God, and therefore no intelligent people do either.

Dawkins has nowhere argued for this position.

I don't want to go through the rest of your posts. I think I've presented enough evidence for your deficits.

Christianity didn't have a unified army, sure, but I don't see why this matters.

No, "Christianity" didn't have an army period!

The true rulers were the various kings and princes of Byzantium, and they had smaller armies created to serve their individual interests/kingdoms; not the "Christian" empire, as such a thing didn't exist. You might as well refer to the "Christian empire" of South America, made up of individual governments that are overwhelmingly Christian.

They were Christian governments, Kevin. Remember all that stuff about "the divine right of kings"?

You're trying to whitewash history by pretending that armies were never assembled to fight for Christianity -- and not just in self-defense, as you so foolishly asserted a few months ago.

I don't have to whitewash history, because I actually know the history. You're just changing the subject, which never had anything to do with whether or not "armies were never assembled to fight for Christianity."

The original assertion, by you, was that "The Muslim empire came close to conquering the Western world precisely because it was more advanced at the time." And that is historically laughable.

I've backed off of that claim somewhat.

Either admit that the Native Americans would be right to fight the current U.S. government (or the recent government under Bush, if you prefer), or that the Crusades were not justified, or that you're willingly employing a gross double-standard.

Why would the Native Americans be right to fight the current U.S. government? They would have been right to fight for their survival 200 years ago, as they were on the brink of destruction. But today it makes little sense to start a war.

You're dodging the question. Whether or not a war is practical is immaterial to whether it would be just.

Source? The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam doesn't count.

How about Bernard Lewis? He concedes the same point. Why don't you go ahead and list the uniquely "Muslim" contributions to science and I will respond accordingly. There's no sense in me trying to guess what you're referring to. Remember, you're the one making the argument about how Muslims gave us so much in science. You've apparently fallen prey to the myth of the Islamic golden age. So go ahead and provide the usual list. I'll try to be gentle in dismantling that popular argument.

Okay, you can start by "dismantling" the academic sources listed in this Wikipedia article. Have fun.

Many, if not most, Christians believe this as well.

Even if they did, the fact is the Christian scientists who gave birth to modern science certainly didn't, and their Christianity was essential to their scientific aspirations.

Um, you don't get to simply assert this. You have to give evidence for it.

So you're employing a double-standard, dip****.

Time for a quick recap. You initially bloviated:

JSM: Thomas Aquinas probably wouldn't have known who Aristotle was if the Muslim barbarian boogeymen hadn't preserved ancient Greek texts. But you apparently get your information from bigoted revisionist websites, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Kevin: Sure, Muslims preserved Aristotle for Aquinas. So what? ... And who preserved Aristotle for the Muslims? The Christian priest Probus of Antioch introduced Aristotle to the Arab world. So what?

My point is "so what," whereas you think you've made some kind of important argument. And now you accuse me of double standard!?!?!?!?!

So the Muslims were not the barbarians that you painted them as being.

Sure, fine. I never said this didn't happen.

Then what the hell was your point about Aristotle being "preserved" by Muslims? I can name Christians in the Arab world who were responsible for doing the translations whereas all you can do is point to the fact that the Muslims didn't burn them once they got them, therefore the argument must be that the Muslims are the ones who preserved them! Just genius.

The Muslims translated and were influenced by Aristotle, too.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Do you really think that Christian governments never did anything similar, or worse? Does the name "Leonardo da Vinci" and the word "cadavers" come to mind?

You're always avoiding the point by changing the subject. You are the one who tried to resurrect the glory days of Islam, and I am showing you how Islamic theology was instrumental in hampering progress. There is nothing in Christianity to prevent a medical textbook from illustrating the human anatomy.

Nor is there anything in Islam. Otherwise, why would there by so many Muslim doctors?

Christianity hampered medical science because it was a crime to disturb corpses. This is a weakness directly attributed to the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection.

Ah, respecting the dead. How awful. And yet Da Vinci actually dissected dozens of cadavers within Christian society, whereas the human anatomy was not permitted to be illustrated in diagrams in Islam. Why? Because that was considered idol worshipping. This is why Islamic art never includes images of humans of creatures, but rather geometric symbols.

Da Vinci had to dissect cadavers surreptitiously, Kevin. He was able to do it in spite of Christian objections.

Then why did all of these things precede Christianity? Natural rights is of Aristotelian pedigree, the superiority of reason (in the limited sense that it can be ascribed to Christians, who generally believe in a higher truth than reason can access) and individual liberties could be found Buddhism half a millennium before Christ... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Did molested children have natural rights during Aristotle? The Greek Philosophers frequently bartered with young boys, recieving sexual pleasure in exchange for their "wisdom." Newborns with any kind of deformity were immediately destroyed. Do you really want to appeal to the Ancient Greeks?

God, you are dumb. That some of the ancient Greeks believed in natural rights does not imply that those natural rights would be the ones we recognize today, so pointing out that we have a different standard than the ancient Greeks does not constitute evidence against the idea that some of them believed in natural rights.

Christianity is responsible for the dignity of all human life and universal human rights.

This is a mere assertion that is not backed up with requisite evidence. Many false statements are made in this manner. I see this as no accident.

In Islam, by contrast, non-Muslims were always worthy of oppression and non-theists, deserved to be killed, as did all apostates.

Call for references.

LOL. "Christianity was conducive to the Enlightenment, except when it wasn't.

The defect in your argument is a popular one. You fail to distinguish between Christendom and Christianity. Bernard Lewis was clear on this point.

Why what did he say? I'm not going to roll over at every appeal to authority you make, Kevin.

Medieval Islam was often more liberal (in the classical sense) than medieval Christianity.

Depends on what you mean by liberal, but I doubt it in most senses.

I already said what I meant by liberal, dimwit. Or do you not know what "classical liberalism" means?

The Christians in Spain forced Jews to convert to their religion.

No they didn't.

Grizzly Adams did have a beard, Kevin.

Next think you know you're going to try telling us the Inquisition was responsible for "killing thousands of atheists," which was the absurd claim once tried to pass around here. Forced converston was the norm during Islamic raids. Frequently it was a choice between conversion or death, depending on the mood of the Caliph. When subjugated peoples were allowed to live, they were heavily taxed and "subdued" as the Koran requires, so they would know they were an inferior people. Often the social pressures and economic disadvantages became so burdensome, peoples would convert to Islam just to relieve them.

This is so hysterically hypocritical that I'm not even going to bother. Literally everything that you accuse the Caliphate of doing has been done by Christians at one time or another, whether by the Church in the Old World or the conquistadores in the New.

The Muslim Caliphate largely left religious minorities alone: "Unlike feudal Latin Christendom, Islamic society held commerce in high esteem and placed no occupational restrictions on non-believers."

You've got all the usual myths down pat, huh? When taking over an entire country, it makes sense to leave some of the original authority figures in power. In the case of Egypt, we're dealing with a highly sophisticated society, with a wide variety of occupations requiring specific trades that were alien to the desert mongruls who had just conquered them. Why kill everyone when you could just take advantage of a lucrative society and collect outrageous taxes from them? This was all about making the conquest all the more lucrative, it wasn't about a love or tolerance of other peoples.

You're completely ignoring my quote, so I'll complete ignore your completely ignorant response to it.

This is not true. The Christians in the area persecuted the Alexandrian pagans hundreds of years before Islam even existed. In 391, a Christian mob burned down a pagan temple in Alexandria, possibly destroying priceless ancient works. Aristotle's works certainly were at risk before the Muslims arrived. They were at risk of Christian violence.

There is no evidence that this incident of "persecution" entailed the destruction of Aristotle's works. Those writings were in more danger from frequent library fires than anything else. And the destruction of temple idols is hardly on par with the Muslim conquest of 641, whereby Christians were slaughtered left and right.

Then your initial assertion that "The only reason his preservation was considered to be at risk in the first place is because the Arabs ransacked Alexandria" was incorrect, by your own admission. Hoisted, petard... you can fill in the blanks.

Islam achieved by conquering, but so did every other civilization in the era. During its Golden Age, Islam was actually quite liberal -- especially when it came to religious freedoms -- compared to the counterparts of its era.

Another popular myth. The Popes' provided more privileges to Jews than Islam did.

During Islam's Golden Age? Call for reference.

Christianity did not spread by the sword, it spread by intensive missionary efforts by the earliest converts. Christianity was already well established in Alexandria before Theophilus ordered the destruction of idols. But what you don't seem to understand is that Christianity existed for three centuries before Constantine made it the State religion of Rome in the early 4th century.

Yes, Christianity existed as a very small Jewish cult until Constantine spread it around. If he hadn't, Christianity would probably be as widespread as the Druze are today.

For more than 300 years history is void of an atrocity that can be attributed to anyone claiming to be a Christian.

That's because they didn't hold any power. The Scientologists have no pogroms to their record, either.

Islam from day one was a miltary force to be reckoned with. Islam was political at its origin. Islam's goal is to conquer the world, as it views the world in only two realms: the house of Islam and the house of war. That which is not already ruled under Islamic law, is subject to invasion by any group of Muslims who feel the duty has fallen upon them. This was never the case in Christianity, or even in Christendom, which was an amalgam of various kingdoms using the same religion as its symbol.

Brazenly false. You ignore here the modern history of an entire hemisphere.

[_rcrocket]

Another popular myth. The Popes' provided more privileges to Jews than Islam did.

I wonder if the Durants, who wrote extensively on this point, knew they were just reporting on a myth.

[_Kevin Graham]

They probably were not conscious that it was myth, but the Durants also propagated the myths about the evils of the Inquisition which modern historians are beginning to see in a very different light based on newer evidences. Ditto for the crusades.

JSM's understanding of these issues is extremely shallow. He'll throw out ridiculous claims like "Jews were forced to convert", and EA will toss out "Atheists were killed by the thousands", which is the classic myth of the inquisition that no current historian would dare support. And then JSM will say that I am the one who has to provide references for every piece of education I freely offer him.

Don't worry JSM, I will eat your lunch in due time and provide the references you require.

Between juggling KEP and abiogenesis, you want to throw Muslim myth into the mix. Gee, thanks.

[_JohnStuartMill]

JSM's understanding of these issues is extremely shallow. He'll throw out ridiculous claims like "Jews were forced to convert", and EA will toss out "Atheists were killed by the thousands", which is the classic myth of the inquisition that no current historian would dare support. And then JSM will say that I am the one who has to provide references for every piece of education I freely offer him.

I dunno, Kevin. Your "education" didn't seem to help these guys: