Richard Dawkins defends "mild pedophi...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#61 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>As uisual, you're dodging. We're not arguing about who is more moral. I'm challenging you to give me your OBJECTIVE basis for morality.
I'll take a swing at this.

Empathy for one's fellow human beings.

The NORM is to have concern and care for the law, and your fellow human beings....or "morality". This is generally taught by family members and by society as a whole.

The ROOTS of which are found in other (higher-order) members of the animal kingdom.

An extreme example of the lack of empathy can be referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder or Sociopaths.

Then there's this:

"Religion has no effect on antisocial behaviour. In fact, there is a trend the other way - the less religious a society is, the lower the levels of antisocial behaviour. At least according to a new study out today in Science."

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2008/03/r...

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#62 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Both are responsible for their actions.
According to ToE, man is defined by his genetics and environment... no spiritual dimension exists...right?
Do you have any control over your genetics and environment?
No.
Therefore, whoever you are and whatever you do are dictated by factors beyond your control. This is why Provine stated that man has no free will. A lot of evolutionists such as Dawkins believe that, although their lives are a contradiction.
How very selective of you, never mind I did not really expect you to comment out of your comfort zone, It’s one of the things that defines you as a person…

Correct, a person is defined by genetics, environment and also their will. Note that there is no spiritual BS involved.

Do you have any control over your genetics and environment?
No,

Even with an entire god squatting on your shoulder the answer is still no.

However you and every other adult human in this whole world has the ability to control their will, their own actions. It is up you how you chose to do this. You can follow any crazy ideas you want, cultism (including godbotism) for example is simply a way to shift the blame for your own actions on to genetics or your environment or your belief.

The alternative that seems to frighten people like you so much, to the extent that you will dissemble, rant and even lie in an attempt to discredit that alternative is accepting responsibility for yourself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
ToE claims that the whole of nature can be explained by naturalistic cause, ie, NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
That is a theological claim.
You repetitive comparisons of ToE to gravity are idiotic.
Not at all, since gravity claims to explain things via natural causes. You will find that exactly the same applies to every single scientific concept.

Therefore if evolution is atheistic then so is all of science.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>As uisual, you're dodging. We're not arguing about who is more moral. I'm challenging you to give me your OBJECTIVE basis for morality.
Uh, Howard, I'm NOT dodging when I've ALREADY ANSWERED YOU.

On THIS thread AND others.

Stop whining that you're too stupid to understand plain English.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
Both are responsible for their actions.
According to ToE, man is defined by his genetics and environment... no spiritual dimension exists...right?
Wrong. Evolution makes no theological claims. It does not state anything about the existence or non-existence of "spirits".

However since you are bringing these subjects up and want them to be taken seriously, then you have to scientifically define what they are, and why they are somehow integral to morality.

Don't worry, we know you can't do that, so that'll save you time and we can dismiss them as the baseless incoherent rants of a fundie.
HTS wrote:
Do you have any control over your genetics and environment?
No.
So after me posting evidence that man can have a GREAT affect on his surrounding environment you still repeat the claim that man has no control at all?
HTS wrote:
Therefore, whoever you are and whatever you do are dictated by factors beyond your control. This is why Provine stated that man has no free will.
This assumes a domino effect in which all our future actions are already dictated by physics. This position is not demonstrable, nor can all the variables be calculated. Also this has no bearing on evolution in particular as this position would affect ALL scientific disciplines - even if evolution were incorrect and life was due to a completely different set of circumstances. However there is nothing in physics that demands this. Especially in light of such things like cognitive function and quantum physics, in which the universe is considered probablistic and not deterministic.
HTS wrote:
A lot of evolutionists such as Dawkins believe that,
I've not heard that Dawkins believes this other than claims made by you. However this philosophical position remains just that.

[QUOTE who="HTS"]although their lives are a contradiction.
Virtually every one of your uneducated opinions conflict with reality, so you're hardly in a position to lecture others on contradictions. Especially as you would be contradicting yourself if Provine's philosophical stance in this case happened to be true. And if not then your criticism is invalid.

Certainly a head-scratcher if you're a fundie, but let's face it, you should have stuck to Goddidit with magic.(shrug)
HTS

Mandan, ND

#66 Sep 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take a swing at this.
Empathy for one's fellow human beings.
The NORM is to have concern and care for the law, and your fellow human beings....or "morality". This is generally taught by family members and by society as a whole.
The ROOTS of which are found in other (higher-order) members of the animal kingdom.
An extreme example of the lack of empathy can be referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder or Sociopaths.
Then there's this:
"Religion has no effect on antisocial behaviour. In fact, there is a trend the other way - the less religious a society is, the lower the levels of antisocial behaviour. At least according to a new study out today in Science."
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2008/03/r...
Kong, I'm not suggesting that YOU don't have morality. You might be a very benevolent and selfless person.
I'm contending that you cannot reference anything absolute to justify your morality over someone else's if you reject God. All you can say ultimately is that your morality feels right to you. Unfortunately, Stalin felt the same way.
And let's get something straight...EVERYONE has a religion. The notion that atheists are free of religion is a fallacy. A religion does not require a belief in God. It is, put simply, a philosophical worldview of man and his relationship to the universe.
Would you consider Buddhism a religion? Buddhism doesn't accept a God.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#67 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Evolution makes no theological claims. It does not state anything about the existence or non-existence of "spirits".
.(shrug)
Cut the crap, Dude...
The theory of evolution is based on the assumption of naturalism, ie ATHEISM
If you don't believe me, try debating any professor of evolution and suggest that intelligent design might be necessary to explain a proposed evolutionary mechanism.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#68 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, I'm not suggesting that YOU don't have morality. You might be a very benevolent and selfless person.
I'm contending that you cannot reference anything absolute to justify your morality over someone else's if you reject God. All you can say ultimately is that your morality feels right to you. Unfortunately, Stalin felt the same way.
And let's get something straight...EVERYONE has a religion. The notion that atheists are free of religion is a fallacy. A religion does not require a belief in God. It is, put simply, a philosophical worldview of man and his relationship to the universe.
Would you consider Buddhism a religion? Buddhism doesn't accept a God.
Yes,...

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism" ;

...I do.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#69 Sep 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you rejoice in putting down someone like Dawkins because he was abused as a child. How strange...
Liar! Nobody here is displaying any satisfaction about Dick Dawkins being fondled when he was a young student.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#70 Sep 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Unsurprising, he defends same sex marriage too.
lol, he thinks his sneaky uncle scenario is a plausible argument as evidence of a "gay gene" that has been proven (by the Humane Genome Project) does not exist.



He sounds quite goofy making this claim with absolutely no evidence. You know he got a bj for that little speech.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71 Sep 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, I'm not suggesting that YOU don't have morality. You might be a very benevolent and selfless person.
I'm contending that you cannot reference anything absolute to justify your morality over someone else's if you reject God. All you can say ultimately is that your morality feels right to you. Unfortunately, Stalin felt the same way.
And let's get something straight...EVERYONE has a religion. The notion that atheists are free of religion is a fallacy. A religion does not require a belief in God. It is, put simply, a philosophical worldview of man and his relationship to the universe.
Would you consider Buddhism a religion? Buddhism doesn't accept a God.
re·li·gion

1: the belief in a god or in a group of gods.

2: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.

3: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rel...

According to Merriam-Webster, your definition of "religion" is incorrect.

Now, you're going to suggest that those of us that accept the ToE are operating under the 3rd definition above.

If that is true then avid golfers are "religious".

I know some bikers who are passionate about their Harleys and riding, but worship no deity (they're VERY 'moral' people as well -- seriously). Are those bikers "religious"?

I'm very interested in photography, yet I don't worship my Nikon D7000.

You say, "EVERYONE has a religion".

Morality is not built around golf, Harleys or Nikons.

You contend that there is no absolute, objective basis for our sense of morality.

I suggest you're wrong. It is part instinctual, part learned.

The part of morality I learned was from my parents as I was growing up. And in a lesser sense from friends, neighbors, and the rest of society.

Unless you were raised by wolves as an infant, you did too. God did not slap morality on you, except as a framework of instinctual behavior that your parents molded as you were a child. Your parents learned it from THEIR parents, and so on.

There was a couple of interesting experiments to determine whether morality was learned or instinctual.

Copy/paste from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-and-...

"Some moral psychologists are now maintaining that children exhibit a moral competence that outstrips the limited (and confusing) moral input from their environment. The data is suggestive.

Eliot Turiel (1983) and his colleagues asked children as young as three: Would be OK to talk without raising your hand if the teacher said it would be OK to talk without raising your hand? Kids did not hesitate: Yes! But when Turiel asked these same kids if it would be OK to hit one's friend if your teacher said it was OK, kids balked. <Even omnipotent Miss Applebaum couldn't make hitting OK!>

When Larry Nucci (1983) asked Amish children whether it would be OK to work on Sunday if God said it was OK, 100 percent of kids said yes. But only 20 percent of those same kids said it be OK to hit someone else if God said it would be OK.

The justifications kids offer for refraining from hitting, say, are striking in their similarity to our own rough conception of moral rules: such rules are authority-independent, serious, and generalizable. This sets moral rules off from conventional rules, which lack such properties.

We must then ask: Since kids, across a wide spectrum of backgrounds, all exhibit this ability to distinguish moral from conventional rules, is it plausible that kids could have learned this from their environment? If the answer is no (as some insist), then the mind may well contain the moral analogue of the Language Acquisition Device. And this conclusion is bolstered if we can identify (as some allegedly have) other moral competencies that kids don't learn."

<end cut/paste>

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#72 Sep 21, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Liar! Nobody here is displaying any satisfaction about Dick Dawkins being fondled when he was a young student.
May I suggest you take a look back at your very own post #21 which is an excellent example of you revelling up to you ears in satisfaction you lying piece of garbage.

I assume you have never considered the meaning of hypocrisy have you?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#73 Sep 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
re·li·gion
1: the belief in a god or in a group of gods.
2: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.
3: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rel...
According to Merriam-Webster, your definition of "religion" is incorrect.
Now, you're going to suggest that those of us that accept the ToE are operating under the 3rd definition above.
If that is true then avid golfers are "religious".
I know some bikers who are passionate about their Harleys and riding, but worship no deity (they're VERY 'moral' people as well -- seriously). Are those bikers "religious"?
I'm very interested in photography, yet I don't worship my Nikon D7000.
You say, "EVERYONE has a religion".
Morality is not built around golf, Harleys or Nikons.
You contend that there is no absolute, objective basis for our sense of morality.
I suggest you're wrong. It is part instinctual, part learned.
The part of morality I learned was from my parents as I was growing up. And in a lesser sense from friends, neighbors, and the rest of society.
Unless you were raised by wolves as an infant, you did too. God did not slap morality on you, except as a framework of instinctual behavior that your parents molded as you were a child. Your parents learned it from THEIR parents, and so on.
There was a couple of interesting experiments to determine whether morality was learned or instinctual.
Copy/paste from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-and-...
"Some moral psychologists are now maintaining that children exhibit a moral competence that outstrips the limited (and confusing) moral input from their environment. The data is suggestive.
Eliot Turiel (1983) and his colleagues asked children as young as three: Would be OK to talk without raising your hand if the teacher said it would be OK to talk without raising your hand? Kids did not hesitate: Yes! But when Turiel asked these same kids if it would be OK to hit one's friend if your teacher said it was OK, kids balked. <Even omnipotent Miss Applebaum couldn't make hitting OK!>
When Larry Nucci (1983) asked Amish children whether it would be OK to work on Sunday if God said it was OK, 100 percent of kids said yes. But only 20 percent of those same kids said it be OK to hit someone else if God said it would be OK.
The justifications kids offer for refraining from hitting, say, are striking in their similarity to our own rough conception of moral rules: such rules are authority-independent, serious, and generalizable. This sets moral rules off from conventional rules, which lack such properties.
We must then ask: Since kids, across a wide spectrum of backgrounds, all exhibit this ability to distinguish moral from conventional rules, is it plausible that kids could have learned this from their environment? If the answer is no (as some insist), then the mind may well contain the moral analogue of the Language Acquisition Device. And this conclusion is bolstered if we can identify (as some allegedly have) other moral competencies that kids don't learn."
<end cut/paste>
You have failed to define "god".
To the evolutionist, natural selection is a god. Nature must be deified to account for what exists.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#74 Sep 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>t.
Now, you're going to suggest that those of us that accept the ToE are operating under the 3rd definition above.
If that is true then avid golfers are "religious".
I know some bikers who are passionate about their Harleys and riding, but worship no deity (they're VERY 'moral' people as well -- seriously). Are those bikers "religious"?
I'm very interested in photography, yet I don't worship my Nikon D7000.
,
<end cut/paste>
Any activity that assumes unbalanced priority in one's life can become a religion, including golf, photography, biking, etc. If you don't worship your Nikon, you're probably not religiously devoted to photography. If you sleep with your camera, I'd be worried. If you're a biker and you choose a weekend at Sturgis over seeing your dying father for the last time, then biking has become a religion to you.

It's obvious that the ToE is a religion to many, given their obvious abandonment of scientific objectivity to promote a worldview. Dawkins PREACHES evolution with zeal. That is religion.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#75 Sep 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed to define "god".
To the evolutionist, natural selection is a god. Nature must be deified to account for what exists.
Again with the sweeping generalizations!

NO.

The evolutionist (whatever THAT means) does NOT consider natural selection as a god.

I challenge you to find one VIABLE definition of natural selection that refers to it as a deity.

Not to mention -- AGAIN -- that a great many of your Christian brethren ALSO accept the Theory of Evolution, and ascribe it as a tool that YOUR GOD USED to do His will.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#76 Sep 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the sweeping generalizations!
NO.
The evolutionist (whatever THAT means) does NOT consider natural selection as a god.
I challenge you to find one VIABLE definition of natural selection that refers to it as a deity.
Not to mention -- AGAIN -- that a great many of your Christian brethren ALSO accept the Theory of Evolution, and ascribe it as a tool that YOUR GOD USED to do His will.
Some of my "Christian brethren" disagree with me...and many of your own disagree with you. Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, is a committed atheist who admitted that evolution is a religion when he stated,

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion --- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint --- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

*Ruse, Michael, "How Evolution Became a Religion: Creationists Correct?", National Post, pp B1, B3, B7, May 13, 2000

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#77 Sep 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Some of my "Christian brethren" disagree with me...and many of your own disagree with you. Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, is a committed atheist who admitted that evolution is a religion when he stated,

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion --- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint --- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

*Ruse, Michael, "How Evolution Became a Religion: Creationists Correct?", National Post, pp B1, B3, B7, May 13, 2000
The difference being that about HALF of the Christian faithful in the US accept the ToE -- much higher % world-wide -- that entire denominations have publicly signed on to the ToE, and Michael Ruse is all but alone in his un-supported opinion.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#78 Sep 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the sweeping generalizations!
NO.
The evolutionist (whatever THAT means) does NOT consider natural selection as a god.
I challenge you to find one VIABLE definition of natural selection that refers to it as a deity.
Not to mention -- AGAIN -- that a great many of your Christian brethren ALSO accept the Theory of Evolution, and ascribe it as a tool that YOUR GOD USED to do His will.
Of course there's no definition that fulfills your criteria.
It's obvious that evolution is founded not on science, but on a philosophical [religious] rejection of intelligent design.
If you present any piece evidence that you think is compelling for evolution and you contend that it's scientific, I'll break it down and show you that it is ultimately defended by religion.
Go ahead, try me...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#79 Sep 22, 2013
Polymath:
You said that a book full of zeros is more ordered than a book of Quantum Mechanics.
You tried to say that any of a number of characters could have created the book of zeros, and therefore it was highly improbable. That is clearly not an issue. We are analyzing a book. As far as you know, the keyboard only had one character on it.

If you take the book of zeros as an isolated system, how can you say that those zeros are "ordered"? That defies the formula S = k ln M
M is the number of equivalent microstates (ie, POSSIBLE ARRANGEMENTS) of a system.

A can arrange a book of zeros 50^500,000 different ways. The result will be the same book.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#80 Sep 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Cut the crap, Dude...
The theory of evolution is based on the assumption of naturalism, ie ATHEISM
If you don't believe me, try debating any professor of evolution and suggest that intelligent design might be necessary to explain a proposed evolutionary mechanism.

Why would you recommend lying to a biology professor?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Curious dilemma about DNA 7 min replaytime 426
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min River Tam 221,282
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 67,566
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr replaytime 417
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 28,712
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Eagle 12 3,559
News Texas' battle over teaching evolution comes dow... 4 hr pshun2404 8
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Goof Hunter 160,998
More from around the web