JackC

It seems I did get you mixed up with someone else, sorry about that.

I assume you mean the part where you said that all christians are not like that. Well sorry but it's not just christians, many religious people are like that. By "that" I mean they come out with such utter rubbish it makes me think that anything that can drive someone to act so irrationally cannot be a good thing. For example, you yourself have gone on record saying "My faith is not so weak that one could attempt to "explain it away." No. In fact, my faith is so strong that I would be willing to die, rather than renounce it." I've heard others say that even if it were proven 100% beyond any shadow of a doubt that god does not exist, they'd still believe in him. By your words I must assume that you hold a similar view. You may think this is commendable, but I think to be unwilling to change your beliefs when presented with valid evidence is irrational. You've also said that born again christians don't have a religion but there are plenty of people who say that atheism is a religion. By that logic, the only way I can avoid having a religion is to become christian. That's just absurd. But even ignoring the words of the believers, the source book is just as absurd. I mean god sending himself to appease himself so that he wouldn't have to throw his creation into the hellfire that he himself created for the expressed purpose of punishing his creation (which he actually loves) because he made them with flaws that really piss him off. To me the Bible makes absolute and complete sense only if you realise it is grade one bullplop. I just find it odd that in every other area of life, people are capable of thinking analytically and rationally (even if they don't apply it all the time) but as soon as you introduce supernatural beings, people will believe all sorts of gibberish without any shred of supporting evidence. They even think this is a good thing. I'm sorry but I don't.

It implies that you know better than them just because you believe the bible. Does the bible teach respect? To be fair, I never believed in god but it ain't just christians. http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Fundies_Say_the_Darndest_Things

Stop reading it at face value. Dude, it is face value, If you say I'm lost or whatever, all I have is what you say. I'm not going to live your life to figure out what you mean, i'm going to filter it through my own set of beer goggles. Face value is all I have, work with it. Calling someone "lost" isn't nice. Why do you think Christians are the main reason I'm an atheist?

I can't speak for other atheists, but I can say that the only time I have been faced with such a situation, no type of god entered my mind. My thoughts were only on my family and closest friends. The few times I thought I was going to cop it, I think my exact words were "oh fuck". I can guarantee you I was not thinking about sex. For this atheist in situations like that, the word god would be interchangeable with the word fuck or the word fruitbat and carry roughly the same meaning.

I agree with him about the lack of empirical evidence for ID and that it belongs out of science but he then goes on to make the same mistakes about what science is as most other ID proponent. Merely repeating that "natural selection is random" will not make it true but it does reinforce the perception among some people that it is true. Especially when that statement comes from someone in a position of percieved "authority". The ID crowd may know this and use it to their advange or it may just be a self re-inforcing mechanism that has taken on it's own momentum. Either way, ID will never actualy be science nor will it ever gain any respectability in the mainstream scientific community. But as long as someone is gullible enough to believe that it could be, the debate will rage on.

What?!? If I knew something bad was going to happen and I had the power to stop it but didn't, I'd consider that to be evil (or at least criminally negligent). Love is not and cannot be a motivation for sitting on your ass while evil things happen.

Statements like this is the prime reason I'm an atheist. Your knowledge of what your kids like to eat is based on probability in the light of past events. If your prediction is wrong, it only shows that you placed the wrong bet. If god's knowledge is wrong, he can't be all knowing and is therefore significantly less god-like. If god knows the outcome of some choice I make will be X, then my choice can be nothing other than that which will lead to X, I cannot choose not-X. How can there be freewill if I am unable to make the choice not-X? The only solution is either there is no god or there is no free will. To say god predestines though freewill is like saying circles are circular because they're square.

This I don't get. There are a number of scientific theories that do quite well at explaining how the universe and life began and developed. If you don't understand them, you may think that believing in them takes a great leap of faith. However, for each scientific theory out there you can go back to first principles, look at the evidence, work it through and (presumably) come up with the same conclusion. You can see exactly how and why scientist believe what they do. Yet because people cannot comprehend how something (the universe) could either a) start from nothing or b) exist forever; they postulate an entity (a creator) which either a) started from nothing or b) existed forever; and somehow think this actually answers some kind of question. I cannot for the life of me understand how this makes sense to anyone. I really can't.

When people talk about respecting beliefs, they mean their own. Today, anyone worshipping Poseidon, wood sprites, or Thor is given medication. Just as telling the weather using cow horns is laughed at - by people who want their opinions respected. What is your value of a tealeaf-reading ? To an outsider, it is all the same. However, for me it is an "Emperors Clothes" issue. If people sit back and look at their belief systems, they do get uncomfortable for a moment. General conversation- "Want to go to church with us?" "No." (then the phrase) "...but our church is different" No it isn't. That is the point. It is uncomfortable for a religious person to ponder that. Yup. In the words of H. L. Mencken - We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. Personally, I took a long hard look at various types of mysicism, clairvoyance and astrology in particular. I came to the conclusion that by far the best clairvoyants are the ones like James Randi and Derren Brown. Ie the ones that have perfected the art of faking it. My pet theory is that clairvoyants use the same techniques as Randi, they just don't relalise it. Astrology on the other hand is a bit like working out the exact size of a house, figuring out exactly how much paint you need to paint it, then using that information to buy socks. If there were anything to this mysicism lark, there would be a real measurable benefit for using it. Other than placebo effects, there isn't.

Hmmmm... crispy aromatic Billvon... 1 Billvon weighing approx 2kg 1 Heaped tbsp 5 spice powder 1 Tbsp rock salt 1 Tbsp szechuan peppercorns (place in bag and crushed with rolling pin) 2 Slices root ginger To Serve....spring onions (shredded), cucumber (finely sliced lengthways),hoisin or plum sauce Method: Mix 5 spice powder, salt and szechuan peppercorns together, rub Billvon inside and out with the mixture. Place ginger in cavity, clingfilm and leave overnight. Prepare steamer, remove clingfilm and place Billvon in the steamer on a heat resistant plate. Remove Billvon and drain away any liquid, allow Billvon to completely cool. Cut Billvon into quarters and deep fry for about 10 minutes in hot oil until Billvon is crispy. Bon apetite!

OK Bill, I give up. Despite examples that you have given proving that science and religion do overlap, despite the once almighty god being scientifically proven to be impotent in so many different areas that he is now refered to as "the god of the gaps", despite the flat earth theory, earth being the centre of the universe, despite ID, genesis and all the other examples of science and religion overlapping, NOMa is still a valid principle. Now that this is all cleared up, I'm off to Safety and Training to spout the 45 degree rule. After all it works some of the time and we shouldn't throw out a theory just because it fails a few times.

Is there a working definition of superior in modern evolutionary biolology or is this just a quote from an old book, complete with archaic language? and whats your point? If it's that science makes moral claims (and surely there must be better examples than some dubious natural selection implys racism link), then your poor example just supports my argument that NOMA is flawed. Depends on what example contradicts what rule, how usefull the rule is and how hard the example is to find. If you claim that "all apples are green", I only have to find one that isn't, then you have to reduce it to "well, most apples are green". If I find more non-green apples you have to change it to "OK, some apples are green". How many contradictions do you tollerate before you review your rule? Huh? Are apples green because I'm sure I've seen red ones. NOMA only works because applying science to the religious claims that can be tested leads to quesions that people prefer to avoid. If someone claims that a force/energy/thing exists, why would we not use whatever tools are available to investigate the claim? Laziness? Apathy perhaps?

I could spout the "guns don't kill people," argument or the "two wrongs" argument but they're both well past their sell by date. First you need to define what you mean by superior. Superior in what sense? To say that one species is evolutionary superior (whatever that means) is not the same as one species having superior worth (whatever that means). Personally I'd have tried something along the lines that legislation is the scientific equivalent of morals instead of relying on the ambiguousness and negative connotations of the word superior. But in any event, you made my point for me. If science has indeed made moral claims as you suggest, then Gould's NOMA is still flawed. Despite the nice idea that science and religion should not overlap, the reality is that they do. Evidently Gould was not a realist.

I agree that religion is not science, but religion does make scientific claims so Gould's NOMA principle is flawed. For example, ID is religion masquarading as science, ie religion is trying to overlap on sciences turf. Genesis and the creation myth is a theory about the origin of the universe, clearly sciences turf. Even the main underpin of all religions is subject to scientific scrutiny in as much as we might expect a created universe to look somewhat different from one without a creator at the helm. Even though religion it not science by any stretch of the imagination, as soon as it starts making existence claims religion is firmly in sciences turf. There is no escaping that.

I don't get your point. Surely it all depends on the level of the discussion. The stuff from this discussion isn't going to get published in Nature, it's not a discussion on someone getting a PhD thesis finished, it's just a pointless internet discussion between a bunch of skydivers. Do you vote? I'll presume you do but I'll bet you don't have a PhD in political theory. Now if I wanted to publish scientific theories in a peer reviewed journals, I'd better know what I'm talking about and have be able to back my theory up with hard data. But dropzone.com isn't Physical Review. As I see it, all the ID brigade have done is dusted off creationism and wrapped it up in some pseudo-scientific language. ID is basically the old theisitic argument form personal incredulity dressed up to look like science which I think is rather dishonest.

Maybe scientists wont bother trying to refute ID for the same reasons they wont bother trying to refute Archimedes Plutonium's famous Plutonium Atom Totality Theory. But if you want a reasoned argument, you could try The National Academy of Sciences' book "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" which you can read online here

As I understand it, it's not really the atmospheric gasses that are heating the oceans. It's the EM radiation from the sun being absorbed by the soil, rocks, plants, water, etc. Then air sweeps over the surface and picks up the heat through conduction and convection, which heats the atmosphere. Excess CO2 just helps prevent the heat escaping back into space.

Well said Matt. Times like these remind me of a quote: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

BEER!! I've made messes and smells before but never sense. If God exists (and that is the biggest if in the history of the universe), then personal revelation might be a possible method of communication. But I think you would first have to prove God exists before you could consider it. Even then you would have to rule out all other explainations before you could possitively identify divine intervention. It seems to me that the question you are asking is "Can personal revelation be a method of communicating with god?", and your line of thought goes something like: 1) if God exists then personal revelation can be a method of communication. 2) God exists 3) Therefore personal revelation is a method of communication. I get stuck at number 2 but you don't because you honestly believe 2 is true. But you'd have to work very hard to convince me. I thinks that's another question. Just because something exists, doesn't necessarily mean it wants to communicate. A crude example, I'm pretty sure that Jennifer Anniston exists and I'd love for her to reveal herself to me (in part or in whole, I'm not fussy). I know that she loves her fans and since I am one, she must love me which is admitedly a huge leap of faith, but she still wont return my calls.

Now that's the part I have trouble with and I fail to see why anyone would postulate supernatural intervention when there is no reason to do so. Surely the more rational position is to say "I do not know if god exists or not, can personal revelation help me find out?". In this case personal revelation doesn't get you any further in your quest since there are more likely and more simple explainations than the direct intervention of an undetectable entity that is more complex than the entire universe. If you presuppose that God does exist and is capable of revealing himself so us plebs here on earth, then you are assigning the conclusion in order to answer the question, which is bad form. You don't need to prove that all cases of personal revelation are actually hallucinations. The mere posibility that they could be, and in fact are extremely likely to be, is enough to cast serious doubt on any positive identification of divine intervention. Thus personal revelation is not evidence, I doubt it would stand up in any court of law.

True. But it does raise the real possibility that what some may perceive as personal revelation is much more likely to be nothing more than an hallucination. How do you tell the difference? Both would look like a false sensory perception. And you must ask yourself which is more likely to be true? Hallucinations, which are well known, well documented phenomena, and considerably more common than many people think, or personal revelation, induced by an entity with incoherent properties of which there are no known examples? My point is that personal revelation cannot be relied upon to indicate the presence of God because there are just too many alternative, common and well documented explainations. Personal revelation is far more likely to indicate some type of psychosis than the existence of supernatural entities.

In a recent study, 39% of people reported experiencing hallucinations at some point during their lifetime. Personally I think that private revelation is not sufficient grounds to justify a belief in absurdities given that some form of psychotic episode is relatively common. I would say the same thing to those who say their belief in God is based on a feeling that there is some higher power. Feelings only indicate a persons emotional state, not what is physically real.

So let me get this straight. You say the Bible is a moral truth (ie a fact). You also say that the Bible should not be scrutinised in the same way a factual science book would be. You concede that factual book can be subjected to scrutiny but fictional ones may be exempted. So either your position is incoherent or you want the Bible to get special treatment. Which is it?

There is a hell of a lot of bands out there. The vast majority will never get signed and end up on MTV. But that doesn't mean they're rubbish. In fact some are really rather good. Some are better than good. So of all the unsigned, unknown or underground bands, which ones do you like? They might be something you found on the interweb, a recomendation by a friend or even a local band that deserve a wider audience. Either way, tell us about it. To get the ball rolling (in no particular order): Ready for the Rodeo Some interestingly dark riffs going on here. Reminds me a bit of Early Black Sabbath but a good deal faster. Joski London based, pretty good stuff. I see a future for these guys. Spitting off Tall Buildings A good German punk band. Fronted by singer Bonnie Riot, AKA actress and MTV presenter Jana Palaske, star of the movie Extreme Ops which incidentally contains some good Freeflying and BASE footage. Mp3's available on the website. Shade (site appears to be down) A female fronted Rock band from Helsinki, Finland. Reminds me of Evanescence's heavy rock riffs, without the operatic overtones and a healthy dose of attitude. I like these guys alot. Mp3's available