A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_Moniker]

And I must say that I'm excited about seeing your pom poms.

You're a dirty bird.



Ren, we'll have a separate match to fuss over the volcano.

[_EAllusion]

Might want to explain to the evolutionary biologists that are theists how their minds are childish.

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/

I'd rather not considering they far outweigh my childish mind in matters of science.

Are they attempting to use "God did it" as an explanation for anything? If so, I'd gladly explain why that is a nonstarter. Or, much more likely, I'd bring up numerous philosophers, theist and not, who would do the heavy lifting for me.

I don't know what they say or what they think beyond that I know some believe in a deity. So, if they do believe in a deity, obviously they believe that this deity did do something -- I suppose! Perhaps they think the deity put evolution into motion? I don't know what they think outside of them stating belief in a deity.

Believing God exists and has done something is different than believing that, "God did it" is a satisfactory explanatory account of the why eyeballs have the features that they do, for instance.

[_Moniker]

Might want to explain to the evolutionary biologists that are theists how their minds are childish.

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/

I'd rather not considering they far outweigh my childish mind in matters of science.

Are they attempting to use "God did it" as an explanation for anything? If so, I'd gladly explain why that is a nonstarter. Or, much more likely, I'd bring up numerous philosophers, theist and not, who would do the heavy lifting for me.

I don't know what they say or what they think beyond that I know some believe in a deity. So, if they do believe in a deity, obviously they believe that this deity did do something -- I suppose! Perhaps they think the deity put evolution into motion? I don't know what they think outside of them stating belief in a deity.

Believing God exists and has done something is different than believing that, "God did it" is a satisfactory explanatory account of the why eyeballs have the features that they do, for instance.

Well, sure! Yet, doesn't the belief in God mean something? I doubt any of these scientists fall back on this "God did it" explanation for much... yet, the belief means that they believe in a supernatural entity -- that in and of itself seems to suggest that they think "He" did/does/could do something -- doesn't it???

~~editing to add~~

I think you're talking over my head...

Okay, I'm not suggesting these scientists fall back on God for explanations that would go against scientific discovery. I just would imagine that somewhere they have this God belief compartmentalized and that He does something. I doubt this belief enters into their field at all. Yet, to me, it suggests that they fall back on this God belief and very likely think there is something unknown -- for God belief in and of itself is accepting something with absolutely NO evidence. What am I missing???

[Guest]

Okay, I'm not suggesting these scientists fall back on God for explanations that would go against scientific discovery. I just would imagine that somewhere they have this God belief compartmentalized and that He does something. I doubt this belief enters into their field at all. Yet, to me, it suggests that they fall back on this God belief and very likely think there is something unknown -- for God belief in and of itself is accepting something with absolutely NO evidence. What am I missing???

I think the fact that science doesn't yet (and can't?) explain literally 'everything' (or at least if that is the perception) leaves room for any scientist to have a belief in God 'on the side' so to speak.
Either that, or you can go for the 'cop out' Deist option ;)

Ren, we'll have a separate match to fuss over the volcano.

Too late - I'm already set up in there. Anybody who wants to try and turf me out is gonna get a dollop in the eye...!

[_EAllusion]

Well, sure! Yet, doesn't the belief in God mean something? I doubt any of these scientists fall back on this "God did it" explanation for much... yet, the belief means that they believe in a supernatural entity -- that in and of itself seems to suggest that they think "He" did/does/could do something -- doesn't it???

~~editing to add~~

I think you're talking over my head...

Okay, I'm not suggesting these scientists fall back on God for explanations that would go against scientific discovery. I just would imagine that somewhere they have this God belief compartmentalized and that He does something. I doubt this belief enters into their field at all. Yet, to me, it suggests that they fall back on this God belief and very likely think there is something unknown -- for God belief in and of itself is accepting something with absolutely NO evidence. What am I missing???

I think you are missing the point. Kevin argued that God explains many things that science cannot. Since he favorably quoted Deepak Chopra (!) arguing that this includes things like evolution involving entropy decreasing reactions, he's not exactly operating on a high level here. Using arguments that even Young Earth Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis have told their followers to abandon doesn't bode well. I flippantly noted that God doesn't explain anything. This is true enough, but I didn't make any effort to explain why. Someone followed me noting that - yeah - "God did it" is not really a meaningful account. You siezed this and are confusing people just believing in God with people thinking that God explains the motion of the planets, the existence of mercury, the existence of the physical universe, the diversity of species, moral sensibilities, logic, quantum paradoxes, etc. Just because there are theists who understand evolutionary biology at a high level, it does not follow that 1) They think God explains evolution (chances are they don't) or 2) That God explains evolution (it doesn't.)

[_Some Schmo]

Ren, we'll have a separate match to fuss over the volcano.

Too late - I'm already set up in there. Anybody who wants to try and turf me out is gonna get a dollop in the eye...!

This calls for guided missiles...

Prepare for incoming mustard bombs!

[_marg]

Dude... if you make me laugh, why on Earth would I be upset that others are responding to you?

I don't know, why are you?

I love that people respond to you.

Apparently you don't, and neither does marg. If you really wanted the discussion to flow, you'd just sit back, watch and learn. But you prefer yelling from the bleachers. I can't get a decent discussion off the ground with the two of you jumping in with your pom poms and snide commentary. You add nothing to the discussion, ever.

And please, stop pretending to be "laughing" in every post. Do you really think anyone believes you're doing anything except grinding your teeth when you respond to me? The "LOL" charade is obvious. Get a grip.

Kevin do you know how to post without fallacious ad hominems? One of my first recent posts in the last few weeks was pointing out how you use excessive ad hominem...and you continue to do so. I think the reason you do is that people you feel threatened by, you want to poison the well for future discussion. In that Celestial thread the thrust of your whole respond was personal attack, rather than address the issue of what atheism means. What on earth do I have to do with your tangential discussion here? So what other reason do you have for mentioning me than to attempt to create a persona of me that you can employ and attack and continue to do so in threads in discussions I'm not even involved in. I find it extremely dishonest, disingenuous of you to employ uncalled for and excessive ad hominems. It says volumes about your integrity.

[_Moniker]

I think you are missing the point. Kevin argued that God explains many things that science cannot. Since he favorably quoted Deepak Chopra (!) arguing that this includes things like evolution involving entropy decreasing reactions, he's not exactly operating on a high level here. Using arguments that even Young Earth Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis have told their followers to abandon doesn't bode well. I flippantly noted that God doesn't explain anything. This is true enough, but I didn't make any effort to explain why. Someone followed me noting that - yeah - "God did it" is not really a meaningful account. You siezed this and are confusing people just believing in God with people thinking that God explains the motion of the planets, the existence of mercury, the existence of the physical universe, the diversity of species, moral sensibilities, logic, quantum paradoxes, etc. Just because there are theists who understand evolutionary biology at a high level, it does not follow that 1) They think God explains evolution (chances are they don't) or 2) That God explains evolution (it doesn't.)

I wasn't even considering Kevin's argument when I made my reply... I was merely replying to Schmo 'cause I've posted on this board for almost a year and think I'm pretty well versed in what Schmo thinks of most theists. :) I was merely replying to him.

I wasn't attempting to seize on to anything... quite seriously, I wasn't! I never implied that I thought these men fell back to God to understand science -- I stated that they compartmentalize this belief in a deity. I understand that Schmo was replying to sethbag and I don't read sethbag's statements in the same way I read Schmos. I was ribbing Schmo -- and no doubt he knew it...

I certainly don't believe that 1) God explains evolution or 2) that I stated that they necessarily think God explains evolution -- yet, it IS a possibility.

I think you're just one of many on this thread that read waaaay more into my post than was intended.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin do you know how to post without fallacious ad hominems?

Do you know how to post without mimicking JAK's method of calling everything a fallacy? Stop pretending to have a clue about logic and fallacies.

I think the reason you do is that people you feel threatened by, you want to poison the well for future discussion.

What discussion? Is this supposed to be funny? You invade every thread I'm on and then start ranting page after page about something stupid. That isn't discussion. It is starting a food fight for fun, apparently. Schmo offers foolish quips and fake laughs in perfectly good discussions that were doing so well without him. That's about the extent of your contributions here. You're just a couple of mosquitos that need an occasional swat.

Don't worry about what people think. I'm certain people already know what you're all about, so there is nothing you can do about it. I'm just the guy who says what everyone else is thinking; there is nothing to "poison" here.

Incidentally, I essentially played the same role at MADB. I said what everyone was thinking. You two can't stand me for the same reasons the TBMs at MADB couldn't stand me.

In that Celestial thread the thrust of your whole respond was personal attack, rather than address the issue of what atheism means.

The issue was never about the definition of atheism. You entered that thread to attack me and derail attention off the subject, pretending I had misunderstood what atheism means, even though I was the only one between us to provide valid dictionary definitions. This is what you do best. You call me dishonest, disingenuous, etc., present stupid reasoning you kept insisting is "logical," bla bla bla. Same old tripe, nothing new. Your appearance at the celestial corner of the web made me feel like the psychologist in "What about Bob?"

All I did was say atheism was a meme the same as religious belief. Dawkins even agreed with this! So did, apparently everyone else on that thread who isn't named marg. What does that say about the worthiness of your gripe?

What on earth do I have to do with your tangential discussion here?

Nothing. I use my experiences with idiots to make points. If you don't want to be included, then stop hounding me and acting like an idiot.

So what other reason do you have for mentioning me than to attempt to create a persona of me that you can employ and attack and continue to do so in threads in discussions I'm not even involved in

I've created nothing. I observe what you do and make judgment calls. You're a nuisance, nothing more.

I find it extremely dishonest, disingenuous of you to employ uncalled for and excessive ad hominems. It says volumes about your integrity.

You find everything you don't like dishonest. Well, actually you don't, but you think that calling it dishonest amounts to some kind of intelligent response.

[_dartagnan]

EA, I haven't read through all of Deepak Chopra's seven point response to Dawkins. If what you just said is true, then I would disagree with what he said. I simply threw it out there as an example of respondents who, whether you agree with them or not, are offering their own "reasoning" for a belief in God.