Expelled!: Or the battle for evolution heats up the teacup again?

Ben Gunn on 9/4/2008 at 23:44

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

Now that we have established that your post looks like, smells like, and barks like a straw man - and that therefore Catbarf was most likely right to show holes in it rather than the 'wrong on many levels' that you protest perhaps we can move on?

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

The day Darwin published Origin of Species, the human species became self aware. In one uniquely elegant phrase we came to understand, for the first time, life, the universe and everything.

Im not going to cut and paste all of them posts, just check for yourself- each and every time someone here asked something along the lines of "but can science teach me about how to treat my fellow man" or "can science tell me why am I moved to tears by that particular piece of art?" and such like. Youv'e answered "yes" in a very self-assured manner.

Later you had some minor doubts about it, that maybe not right now, maybe we need better brains before it will come to be and so on. But I felt they were negligble compared to your defeaning "yes".

From all of the above, I dont think it was such a giant logical leap on my part to assign you the position that science is the only light that can guide us to the truth.

Contrary to what you think I dont really care if I "win" here, most of my jabs at it were intended in humor. So if you do acknowledge that science covers only part of the human existance, that there are other kind of truths that science cant deal with nor wants to- than we have no beef. (AND NO, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, IM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY RELIGIONS NOW :mad:- for all those who have just joined)
If thats the case, Im sorry for my strawmanning- it was not intentional.

Nicker on 9/4/2008 at 23:52

Who the fuck am I, Benn? I'm the guy calling your bullshit. And, like you, I will say what I please here until the Mods ban me. So suck it up buttercup. This ComChat and it owes you nothing. Try trading a little of your self importance for some humour - your shelf life here will improve markedly.

As to your predictably selective reading of the link I so kindly provided - you missed this little bit here -

"An example of why absurd conclusions are bad things: "
which prefaced Russell's demonstration of fallacious use of reduction which you quoted to support your point. I hope that hole in your foot doesn't give you too much grief.

You also ignored the fact that while RaA can be used to reveal weaknesses in an opponent's arguments that is not in fact how you used it - you used it to construct non-existent weaknesses to refute - which is the straw man argument.

So in order to claim this "If Im not mistaken, a successfully conducted RaA meant an instant victory in the game." you'd have to construct a competent RaA argument, which you clearly did not.

You are keen on the Ad Hominem attack though. No need to practice that one. And your "Appeal to Authority" and "I'm Book Learned and You Aren't" argument is quite strong. Pointless but strong.

It's not my job to support your claims, especially the dubious ones. If you want to invoke an Indian tradition as justification for semantic abuse, you'll have to do better than claiming ignorance on my behalf.

Which leads to your RaA regarding science: wherein you ascribed beliefs and claims to science that are clearly neither universal nor applicable nor were ever claimed by anyone in this thread.

The irony you seem oblivious to is that while science neither claims to be all knowing and sets rigorous standards for claiming to be the best wexplanation of the moment - creationists blithely claim complete and immutable knowledge of all pertinent matters regarding life, without evidence or contrary to it. At the same time they hold science to standards of proof creationism can't even see the tail lights of.

So that's sort of who the fuck I am. Who the fuck are you?

Ben Gunn on 9/4/2008 at 23:59

Quote Posted by Nicker

Stopped reading here.

It's "An example of why absurd conclusions are bad things: "
and NOT An example why reductio ad absurdum is a bad thing.

My god, you are so dumb. Go away.

jay pettitt on 10/4/2008 at 00:00

Epos,

Yes, I'd be retiring the specific social networking and support that comes from belonging to a church for example. But I don't think that all those facets in society are in any way particular to religion. I can't imagine why people would be unable to self discover, meet and mingle without.

--edit--
(I'm not sure if it's what you're getting at - I'm not trying to argue that religion should be eradicated from the history books as if it never existed. My outlook is roughly humanistic and I reckon that religion represented a good stab at achieving various things - I just don't see it as useful going forward (obviously I don't believe in the super natural bits - so I don't see that as any great loss).

Ben
Christ on a sack cloth how the fuck do you go from 'religion should be retired (having been superseded by science)' to...

"Any phylosophical inquiry is just a pointless metaphysical babbel.
Music, poetry and art have nothing to teach us about ourselves (only science can)- hence they are merely for fun and only have an entertainment value. Why bother to make good art than?
Psychology? Till proven itself a true science, it is closer to a phylosophical highly speculative same-kind-of-babble. Next.
Eastern philosophies? Even worse than the western. What can those stupid Indians teach us? They didnt even discover electricity before we came to light their cities."

...while keeping a straight face, let alone citing logic?

You made a dumb post. It's not the end of the world. What I thought was bad form was that you retaliated against a simple comment with condescension and arrogance that were both unnecessary and unfounded. In short, you've invited yourself along and then proceeded to be fucking rude quite a lot.

Pyrian on 10/4/2008 at 00:09

Quote Posted by Epos Nix

While science may one day explain why or why not the Golden Rule, being a mainstay and central theme in many religions, works in society, isn't it just easier to intuitively trust such an idea and watch the benefits first hand?

...Isn't it ("why the Golden Rule works in society") completely and totally blatantly obvious on the face of it? Is there any mystery whatsoever to why acting in the best interest of society instead of solely in one's own best interest is in the best interest of society?

It's not true by some weird, arcane logic. It's literally true by its own definition! The Golden Rule helps society because if it doesn't, it's not the Golden Rule!

Epos Nix on 10/4/2008 at 00:10

Quote:

But I don't think that all those facets in society are in any way particular to religion.

This is because you have no idea what religion's purpose is. Like so many others you have taken a preconceived notion of religion and superimposed so many negative qualities about its purpose without actually reading the words. Would it surprise you to find that Christianity's message, at it's core, is simply about getting along with your fellow man?

...and yes, many "christians" miss this point as well, so don't feel bad.

Quote:

..Isn't it ("why the Golden Rule works in society") completely and totally blatantly obvious on the face of it?

Apparently not given the cutthroat nature of modern Western society. Another thing people don't realize about religion is that the truths contained within it are freakin simple. Religion is not complex. For instance the rule of Karma: if you do something bad, more than likely something bad is gonna happen to you! ...Cause and effect born of selfishness. These are simple ideas but very effective if you actually take the time to live them, as religion says you should.

Pyrian on 10/4/2008 at 00:12

Honestly, Epos Nix, while I could accept that as Jesus' core message (but there's a lot of God in there, too), claiming that the vast majority of Christians are wrong about their own religion is kind of self-defeating. It's not your interpretation in particular that matters, it's theirs as a whole that makes it what it is.

Epos Nix on 10/4/2008 at 00:28

Quote:

claiming that the vast majority of Christians are wrong about their own religion is kind of self-defeating.

No it's not. The Bible even says that the vast majority of people are going to miss the point of Christ's words. (Matthew 7:14)

One analogy I like is one used by the Buddha to explain why people misinterpret the meanings behind his teachings:

He equated his teachings to a man pointing to the moon. While onlookers could easily follow the direction of the man's finger and eventually find the moon, others might become so focused on the man's hand that they totally lose sight of the moon, hence missing the point.

Likewise, it's easy to falsely idolize certain aspects of the Bible (like creation) and become so fixated on it while totally missing the greater meaning that those aspects are pointing towards.

jay pettitt on 10/4/2008 at 00:44

Quote Posted by Epos Nix

Apparently not given the cutthroat nature of modern Western society.

I'm not sure it follows that because you see society as having adopted self defeating tendencies (I entirely agree with you on noting the futility of those - despite my godlessness) you can attribute it to a lack of religion. Western Society is and continues to be the product of thousands of years of very strong religious influence.

Without god I can arrive at the understanding that we are a social species and that we should play to our strengths by choosing strategies that are supportive of a strong social structure. I may be godless, but I've still got eyes in my head thankyou. (and of course I'd argue that you and everyone else are also godless, what with there not being a god and that we've somehow managed of sorts up till now ;))

Epos Nix on 10/4/2008 at 01:00

Quote:

and of course I'd argue that you and everyone else are also godless

I am godless. I don't believe in a creator either. This fact does not stop me from acknowledging the wisdom within religious text however.