www.richworld8.blogspot.com/

On Aug 27, 5:24 am, Angelin  wrote:
> www.richworld8.blogspot.com/

10^40,000 th power probability that Atheism is true ;  and that
confirmed by one of the worlds foremost Athiest Biologist : Dr.
Francis Crick , codiscoverer of the DNA structure.  Atheism is also
impossible to live out in a daily social context because no 'atheist'
wants to have moral relativism returned to them by others.  No living
person has ever had enough faith to be a true bonified atheist . , yet
the lifestyle/philosophical temporary benefits are very compelling. I
tried to be an atheist for 10 years as an adult .

Dave is an evangelical fundamentalist, based in the US. He will not 
listen to reasoned argument and will continue to post the same 
invalid materials no matter how many times their falsehood is 
pointed out.

His typical posting consists of material copied from creationist 
websites - mainly pseudo science and frequently quotations from 
credible scientists (2) that have been edited to indicate the 
opposite of what the author intended.

If you are fired up with anger and feel compelled to respond (Dave 
frequently makes a series of increasing unsupportable allegations 
designed to provoke), the regulars here can't stop you, but please 
understand that you will simply initiate an endless stream of posts 
attempting to preach to anyone who is gullible enough to listen.

Notes:
1 If you wish to understand the truth about evolution and the 
science of our origins, and the erroneous nature of Dave's 
arguments, then this is a good starting point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
2. A recent example (repeated again in this post!) asserts Francis 
Crick (who discovered DNA) making statements about the sheer 
improbability of the natural origins of life. The quotes actually 
come from Fred Hoyle, an astronomer, but Dave's source is a 
creationist site that has (accidentally or deliberately) mixed up 
the references. Dave can't bring himself to even acknowledge the 
error, let alone apologise for it.

On Aug 27, 6:56 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:

> If you are fired up with anger and feel compelled to respond (Dave
> frequently makes a series of increasing unsupportable allegations
> designed to provoke), the regulars here can't stop you, but please
> understand that you will simply initiate an endless stream of posts
> attempting to preach to anyone who is gullible enough to listen.
>
> Notes:
> 1 If you wish to understand the truth about evolution and the
> science of our origins, and the erroneous nature of Dave's
> arguments, then this is a good starting point:http://www.talkorigins.org/
> 2. A recent example (repeated again in this post!) asserts Francis
> Crick (who discovered DNA) making statements about the sheer
> improbability of the natural origins of life. The quotes actually
> come from Fred Hoyle, an astronomer, but Dave's source is a
> creationist site that has (accidentally or deliberately) mixed up
> the references. Dave can't bring himself to even acknowledge the
> error, let alone apologise for it.


"A very strong case can be made that many of the steadfastly-
    religiously-convinced are actually mentally ill. The pleasant
    escape from reality that they so often indulge in is no
    more than the escape psychotics experience when they seek
    refuge from reality in a delusional dreamworld of imaginary
beliefs."


(DSM III-R is the official catalogue of mental illness by the
American
Psychiatric Association)

IlBeBauck@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Aug 27, 5:24 am, Angelin  wrote:
>> www.richworld8.blogspot.com/
> 
> 10^40,000 th power probability that Atheism is true ;  and that
> confirmed by one of the worlds foremost Athiest Biologist : Dr.
> Francis Crick , codiscoverer of the DNA structure.  Atheism is also
> impossible to live out in a daily social context because no 'atheist'
> wants to have moral relativism returned to them by others.  No living
> person has ever had enough faith to be a true bonified atheist . , yet
> the lifestyle/philosophical temporary benefits are very compelling. I
> tried to be an atheist for 10 years as an adult .

While I would challenge the numbers, I'm pretty sure that Crick was
describing the odds of evolution producing a human.  There is no such
requirement of evolution.  If we could rerun evolution, the meerkats could
be the dominant species on earth; or something that looked entirely human
apart from a second heart.

Huge odds are not even a bad argument for the existence of gods, they are
irrelevant to the argument.

-- 
People who need government to enforce their religion must not have much
faith in the power of its message.

The message 
from Nomen Publicus  contains these words:

> While I would challenge the numbers, I'm pretty sure that Crick was
> describing the odds of evolution producing a human.  There is no such
> requirement of evolution.  If we could rerun evolution, the meerkats could
> be the dominant species on earth; or something that looked entirely human
> apart from a second heart.

The odds against the existence of gods are infinity.   No one anywhere
has ever been able to produce any proof that any god exists outside the
imagination of believers.   The quotation was by Hoyle not Crick which
has been made clear to the idiot many times but he continues to repeat
the lie.   An illustration of his fundamental dishonesty.

There are millions of atheists in the world and they have no problem
with their lack of belief in gods.   Whereas those who claim to believe
in gods seem to have infinite problems even in agreeing on what they  do
believe.

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

In article ,
 Nomen Publicus  wrote:

> IlBeBauck@gmail.com  wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 5:24?am, Angelin  wrote:
> >> www.richworld8.blogspot.com/
> > 
> > 10^40,000 th power probability that Atheism is true ;  and that
> > confirmed by one of the worlds foremost Athiest Biologist : Dr.
> > Francis Crick , codiscoverer of the DNA structure.  Atheism is also
> > impossible to live out in a daily social context because no 'atheist'
> > wants to have moral relativism returned to them by others.  No living
> > person has ever had enough faith to be a true bonified atheist . , yet
> > the lifestyle/philosophical temporary benefits are very compelling. I
> > tried to be an atheist for 10 years as an adult .
> 
> While I would challenge the numbers, I'm pretty sure that Crick was
> describing the odds of evolution producing a human.  There is no such
> requirement of evolution.  If we could rerun evolution, the meerkats could
> be the dominant species on earth; or something that looked entirely human
> apart from a second heart.

We've had a long and fairly informative discussion about this, the 
upshot of which was that Crick never quoted such a figure; the 
calculation was Fred Hoyle's, and the reasoning behind it was entirely 
wrong-headed. Needless to say, Dave never took any notice and keeps 
presenting us with the same old chestnut.

> Huge odds are not even a bad argument for the existence of gods, they are
> irrelevant to the argument.

Well, the theists argue: It's practically impossible that the world and 
all that is in it, including ourselves, came about by chance, therefore 
they must have been created by some intelligent higher power. Discussion 
of huge odds may have some role in supporting that argument, and the 
usual response is that the odds are nothing like so great as the theists 
assert.


Alwyn

On Aug 27, 8:56 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Dave is an evangelical fundamentalist, based in the US. He will not
> listen to reasoned argument and will continue to post the same
> invalid materials no matter how many times their falsehood is
> pointed out.
>
> His typical posting consists of material copied from creationist
> websites - mainly pseudo science and frequently quotations from
> credible scientists (2) that have been edited to indicate the
> opposite of what the author intended.
>
> If you are fired up with anger and feel compelled to respond (Dave
> frequently makes a series of increasing unsupportable allegations
> designed to provoke), the regulars here can't stop you, but please
> understand that you will simply initiate an endless stream of posts
> attempting to preach to anyone who is gullible enough to listen.
>
> Notes:
> 1 If you wish to understand the truth about evolution and the
> science of our origins, and the erroneous nature of Dave's
> arguments, then this is a good starting point:http://www.talkorigins.org/
> 2. A recent example (repeated again in this post!) asserts Francis
> Crick (who discovered DNA) making statements about the sheer
> improbability of the natural origins of life. The quotes actually
> come from Fred Hoyle, an astronomer, but Dave's source is a
> creationist site that has (accidentally or deliberately) mixed up
> the references. Dave can't bring himself to even acknowledge the
> error, let alone apologise for it.

REPLY:  I DO wish to listen to reasoned arguments, so, could you tell
me how materials brought about non material personality traits such as
abstract thinking/moral oughtness/reason, how materials brought about
the scientifically verified 250  anthropics all needed simultaneously
and working collaboratively for our  universe to go on existing incl.
earth,  how many half developed eyes/half developed ears/half
developed hearts/half developed noses..have been discovered in the
fossil record of animals or humans, how 'natural selection' accounted
for our 40 major anatomical systems all working together so we can
live  when it didnt have to,  and how an atheist desires to live
according to moral relativism for maximum personal freedom  yet always
expects others to treat him using absolute moral constructs ?   I
await your reasoned replys.  P.S.  World reknown atheist Biologist Dr.
Crick affirmed Fred Hoyles calculation of 10^40,000 th probability of
atheist-abiogenesis so please  tell us how you as an atheist acquired
this kind of faith for still wanting to believe it still happened.
Thank you kindly.

On Aug 27, 9:58 am, Nomen Publicus 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 5:24 am, Angelin  wrote:
> >>www.richworld8.blogspot.com/
>
> > 10^40,000 th power probability that Atheism is true ;  and that
> > confirmed by one of the worlds foremost Athiest Biologist : Dr.
> > Francis Crick , codiscoverer of the DNA structure.  Atheism is also
> > impossible to live out in a daily social context because no 'atheist'
> > wants to have moral relativism returned to them by others.  No living
> > person has ever had enough faith to be a true bonified atheist . , yet
> > the lifestyle/philosophical temporary benefits are very compelling. I
> > tried to be an atheist for 10 years as an adult .
>
> While I would challenge the numbers, I'm pretty sure that Crick was
> describing the odds of evolution producing a human.  There is no such
> requirement of evolution.  If we could rerun evolution, the meerkats could
> be the dominant species on earth; or something that looked entirely human
> apart from a second heart.
>
> Huge odds are not even a bad argument for the existence of gods, they are
> irrelevant to the argument.
>
> --
> People who need government to enforce their religion must not have much
> faith in the power of its message.

REPLY: Crick was describing the probability of life arising from non
living chemicals  which is the pre-cursor to macro evolution.  Unless
abiogenesis is absolutely true, then macro evolution (and thus the
foundation for atheism)  crumbles .  The only alternative is special
supernatural Creation.  Would you say faith amounting to 10^40,000 th
power is that of a sound rational person who calls himself an
'atheist'  , or,  could it be possible that regardless of the
impossible odds...an 'atheist' just doesnt want to change due to
personal pride.(??)  That was my case during my 10 years as an adult
atheist . Is it yours today ?

On Aug 27, 11:49 am, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> The message 
> from Nomen Publicus  contains these words:
>
> > While I would challenge the numbers, I'm pretty sure that Crick was
> > describing the odds of evolution producing a human.  There is no such
> > requirement of evolution.  If we could rerun evolution, the meerkats could
> > be the dominant species on earth; or something that looked entirely human
> > apart from a second heart.
>
> The odds against the existence of gods are infinity.   No one anywhere
> has ever been able to produce any proof that any god exists outside the
> imagination of believers.   The quotation was by Hoyle not Crick which
> has been made clear to the idiot many times but he continues to repeat
> the lie.   An illustration of his fundamental dishonesty.
>
> There are millions of atheists in the world and they have no problem
> with their lack of belief in gods.   Whereas those who claim to believe
> in gods seem to have infinite problems even in agreeing on what they  do
> believe.
>
> --
> ********
> DavidWG
> ********

REPLY: The proof for a personal Theistic Creator is all around you and
in you ;  you dont even have to go looking for the Creator.  You know,
intrinsically,  what constitutes personal design and engineering, yet
you as an atheist are forced to believe materials and chemicals can
assemble themselves together to accomplish all that we have .  How
come you dont believe the Motor in your car resulted from raw
materials , chemicals, time, and chance  via an explosion in a
Factory ?  You should if youre really an honest to the core Atheist.
Its far more likely a Motor could be produced in this manner than the
250  extremely narrowly scientifically verified razor edge Anthropics
all needed , simultaneously, and working collaboratively for earth to
be here so we can be here.  Your faith is simply incredulous !   I
truly admire you for that !   :)   . How do you do it ?!

On Aug 27, 11:54 am, Alwyn  wrote:
> In article ,
>  Nomen Publicus  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > IlBeBa...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > > On Aug 27, 5:24?am, Angelin  wrote:
> > >>www.richworld8.blogspot.com/
>
> > > 10^40,000 th power probability that Atheism is true ;  and that
> > > confirmed by one of the worlds foremost Athiest Biologist : Dr.
> > > Francis Crick , codiscoverer of the DNA structure.  Atheism is also
> > > impossible to live out in a daily social context because no 'atheist'
> > > wants to have moral relativism returned to them by others.  No living
> > > person has ever had enough faith to be a true bonified atheist . , yet
> > > the lifestyle/philosophical temporary benefits are very compelling. I
> > > tried to be an atheist for 10 years as an adult .
>
> > While I would challenge the numbers, I'm pretty sure that Crick was
> > describing the odds of evolution producing a human.  There is no such
> > requirement of evolution.  If we could rerun evolution, the meerkats could
> > be the dominant species on earth; or something that looked entirely human
> > apart from a second heart.
>
> We've had a long and fairly informative discussion about this, the
> upshot of which was that Crick never quoted such a figure; the
> calculation was Fred Hoyle's, and the reasoning behind it was entirely
> wrong-headed. Needless to say, Dave never took any notice and keeps
> presenting us with the same old chestnut.
>
> > Huge odds are not even a bad argument for the existence of gods, they are
> > irrelevant to the argument.
>
> Well, the theists argue: It's practically impossible that the world and
> all that is in it, including ourselves, came about by chance, therefore
> they must have been created by some intelligent higher power. Discussion
> of huge odds may have some role in supporting that argument, and the
> usual response is that the odds are nothing like so great as the theists
> assert.
>
> Alwyn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

REPLY:  It wasnt ME who coersed atheist Dr. Crick to affirm Hoyles
conclusion as to the probablility of non intelligent intervention for
life to come about ;   on a far smaller scale :  the smallest of DNA
molecules has  equivalent specified information in it to fill a
complete volume of Encyclopedias . Do you care to explain as a
rational atheist how this occured by happenstance from materials /
chemicals / chance ???   Not even the worlds foremost atheist
Biologist (Dr. Francis Crick)  or one time atheist Sir Fred Hoyle
believed it ; how come you do ?   Is it that important for you to go
on denying the most obvious of all obvious things for the sake of
entitlement to live your life as YOU see fit ???

"Angelin"  wrote
> www.richworld8.blogspot.com/

"Possible Blogger Terms of Service Violations"

Nuff said !!!

Steve M

wrote

REPLY:  I DO wish to listen to reasoned arguments, so, could you tell
me how materials brought about non material personality traits such as
<snip>

Obviously you don't listen as I have personally answered this several times.

Stop mud-slinging.

Steve M

On Aug 27, 3:16 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
>  wrote
>
> REPLY:  I DO wish to listen to reasoned arguments, so, could you tell
> me how materials brought about non material personality traits such as
> <snip>
>
> Obviously you don't listen as I have personally answered this several times.
>
> Stop mud-slinging.
>
> Steve M

REPLY: Youve danced around these issues and invented poor analogys
Steven.  How about facing these issues i raised head-on this time
drawing on reason and rationale ...and not appealing to 'water filling
up a hole in the road' scenarios . Since you are a Materialist and
Naturalist, please demonstrate how your faith is a credible one . Use
real scientific evidence if you want.

On Aug 27, 3:16 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
>  wrote
>
> REPLY:  I DO wish to listen to reasoned arguments, so, could you tell
>me how materials brought about non material personality traits such as
> <snip>
>
> Obviously you don't listen as I have personally answered this several times.
>
> Stop mud-slinging.
>
> Steve M

REPLY:  P.S.   Its not 'mud slinging' to ask for you to explain your
faith regarding what you vehemently follow ;  here they are once
more : >>> how materials brought about non material personality traits
such as
abstract thinking/moral oughtness/reason, how materials brought about
the scientifically verified 250  anthropics all needed
simultaneously
and working collaboratively for our  universe to go on existing incl.
earth,  how many half developed eyes/half developed ears/half
developed hearts/half developed noses..have been discovered in the
fossil record of animals or humans, how 'natural selection' accounted
for our 40 major anatomical systems all working together so we can
live  when it didnt have to,  and how an atheist desires to live
according to moral relativism for maximum personal freedom  yet
always
expects others to treat him using absolute moral constructs ?

The message

from "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  contains these words:

> Your faith is simply incredulous !   I
> truly admire you for that !   :)   . How do you do it ?!

It is easy!  There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any of the many
imaginary gods such has yours.   There is absolutely no credible
evidence for the existence of any god and a massive amount of evidence
to show that gods are just inventions.  Your arguments are based on
nothing more than your incredulity and ignorance and you have failed to
grasp even the elements of evolution.  Read "The Blind Watchmaker"  by
Richard Dawkins and you might just begin to understand what it is all
about.   

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

We have two main theories about how we came into being.  The first
theory is to believe that some supernatural being created the first man
from a handful of dust by magic and made the first women by taking a rib
from the man.   The second theory is that we evolved from the earliest
life forms over many millions of years by natural selection.   

Neither theory can be proved but while the only evidence for the first
theory is a book of tribal traditions written about 4000 year ago there
is a mountain of evidence for the second theory including collections of
fossils spanning many millions of years.   

A variant suggesting some form of intelligent designer breaks down
because as any biologist or doctor could tell us if there was a designer
it was an incompetent bungler.

Where something cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt the usual
course is to work on the balance of probabilities .   Which theory is
the most probable? A supernatural being for which there is no evidence
or gradual development over millions of years for which there is plenty
of evidence?

The book of tribal traditions, aka the Old Testament, so revered by some
also suggests that the earth is only a few thousand years old.   As it
was clearly totally mistaken in that view why should the rest of the
fairy story seem any more credible?  People generally do not have any
problem recognising a fairy story when they see one so why cannot they
see that the Old Testament is just a collection of fairy stories, myths
and cod history?

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

wrote

More lies a drivel.

On Aug 28, 9:20 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> We have two main theories about how we came into being.  

.... and both are more or less inadequate in their own ways, even if
imo to considerably different degrees.

That's the main reason why I find categorical statements about the
alleged non-existence of something to belie the scepticism that leads
people to atheism in the first place. I think they do atheism a
disservice as well. There is little rational about stating there is no
such thing as a deity. Arguments that state deities definitively do
not exist consistent of little more than rhetoric, and contain no
logical or empirical validity.

Hey, I sympathise - the odds against some ridiculously
anthropomorphised personal supernatural being are infinitesmally
remote - but let's stick to the facts, rather than make statements
about what we don't know. Let's address the nonsense of most religious
thinking by undermining their arguments and so-called evidence, and
leave it there.

pg

On 29 Aug, 03:21, PG  wrote:
> On Aug 28, 9:20 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths 
> wrote:
>
> > We have two main theories about how we came into being.  
> Hey, I sympathise - the odds against some ridiculously
> anthropomorphised personal supernatural being are infinitesimally
> remote - but let's stick to the facts, rather than make statements
> about what we don't know. Let's address the nonsense of most religious
> thinking by undermining their arguments and so-called evidence, and
> leave it there.

The problem for them is that none of the so called evidence they have
ever produced stands up to critical examination.   Belief in gods
requires faith precisely because there is no credible evidence to
support that belief. It is not only that the odds against the
existence of the alleged supernatural being are infinitesimally remote
but that there is no empirical evidence to support its existence.
There is also the evidence that man has throughout history been a
serial inventor of gods and religions so there is not much doubt where
they came from!  Agreed that it cannot be proved that imaginary
entities do not exist but equally there is no reason to suppose that
they do.

David WG

PG wrote:

> 
> That's the main reason why I find categorical statements about the
> alleged non-existence of something to belie the scepticism that leads
> people to atheism in the first place. I think they do atheism a
> disservice as well. There is little rational about stating there is no
> such thing as a deity. Arguments that state deities definitively do
> not exist consistent of little more than rhetoric, and contain no
> logical or empirical validity.

You're just falling into religious propaganda. No one is talking 
about definitive proof - simply good logical reasoning.

If anyone is to follow a general precept (e.g. that there is some 
vague sort of supernatural god) then they only do so with some sort 
of evidence. In view of the general notion - that there exists a 
supernatural creator with stupendous magical powers to create 
everything we see - this incredible (literally) concept would in 
itself require some quite exceptional evidence. Yet there is, 
apparently, none.

If anyone were then to follow a more specific and detailed precept 
(e.g to choose a christian god) with all the specific demands that 
this entails (that they need worshipping, that you can or cannot eat 
certain foods on certain days, that you have to follow certain rules 
or go to hell, that un-baptised babies go into a place called limbo, 
that we are re-incarnated in some form after death etc etc etc) then 
you'd need a huge additional amount of similarly exceptional 
evidence. There is, again, apparently none.

We don't worry that we write off Thor as a myth, or Odin, or Zeus. 
That seems logical and beyond any reasonable doubt, so why apply 
different rules to the current mythology?

regards, Ian

On Aug 29, 2:01 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> PG wrote:
>
> > That's the main reason why I find categorical statements about the
> > alleged non-existence of something to belie the scepticism that leads
> > people to atheism in the first place. I think they do atheism a
> > disservice as well. There is little rational about stating there is no
> > such thing as a deity. Arguments that state deities definitively do
> > not exist consistent of little more than rhetoric, and contain no
> > logical or empirical validity.



> You're just falling into religious propaganda. No one is talking
> about definitive proof - simply good logical reasoning.

> If anyone is to follow a general precept (e.g. that there is some
> vague sort of supernatural god) then they only do so with some sort
> of evidence. In view of the general notion - that there exists a
> supernatural creator with stupendous magical powers to create
> everything we see - this incredible (literally) concept would in
> itself require some quite exceptional evidence. Yet there is,
> apparently, none.

> If anyone were then to follow a more specific and detailed precept
> (e.g to choose a christian god) with all the specific demands that
> this entails (that they need worshipping, that you can or cannot eat
> certain foods on certain days, that you have to follow certain rules
> or go to hell, that un-baptised babies go into a place called limbo,
> that we are re-incarnated in some form after death etc etc etc) then
> you'd need a huge additional amount of similarly exceptional
> evidence. There is, again, apparently none.

> We don't worry that we write off Thor as a myth, or Odin, or Zeus.
> That seems logical and beyond any reasonable doubt, so why apply
> different rules to the current mythology?


yes.  very precisely.
Indeed, it may well be that if *evidence* existed there could be NO
religion.  It is precisely because we have not *evidence* that
religion survives.
However, I wonder to what extent the evidence needs to be before
'proving' something doesn't exist.... well,  doesn't exist.
It's a difficult concept  (though not impossible, perhaps)  to prove
the non existence of some deity or other and I am left considering the
idea that acceptence or non acceptance of this deity must be based
upon the balance of probabilities.
It is, after all, about all we have when amassing the scientific
evidence and human knowledge catalogued together and juxtaposing this
against the assertion of a superstitious belief system that claims
existence and reality based upon, almost entirely, a written tome that
in itself is highly questionable at best and plainly wrong in many
parts at worst.
The christian context of god derives from a christian background
assimilated from the bible.  It's an earthly example of how the notion
and ideology of faith derives and survives.  It may well be that at
some later stage of religious learning another perceived consciousness
takes place between the adherent and the deity but the roots are in
the bible.
This bible fails miserably in many cases and many parts when
challenged by historical and scientific data yet is claimed by many
devouts as the word of god (as is the Torah and the Qu'ran) when it is
beyond all reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, written
by mankind alone.
At what point in all of this christian deity assertion does there need
to be something produced other than humankind writing...?   And if
that is not produced is the conclusion to be there is no deity...?
On the other hand,  having this religious system exposed to probably
the whole of mankind (even if from other belief systems) it appears
that evidence is demanded to prove the non existence.   A remarkable
state.
In my view, the start position is, and/or should be that no such deity
exists but if someone wishes to offer up an assertion to the contrary,
then the onus is reversed into producing evidential facts that support
the assertion.  Evidence that does not take account of the humankind
written bible (..or Qu'ran/Torah if you wish..).
There is a subtle - maybe not subtle - difference in the amount of
evidence required to prove something exists and that required to prove
something doesn't exists.  This is, in my view, not a level playing
field where the evidence needs to be judged equally.


Mark

On Aug 29, 9:56 am, prom...@gmail.com wrote:
In my view, the start position is, and/or should be that no such
deity
exists but if someone wishes to offer up an assertion to the
contrary,
then the onus is reversed into producing evidential facts that
support
the assertion.  Evidence that does not take account of the humankind
written bible (..or Qu'ran/Torah if you wish..).

An excellent overview of the situation...
5 Stars, 2 Thumbs Up and A Full Bucket of Popcorn from me...K

On Aug 29, 8:01 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> PG wrote:
>
> > That's the main reason why I find categorical statements about the
> > alleged non-existence of something to belie the scepticism that leads
> > people to atheism in the first place. I think they do atheism a
> > disservice as well. There is little rational about stating there is no
> > such thing as a deity. Arguments that state deities definitively do
> > not exist consistent of little more than rhetoric, and contain no
> > logical or empirical validity.
>
> You're just falling into religious propaganda. No one is talking
> about definitive proof - simply good logical reasoning.

Me and Dawkins both then! There is no 'good logical reasoning' than
permits anyone to make absolute, definitive statements about the non-
existence of deities. It is therefore valueless and serves no useful
purpose in the debate with theists. Indeed, it pointlessly provides
them with a gratefully received, ready-made riposte. A stupid,
schoolboy intellect one maybe, but one that helps to obscure the real
issues. The lack of evidence on THEIR side.

The remainder of your comments is, bar the final para, a statement of
the blindingly obvious that in no shape, manner or form contradicts or
undermines my previous comment. Let me try to explain once again. I
(and Dawkins, and Harris, etc etc) prefer to limit our comments to
what we know, rather than what we don't know. It is the very
foundation on which the case against the theist is built - the
evidence. It is what the scientific method, rational thinking, is all
about.

It is the very reason why the majority (ime) of thinking atheists
describe their position as one of a lack of belief in g(G)od(s),
rather than a belief in the lack of. This does not suggest, even
remotely, that said atheists are fence-sitters. It just means that
they do not compromise their rational principles in their use of
language in this debate.

| We don't worry that we write off Thor as a myth, or Odin, or Zeus.
| That seems logical and beyond any reasonable doubt, so why apply
| different rules to the current mythology?

Ok, this at least is worth commenting on **. Firstly no one has
suggested that different rules be applied to different mythologies -
another in the list of straw men. I'll answer a question with a
question. Which of the following is the most productive exchange from
the atheist pov?

[Theist:] God exists, the Bible says so, what else could be true, just
look around you, it's obvious, bla bla.
[Atheist]: Oh no he doesn't. No more than Thor or Zeus.
[Theist]: Oh yes he does! Prove he doesn't.
[Atheist]: Oh no he doesn't! I can't actually prove he doesn't of
course, no more than I can prove the non-existence of the IPU, but
it's obvious!
[Theist]: Oh yes he does! You just don't understand the evidence!
[Atheist]: Oh no he d.. (etc etc etc etc)

or

Theist:] God exists, the Bible says so, what else could be true, just
look around you, it's obvious, bla bla.
[Atheist]: Please justify your assertions and provide some evidence.
[Theist]: The Bible itself is evidence, as is the evidence of design
all around you.
[Atheist]: There are alternative explanations for our existence (he
presents them) as there are reasons to strongly doubt the veracity of
the Bible (he presents them). On what basis do you completely discount
these?
[Theist, struggling]: I just know instinctively that I'm right. So
there! Can you prove I'm wrong?
[Atheist]: No, but I don't have to. It's up to you to justify your
arguments and the accuracy of the evidence you put forward. So you
can't disprove alternative theories then?
[Theist, struggling]: Er, no. (etc etc etc)

It's all a matter of the use of language, and not (in my case) a
question of the strength or otherwise of my lack of belief. I just
prefer to try to use language in the most effective way to undermine
the theist position without resorting to emotive or derogatory
comments and unfounded assertions of *any* kind, irrespective of the
degree of probability involved. And you'll find that a very large
majority of atheist writers adopt precisely that same attitude (you'll
be calling Dawkins an agnostic at this rate!) The reason why they take
this position is obvious, at least it is to me.

** I'm not suggesting that your comments were worthless; on the
contrary they are completely accurate. But I think you must have been
replying to someone else.

pg

On Aug 29, 11:56 pm, prom...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2:01 pm, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
> > PG wrote:
>
> > > That's the main reason why I find categorical statements about the
> > > alleged non-existence of something to belie the scepticism that leads
> > > people to atheism in the first place. I think they do atheism a
> > > disservice as well. There is little rational about stating there is no
> > > such thing as a deity. Arguments that state deities definitively do
> > > not exist consistent of little more than rhetoric, and contain no
> > > logical or empirical validity.

> > You're just falling into religious propaganda. No one is talking
> > about definitive proof - simply good logical reasoning.
> > If anyone is to follow a general precept (e.g. that there is some
> > vague sort of supernatural god) then they only do so with some sort
> > of evidence. In view of the general notion - that there exists a
> > supernatural creator with stupendous magical powers to create
> > everything we see - this incredible (literally) concept would in
> > itself require some quite exceptional evidence. Yet there is,
> > apparently, none.

> > If anyone were then to follow a more specific and detailed precept
> > (e.g to choose a christian god) with all the specific demands that
> > this entails (that they need worshipping, that you can or cannot eat
> > certain foods on certain days, that you have to follow certain rules
> > or go to hell, that un-baptised babies go into a place called limbo,
> > that we are re-incarnated in some form after death etc etc etc) then
> > you'd need a huge additional amount of similarly exceptional
> > evidence. There is, again, apparently none.
> > We don't worry that we write off Thor as a myth, or Odin, or Zeus.
> > That seems logical and beyond any reasonable doubt, so why apply
> > different rules to the current mythology?
>
> yes.  very precisely.
> Indeed, it may well be that if *evidence* existed there could be NO
> religion.  It is precisely because we have not *evidence* that
> religion survives.

Religion survives for a number of reasons principally linked to
memetics and the evolved psychology of the human being, and not
because we lack evidence to disprove the theist position. Take a look
at the world around you - people believe all manner of ridiculous
things, irrespective of the strength of the evidence against. A
sizeable chunk of the population of the US still believes we were
fashioned from clay a few thousand years back, fer IPU's sake!

> However, I wonder to what extent the evidence needs to be before
> 'proving' something doesn't exist.... well,  doesn't exist.

Gravity is a theory - not a fact.

> It's a difficult concept  (though not impossible, perhaps)  to prove
> the non existence of some deity or other and I am left considering the
> idea that acceptence or non acceptance of this deity must be based
> upon the balance of probabilities.

Nothing wrong with that at all. On the balance of probabilities I do
do not accept this or any other deity. I have no belief whatsoever in
the existence of g(G)od(s).

> It is, after all, about all we have when amassing the scientific
> evidence and human knowledge catalogued together and juxtaposing this
> against the assertion of a superstitious belief system that claims
> existence and reality based upon, almost entirely, a written tome that
> in itself is highly questionable at best and plainly wrong in many
> parts at worst.

Fine. Precisely why I have no belief whatsoever in g(G)od(s).

> The christian context of god derives from a christian background
> assimilated from the bible.  It's an earthly example of how the notion
> and ideology of faith derives and survives.  It may well be that at
> some later stage of religious learning another perceived consciousness
> takes place between the adherent and the deity but the roots are in
> the bible.

Yup. But in what way does this contradict my position in the original
post that sparked these responses?

> This bible fails miserably in many cases and many parts when
> challenged by historical and scientific data yet is claimed by many
> devouts as the word of god (as is the Torah and the Qu'ran) when it is
> beyond all reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, written
> by mankind alone.

'Beyond all reasonable doubt' is a legal term, and has no place in
what is essentially a scientific debate. This isn't a court of law.
The religionist will always challenge what constitutes acceptable
evidence, and effective argument from atheists should always draw
attention to the fragility of so-called evidence in favour of deities,
rather than get bogged down in "He exists! No he doesn't! Yes he does!
exchanges that belong in the playground. We need to educate the
'vulnerable' from an early age to the strength of alternative
theories, to stimulate doubt, and we can only do this by addressing
the basis of religious beliefs in a calm and reasoned manner. Any
aggressive, absolutist, patronising posturing on the part of the
atheist is counterproductive in this respect.

> At what point in all of this christian deity assertion does there need
> to be something produced other than humankind writing...?   And if
> that is not produced is the conclusion to be there is no deity...?
> On the other hand,  having this religious system exposed to probably
> the whole of mankind (even if from other belief systems) it appears
> that evidence is demanded to prove the non existence.   A remarkable
> state.
> In my view, the start position is, and/or should be that no such deity
> exists

The start position should be in line with the rest of your sentence
below - that there is, in the opinion of atheists, no (or at the very
least highly inadequate) evidence to support the existence of deities.

> but if someone wishes to offer up an assertion to the contrary,
> then the onus is reversed into producing evidential facts that support
> the assertion.

Absolutely - leave it at that.

> Evidence that does not take account of the humankind
> written bible (..or Qu'ran/Torah if you wish..).
> There is a subtle - maybe not subtle - difference in the amount of
> evidence required to prove something exists and that required to prove
> something doesn't exists.  This is, in my view, not a level playing
> field where the evidence needs to be judged equally.

When you chose to draw an arbitrary line allowing you to decide
whether evidence permits you to state categorically that a
'supernatural' does not exist, then you play straight into the hands
of the theists. Our strengths lie in demonstrating the inadequacy of
the evidence in favour of a supernatural, and the explanatory power of
alternative theories. Leave it at that, and waverers are more likely
to learn to doubt the theist stance.

And bear in mind that most responders to my first post have chosen to
portray relgious belief as 'IPU'-type interventionist, omni this that
and the other personal deities, in a counterproductive attempt to
ridicule. This is a vast oversimplification of religious belief that
sidesteps the likes of Einstein's vague deism.

pg

The message

from PG  contains these words:

> 'Beyond all reasonable doubt' is a legal term, and has no place in
> what is essentially a scientific debate. This isn't a court of law.
> The religionist will always challenge what constitutes acceptable
> evidence, and effective argument from atheists should always draw
> attention to the fragility of so-called evidence in favour of deities,

Perhaps because I have been a barrister for more than 50 years I tend to
seek evidence to support any proposition.   As you may know we use two
different standards.  The first in criminal cases where to convict the
evidence must satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt.  The second in
civil cases where the judge decides on the basis of the balance of
probabilities which in practice usually turns on the credibility of the
witnesses.

In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god
or indeed any evidence that would be likely to convince me.  Religions
tacitly accept that there is no evidence by the insistence on the need
for faith. If religionists had any evidence that might convince us to
share their beliefs I am sure we would have heard about it endlessly.

To be persuaded to believe in the existence of a god I would require the
highest level of proof and need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
 

In fact it is all to easy to see that gods and religions are no more
than human constructs so there is no possibility that the required level
of evidence even exists.    

As has been said people believe in all sorts of crazy things and I agree
with Christopher that there is no reason for us to care what
religionists may believe unless they pester us.

Logical argument is unlikely to dent their faith but many of them will
come to challenge their beliefs in the fullness of time.

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

On Aug 29, 9:57 pm, PG  wrote:



>
> Me and Dawkins both then!

we are trying to figure out what to do with that while keeping
your identity out of it.

mk5000

Convenience Store Clerk: I thought you guys just ate doughnuts.
Sergeant Al Powell: Heh. They're for my wife.
Convenience Store Clerk: Yeah.
Sergeant Al Powell: She's pregnant.
Convenience Store Clerk: Yeah.
Sergeant Al Powell: Bag it.
Convenience Store Clerk: Big time. --Die Hard

David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:

> 
> In fact it is all to easy to see that gods and religions are no more
> than human constructs so there is no possibility that the required level
> of evidence even exists.    

Indeed.

We can be sure of that. There are many competing religions in this 
world. If any one of them had an one piece of convincing evidence 
then teams of evangelists would be knocking on all the doors down my 
street to deliver the knock-out blow for their beliefs.

regards, Ian

<  "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:313030303130343948B91B4600@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message
> 
> from PG  contains these words:
>

In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god >

The inclusion of the words 'as far as I am aware' negates the rest of it. 
Also, it is not credible that a person on an atheist newsgroup, and who is 
not a child, and who is not very dim, is unaware of the empirical evidence 
supporting the existence of a God which religious people put forward.

<  or indeed any evidence that would be likely to convince me. >

 I am sure that it has been explained to you many times that 'I do not 
believe' or 'I believe absolutely and utterly' are not arguments, they are 
just explanations and hope.

The message <48b98c00$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:


> <  "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
> news:313030303130343948B91B4600@zetnet.co.uk...
> > The message
> > 
> > from PG  contains these words:
> >

> In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
> to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god >

> The inclusion of the words 'as far as I am aware' negates the rest of it. 
> Also, it is not credible that a person on an atheist newsgroup, and who is 
> not a child, and who is not very dim, is unaware of the empirical evidence 
> supporting the existence of a God which religious people put forward.

What empirical evidence had you in mind?  I have only been studying the
subject of religion for about 60 years and so far I have neither seen,
read or heard of any empirical evidence whatsoever of the existence of
any god.  Given that empirical means "Verifiable or provable by means of
observation or experiment" and gods are all human constructs it is
unlikely that any such evidence exists.  

Furthermore if anyone had ever been able to prove the existence of their
god we can be certain that we would have heard all about it!   In fact
those who doubt the existence of a god are never given any proof but are
merely told 'you must have faith'!

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

The message <48b98c00$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:

> <  or indeed any evidence that would be likely to convince me. >

>  I am sure that it has been explained to you many times that 'I do not 
> believe' or 'I believe absolutely and utterly' are not arguments, they are 
> just explanations and hope.

I did not use either phrase and it was a statement not an argument.

If you think that there is some convincing evidence to support belief in
gods please reveal it to us.

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

On Aug 31, 12:59 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
>
> > In fact it is all to easy to see that gods and religions are no more
> > than human constructs so there is no possibility that the required level
> > of evidence even exists.    
>
> Indeed.
>
> We can be sure of that. There are many competing religions in this
> world. If any one of them had an one piece of convincing evidence
> then teams of evangelists would be knocking on all the doors down my
> street to deliver the knock-out blow for their beliefs.
>
> regards, Ian

I'm curious. You initially misrepresent my position, and then don't
acknowledge my response. You apparently prefer to post replies to the
others who latched on to your original straw man. Is that a favourite
debating tactic of yours?

pg

On Aug 30, 4:04 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> The message
> 
> from PG  contains these words:
>
> > 'Beyond all reasonable doubt' is a legal term, and has no place in
> > what is essentially a scientific debate. This isn't a court of law.
> > The religionist will always challenge what constitutes acceptable
> > evidence, and effective argument from atheists should always draw
> > attention to the fragility of so-called evidence in favour of deities,
>
> Perhaps because I have been a barrister for more than 50 years I tend to
> seek evidence to support any proposition.   As you may know we use two
> different standards.  The first in criminal cases where to convict the
> evidence must satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt.  The second in
> civil cases where the judge decides on the basis of the balance of
> probabilities which in practice usually turns on the credibility of the
> witnesses.

The evidence required in the scientific method has to be considerably
more compelling. It has to be observable, empirical and measurable.
Resultant theories have to be testable and therefore falsifiable. It's
fortunate that religion hasn't been put on trial in a civil court,
given that the judge and/or witnesses could already be compromised!
And I wouldn't trust a jury of my peers on this issue any further than
I could walk on water. Fortunately the scientific method isn't
vulnerable to the same kind of weaknesses.

> In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
> to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god
> or indeed any evidence that would be likely to convince me.  Religions
> tacitly accept that there is no evidence by the insistence on the need
> for faith. If religionists had any evidence that might convince us to
> share their beliefs I am sure we would have heard about it endlessly.
>
> To be persuaded to believe in the existence of a god I would require the
> highest level of proof and need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> In fact it is all to easy to see that gods and religions are no more
> than human constructs

I certainly assume that to be the case, in default of compelling
evidence to the contrary. I even believe that it is possible to prove
(to my satisfaction) that the god(s) as described by a specific creed
does/do not exist. Even, perhaps the god(s) of any creed. So
practically speaking, I am as *strong* an atheist as the next
unbeliever. However there is a subtle difference between our
positions. To quote infidels.org, "in practice, believing that no God
described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no
God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that
counterarguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind
of God are not really applicable".

To sum up, I'm bored by the incessantly repeated red herring "prove He
doesn't exist" argument advanced by theists when some atheists
proclaim "gods do not exist", and my use of language avoids this.
Yours does not, ime.

> so there is no possibility that the required level
> of evidence even exists.

Once again you target the classically anthropomorphised versions of
religion alone. That is only part of the picture.

> As has been said people believe in all sorts of crazy things and I agree
> with Christopher that there is no reason for us to care what
> religionists may believe unless they pester us.

On the contrary, there are a number of reasons why we should take this
issue very seriously indeed. They may not pester us directly, but this
phenomenon influences politics, moral strictures and laws throughout
the world.

> Logical argument is unlikely to dent their faith but many of them will
> come to challenge their beliefs in the fullness of time.

Much of the above goes without saying. But once again your targets are
the anthropomorphised deities of theism. How do you apply your logic
to the likes of Einstein's deism?

(Before the unthinking leap in with the usual nonsense, I am no more a
deist or an agnostic than I am a theist).

pg

On Aug 31, 1:05 am, "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> <  "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in messagenews:313030303130343948B91B4600@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> > The message
> > 
> > from PG  contains these words:
>
> In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
> to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god >
>
> The inclusion of the words 'as far as I am aware' negates the rest of it.
> Also, it is not credible that a person on an atheist newsgroup, and who is
> not a child, and who is not very dim, is unaware of the empirical evidence
> supporting the existence of a God which religious people put forward.

I think you must have a strange notion of the meaning of empirical
verification. Perhaps you would care to give some examples of the
'empirical evidence' for the existence of a god to which you refer?

pg

The message

from PG  contains these words:

> I'm curious. You initially misrepresent my position, and then don't
> acknowledge my response. You apparently prefer to post replies to the
> others who latched on to your original straw man. Is that a favourite
> debating tactic of yours?

There was no straw man.  You do not want to say that gods are just human
constructs while I am quite happy to do so.  We disagree but what more
is there to discuss?
-- 
********
DavidWG
********

The message

from PG  contains these words:

> The evidence required in the scientific method has to be considerably
> more compelling. It has to be observable, empirical and measurable.
> Resultant theories have to be testable and therefore falsifiable. It's
> fortunate that religion hasn't been put on trial in a civil court,
> given that the judge and/or witnesses could already be compromised!
> And I wouldn't trust a jury of my peers on this issue any further than
> I could walk on water. Fortunately the scientific method isn't
> vulnerable to the same kind of weaknesses.

I was describing the standards of evidence required in law and was not
suggesting putting religion on trial.  I said that I seek empirical
evidence and would require to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt
before I could believe in a god.  

> Once again you target the classically anthropomorphised versions of
> religion alone. That is only part of the picture.

The anthropomorphised versions are clearly all man made.  Beyond those
religions there are only the vague musings about the existence of some
form of supernatural force or entity.

> Much of the above goes without saying. But once again your targets are
> the anthropomorphised deities of theism. How do you apply your logic
> to the likes of Einstein's deism?

First show me the empirical evidence that supports deism!

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

In article 
,
 PG  wrote:
> 
> Much of the above goes without saying. But once again your targets are
> the anthropomorphised deities of theism. How do you apply your logic
> to the likes of Einstein's deism?

Was Einstein a deist? I know three statements of Einstein that involve 
God:

Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber böshaft ist er nicht.
The Lord God is cunning, but he is not malicious.

Der Herrgott würfelt nicht.
The Lord God does not throw dice.

and to the young Yehudi Menuhin after a concert:
Now I know there is a God in heaven!

I think Einstein was using 'God' as a figure of speech for the way the 
universe is ordered. (And I believe also Hume used it similarly.) So 
maybe we should call him a 'metaphorist'?


Alwyn

In article <48b98c00$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
 "John Brockbank"  wrote:

> <  "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
> news:313030303130343948B91B4600@zetnet.co.uk...
> > The message
> > 
> > from PG  contains these words:
> >
> 
> In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
> to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god >
> 
> The inclusion of the words 'as far as I am aware' negates the rest of it.

It does no such thing! In rhetorical terms, it *qualifies* the statement.

> Also, it is not credible that a person on an atheist newsgroup, and who is 
> not a child, and who is not very dim, is unaware of the empirical evidence 
> supporting the existence of a God which religious people put forward.

This statement would be more comprehensible if we had a clear statement 
of what you understand by 'empirical'. There is certainly evidence on 
the Christian side, but can we call it empirical?

> <  or indeed any evidence that would be likely to convince me. >
> 
>  I am sure that it has been explained to you many times that 'I do not 
> believe' or 'I believe absolutely and utterly' are not arguments, they are 
> just explanations and hope.

The immediate meaning is that the evidence does not convince DWG. There 
is an implication that a great number of other people might not be 
convinced either and that this is because of deficiencies in the 
evidence. As you say, this is not an argument but rather 'an appeal to 
reasonable people', a device that lawyers (and others) often use, and to 
my mind an entirely appropriate one.


Alwyn

In article 
,
 "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:
>
> REPLY:  It wasnt ME who coersed atheist Dr. Crick to affirm Hoyles
> conclusion as to the probablility of non intelligent intervention for
> life to come about ;

Stop lying, you have been told over and over again that that is untrue 
and based on textual fraud on a Jewish site you quoted!

When Crick wrote his book, he could not have any idea of what was in 
Hoyle's book, which was not written yet.

> on a far smaller scale :  the smallest of DNA
> molecules has  equivalent specified information in it to fill a
> complete volume of Encyclopedias . Do you care to explain as a
> rational atheist how this occured by happenstance from materials /
> chemicals / chance ???

It has been explained to you many times in the past. Because of your 
mental deficiencies, these explanations pass you by.

> Not even the worlds foremost atheist
> Biologist (Dr. Francis Crick)  or one time atheist Sir Fred Hoyle
> believed it ; how come you do ?

Hoyle was not a biologist; Crick came to other thoughts. Again, these 
are facts your deficient brain refuses to take in.

I would hope that what I believe is based on evidence rather than what 
other individuals believe, however eminent. Even if Crick did believe as 
you say, I am free to doubt him.
 
> Is it that important for you to go
> on denying the most obvious of all obvious things for the sake of
> entitlement to live your life as YOU see fit ???

You know, it's a clever tactic (not that you invented it yourself) to 
turn the tables on the atheist by reversing the conventional wisdom and 
saying that theism is rational and atheism is the result of irrational 
desires. The only problem with it is that there is no evidence that it 
is true.


Alwyn

On Aug 31, 1:35 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> The message
> 
> from PG  contains these words:
>
> > I'm curious. You initially misrepresent my position, and then don't
> > acknowledge my response. You apparently prefer to post replies to the
> > others who latched on to your original straw man. Is that a favourite
> > debating tactic of yours?
>
> There was no straw man.  You do not want to say that gods are just human
> constructs while I am quite happy to do so.  We disagree but what more
> is there to discuss?

I was replying to Ian and referred to Ian's straw man
misrepresentations of my argument, not your own.

pg

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote

> What empirical evidence had you in mind?  I have only been studying the
> subject of religion for about 60 years and so far I have neither seen,
> read or heard of any empirical evidence whatsoever of the existence of
> any god.

Well I'll prove you wrong then. The most worshipped god in ancient times was 
the sun - that certainly exists. In fact I think the sun is as near to a god 
as your likely to ever get. (It's just human speculating about god caring 
for us etc that is rubbish.)

Steve M

The message

from PG  contains these words:

> I was replying to Ian and referred to Ian's straw man
> misrepresentations of my argument, not your own.

I am glad to hear that!
Many thanks for the clarification
-- 
********
DavidWG
********

The message <sLGdnY6EbY40NSfVnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@posted.plusnet>
from "Steve Marshall"  contains these words:

> Well I'll prove you wrong then. The most worshipped god in ancient
> times was 
> the sun - that certainly exists. In fact I think the sun is as near to
> a god 
> as your likely to ever get. (It's just human speculating about god caring 
> for us etc that is rubbish.)

Quite so but that was a case of worshipping an inanimate object and
there are plenty of other examples such as volcanoes and burning bushes.
 After that it was Mother Earth which also exists but neither the Sun or
the Earth is a god in the sense of an entity that responds to human
beings or gives a damn about them.   

I had in mind the thousands of anthropomorphic gods which followed all
of which are clearly human constructs.  God certainly did not make us in
its image but we did the reverse!   Someone counted 1600 and there is no
empirical evidence for any of them.  Indeed there is no empirical
evidence for any supernatural entity being involved in the formation of
the universe though this was a strong belief of primitive people and
still held today by the less enlightened!

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:313030303130343948B9A3AB98@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <48b98c00$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
> from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:
>
>
>> <  "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message
>> news:313030303130343948B91B4600@zetnet.co.uk...
>> > The message
>> > 
>> > from PG  contains these words:
>> >
>
>> In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
>> to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god >
>
>> The inclusion of the words 'as far as I am aware' negates the rest of it.
>> Also, it is not credible that a person on an atheist newsgroup, and who 
>> is
>> not a child, and who is not very dim, is unaware of the empirical 
>> evidence
>> supporting the existence of a God which religious people put forward.
>
> What empirical evidence had you in mind?  I have only been studying the
> subject of religion for about 60 years and so far I have neither seen,
> read or heard of any empirical evidence whatsoever of the existence of
> any god.  Given that empirical means "Verifiable or provable by means of
> observation or experiment" and gods are all human constructs it is
> unlikely that any such evidence exists.
>
> Furthermore if anyone had ever been able to prove the existence of their
> god we can be certain that we would have heard all about it!   In fact
> those who doubt the existence of a god are never given any proof but are
> merely told 'you must have faith'!
>
> -- 
> ********
> DavidWG
> ********

If you have been studying for 60 years and still do not recognise the 
evidence then you probably won't, similarly if a creationist has refused to 
accept that the best method people have to make discoveries is science, then 
they probably won't.

See how in your second paragraph you suddenly switched to demanding 
'proof''.  It is possible that you have discussed things with too many 
dishonest people, and too many people of lesser intelligence.

Empirical certainly does not mean provable, though you are right about it 
meaning verifiable as long as it is realised that verifiable refers to 
revidence being observable or otherwise detectable by our senses, as opposed 
perhaps to being something we think, or imagine.

For my part, I have been told of much evidence, which is certainly 
empirical, which religious people say means that we should conclude that 
there is a God.  However, I do not think that evidence is the reason for 
their belief, it is just their way of trying to persuade me to believe as 
well.

I once had to call in a man who had been absent from work for quite a few 
days without phoning in any explanation.  It so happened that a big boss was 
visiting and he asked to sit in on the interview and I agreed with the 
proviso that he not interfere.  The chap came in, sat down and explained 
that his wife had told him she was pregnant and because she had had a 
previous miscarriage he was extremely worried and had taken time off to look 
after her and had not thought to phone as he was too distraught.  I told him 
that I would arrange for a loss of pay and he should in no circumstances do 
it again.

After he left, the big boss said that I was a bit harsh with the man.  I 
replied that the man was obviously lying in his teeth and had taken the time 
off to watch sport on the TV.  'You can not possibly know that', the boss 
said.

There is evidence for and against everything, and some people just believe 
this baloney.  One of the basic social rules is that before discussing 
anything other than the weather and Big Brother with a person, ask them 
whether their newspaper contains horoscopes.  It is a it crude but will save 
you wasting your time.  Of course the 'pregnancy' turned out to have been a 
false alarm.

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:313030303130343948B9D53F91@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <48b98c00$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
> from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:
>
>> <  or indeed any evidence that would be likely to convince me. >
>
>>  I am sure that it has been explained to you many times that 'I do not
>> believe' or 'I believe absolutely and utterly' are not arguments, they 
>> are
>> just explanations and hope.
>
> I did not use either phrase and it was a statement not an argument.
>

You surely do understand that you not accepting something as credible means 
the same as you not believing.

> If you think that there is some convincing evidence to support belief in
> gods please reveal it to us.
>
> -- 
> ********
> DavidWG
> ********

"PG"  wrote in message 
news:2b2707d6-61d9-41a3-83a5-2152fa04ea69@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 31, 1:05 am, "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> < "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in 
> messagenews:313030303130343948B91B4600@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> > The message
> > 
> > from PG  contains these words:
>
> In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
> to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god >
>
> The inclusion of the words 'as far as I am aware' negates the rest of it.
> Also, it is not credible that a person on an atheist newsgroup, and who is
> not a child, and who is not very dim, is unaware of the empirical evidence
> supporting the existence of a God which religious people put forward.

<  I think you must have a strange notion of the meaning of empirical
verification. Perhaps you would care to give some examples of the
'empirical evidence' for the existence of a god to which you refer?

pg>

Do you not understand that evidence being empirical means that it must be 
verifiable by being observable or detectable by our senses?  What is strange 
about that?

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-0C1725.13450531082008@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <48b98c00$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>
>> <  "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message
>> news:313030303130343948B91B4600@zetnet.co.uk...
>> > The message
>> > 
>> > from PG  contains these words:
>> >
>>
>> In the field of religion as far as I am aware no one has ever been able
>> to produce any empirical evidence to support the existence of their god >
>>
>> The inclusion of the words 'as far as I am aware' negates the rest of it.
>
> It does no such thing! In rhetorical terms, it *qualifies* the statement.
>
>> Also, it is not credible that a person on an atheist newsgroup, and who 
>> is
>> not a child, and who is not very dim, is unaware of the empirical 
>> evidence
>> supporting the existence of a God which religious people put forward.
>
> This statement would be more comprehensible if we had a clear statement
> of what you understand by 'empirical'. There is certainly evidence on
> the Christian side, but can we call it empirical?
>

I am not sure how many of you wrote that paragraph.  Perhaps you are a nurse 
who always talks to people using 'we' to mean 'you'.  Or something.

If you want to know what empirical means, read about it, or see some other 
messages where I explain it.  Certainly anyone who thinks that the 
complexities and wonders of the world and the universe are not empirical 
evidence does not have a clue what it means.  The man was overstating his 
case, and so losing it.

>> <  or indeed any evidence that would be likely to convince me. >
>>
>>  I am sure that it has been explained to you many times that 'I do not
>> believe' or 'I believe absolutely and utterly' are not arguments, they 
>> are
>> just explanations and hope.
>
> The immediate meaning is that the evidence does not convince DWG. There
> is an implication that a great number of other people might not be
> convinced either and that this is because of deficiencies in the
> evidence. As you say, this is not an argument but rather 'an appeal to
> reasonable people', a device that lawyers (and others) often use, and to
> my mind an entirely appropriate one.
>
>
> Alwyn

If it was meant that the evidence has deficiencies, then why was it said a 
few words previously that there was no evidence?  It might be a device 
lawyers use to slip in plenty of illogical twists to get people found guilty 
or otherwise when more than evidence is needed, but in a newsgroup supposed 
to be about philosophy people should not get away with dodgy logic.

The message <48bad742$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:

> You surely do understand that you not accepting something as credible means 
> the same as you not believing.

Of course it is but it is still a statement and not an argument. 

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

The message <48bad6ac$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:

> If you have been studying for 60 years and still do not recognise the 
> evidence then you probably won't, similarly if a creationist has refused to 
> accept that the best method people have to make discoveries is
> science, then 
> they probably won't.

And what evidence would that be?   Remember I am seeking empirical
evidence and as pg has mentioned that means the evidence has to be
observable, verifiable and measurable and resultant theories have to be
testable and therefore falsifiable.    

> See how in your second paragraph you suddenly switched to demanding 
> 'proof''.  It is possible that you have discussed things with too many 
> dishonest people, and too many people of lesser intelligence.

Only if the clergymen in the CoE and RC churches are dishonest and of
lesser intelligence which has not been my experience.  Empirical
evidence to the standard set out above could be used to prove the
existence of a god but, of course, no one has so far been able to
produce it and I can foresee some difficulties in obtaining empirical
evidence for an imaginary entity!
-- 
********
DavidWG
********

The message <48badb61$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:

> If you want to know what empirical means, read about it, or see some other 
> messages where I explain it.  Certainly anyone who thinks that the 
> complexities and wonders of the world and the universe are not empirical 
> evidence does not have a clue what it means.  

I think we all understand that empirical evidence means evidence that is
observable, verifiable and measurable and that any resultant theories
are testable and therefore falsifiable.   

Creationists think that the complexities and wonders of the world and
universe provide evidence for the existence of a god?  but perhaps you
would like to explain how they provide any empirical evidence?

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote

> Quite so but that was a case of worshipping an inanimate object and
> there are plenty of other examples such as volcanoes and burning bushes.

There are certainly more examples of sun worship/ sun gods.

> After that it was Mother Earth which also exists but neither the Sun or
> the Earth is a god in the sense of an entity that responds to human
> beings or gives a damn about them.

Well how significant is that? Some say god is caring whilst others say god 
is so powerful we are insignificant to god. Older gods did as they pleased 
with Roman and Greek gods running amok and others trundling a path 
repeatedly like those that turned the sunlight on in the morning.


> I had in mind the thousands of anthropomorphic gods which followed all
> of which are clearly human constructs.

Kings included?

>  Someone counted 1600 and there is no
> empirical evidence for any of them.

What we lack is evidence of any actual supernatural activity.
With the sun it does all those things like provide life, light, warmth and 
'looks down' on us all. It influences us all and the radiation measn it is 
in us all.
Apart from any cognative sense, the sun fits the bill.

PG wrote:

> 
> I'm curious. You initially misrepresent my position, and then don't
> acknowledge my response. You apparently prefer to post replies to the
> others who latched on to your original straw man. Is that a favourite
> debating tactic of yours?

No I don't think I misrepresented your position. You were making 
comments about atheists doing themselves a disservice by denying the 
existence of god. I was making a comment on your piece - nothing 
more, nothing less.

In fact, I just don't hear credible atheists making this point. I 
hear it being argued by theists that "Atheism is not a position that 
can be logically sustained" and that "No-one has ever proved that 
God doesn't exist".

I then went on to point out that we don't take this position with 
other "gods" (Thor, Mithra, Apollo, Odin ... ad infinitum). We are 
perfectly happy, in the absence of any supporting evidence for their 
existence, to accept that these are mythological characters. We 
accept that it is beyond any reasonable doubt and we don't get hung 
up on some idea that it can't be conclusively proved. Being as you 
referenced Dawkins - if you read Richard Dawkins' books, you'll find 
that he makes this point himself.

The whole notion of conclusive proof in this context is a nonsense - 
very little outside of mathematics can be. I used the term "beyond 
any reasonable doubt" - not a legal term at all (although I'm sure 
that the legal profession uses it extensively), just plain English.

I can't see why we don't accept that reasoning with the current crop 
of mythology. We should be spending our time explaining that to the 
theists.

As to my posting style - I don't engage in attacking individuals. I 
posted comments on the ideas that you presented as a contribution to 
the debate - a debate that I enjoy. We need to be careful that we 
don't see these challenges as some personal hate campaign. For my 
own part, if I see that someone is starting to take the argument 
personally then I'll stop the escalation by leaving it at that (I 
exclude the evangelicals from that rule for obvious reasons!).

Neither will I normally respond to an attempt to widen the 
discussion onto irrelevant detail (e.g. "beyond reasonable doubt" is 
a legal term ...) as this simply diverts attention away from the 
central issues and tens to multiply the threads and cloud the issue. 
However, in this case you seemed to ask specifically for a response, 
so I've tried to respond in detail.

So, to summarise - I don't think we are poles apart:
- I believe that the "you can't prove god doesn't exist" to be a 
religious argument
- the notion that we can be conclusive and have "proof" is simply a 
nonsense argument
- I believe that we can arrive at a logical position that god(s) 
doesn't exist through examination of the sheer absence of any 
evidence for, and weight of evidence that it is complete mythology.
- the argument is accepted by all when applied to historic gods, but 
not when it comes to current gods, even though the evidence is no 
better.

regards, Ian

The message <PsidnTKy7L4xNCbVnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@posted.plusnet>
from Ian Smith  contains these words:

> - I believe that we can arrive at a logical position that god(s) 
> doesn't exist through examination of the sheer absence of any 
> evidence for, and weight of evidence that it is complete mythology.
> - the argument is accepted by all when applied to historic gods, but 
> not when it comes to current gods, even though the evidence is no 
> better.

Perhaps that is due to a reluctance to confront people with their
gullibility and naivety for believing in a fairy story?
-- 
********
DavidWG
********

David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
> The message <48badb61$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
> from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:
> 
>> If you want to know what empirical means, read about it, or see some other 
>> messages where I explain it.  Certainly anyone who thinks that the 
>> complexities and wonders of the world and the universe are not empirical 
>> evidence does not have a clue what it means.  
> 
> I think we all understand that empirical evidence means evidence that is
> observable, verifiable and measurable and that any resultant theories
> are testable and therefore falsifiable.   
> 
Technically - since we seem to have two sides quibbling about what it
actually means and how it should be presented - "empirical" evidence
means evidence that is *measurable* by objective means.

Of which, obviously, there is none whatsoever relating to any god or
gods either now or in the past.

The message <g9ghr2$17t$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>
from The Magpie  contains these words:

> > I think we all understand that empirical evidence means evidence that is
> > observable, verifiable and measurable and that any resultant theories
> > are testable and therefore falsifiable.   
> > 
> Technically - since we seem to have two sides quibbling about what it
> actually means and how it should be presented - "empirical" evidence
> means evidence that is *measurable* by objective means.

I don't know how it would be possible to observe, verify and measure by
subjective means!

> Of which, obviously, there is none whatsoever relating to any god or
> gods either now or in the past.

Quite so!   

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:07:39 +0100, David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:

> I don't know how it would be possible to observe, verify and measure by
> subjective means!

If you actually want to discuss this perhaps we should adjourn to one of 
the psychology groups.

I am sure you would be surprised just how much "opinion" is actually 
quite measurable.

{R}

The message <48bc5881$0$570$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>
from {R} <{R}@nospam.nium.net> contains these words:

> I am sure you would be surprised just how much "opinion" is actually 
> quite measurable.

So the pollsters tell us!

-- 
********
DavidWG
********