philh

Actually I think better that Dawkins and Harris is Dan Barkers's "Losing Faith in Faith", Dawkins is an expert on evolutionary biology but Barker is an athiest who used to be fundamentalist preacher and he has some greater expertise on the nature of Christian belief

Anecodtal evidence is not good evdidence in medicine for very very good reasons. 1. Anecodtes are hard to verify 2 even if they are verified one needs to control for placebo effetcs 3 even if placebo effects are controlled for one needs to remove the bias of the observers 4 one needs to be able be assured that the medicine actually cured the patient because its possible the patients recovery was coincidental with the administration of the medicine and not caused by it. Thats is why real medicine is asseseed by double blind trials. Without that we canot say a medicine works with any confidence. The medicines you mentioned, have they been assesed in this manner/ If so can you please give us a reference? Moreover would you explain to us if these homeopathic medicines work (im assuming they are homeopathic since thats the anture of the debate here) why the law of chemsitry are all wrong?

How do you know he was the nices guy ever?

What does the misuse of Christianity have to do with God? Thats a good question. The answer is that if god can see the future, something all Christans must accept du to their claim that prophecy is real and also that god can do anything then he would know that his silence/toleration on the matter would be used to justify slavery. yet he proceeded. What he should have done is denounce slavery, could he have forseen events? If he exists as described in the bible yes of course. The more likely explanation is that he doesnt exist as described in the bible. How can I know the mind of god? Well ok lets suppose that is impossible, lets say I grant you that. then you must agree he may be entirley evil if he exists. If you deny that possibility you are contradicting your argument that its impossible to knowd gods plan/mind. As to your defence of slavery pease reread your passge, this time imagine you are the slave and see if you think its so acceptble.

"Correct. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is a god. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is NO god. Therefore, a hard claim in either direction is not supportable by science. To put it another way, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " Correct. There is no physical, testable evidence that there is a flying spaghetti monster . There is no physical, testable evidence that there is NO flying spaghetti monster . Therefore, a hard claim in either direction is not supportable by science. To put it another way, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

lets not forget that the fact that the bible tolerates slavery was used an argument for it right up until the last century. Now if god is all powerful and all seeing then he would have known this was going to happen and all he had to do was get jesus or Moses or whoever to condemm it and perhpas slavery would not have continued in this world as long as it did(and perhaps still does). But instead he said nothing. This seems very consitent with the view that the bible is the word of ancient men with ancient views not an all loving god. Interesting to see a Chrstian defence of slavery. given god both carries out genocide and condones an encourages the Hebrew armies to follow suit , perhaps you would like to give us your defence of that too?

Are you also an agnostic with respect to Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or fairies?

Where has Richard Dawkins ever been biggoted or argue irrationally ? I have read many of his books and find him far from both of those. But I am happy to change my mind on the man if you can give me a specific verifiable example. I would be very suprised if you can.

I disagree with your critique of Dawkins. You make a crass generalisation that no christian or religious person holds theose views as if you know them all. Well I cant say it holds for all theologians but it certainly holds for some. I was brought up in an Orthodox jewish enviroment and I would say he exactly represents the nature of faith that I was exposed to. Dawkins is not ignorant of Chrstian theolgy, he addresses many of the arguments brought up by many chrsitian philosphers. I have read Lee Sobel, Cs Lewis etc and many(although perhaps not all) of the arguments I came across there, were certainly addressed by Dawkins. Whether they were addressed to your satisfaction is another matter. To say Dawkins has the same fanatisicism as believers is a very bad comparison. The reason is, Dawkins, like many other atheists, doesn't talk of certainty. He doesnt say God definitley doesnt exist, merely that he is highly improbable. Further the lack of the belief of atheist is based upon lack of evdience, if that were to change our beliefs would change. Contrast that to some theists who believe whatever the evidence. To say that atheism on the Judea Christian god is just as fantaical as belief in it , is to say those that deny Santa Claus, Thor etc are fanatics. That I think is Dawkins main point and a very genuine one. What's the difference? Bilvon "My primary disagreement with him is the narrowness of his argument. He sets up his "opponent" if you will as a personal god, one that created the universe, listens to prayers and, every once in a while, conjures up a miracle or nukes a sinful city. " Why is this a straw man? Whilst not all mono theists have this view, it is certainly is a very common one. That's a very good secription of what happens in the bible .With reference to Einstein, Dawkins is clarifying the type of god that he wishes to critique and is making it clear that the type of god that Einstein believed in is not his target, nothing wrong with that. Skyrad, the reason why (some) atheists wont let people get on with their beliefs is that belief in god is destructive. Look around the world, many of our current problems, the Aids pandemic aided by the roman Catholics chruch opposition to condoms, paradise dreaming suicide bombers, the middle east conflict, the rights of homsexuals etc are at least partially casued by religious belief. When reigious beliefs stop having such adverse consequences then maybe atheists will shut up, until then I think its right to speak up.

did he? So there is nothing wrong with slavery then as god didnt make any commandment that says "though shalt not keep slaves"

You have to differntiate between us evolving and our morality evolving. since the time of the aztecs and Mayans it is highly unlikely that we could have evolved. But morality can and does evolvve at much more rapid rates. The following topics seem obvious now but would have been disputed by most people alive then. Government should be elected by the people, Slavery is wrong racism is worng women are entitled to equal rights freedom of religion Im sure I can make a longer list but I think you should see the point. morality most definitley evolves and it foten does so quite rapidly.

"I put the blame for the desire to destroy the moral code that has been used for centuries squarely on the liberal socialists, who think that the idea of a god is an affront to their personal freedom. " What moral code are you talking about? The one thhat allowed slavery and denied womens rights including thhe vote? I am glad that moral code has been destroyed, maybe you would lke such repression re introduced. they wre both justiified by christian theology. BTW i hope you understand that liberal and socialist are not necessarily the same thing.

Plato had schools of learnings , art has existed for thousands of years before christ. Your local hospitals may be Christian, so what? your local area is probably Chrstian. In Europe , especially Scandinavia the hospitals are secular, what does that prove? The renaissance painters were commisioned by the Church beacuse the Chruch had a lot of money. Lets just remind ourselves of the amazing advances in art, science etc that occured in ancient greece, Rome and egypt. for example the Great Library of Alexandria stood as an outstanding source of knowledge in the ancient world. What happened to it? Flavius Theodosius the roman emperor converted to Chrsitianity and immediatley had it destroyed. following the conversion of the Roman empire we had a 1,000 years of chrstian rule which is univerally known as "the dark ages". After just over 1,000 years Chrstianity started to relax its total control over all aspects of european life and thats when you had the renaaisance and the enlightment. Thats when you had real medicine instead the Christian aproach used for th black death which got everyone into churches so thy could spread the disease and hence kill millions.

I think you have a simple view of evolution. we have evolved big brains and they have enabled us to improve our lives so much that we are able to make choices on our propagation that no other known species can make. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that rules this out.

if Chinese medicine worked so well why did they have such a low level of life exectancy until western medicine started to be introduced there. one could ask the same question of Ayurverdic medicine in India.according to Wkipde: Similar gains have been enjoyed throughout the world. Life expectancy in China was around 35 years at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to around 71 years. Life expectancy in India at midcentury was around 32, by 2000 it had risen to 64 years.

" Sorry, JC beat ya to it about 2000 years ago Matt 7:12 " Oh dear oerhas you are not aware that oters said it before him, here are som examples: Pittacus (650 B.C.): Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him Confucius (500 B.C.): Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not to another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest. Thales (464 B.C.): Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing. Sextus (406 B.C.): What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them. Aristotle (385 B.C.): We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us. Aristippus (365 B.C.): Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own.

Sorry I ddint notice the private message, I have read it now. Might be easier if you can post responses on the forum, thanks. In the bible god commands the Hebrew armies to comiit genocide, Forgive me if I misundersant your argument are you suggesting that the Hebrew authors of the bible are lying when they say it was god who commaded this and many other similar acts. If the bible contains this lie what else might it be lying about? Lets take the example of the flood, god commits genocide there, was he justified? Im sure you think he was in which case genocide is justified in at leats one instance. On the taxation front, not sure what aplles and oranges means in reality. Certainly taxation conforms to the defintion of stealing we agreed to. may philosophers eg Harvard robert Nozik have described taxation as theft. It may be a necessary theft but it perfectly conforms to the definition of theft we agreed upon. But here we see most pople will accept that it is not an immoral theft, but some anarachists would not agree. You can see here as everywhere morality is subjective. BTW I have to go to my yoga class, enjoy the rest of you day.

i thought we agreed that the deifnition was taking somehting without their consent, I dont think what the thief spends the money on was part of our agreed definition. Certainly the bible says dont steal, not dont steal unless its for a good casue or unless its to give somethign back to your victim. I think you can see morality is not so objective as it might first seem. if you could answer my second point it owuld be appreciated.

Since you agree with my defintion of stealing. You must agree that taxation is wrong as it is the compulsory taking of a persons income from the government, the tax payer has no option to say no. This is then objectivley wrong in your book and all taxation should be abolished immediatley. Now some people might agree with this, most wont. the point is it is a subjective decision, as are all moral decisions. Just because a decision is subjective though does not mean it cant be made and agree on by most people. Your point about the bible not being seen as a history book. I dont get your argument at all, I'm sorry. I dont se it matters to our argument which I will restate in order to give you the oppurtunity to asnwer it clearly. 1 Is genocide part of your ojectvie morality? 2 If so I presume you oppose it, in which case do you condenm god when he orders the Hebrew armies to commit genocide ?

Well as i said above for those remedies that are not diluted very much its not impossible that they could work, but just becuase its not impossible that it works does not mean its probable that it does work. What I think we can agree to is that fundamental principle that the more diluted somehting is the more potent it becomes is simply not true, in particular dilution beyond a certian level (determined by Avagadros number) guarantess a medicine cannot work beyond the Placebo level.

Before we discuss stealing let us agree on a definition. I would define it as taking of someones property wihtout their consent. Would you agree? You comment on how the Jews see their history, I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at. My opinion being raised as a jew is that most Jews dont read the bits of the Torah they dont like , they're probably unaware such genocides were commanded. They go to Synagogue, the Rabbi sings in Hebrew and they try and follow along. He doesnt usually sing the passages that say wipe everyone last man, woman, child and ox out. even the Jews with good hebrew can translate it after a bit of work and certianly not fast enough tokeep up with what the Rabbi sings. That is only my experience of course.

What I am talking about is the fundamental principle of homeopathy that the more one dilutes a substance the more potent it becomes even to the extent that it is effectively infinitley diluted. That is in contradiction to what the laws of chemistry state. If there are remedies that have very low levels of dilution then ok its not impossible they could have an effect but even a low dilution of say 3c has one part active ingredinet to 1 million parts water. The fact remains the fundamentl principles of homeopathy have no scientific foundation and are in al least part in complete contradiction to fundamenal principles of chemistry and physics.

Well in the bible god commands the Hebrew armies to commit genocide so then you must agree that genocide is not "objectivley" wrong. If not then god must have acted wrongly. "I think there are objective morals. That is all I have said. Perhaps, you like Bill think not. That is okay with me, but if you believe that that you will be on a slippery slope IMHO, because how can you say anything is wrong? " Just because I accept somehting is subjective doesnt mean I cant make a statement aboutit. I can say genocide is wrong in the same way i can say Jaws is better than Jaws 4 The Revenge or Phanton Menace is inferior to Empire strikes Back. Where's the slippery slope? I am confident in both opinions but i recognise the possibility others will disagree with me. that recognition is admitting the reality of the world , that morality is subjective. But that subjectivity doesnt mean one cannot have an opinion, perhaps one strong enough to fight for.

If there is widespread disagreement then how is it objective morality? Or morevoer any more objective than any other moral system? If Christians, inspired by Christianity can commit such crimes such as slavery, the holcaust etc whilst other Christians opposed them then clearly Christianity does not lead to any objective morality. all texts are subject to subjective interpretation and the bible is no different.

if you think any are effective then surely you have to explain why standard principles of chemistry are wrong.