On 4/23/2011 12:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's quite ridiculous.

Probably due to a long history of killing people who argued with the 
authority in charge.

Just like in the USA, I can say Obama is a wrinkle-bottomed poopy-pants, and 
in China I'd probably at least get beaten up if not imprisoned.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 22:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:07:01 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 23-4-2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die
>>>> hard creationists then we better leave it at that.
>>>
>>> No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it
>>> because it means abandoning their belief.
>>
>> That is the evolutionists interpretation. They will actually reject it
>> because they know some of the assumptions are wrong.
>
> Because they *believe* some of the assumptions are "wrong".  Like the
> "assumption" that there is no creator.  Since that flies in the face of
> their belief that there is a God, they reject it because "it can't
> possibly be right that there is no God."
>
>>> That's the problem.
>>
>> Not really. Or at least not a bigger problem than trying to convince me
>> God does exist.
>
> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
> evidence.

No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend 
contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence 
my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true 
for other atheists as well.

> But such evidence doesn't exist.
>
> Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced there
> is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the question of
> whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.

I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between them 
and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So I am 
defending the truth and they a fallacy.

>> It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real science
>> and research.
>
> I disagree, it becomes a problem because they teach kids (who are still
> developing the ability to think rationally) that there is no value in
> thinking rationally about a problem - that you can just 'believe your
> way' through a situation.

That is sort of what I meant too.

> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
> students to think about problems in a rational way.

Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?

> There's a reason why US students view themselves as more confident than
> students in other parts of the world - they're taught to believe in
> themselves, regardless of how well they do with 'facts'.  Hence, low
> scores on exams, but high confidence.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 22:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:50:18 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> PS: now listening to a life radio broadcast of the St Matthew Passion.
>> That I don't believe in a God does not prevent me from appreciating the
>> music of those who did.
>
> Absolutely not, and that's not the point of the discussion.  I appreciate
> a lot of music written by believers (remember, I trained as a classical
> violinist).

No I don't remember. (and have forgotten you mentioned it probably by 
tomorrow.)

> That doesn't mean I have to believe in the fairy queen. ;)



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 14:45, andrel wrote:
> I think you will find that true for other atheists as well.

For some of them, I imagine. I'm willing to believe in a creator if shown 
sufficient evidence.

Interestingly, every faithful person I've asked has said that if God Himself 
came to them and told them they were wrong, they wouldn't believe it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

  Some say that there is no such thing as
> truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stand
> in court...
>

Are you talking of "truth" or "Truth" ot "truths"?

Search your own Truth and admire those who search for it, but be 
extremely wary of anybody who say he have the Truth.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:04:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 12:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's quite ridiculous.
> 
> Probably due to a long history of killing people who argued with the
> authority in charge.

Well, I don't know about that - in the US we have frequent disagreements 
and arguments about various things, ranging from politics to American 
Idol <barf>.  Sometimes quite intense at that.

But when it comes to religion, there is a very strong veneer of "oooh, 
don't even go there!  You're questioning someone's *beliefs*" that's just 
weird.

> Just like in the USA, I can say Obama is a wrinkle-bottomed poopy-pants,
> and in China I'd probably at least get beaten up if not imprisoned.

Sure, but that's different than when it comes to religion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>> evidence.
> 
> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend
> contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence
> my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true
> for other atheists as well.

That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational 
evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?  I find that *highly* unusual.

>> But such evidence doesn't exist.
>>
>> Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced
>> there is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the
>> question of whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.
> 
> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between them
> and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So I am
> defending the truth and they a fallacy.

Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.  Otherwise, you'd 
have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me, I 
don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I wouldn't 
just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That doesn't mean 
I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.

>>> It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real
>>> science and research.
>>
>> I disagree, it becomes a problem because they teach kids (who are still
>> developing the ability to think rationally) that there is no value in
>> thinking rationally about a problem - that you can just 'believe your
>> way' through a situation.
> 
> That is sort of what I meant too.

Then on that we agree. :)

>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
> 
> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?

I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:28:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 14:45, andrel wrote:
>> I think you will find that true for other atheists as well.
> 
> For some of them, I imagine. I'm willing to believe in a creator if
> shown sufficient evidence.
> 
> Interestingly, every faithful person I've asked has said that if God
> Himself came to them and told them they were wrong, they wouldn't
> believe it.

Nice paradox. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:47:48 +0200, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:


>   Some say that there is no such thing as
>> truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stan
d
>> in court...
>>
>
> Are you talking of "truth" or "Truth" ot "truths"?
>
> Search your own Truth and admire those who search for it, but be  

> extremely wary of anybody who say he have the Truth.
>

This somehow reminds me of American Idols wannabe's who just can't take 
no  

for an answer. Everybody else can see they can't sing, but they believe 
 

they are the best singers in the world. And some of them even have an IQ
  

of over 160!

-- 

-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:47:48 +0200, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:


>   Some say that there is no such thing as
>> truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stan
d
>> in court...
>>
>
> Are you talking of "truth" or "Truth" ot "truths"?
>
> Search your own Truth and admire those who search for it, but be  

> extremely wary of anybody who say he have the Truth.
>

I personally think that anyone who has a Bible has the Truth and they ca
n  

search for the Truth in the Bible. But I certainly  do not think that I 
 

know all the answers to everything - the Bible says we know in part.

I believe that God created the rules of science so ultimately science  

won't contradict God.

-- 

-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message