Archaeologica.org

seeker wrote:I don't disrespect your opinions but I do feel that you gave short shrift to some of mine. Of course if all I wanted were my own opinions I would just talk to myself.

Not short shrift at all. I'm answering all your points at great length and with some thought.

I'm just disagreeing with you!

Maybe you're not used to someone disagreeeing with you.

seeker wrote:

Ishtar wrote: At last! A sensible, rational and logical response!

I resent this. I've dealt with you honestly and rationally throughout.

I disagree!

You've been slipping and sliding all over the place, like a tripped out hippie on roller skates who just hit an oil slick.

You've been trying to reframe the argument from the simple proposition which I have now proved into a debate about whether atheists are superior to theists.

Instead of addressing the simple point I was making, you tried to turn the discussion into one about why Dawkins was right to do what he is doing.

You insist that your opinions and assumptions are scientific law, whereas other people's aren't.. especially if they disagree with your own.

You've gone from claiming that "Darwin was only saying that a belief in God was unscientific" to "Of course, Min and I have been saying all along that science has not proven that God doesn't exist," ... it's been a real roller coaster ride.

And I have carefully addressed every single one of these trips off the main highway ... and then you have nerve to say I've given you short shrift!



I have expended more energy on you than any other poster ...

I think this is just sour grapes.

seeker wrote:

Ishtar wrote: No it doesn't. What's written in Genesis is not a literal explanation of the material world. It's an astrological allegory.

Sure but we also have what is written in Leviticus and other parts of the bible that purport to actually explain the world and set guidelines. we also have practices that purport to explain how the world works and attitudes in the bible the purport to be a template for how we should treat each other.

Ishtar wrote: Again, you are mispresenting me.

You will now know, if you've read my last post, that your above remark is a totally false assumption. You would also know that if you'd read my first post on this subject.

As I said in both of those posts, I've been reading and watching Dawkins a lot lately. In fact, the documentary was a two-parter that he himself had created to explain his views. That alone was two hours or so of him explaining to the cameras and to the schoolchildren why he is atheist and how science backs him up. If the doc was edited badly, designed to put him a light that misrepresents his views, Dawkins would have fixed it. It was his doc.

Then why have you gone so out of your way to misrepresent his positions? Seriously you seem to have taken one statement and completely ignored everything else the man has written.

Ishtar wrote: Er .. no. I don't, especially as I wouldn't need something like that explaining to me, as I already know it. Perhaps you meant to say 'as I explained' ... again a subtle difference but an important one.

I mean what I post

Ishtar wrote:
Again, a false assumption leading to a misrepresentation of my views.

You should know me enough by now to know that I wouldn't be afraid to read sometihng! Or write something! Not much phases me in that department although I cannot say the same, sadly, for the rest of my life.

Now that you've read my earlier comments on this false assumption about my motives for not readiing Dawkins book, I'm sure you'll withdraw your previous remarks.

And it doesn't have to be a soundbite. I am quite capable of explaining someone's views here on a certain issue, and you're an intelligent guy, so you ought to be too.

I'm not reframing the argument. I've made the same argument in every single post to the point of boredom. And so I'll say it again.

Science has not disproved the existence of God but I saw Dawkins with my own eyes and ears tellling schoolchildren that it has.

Ah, but I have explained my position, don't you remember? One of the surprises to me in this debate has been your mischaracterization of this point. No worries though, I know how people can get so wrapped up in their points that they ignore other people.

Seeker

Enough already.

I have proved the proposition I set out to prove.

You should be big enough to admit defeat instead of keeping up this whingeing.

Ishtar wrote: I have never asked you why you don't believe in God. Not once. I have merely asked you to accept that Dawkins is preaching religion on the back of science.

You told me that I was wrong and that Dawkins was merely saying that a belief in God was not scientific.

But I have proved it by giving you to access to the documentary where he says, right at the beginning: "I want to persuade you that evolution offers a much richer and more spectacular view of life than any religion, and it's one reason why I don't believe in God."

That's all this discussion has been about, no matter how much you've tried to reframe it, and in the light of the above statement, I think you need to acknowledge that I was right.

Read your own quote. Dawkins himself says he is offering one
reason why he is an atheist.

You have simply misquoted him and then blown it out of proportion.

Ishtar wrote: To assume that there is a God is a very big assumption.

To assume that there is not a God is also a very big assumption.

They are both big assumptions and nothing to do with science.

I see your confusion. There is no assumption involved in atheism, this isn't about assuming there is not a god, rather it is about not assuming there is one.

Ishtar wrote: In your opinion. But not proved by science.

In the sense that every role that a God might have played in creation, morality etc has been shown to have a natural explanation it has been proved by science.

Logic would suggest that absent phenomena that requires a supernatural explanation there is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural. Ish that is a simple logical statement, actually a rephrasing of Occam's razor, not just my opinion.

Ishtar wrote: Of course they do if they're taught science by people like Dawkins.. if they learn to see through his eyes. This is just a matter of perception.

In any case, you are trying to turn this discussion into one about whether people who are atheists are superior to those who believe that there is a God because atheists think more clearly. This is not what this discussion is about.

It is also just your opinion and one, I might add, that you have a vested interest in.

You really think that its just my opinion? Ish there have been stidies on this conducted well before Dawkins. I could post tons of surveys like this one. This isn't just a phenomenon that is observed in certain places, it is consistent.

Just because you don't like a statistical trend is no excuse to accuse people of an ideological agenda.

Ishtar wrote:You think it's OK to assume there is no God, but not OK to assume that there is one, when neither can be proved either way.

But it is just a matter of perception.

No, its a matter of logic. Not assuming there is a God is a logical position that does not require the assumption of the negative. As I have said before a God is possible but so improbable that absent some evidence I see no reason to assume it. Do you see the difference here?

Ishtar wrote:The very reasons that Dawkins gives for not believing in God, others have cited as the very reason for believing in God. Where Dawkins sees a senseless, purposeless, inexorable process of evolution, others gasp in admiration at the symetrical beauty and intelligence of the design of it, like the Fibonacci Spiral and so on. To them it is in a reason to believe in Superior Intelligence or Designer, while to Dawkins and yourself, it's the opposite.

So that's why it's all just a matter of opinion and thus not more scientific to not believe in God. You are not superior in your thinking, wisdom and intelligence to those who hold a different view. You are just different.

Dawkins doesn't ever describe evolution as senseless, purposeless etc. Once again you are mischaracterizing his statements. What Dawkins has said, as have I, is that there is no need of a Creator when the process has a natural explanation. The supposition of a Creator is illogical. that is a simple logical statement, not an opinion.

If, in your opinion there was some evidence that argued against a natural explanation for things then I'd be interested to see it but absent that logic suggests that the simplest explanation for things that fits the evidence is the most likely one. You have to make all sorts of suppositions to support creation etc by a supernatural being while I only have to rely on the natural evidence to support the theory that God doesn't influence nature. logically God is less likely.

Ishtar wrote: I think I'm ahead of you on this. Having already studied the theory of evolution as Darwinism when I was at college, I have read and seen a lot of Dawkins lately and not least watched much of this three hour series of programmes where he lays out all his latest thinking, which you haven't yet watched.

I've not only seen his documentaries but I've read his books and I've taken the time to study both his arguments and those of guys like Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel etc. I've actually even participated in debates on both sides of the issue. I think taking the opposite side of my own personal views is often the best way to fully understand an issue.

Ishtar wrote:Again, what you think is important is not necessarily what others think is important.

What I think is important is that in these days when people are losing their faith in religion (rightly or wrongly) they are turning to science to give them the answers to the big questions. But it is not in science's remit to give these answers and neither is it capable of doing so. Most scientists know this and say so. Dawkins doesn't and is flogging a line in religion on the back of his scientific credentials and this is, I believe, as wrong as the creationists trying to flog a line in science on the back of their religious credentials.

And that's the only point I'm trying to make.

I think that we are at a very important point in our history, one in which we can no longer afford to indulge the attitudes and prejudices that are embedded in many of the world's religions. Dawkins has never pretended to have all the answers but has only been arguing that we should value the rational over the irrational, reason over reaction.

You keep trying to cast this as some sort of attempt by science to 'take over' when this is really about trying to get people to stop killing each other over sacred patches of ground and differences in ideology.

Ishtar wrote:

seeker wrote:I don't disrespect your opinions but I do feel that you gave short shrift to some of mine. Of course if all I wanted were my own opinions I would just talk to myself.

Not short shrift at all. I'm answering all your points at great length and with some thought.

I'm just disagreeing with you!

Maybe you're not used to someone disagreeeing with you.

Actually I am referring to the fact that when you told me to give you a logical reason for non belief, which I did in the following:

I can tell you why I am and I think its fairly simple. I think we can agree that we can suppose all kinds of things from Santa Claus to invisible pink bunnies and we can agree than even though they could exist they probably don't. If I told you that I could walk on water or fly you would be skeptical and rightly so (actually I can fly but my landings really suck).

The point is that I see the claims for the existence of god in the same light. They are fantastic claims for which there is no evidence. All the things that are attributed to God like creation, morality etc have natural explanations that fit the evidence. Simply put there is no reason to think that a God exists

You tried to dismiss it even though, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is a logical argument. You are ignoring the distinction between logical discussion and opinion. An opinion, for example , "I don't think God exists", is different from a logical argument that there is no reason to assume a God exists.

I must be honest though, I have a Mathematical background. It has only just occurred to me that you may not recognize a formal logical argument (I'm speaking in the sense of a formal logic proof here).

Ishtar wrote: I disagree!

You've been slipping and sliding all over the place, like a tripped out hippie on roller skates who just hit an oil slick.

You've been trying to reframe the argument from the simple proposition which I have now proved into a debate about whether atheists are superior to theists.

Instead of addressing the simple point I was making, you tried to turn the discussion into one about why Dawkins was right to do what he is doing.

You insist that your opinions and assumptions are scientific law, whereas other people's aren't.. especially if they disagree with your own.

You've gone from claiming that "Darwin was only saying that a belief in God was unscientific" to "Of course, Min and I have been saying all along that science has not proven that God doesn't exist," ... it's been a real roller coaster ride.

And I have carefully addressed every single one of these trips off the main highway ... and then you have nerve to say I've given you short shrift!



I have expended more energy on you than any other poster ...

I think this is just sour grapes.

No, I'm just pointing out your continuing misrepresentation of my positions. I've not been 'slipping and sliding', in fact your outrageous statement seems to be a result of your frustration that my position hasn't changed.

I do appreciate the energy you've spent on me, I just think that you have taken a mis-perception (as I showed above) and run with it so enthusiastically that your characterization of my arguements has become more real for you than my actual arguments.

Ishtar wrote: Seeker

Enough already.

I have proved the proposition I set out to prove.

You should be big enough to admit defeat instead of keeping up this whingeing.

You've only proved that you don't read my posts.

As to whingeing I'll assume that is some British slang for winning arguments

seeker wrote:
Read your own quote. Dawkins himself says he is offering one
reason why he is an atheist.

ONE is enough, Seeker. It’s the fact that he basing his view on it, not whether he is basing his view solely on it. He is also seeking to persuade us on this view that he has reached unscientifically.

I repeat:

“I want to persuade you that evolution offers a much richer and more spectacular view of life than any religion, and it’s one reason I don’t believe in God.”

It doesn't matter whether it's one reason, or two or three, or whether he is coming to his conclusion solely on evolution. The fact is, this is a man on a mission out to prove that there is no God because science, in the form of evolution, has shown this to be so, when it has done no such thing.

You have simply misquoted him and then blown it out of proportion.

Seeker, you haven't watched the video yet so I'll forgive you for misrepresenting me. I have quoted him word for word - not misquoted him. But I'll accept your apology for that false accusation after you've watched it.

And when you watch it, you will also see why that sentence is entirely in context. It is presented as his raison d'etre for making the three part series. It's that much in context. So I will also accept your apology for that piece of misrepresentation after you've watched it.

I have produced the evidence ... I can do more.

I am only interested to show that science has not disproved the existence of God, but that Dawkins is saying it has. You have even agreed in an earlier post that science hasn’t done that. Yet Dawkins is partly staking his atheism on it.

The rest of your argument is designed to show that you are superior thinker because you are an atheist - and it’s not a path I want to go down, and never was.

I’m sorry to disappoint you.

Perhaps someone else would like to have this discussion with you?

seeker wrote:

Ishtar wrote: Seeker

Enough already.

I have proved the proposition I set out to prove.

You should be big enough to admit defeat instead of keeping up this whingeing.

You've only proved that you don't read my posts.

As to whingeing I'll assume that is some British slang for winning arguments

Dream on, Seeker!

seeker wrote: No, I'm just pointing out your continuing misrepresentation of my positions. I've not been 'slipping and sliding', in fact your outrageous statement seems to be a result of your frustration that my position hasn't changed.

I do appreciate the energy you've spent on me, I just think that you have taken a mis-perception (as I showed above) and run with it so enthusiastically that your characterization of my arguements has become more real for you than my actual arguments.

You are the one making false accusations about 'misquoting' and 'taking things out of context' when the quotes are word for word accurate, and entirely in context.

My position hasn't changed either, and from where I'm standing, it honestly does look like you're sliding all over the place. I mean that. I'm not just trying to be sassy. So I don't know why we seem to almost have this mirror reflection of the other which is identical. Seriously...no point scoring intended. And we are both absolutely convnced that we are in the right. I find it very odd.

Ishtar wrote: ONE is enough, Seeker. It’s the fact that he basing his view on it, not whether he is basing his view solely on it. He is also seeking to persuade us on this view that he has reached unscientifically.

I repeat:

“I want to persuade you that evolution offers a much richer and more spectacular view of life than any religion, and it’s one reason I don’t believe in God.”

It doesn't matter whether it's one reason, or two or three, or whether he is coming to his conclusion solely on evolution. The fact is, this is a man on a mission out to prove that there is no God because science, in the form of evolution, has shown this to be so, when it has done no such thing.

This is what I mean when I say you are mis-characterizing an argument. You are trying to present a single argument as a refutation of an entire belief system when it was never represented as such. it does matter that it is only one of many arguments because it is obvious that this is a complex matter that involves many elements. By trying to reduce it all to one argument you are simply trying to set a condition that cannot be met and then claiming victory.

I could do the same thing to you by saying, 'give me proof of God' and then just claiming that since you can't do it in one sentence that I win. Sorry Ish but I won't do that to you and I won't let you do that to me.

Ishtar wrote: Seeker, you haven't watched the video yet so I'll forgive you for misrepresenting me. I have quoted him word for word - not misquoted him. But I'll accept your apology for that false accusation after you've watched it.

And when you watch it, you will also see why that sentence is entirely in context. It is presented as his raison d'etre for making the three part series. It's that much in context. So I will also accept your apology for that piece of misrepresentation after you've watched it.

You'll be waiting a long time, I've watched the video.

I have not mis-represented you at all here. He is presenting a set of arguments with evolution as one of the primary arguments but it is not his entire argument. what you have done is taken a sentance in an opening statement and tried to use it to characterize a much more complex argument.

Ishtar wrote:I have produced the evidence ... I can do more.

Let's hope so because the evidence you produced actually proved my point.

Ishtar wrote:I am only interested to show that science has not disproved the existence of God, but that Dawkins is saying it has. You have even agreed in an earlier post that science hasn’t done that. Yet Dawkins is partly staking his atheism on it.

The rest of your argument is designed to show that you are superior thinker because you are an atheist - and it’s not a path I want to go down, and never was.

I’m sorry to disappoint you.

Perhaps someone else would like to have this discussion with you?

If you think that i am a superior thinker because I'm an atheist then, thank you. i don't think atheism makes me a superior thinker and that has not been my point. It does make a goof characterization so that you can try to demonize me, if that is your purpose then have fun, I make a good demon.

What i have said is that I am approaching this with logical reasoning. Logical does not necessarily mean superior nor does it mean you are illogical, all I mean is that I am putting forward logical (in the formal sense) arguments

Seeker, on this one ... I think I have identified the misunderstanding.

seeker wrote:

Actually I am referring to the fact that when you told me to give you a logical reason for non belief, which I did in the following:

I can tell you why I am and I think its fairly simple. I think we can agree that we can suppose all kinds of things from Santa Claus to invisible pink bunnies and we can agree than even though they could exist they probably don't. If I told you that I could walk on water or fly you would be skeptical and rightly so (actually I can fly but my landings really suck).

The point is that I see the claims for the existence of god in the same light. They are fantastic claims for which there is no evidence. All the things that are attributed to God like creation, morality etc have natural explanations that fit the evidence. Simply put there is no reason to think that a God exists

You tried to dismiss it even though, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is a logical argument. You are ignoring the distinction between logical discussion and opinion. An opinion, for example , "I don't think God exists", is different from a logical argument that there is no reason to assume a God exists.

Logic and science are two different things, I didn't ask you for a logical belief. I asked you for a scientific belief. In response, you gave me a logical belief which, even then, was only logical if you hold a certain viewpoint .. which is why logic can never be scientific.

For instance, going back to the guy who sees God in the Fibonacci Spiral - he can make a perfectly logical case for it. In the case of the Dionsyiac Architects who saw god or divinity in these kind of symeteries, they are not seeing the Old Testament God in the sky with the long beard, or even Ahura Mazda. They are seeing 'spirit', 'energy', 'devic force', which has been translated into 'gods' and from there into God. So that's how they can make a completely logical argument from their own viewpoint and still come to a different conclusion. Thus, that's why logic is not scientific.

I must be honest though, I have a Mathematical background. It has only just occurred to me that you may not recognize a formal logical argument (I'm speaking in the sense of a formal logic proof here).

Whaaaa!!! Oh yeah, Seeker ... I guess . . you know, I'm just a woman, so how could I understand logic!

Jeez!

Ishtar wrote: You are the one making false accusations about 'misquoting' and 'taking things out of context' when the quotes are word for word accurate, and entirely in context.

My position hasn't changed either, and from where I'm standing, it honestly does look like you're sliding all over the place. I mean that. I'm not just trying to be sassy. So I don't know why we seem to almost have this mirror reflection of the other which is identical. Seriously...no point scoring intended. And we are both absolutely convnced that we are in the right. I find it very odd.

Personally i enjoy this Ish. We couldn't butt heads like this if we weren't well enough matched to do so. You, Min and a few others who actually like these kinds of fights make boards like this worthwhile for crusty old bastards like me

Consider this then. Would it be fair of me to ask you to completely explain and justify shamanism to me in one sentence?

Ishtar wrote:Seeker, on this one ... I think I have identified the misunderstanding.


Logic and science are two different things, I didn't ask you for a logical belief. I asked you for a scientific belief. In response, you gave me a logical belief which, even then, was only logical if you hold a certain viewpoint .. which is why logic can never be scientific.

You and I see this very differently. Science is based on logic. Scientific Method is the application of pure logical principal to the evaluation of evidence.

Ishtar wrote:For instance, going back to the guy who sees God in the Fibonacci Spiral - he can make a perfectly logical case for it. In the case of the Dionsyiac Architects who saw god or divinity in these kind of symeteries, they are not seeing the Old Testament God in the sky with the long beard, or even Ahura Mazda. They are seeing 'spirit', 'energy', 'devic force', which has been translated into 'gods' and from there into God. So that's how they can make a completely logical argument from their own viewpoint and still come to a different conclusion. Thus, that's why logic is not scientific.

Here's an idea for you: Logic is only as good as the prepositions it is built on. If I start with a preposition that God must exist then I can get different conclusions than otherwise. The problem is that not all prepositions are created equal.

Are you familiar with the scientific (and logical) principle of falsification? One of the guiding principle's of science is that a valid answer must be testable, ie there has to be a way to either prove it to be true or false, thus the term falsifiable. What makes God illogical as a solution is that he cannot be proved false.

Ishtar wrote: Whaaaa!!! Oh yeah, Seeker ... I guess . . you know, I'm just a woman, so how could I understand logic!

Jeez!

I knew I was in trouble with that one.

The fact is though that common usage of words like 'theory', logical statement', 'proof' etc is quite different from mathematical usages of the same words and that often leads to miscommunication both ways. I tend to assume you understand things a certain way but I don't know your background.

By the way, I never sad i was a very good mathematician. the fact that I am an artist now should tell you something

seeker wrote: This is what I mean when I say you are mis-characterizing an argument. You are trying to present a single argument as a refutation of an entire belief system when it was never represented as such. it does matter that it is only one of many arguments because it is obvious that this is a complex matter that involves many elements. By trying to reduce it all to one argument you are simply trying to set a condition that cannot be met and then claiming victory.

But this is what I mean by you slipping and sliding, or trying to reframe or redirect the discussion.

You have already agreed that science has not proven the non-existence of God. We have already seen that Dawkins is partly basing his atheism on it. So what else is there?

If there is something else, based on science and not just logic why are you not able to tell us?

I would never say, and have never said in this forum ever ... - "Oh, I can't explain it. You need to read the book."

I think if someone holds a view, they should be able to back it up themselves, and especially someone as articulate as yourself.

So how can I respect someone else's views who can’t do that ... let alone understand them.

seeker wrote:
I could do the same thing to you by saying, 'give me proof of God' and then just claiming that since you can't do it in one sentence that I win.....

No you couldn’t ... because I am not claiming that God exists. I’m not claiming even to be able to prove it... or even that anyone can prove it. That’s my whole point, but you don’t seem to get it because it detracts from your desired superiority.

seeker wrote: You'll be waiting a long time, I've watched the video.

I don’t believe you’ve watched it, Seeker. I’m sorry, I cannot believe it .. because you accused me of misquoting Dawkins, and if you’d have watched it, you would know that I’ve quoted him word for word.

And now, anyone else watching this thread who watches will also see that you’ve misrepresented me by saying that .. so that was a very foolish claim of yours.

seeker wrote: Dawkins is presenting a set of arguments with evolution as one of the primary arguments but it is not his entire argument. what you have done is taken a sentence in an opening statement and tried to use it to characterize a much more complex argument.

Anyone who takes the time to watch this video will know that I haven’t done that. He uses this sentence to make the point that this is the purpose of him making the video. It is also not the only time he says it ... have you watched the bit with the schoolchildren yet?

No...I forgot. You haven’t watched it at all yet.

Ishtar wrote:I am only interested to show that science has not disproved the existence of God, but that Dawkins is saying it has. You have even agreed in an earlier post that science hasn’t done that. Yet Dawkins is partly staking his atheism on it.

The rest of your argument is designed to show that you are superior thinker because you are an atheist - and it’s not a path I want to go down, and never was.

I’m sorry to disappoint you.

Perhaps someone else would like to have this discussion with you?

seeker wrote: If you think that i am a superior thinker because I'm an atheist then, thank you.

seeker wrote: i don't think atheism makes me a superior thinker and that has not been my point. It does make a goof characterization so that you can try to demonize me, if that is your purpose then have fun, I make a good demon.

I’m not trying to demonise you. You’re making a pretty good job of that yourself.

seeker wrote: What i have said is that I am approaching this with logical reasoning. Logical does not necessarily mean superior nor does it mean you are illogical, all I mean is that I am putting forward logical (in the formal sense) arguments

Basing a belief on logic is not the same as basing it on a scientific law ... and I explained why that is so in my last post. So again, you’re moving the goalposts.

If I’d wanted a discussion about logic, I’d have called in Aristotle. He keep phoning me up for a date... I'm sick of him pestering me, to be frank ... but logic just doesn't do it for me somehow... probably because I'm a woman ....

Seeker, you are SO dead after making that remark! That was worse than when you told me to relax. Tell me, Seeker, just between us .. you don't have a woman do you? It was a dead give away when you used the R word the other day.