Religious broadcaster builds $4M home despite layoffs at his ministry

[Neosutra]

You're undermining the entire system of curiosity and exploration by arguing that we should *not* review the idea that x+2=4 means x=2.


Do you honestly believe that nobody does research because they believe they can prove or disprove something?

Did it not occur to you that the raw "I wonder what happens when" you value so highly leads to the hypothesis which is then tested by both those that believe and those that disbelieve the initial results?

So you convinced yourself that theist are just as likely to pursue a career attempting to determine what event created the universe, even when they think they know the answer already?

Or are you suggesting that god doesnt actually answer any of the questions of "how", but just "who". In which case, if god doesnt answer the how or why, then why place him as an answer at all?

Because if god does answer the questions of how or why for these people, then they are most certainly less likely to spend their life continuing to pursue these questions.

[Plow]

You're doing the exact opposite of what you're accusing everyone else of doing.

You're trying to build a tiny, specific definition of God to attack, which pretty much goes entirely against the philosophy of a concept or being "above" or "behind" everything, let alone the fundamentalist omnipotence theories.


And no, I don't believe for a second that there's a higher likelyhood that a religious jackass that thinks he knows everything will avoid scientific research any more than an anti-religious jackass that thinks he knows everything will.

[Alleya]

Intelligence doesn't have to mean a guy in the sky, it's disappointing to see it abused so. And it skews a very important consideration into an easy straw man to build against anyone with any kind of "belief in origins."

You are proposing the anthropocentric concept of intelligence and applying it retrospectively. Intelligence as a word does not describe what you are proposing, the word intelligence implies a capacity for reason, understanding, learning, etc. By definition intelligence is part of an entity.You're dressing up a question of probability and selection pressure in pretty language that does not advance our understanding of the universe at all.

I also take issue with your definition of faith. Scientists when looking at a new theory that doesn't have a strong body of evidence yet say "this seems like it might be true, so I will attempt to disprove it", taking it on faith would say "this seems like it might be true, so it its true." The dictionary definition of faith is "belief that is not based on proof", so a scientist can never have faith. Either a theory is supported by the greater weight of evidence so it is likely to be true, or a theory has little or no evidence and so it is likely not true. That is a very different system from faith.

[Neosutra]

Oh there we go again, I am just attacking the wrong definiton of god.

My bad Plow.

[Plow]

You are proposing the anthropocentric concept of intelligence and applying it retrospectively. Intelligence as a word does not describe what you are proposing, the word intelligence implies a capacity for reason, understanding, learning, etc. By definition intelligence is part of an entity.You're dressing up a question of probability and selection pressure in pretty language that does not advance our understanding of the universe at all.

First off, I disagree with your assertion that intelligence requires a being. It is simply a trait.

Secondly, you're using the word entity exclusively to describe a biologically living being. (Not to mention, the universe can be argued as being exactly that.)

Most importantly, you're implying that there is some kind of consciousness that separates us from a tree stump, required to possess intelligence. That's pretty damn near religious, if not downright spiritual, if you ask me. It's also especially out of place in an argument where one side is proclaiming that there's not such a thing.

Lastly, you're telling me that the idea that the universe is capable of experimenting, with the successful experiments carrying on, and the failed ones being tossed away, hasn't developed our understanding of the universe?


The simple idea that there is a reason things happen is the driving force behind pretty much all of our advancement, and the preconceptions we carry into them are the guides, regardless of if they're that there's a God, that there's no God, or that there's a vw engine in an infinite universe which our infinite universe is expanding within, inside one of the combustion chambers, and the big bang is what happened when the spark plug fired.


Ideas and beliefs do not demonize the possibility of questioning them, or wanting to know more about them.

People like Neo do that.

I also take issue with your definition of faith. Scientists when looking at a new theory that doesn't have a strong body of evidence yet say "this seems like it might be true, so I will attempt to disprove it", taking it on faith would say "this seems like it might be true, so it its true." The dictionary definition of faith is "belief that is not based on proof", so a scientist can never have faith. Either a theory is supported by the greater weight of evidence so it is likely to be true, or a theory has little or no evidence and so it is likely not true. That is a very different system from faith.

I can just as easily ignore the entire rest of the "dictionary definition" of faith and claim it is this:

something that is believed especially with strong conviction

and only this, which implies nothing of why it is believed, or believing something without evidence etc.


We've had enough semantics though, no?

[Eratosthenes]

PZ Myers made a blog post today relevant to things discussed in this thread: Unscientific America and those awful atheists : Pharyngula

I don't really have anything to add; I just wanted to share that.

[Plow]

Oh there we go again, I am just attacking the wrong definiton of god.

My bad Plow.

You're not arguing against religion, or the concept of a "higher power" or "God", you're trying to pick something you think you can argue against and turn it into the universal definition of a philosophy so you have a target for your hatred.

[Neosutra]

All Plow has done this entire thread is state he doesnt agree with the actual definitions of: God, Miracles, Faith, Intelligence, and Causality.

I think Plow forgets that words have set meanings, and cant just change based on what you want them to mean, at least not while keeping solid communication.

I defined god as even such a grandeous entity the he was "something that answers how or why", and Plow states that this is a limiting definition. That infact, ANY definition I or anyone here gives of god is "wrong", because god is "undefinable". If this is the case, then you cant use the word "god", because the word god carries with it specific definitions, meanings, and attributes. You might as well just call it "the great mystery", if you arent going to allow anyone to give it any form or flavor.

As for intelligence, there is implied congnitive ability, reasoning, complex decision making. You cant just change what you mean by the word "intelligence" just because it is shown that it is unlikely that this universe was "created" by an "intelligent being".

You cant use the word miracle (by definition an extremely rare act of occurance, typically serendipitous to the situation) as an event that happens extremly often. The very claim is contradictory. It is like saying "extremely rare events happen all the time".

As for causality, had all of the great scientist of our history just allowed themselves to continue to believe that zues made it rain and apollo carried the sun, we would probably all still be living in huts.

Plow basically plays the part of a devote christian in this argument, regardless of what he pretends to argue as, and retreats to middle agnostic when people display errors in his philosophy. You have no definiton of god Plow, you cant even tell me what it is besides "everything you dont know". You have done nothing but alter between the "god of the gaps" argument and semantic word games for 15 pages now. If you were this stubborn in your mechanical engineering degree, maybe you wouldnt have had to drop down to polisci?

[Plow]

I think Plow forgets that words have set meanings, and cant just change based on what you want them to mean, at least not while keeping solid communication.

I literally just burst out laughing.

[Neosutra]

How about you address the points I made instead of cower behind 5 word comebacks?

Do they not teach that in PoliSci?

[Plow]

How about you address the points I made instead of cower behind 5 word comebacks?

Do they not teach that in PoliSci?

I decided to take your approach of completely ignoring the post and laughing about it, as you've done with 90% of mine.

[Neosutra]

Re-check the last 6 pages, pretty sure I've quoted and addressed each of your bullshit responses, regardless of how stupid they were.

But I guess it is a "miracle" you lasted this long.

Ill praise "god" for it (the undefinable entinty).

And be happy you have the "intelligence" to even read (intelligence that you dont actually have to be a being/entity to have, and has no relation to reasoning or decision making..).

Am I doing it right?

[Plow]

You see, when I directly explain how I think what you, and crazy fundies, are referring to as intelligent design, is not that in the least, and then you go posting about how I think it *is* that... I get that right.


Just like you gave me the right laugh at what a little bitch you are when I called you out on your "rligiz peeple are stoopidz" claims and you ran and hid behind lolinternet.

[Neosutra]

"Little bitch" lol.

Ethug harder please.

You've lost. Get the fuck out.

Your weak definitions and retreats on every premis showed you for the sophmoric infant you really are, and revealed the extremely narrow view you have of the universe and science.

You believe in the god that you cant be defined, which motivates actions which you dont understand, and is powered by an intellect that doesnt reason, all the while influencing miracles on a daily basis. Amazing.

[Blarg]

I think plow wants so badly to be the guy who sees both sides and is the most 'open' that he ends up trying to defend weaker positions.

[Plow]

"Little bitch" lol.

Ethug harder please.

k, keep running like a bitch from my challenge like you have been for 10 pages now

You've lost. Get the fuck out.

I haven't tried to win anything, makes it pretty hard to lose.

And no.

Your week definitions and retreats on every premis showed you for the sophmoric infant you really are, and revealed the extremely narrow view you have of the universe and science.

My retreats?

You've done nothing but try to change every argument I make back into the arguments your parents gave you that pissed you off so much when you were a little kid.

I'm sorry that to this day you haven't grown the balls to have a decent discussion on the subject with your parents, I'm tremendously intrigued (and admittedly, thoroughly amused) by your capability to project it into every facet of discussion with anyone else you disagree with.

You believe in the god that you cant be defined, which motivates actions which you dont understand, and is powered by an intellect that doesnt reason, all the while influencing miracles on a daily basis. Amazing.

You can't even fucking speak halfway intelligently, and think you have the capacity to tell other people what they believe.


You are the living incarnation of everything you hate so dearly. The self loathing must be unfathomable to create this kind of twisted reality in your mind.


But that's ok, keep stacking up the straw men, eventually you'll get a wet one in the middle and they'll all go up in flames.

[Plow]

I think plow wants so badly to be the guy who sees both sides and is the most 'open' that he ends up trying to defend weaker positions.

I don't know about the "wanting to be the guy that," but I definitely do want to see both sides badly enough that I'm willing to consider any argument, be it weak or nearly perfected.


I get so many productive questions and let my mind think off about all these things soooo much, it honestly baffles me that people can see such thinking as counter-productive.

[Neosutra]

Annnnd it's back to atheists being mad at their parents.

He really doesnt change. You should apply for Fox news.

Hey Plow guess what:

You dont like organized religion.

I dont like organized religion.

You dont believe any current definition of god is corrent.

I dont believe any current definition of god is correct.

The difference comes when you start altering the word god to mean "something you cant explain that is the driving force behind life and everything good". You are really just taking the judeo-christian version of god and refitting it to something that you agree with more. You arent "more enlightened" or "more tolerant", you are just another theist using the same tired god of the gaps idea to answer all of your questions.

As for "youz hates religious people kzzz", I already stated I dont even talk to my theist friends about religion, hence why I enjoy talking about it online. Unfortunately, people like you find it intolerant to even question their dogma. YOU DARE QUESTION THEISM!!??! Why cant you just let them believe neo!?

Seriously, what do theist have to lose by hearing the other side of the story? Is it really that offensive to have someone debate and argue that your theory may be wrong? Did it not occur to you that a person would have to attack/deconstruct that theory to debate it?

And really, drop the parents bit, it is getting embarrasing at this point. Perhaps if you had a better relationship with your parents you wouldnt have flunked out of engineering school and knocked up your girlfriend =/.

Such a hard life Plow, such a hard life. But a miracle it is right?

[Neosutra]

Incoming long post from Plow about how I just dont get what he is saying. "I is smart, shut up neo, your parents something something"..

[Melchiah]

The problem with the church is that it's fundamental tenets don't stand up to scrutiny, but are simultaneously defined in such a way as to render scrutiny irrelevant(and it can be argued that this is intentional).

This is what infuriates the rational mind.

I stopped talking to people about God because I don't get anything other than rhetoric, dogma and self-defining constructs out of the "true believers".

And Neo, I'm far from Plow's best friend or anything, but what does his level of success in engineering school have to do with this topic?