501. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89009 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Josh:

I didn't mean to sound as if I was against the idea. I am not. I just thought that the request was phrased rather oddly; in a dramatic way. Hence the request for information. Apologies if I contributed to your disappointment.

502. For the glory of God

Comment #89002 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Steve Zara – you are a calm and considered person and Epeeist – you have a wonderful sense of satire and sarcasm. Can either or both of you make me feel better about our future?

I understand your worries, but I am reasonably optimistic about the future because of human nature.

Someone (I forget who) said that the outcome of the recent attempts to get ID taught in science classes in the states would fail because of human greed. Teaching kids good science is good for the economy. Teaching them religion instead is bad in this respect even if you think the religion is true. A kind of Natural Selection works - survival of the most useful ideas.

I think this is a sound principle. Religion will increasingly fail because it isn't a practical solution to many of life's problems.

One telling recent example was Nancy Reagan's support for stem cell research because of her husband's altzheimers. When other countries start to make progress in this areas, you can bet that the policies of the USA will change as people demand treatments.

I believe that those aspects of human nature we normally consider faults - fear and greed, will help overcome irrationality to some extent.

503. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #88992 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm

As Epeeist said, are non-Christians less moral than Christians? If not, where is their morality from? Something to ponder...

It surprises me that animal behaviour rarely enters this debate. There is plenty of evidence of altruism in many species.

504. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88975 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 10:44 am

If life ends at death as atheists believe then people can get away with doing bad things. That many atheists nevertheless care about others is fine of good, but does not affect the truth of my claim in any way whatsoever.

Of course it does. Bad things affect other people.

In fact, some branches of theism do a good job of encouraging ill-doing, through the doctrine of forgiveness. No harm in doing bad if this the slate can be wiped clean at confession. Even the worst person can be redeemed on their death bed, and experience eternal paradise.

505. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88962 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 9:24 am

The general idea is that knowledge about whether the tiger is real or only seems to be real makes no difference whatsoever in the behavior that optimizes the chances of multiplying one's genes, which in both cases remains to run away. Can you see any evolutionary advantage for having the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions?

I have explained this. Not every characteristic of an animal's behaviour has to be adaptive, and to claim it is is to make a serious mistake in the understanding of evolution. Some characteristics just happen to go along with others. The ability of parrots to speak English does not have an evolutionary advantage. It is a side-effect of their ability to mimic sounds.

In the same way, the ability of humans to do philosophy need not be adaptive. It may be a side effect of increased cognitive ability, such as the ability to plan and reason about other's behaviour, which is certainly adaptive.

Plantinga is wrong. And before you call me arrogant, I am not disagreeing with his philosophical reasoning (others far more qualified than me have done that), I am disagreeing with his understanding of biology.

The only thing under discussion here is the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions, not cognitive capacity in general.

No, you can't separate them. If you can explain the evolutionary advantage of isolating that specific cognitive capacity, go ahead.

506. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88949 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 8:51 am

whether Buddhism with its gods and hungry ghosts can be counted as atheism

Some Buddhists believe in Gods and ghosts. Some don't. Buddhism is not about that.

from the BBC website:

"The Buddha did not claim to be in any way divine, nor does Buddhism involve the idea of a personal god.

The Buddha suggested that it was fear that produced the religious impulse in humanity.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.The Dhammapada, 188"

The key phrase is:

"In many cultures Buddhism co-exists with local gods"

There are theist Buddhists, and there are atheist Buddhists.

The point that you just won't accept is that you can (like many atheist Buddhists) believe in the supernatural AND be an atheist. But, of course, that would destroy your straw man of 'what atheists believe'.

507. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88946 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 8:38 am

Above I was only explaining that scientific naturalism and idealistic theism are two alternative theories about objective reality, and that it's not like theism = naturalism + God.

You have been pressing us to prove that the moon, the statue of Liberty etc. "really objectively" exist. If we have a problem proving that these things "really objectively" exist, then that is a problem for any model of reality.

It also means I can ask you back to prove that God "really objectively" exists.

Assuming that anything "really objectively" exists, your arguments don't point towards an idealistic theistic model of reality, they only point towards an idealistic model of reality. The God bit is entirely superfluous.

As for your question, it's true that from how reality seems to be we can't directly deduce how it is. So my suggestion is that one can decide fairly which theory about objective reality is more reasonable by comparing them one to one under the same set of criteria; criteria such as explanatory power, internal coherence and freedom from paradoxes, compatibility with science, experiential gains, ethical empowerment, simplicity, elegance, etc. I have been explaining this idea for months now and it is a little dispiriting for me that you should ask here this question as if you had not understood anything.

I keep asking the question, as you just won't use terms like 'explanatory power', 'simplicity' and 'elegance' like everyone else.

I keep asking you HOW God is supposed to explain objective ethics, but you just won't answer. You just keep throwing the phrases 'God exists' and 'objective ethics exists' together as if they will somehow magically make sense.

In order to demonstrate explanatory power, you need to provide an actual explanation. So HOW does the existence of God make objective ethics? Saying 'God instantiates it' is just stringing words together. I want to know HOW.

You also misunderstand 'simplicity'. We know that because of the recent 'complexity' debacle, where you totally messed up 'organisational complexity'.

You also misunderstand 'freedom from paradox'. Precisely the same godelian issues with reality exist in a supernatural world as in a natural one.

So what are we left with?

A God we can't know, but is good (how do we know?) somehow responsible for objective ethics and stuff (how?); objective ethics we can't know, but we sort of have to guess at (which is no help at all - as I have said before, the existence of a map is no use if you don't have it to hand), and the idea that God is a vast Mind, when we know that whatever the substrate, minds are hugely complex.

The question is repeatedly asked because you have failed to demonstrate explanatory power, lack of paradox and simplicity. At least not as we use those words.

508. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88942 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 8:10 am

....it turns out that theism simply cannot account for our very condition as human beings. It cannot account for what we are: conscious beings experiencing life, thinking about truth, agonizing about ethical decisions, applying our free will. It can't account for the obvious objectivity of at least some ethical precepts. Many figure that it can't even account for the objectively of mathematical truths. It can't even account for something as basic as our qualitative experience of colors.

509. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88931 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 7:33 am

but would like to point out that the fact that Bin Laden also thinks that 2+2=4 is not considered a threat to arithmetic ;-)

Let's have a look at some sentences...

"Objective ethics exist and I know what they are.
This means that planes should fly into buildings."

Don't like that one. Let's try again.

"Objective ethics exist and I know what they are. This means that planes should not fly into buildings."

Yeah, that seems better. But... oh dear. We have a problem. Let's call 'Objective ethics exists and I know what they are' O, and planes flying into buildings 'B'.

We have

O implies B

and

O implies ~B

Nasty problem, isn't it? Actually, no, I am a liar.

510. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88925 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 7:19 am

Hey come on, I thought I was doing the quotes. And you put two in the same comment.

I humbly attempt to emulate the master....

511. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88906 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 6:41 am

So, for example, colors do not exist in objective reality according to scientific naturalism

"Oh, that was easy," says Dianelos, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

You experience having free will? That's an illusion too, says scientific naturalism.

Dennett believes otherwise. But perhaps he had no choice.

You experience wall being solid? That's only an illusion says scientific naturalism, because walls are in fact mainly empty space.

Naah. It is all due to those electrons you claim we can't show exist. what a repulsive thought.

You experience time and space being independent? An illusion.

Einstein claimed otherwise, but perhaps he was only relatively right.

But in fact scientific naturalism doesn't work at all.

I know. My laptop keeps crashing. I thought it was a problem with overheating, but now I realise it must be one of these holes in scientific naturalism stuck under the motherboard.

The same delusion drives them to hope that the many problems and paradoxes and holes of scientific naturalism will be somehow some day be solved by science.

Of all objects, the planets are those which appear to us under the least varied aspect. We see how we may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk, and their motions, but we can never known anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface ...

I shall leave it to you to look this up.

512. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88890 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 6:04 am

I'm generally blind to slips or ambiguities in your writing until Dianelos reacts to something like "pi is infinite."

If it is simply turning a blind eye, I would actually be grateful for correction if you feel I need it. I am not proud.

Likely we share a similar educational experience. I'm no physicist but I have a grounding in science. Philosophy, I confess, isn't my strong suit. Seems you might be like me in this.

Indeed. However my partner has done philosophy, and I often use him to check my ideas.

Comparing notes, then: Do you feel, as I do, a strong hesitation to take seriously the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? I've come to realize what that's about: Thou shalt not overstate thy data. Service to this commandment makes it impossible to comment upon metaphysics, except perhaps to say where logic has been violated or not.

Comparing notes, then: Do you feel, as I do, a strong hesitation to take seriously the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? I've come to realize what that's about: Thou shalt not overstate thy data. Service to this commandment makes it impossible to comment upon metaphysics, except perhaps to say where logic has been violated or not.

The mindset of someone like Dianelos - someone who seems to feel that we embrace metaphysical models much as we decide who to vote for in the next election - seems alien to me. I don't choose truth. I present my data and follow the rules, no more than this.

Yes, exactly. I feel just as you do. All we are doing is exploring stuff in a way that seems to work. I make no claims as to what the 'stuff' we are exploring actually is. I am not sure it is even a meaningful question. I think DG has a problem with this, as I suspect he finds this attitude incomprehensible. I find it amusing that I am being repeatedly told what my worldview must be, and how wong it is.

513. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88867 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 5:11 am

The problem of evil is probably the single most difficult problem for theism; one more reason to drill me on this issue.

OK!

There is only a problem of evil if you assume God is good.

So please tell us where the Universal Goodness meter is that allows us to know that God is good.

514. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88859 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 4:49 am

Or, as I would put it: Why can't it be the case that nevertheless it's not the brain that produces consciousness?

The brain is a substrate that allows thought. Consciousness without thought, if it is anything, is just... "D'oh".

Actually idealistic theism's solution to the respective problem (i.e. How does consciousness produce physical things?) is trivial: Physical things only exist as patterns in our conscious experience, so it's not like they are produced as something intrinsically different from conscious experience.

No, sorry. That is not the solution of idealistic theism. That is the solution of idealism. It is a very big step from idealism to idealistic theism.

Your arguments against scientific naturalism have never been any justification for the theism bit, even assuming they are in any way backing for idealism.

515. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88849 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 4:26 am

Incidentally, a deist is also a theist, as a deist believes in the existence of God – so I don't understand why some atheists make a big deal about the distinction between deism and the rest of theism.

Because a theist says 'God fiddles with the universe', and if that is the case, then then it is within the realm of scientific investigation.

516. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88839 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 3:55 am

I was not referring to that specific error by Steve, but to his general carelessness: his custom of not making an effort to understand the other person's thoughts and/or not to think a little more or do a little more research before just exclaiming "nonsense" or "you are just making things up", and so on

Excellent. This shows I am hitting the target. Nothing like a good solid ad hominem to reveal weakness.

I made a mistake, and sloppily abbreviated a point. I should have said 'Pi would require an infinite number of digits to be written to represent it, therefore, although it is real, it is not somehow produced by anything physical, and no-one claims it is".

But to claim I don't research this is just a tad silly.

Also, I understand your thoughts very well, as I have come across precisely the same errors of logic before. Well mostly. Your reifications are well-known traps that those who misuse philosophy often fall into, but your misunderstanding of complexity was a real doozy - takes a lot of brain power to get things so intricately wrong.

I also understand your insistence that science is different from scientific naturalism. But this is part of a little game you are trying to play, so show that we can't understand reality, so you are allowed to invent Magic Man.

What you just can't get your head round is that all your arguments in this area backfire at you. If you try and prove with all the effort you can that we can't know reality, then you are in no position to claim that you do know reality, and it is a Big Mind.

To be honest, I have been lazy about the science/naturalism distinction in recent times. I just can't be bothered to argue about those in detail when Dr Benway and epeeist do this far better, and when you won't apply the same standard of rigour to your own thinking.

I only claim "you are just making things up" when you fail to provide evidence, or causal connections, such as when you claim that God is good, or attempt to use "it is completely obvious" as the basis for rational argument.

Look DG old fellow. No point proceeding here until you provide answers to the following questions:

You claim God is good. Please provide us with an objective measure of 'goodness' that we can use to determine this. If I claim God is evil, or neutral, how do you distinguish my theory from yours?

You claim ethics are objective. Please provide evidence for this. I have provided clear evidence to the contrary, this being the confusion about this matter and the existence of psychopaths.

And if you can't provide me with those, then it is entirely reasonable for me to respond "you are just making stuff up". Making stuff up is nothing to be ashamed of - imagination is one of the things that makes us human. The problem is that some people confuse imagination with reality. Stories with facts.

517. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88829 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 3:32 am

Oh, and your pathetic attempt to understand and describe quantum mechanics.

I am eager for the Danielos Drive starship. (post 400).

518. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88808 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 2:46 am

you forgot to mention our misunderstanding of objective morality......

And our misunderstanding of metallurgy....

519. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88785 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 2:02 am

Dianelos: I have to ask ... why are you here? You seem to want to test your ideas against atheist reasoning. But there is no point doing that when you refuse to accept arguments back that contradict you - if someone says you are wrong, you simply claim they are misunderstanding you. You might as well just talk to yourself if you aren't going to engage sensibly, so I am really curious as to your motivation.

520. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88688 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Nevertheless, please commit yourself on this and then I will try to show which of the steps in the argument are incorrect.

My dear fellow; far be it from me to discourage anyone from posting, but you would be treading a well-worn path that many have followed, leading to nothing but Dianelos' attempts at confusion.

521. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88686 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I am puzzled by this request. My vague understanding is that the Dutch government was not prepared to pay for the protection of a citizen on foreign soil, but if she returned to Holland, they would pay. Is the USA government not prepared to protect foreigners who they have welcomed into their territory?

What is going on?

522. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88634 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 5:23 am

OK. Had enough for now. I have a suggestion, which is that when DG posts things like this:

I have done so many times already, so if you are really interested you'll have to read my past posts.

Where he is referring only to his posts, and not the discussions in which they were refuted, that such posts are ignored, or even perhaps tagged as spam (if that is an appropriate use of the facility).

It seems like spam for me; after all, he is, against all evidence, suggesting he can improve the size of your god-belief.

EDIT: In view of epeeist's (and some others') continued politeness, this may seem harsh, and if so, I apologise to the general reader.

523. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88627 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 5:02 am

When some posters consistently misread or misrepresent what I write then it should be no wonder I have to repeat the same ideas correcting them.

I know the feeling. Like when you misuse 'atheist', and set up straw-men versions of 'naturalism', and when you misunderstand 'organisational complexity', and when you misunderstand Dawkins ("He is against all ideas of a Creator") and when you misunderstand the implications of QM ("It only questions the nature of the reality I don't like"). I could go on like this for pages.

So in the future I think I will try to not comment to any posts that grossly misread or misrepresent what I argue, and will only respond to those posts that to my judgment make a good will effort to engage in discussion.

Translation: I have lost the argument in certain areas. However, admitting I am wrong would indicate failure. Therefore, I shall only respond to posts that deal with my interpretation of things. You may claim all you like that you are misinterpreted, but you don't play by the rules. You don't want us to conflate science and reality, as apparently we can't know reality, and at the same time you claim to know reality - it is the mind of God.

Anyway, if your refusal to engage stops you spamming, good.

524. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88619 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 3:59 am

2. Through natural evolution we can only possess such cognitive capacities that offer some competitive advantage. (premise)

Wrong!

Natural selection does not look ahead or understand its process. It can't say 'Let's design an organism so it will be able to do X in a future generation'. In the same way, it can't say 'Let's add limits to a capability so that it can only be used in certain circumstances'.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not be able to reason beyond the requirements of natural selection. In fact, this may be inevitable. The same logical processes that enabled us to count tigers to keep them all in view when they were trying to stalk us enabled us later to come up with theories of numbers and algebra.

So, that has dispensed with (at least your reading of) Plantinga's argument.

Plantinga's argument does show the danger of letting philsophers wander into areas in which they aren't experts. I mean, after all, he supports intelligent design.

Oh dear... the Creationist alarm bell is ringing again.

(If you are trying to quote the views of a creationist to support your view of evolution... let's just say it is not going to impress many people)

[1] There is an important exception though: direct experience while we are having it is knowledge that cannot be wrong

Wrong!

As any psychologist can tell you, our brain is perfectly capable of deluding itself, and frequently does. There are such things as false memories, hallucinations, illusions. Our brains make things up all the time. Part of what you are seeing now isn't real - it is the brain filling in your visual blind spots.

This is precisely why "it is obvious to me" is so foolish - it shows a deep misunderstanding of neurology and psychology.

You are confusing two things:

1. Having a sensation of something.
2. Knowledge.

1. Is not a sure guide to 2, not even in your own head.

525. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88616 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 3:48 am

As I have said many times, I do not believe in these ideas, so I don't see why you keep using them against my position.

Because it does not matter what you personally believe. It matters that your approach to belief opens the door to such ideas. Open the door to Jesus and it is opened to Bin Laden too.

"Because it is completely obvious" is a dangerous approach.

On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things.

That is just rabid nonsense, and you know it. It assumes that atheists only care about what happens to themselves personally, and don't care about what happens to friends, family, and the rest of the human race. Actions have consequences that go beyond ourselves. We don't need any silly 'God' idea to realise that.

I have done so many times: Something is objectively ethical not because God authoritatively says so, but because objective reality (and hence God) is so.

I know that is what you are claiming. But unless you can explain why this connection, you are just making things up. Just putting the words 'God is so' and 'objective ethics is so' in the same sentence does not make them connected.

At least those who claim that ethics are so because it is what God wants are providing some sort of connection, unlike you.

I can just as easily say 'objective ethics exists because penguins exist', and it makes just as much sense.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me Steve, but it seems to me that you are not really trying to understand what I am saying in the first place.

I understand all too well.

Once again: I am only comparing idealistic theism to scientific naturalism, which is Dawkins's atheistic belief system

You aren't comparing them. You are simply asserting one view is better than the other, in the face of evidence and argument.

526. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88593 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 1:49 am

At what point do we qualify someone as a troll and move on? The 10th time they make the same debunked (or plain pointless) claim? The 20th? The 100th?

As I have said before, I don't think it is trolling. That is posting just to stir things up. I think it is spamming - trying to repeatedly sell a faulty product.

The problem is when Dianelos the Salesman hops onto a new thread to sell his wares, and starts all over.

Perhaps the solution is for a quick single reply informing others that all arguments have been dealt with, and a reference to (perhaps) this thread?

Or, if that fails, use of the 'spam' option.

527. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88592 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 1:45 am

Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too.

I found this not only laughable, but personally offensive.

Dianelos - do you really think you are some kind of Jedi? When the planes flew into the Twin Towers, did you feel some kind of 'disturbance in the force'? Do you really share suffering, or is it only meaningless new-age twaddle?

The reason why I found this personally offensive is that in recent years I have lost dear friends and family members. Dianelos - as those people were ill and dying, did you suffer too? I don't think you did. I don't believe you shared their pain or mine. Or does the phrase 'in some fundamental sense' actually mean 'not in any sense at all' and you are talking crap?

528. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88587 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 12:57 am

Apparently, Steve99 does. When I say I believe in some proposition because it strikes me as completely obvious, he insists that in order to convince him I must present *evidence*.

Oh I am sorry. I understand now. I thought you were simply qualifying things as "obvious". I did not realise they where "completely obvious". The addition of "completely" is clearly enough evidence to reveal to me the truth of your propositions. Or maybe not.

Actually, I am FAR worse than you have described. I believe we should base what we personally believe on evidence. Evidence is should not just required for interaction between people...

You see, we are all poor fallible humans. We have a tendency to delude ourselves. We end up believing what we want to believe, and detaching ourselves from reality. Some end up flying planes into buildings; all based what what is 'obviously' true to them.

What concerns me here is the reasonableness of New Atheism or more specifically of Dawkins's worldview of scientific naturalism.

I just don't believe you any more, and I doubt anyone else does.

Plantinga's argument against naturalism does show that naturalism is false; rather it shows that there can't be justification in reason for believing both in natural evolution and naturalism.

Oh dear, I heard the CLICK of a [RESET] button again.

Just as global warming deniers search desperately for those few experts who agree with them, and when they have found such experts, claim that these experts are telling the truth, so you use the same dishonest approach.

Either point at a general review philosophical paper that shows a consensus backing your view, or Write your own paper on philosophy and get it published. Don't keep 'expert-mining' Plantinga when you know that his work has been criticised by others and you are in no position to judge who is right.

But Bin Laden's faith in his own reading of scripture (which is actually a graven image), has dulled his access to divine image inside. And it seems to me....

And it seems to Bin Laden that your reading of things have dulled your access to divine image inside. Who do I believe? You claim God is good, but I have only your word, and why should I believe you about that either? All you are saying here is 'I am right because I am right'.

In fact, your entire arguments over months can be summed up in one phrase:

"I am right because I know I am right."

That is it. That is all that is left when all the misquoting, misunderstanding, and misdirection is removed.

529. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88585 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 12:46 am

Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty.

One minute you are claiming that we can't know objective reality. The next you are claiming that you know objective reality. Which is it, please?

Also, please point us at the universal goodness meter that can be pointed at God to know that He/She/It is perfectly good.

Otherwise, I can just as easily claim:

"It is not a physical mechanism, but a person, a conscious being who really enjoys crosswords. It has been this person's objective that we should all achieve crossword-solving perfection. God has engineered the Universe to produce the Times Crossword, to show us the way. The uneven distribution of puzzles in the world may seem to be a problem, but what does it matter, when after death we shall all be provided with word puzzles for eternity.

I have FAR more evidence for this that you have for your version, as the existence of absolute goodness is questioned by many, but the existence of the Times Crossword is not a matter of dispute. You have the problem of evil to deal with. I don't (although I admit some crosswords are painful), as I claim God does not care about good and evil, only about crossword-ability.

So which is it to be? Either hard evidence for God being good (something theologians have struggled with for centuries), or you accept my worldview. (I know this is a false dichotomy, but you seem to like those).

530. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88266 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 4:29 pm

I do have to say I am impressed. I think this new direction for the RSS is excellent, and Kelly is doing a great job.

531. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88264 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 4:18 pm

You said this crap before, and I asked you to back it up, and you ignored me.

I know how you feel...

The thing is, Dianelos lies, but subtly. When he says 'naturalists one by one' have 'dropped' something, he is being deliberately misleading. What he means is that he has found one or two scientists who seem to say something that he likes. There was a superb demonstration of how he gets this wrong recently when he attempted to claim that Einstein did not believe he was studying physical reality....

I am afraid there is no reasoning with Dianelos. All you can do is post as if you are reasoning, in an attempt at damage control, so that others realise the flaws in his arguments. You have contributed well to that, and don't let his lack of response or deliberate misinterpretations get to you - it is a well-known Creationist trick.

532. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88250 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Epeeist:

On reflection Steve probably used the wrong word, parsimony would have been better.

Indeed.

You claim to be a software engineer. You should know that a piece of software is not complete until you have taken away everything that is unnecessary.

As a software engineer in my current job, the situation is even more appropriate. One of the most successful current development techniques is called 'agile'. It suggest you start with the minimum, and no more. You then work up based on evidence of need.

Danielos:

I really don't see how the realization that scientific knowledge offers no advantage to scientific naturalism when one compares it to idealistic theism somehow works in favor of your position Steve.

Actually, if you were being honest, you would admit you do. It is unquestionable. Scientific naturalism implies that there are only simple laws. Idealistic theism implies that there is a God simulating a world which appears to have simple laws. As anyone who has written simulation software (like me) can tell you, the simulator is far more complicated that that which is simulated. Therefore, simple laws is more parsimonious than God simulating simple laws.

and have resulted in the development of an ever increasing number of desperately incompatible naturalistic description of reality,

If anything shows how you have no understanding of modern science and its implications and philosophy, this does.

There are indeed different descriptions of reality like quantum mechanics. But these different descriptions co-exist for the precise opposite reason to that you give. The descriptions co-exist because they are all compatible. If they were 'desperately incompatible', then by definition they could not co-exist. This single statement alone marks you out as unqualified to criticise anyone else for failures of understanding logic or philosophy.

After all virtually all atheists believe as an article of faith that theism and science are fundamentally opposed.

No. The majority of atheists are Buddhists. You are trying to use terms to fit what you want again. Naughty.

First of all, as I have repeatedly explained, it's not like "idealistic theism = scientific naturalism + God". In fact, both scientific naturalism and idealistic theism are monistic theories of reality, i.e. theories that postulate that ultimately reality consists of only one kind of thing.

Yes. But the scientific naturalism is more parsimonious. It does not require an infinite mind.

And when one compares idealistic theism to even the simplest possible descriptions of a physical reality as understood by scientific naturalism, it turns out that the former is much simpler than the latter (see the rough but rather conclusive calculations in the latter part of post #55061).

No, actually. Physical reality as described scientific naturalism looks like it can be fit by just a few equations. Your Big Magic Man would require an awful lot of parameters to describe him.

Incidentally, Steve, I see that you often respond to a post of mine only a few minutes after I posted it. Why such a hurry? Don't you think it would be better and take some time and think before responding?

Nice ad hominem there mate!

I don't need to think that much, as you go over the same old stuff like a stuck record. It is a boring tune I hear from you, and I know it by heart.

Anyway, before I give up on this thread, as I have given up on others, let me finally deal with what you want me to. Scientific naturalism versus idealistic theism, and let's see what you, as an idealistic theist salesman have to offer.

Here I am with scientific naturalism. It has worked wonders we have used it to explore the universe like no other approach. It has provided increasingly powerful and easy to understand and useful explanations for the world.

It has few assumptions. These include that Nature follows laws that apply universally. It does not really distinguish between 'natural' and 'supernatural' - everything is just phenomena that can be studied through experiment.

So, what do you have on the table to offer me?

Well, your theism comes in five parts, each of which require additional funding from my incredulity credit card.

Part one. Consciousness is a problem for naturalism, and it is a separate thing.

Part two. Conciousness is the raw material of reality, and there isn't really anything else.

Part three. Somehow all this consciousness makes up a personality called God.

Part four. Certain ideas like objective ethics are true, because of this God (through an unspecified mechanism).

Part five. This god isn't just deist, but interacts with reality and does miraculous things.


OK. So if I am going to buy, I need convincing.

Part one. Dualism. Well, perhaps. This is a matter of intense philosophical debate. As it is a matter of debate, you are in no position to claim it as either obvious or a fact. However, for now, I will concede it.

Part two. Idealism. Well, this relies on one. Makes it a bit dodgy. I am less keen to buy, after all, what does it offer me? You claim there is no experimental difference detectable to science. So, it offers me no benefit at all (except perhaps as a foundation for the other parts). Not keen to buy this, but let's go on.

Part three. Well, this is a bit odd, as it does not seem to give me anything. You claim this God is good, but then you claim it is unknowable, so it makes no difference. Sorry, no benefits.

Part four. You claim that these ethics are objective, but you also claim we can't be sure of them. So it makes no difference. No benefits here either then.

Part five. Oh come off it! This would not only cost far too much in terms of incredulity, but it directly challenges the scientific naturalism that has been so useful.


So, you haven't managed to sell me idealistic theism.

So, what is wrong about your sales technique?

1. It rejects rational argument, by misusing science and logic (as in a misunderstanding of reification).

2. It uses Humpty-Dumpty-ism, by redefining words to mean what you want them to, such as 'atheism', and 'naturalism'.

3. It is full of ad-hominem attacks (such as on Dawkins), rather than actual arguments against positions.

4. You try to use the same sales pitch again and again, no matter how often we say 'no'.

5. You falsely describe competitors' products, by twisting what they offer (such as my trusty scientific naturalism).

6. You falsely claim your product is the only alternative to what I am using.

7. You try to make me believe your product is good, by rubbishing what I am using, which isn't going to work, as I am happy with what I have got. You need to sell better than that.

8. You are trying to sell your product by insulting the customer (we don't understand enough philosophy to realise the quality)

9. You keep trying to sell us attachments to your product that you claim add value even though you admit you can't see how they actually work, or even if they do (such as objective ethics).

10. You give us false references for your product, by selectively quoting the few reviews that seem to back you.

11. If a claim of yours about your product is shown to be wrong, you have admitted you will just bluff your way around rather than admit it (such as if the body of Christ was found, you would just waffle Behe-style "ah, but God make the disciples believe in the resurrection".

12. You try and bluff us with begging-the-question sales talk like 'Given that my product is better than yours, which I find obvious, you should buy it". Sorry, but I am not that naive.

Sorry, Dianelos. Your sales technique has failed. I recognise it. I don't buy from Creationists. You are wasting your time with me.

533. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88211 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 11:02 am

So, frankly, when I am criticizing Dawkins's worldview of scientific naturalism your continuous attempts to drag into the discussion other worldviews, such as Chalmer's dualism or even religious ontologies such a Buddhism's, are, again, red herrings. Let's stick to the issue of which theory is more reasonable, idealistic theism or scientific realism.

No. This is the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. You can debate what you like. I don't have to play by your rules of setting up idealistic theism as the alternative. I don't have to play with your theistic toys. I have lots of alternatives.

I strongly disagree and I am surprised you would claim that. What people say is not evidence of what is objectively true. After all, by definition, something is objectively true if it is independent of what people believe. Actually, what people say is not even very strong evidence about what they believe.

I disagree with just about every sentence in this. Except for the 'surprised you would claim it'. By now, you should not be surprised that I claim things you don't believe.

Perhaps you are confused and conflate the idea of corroboration with the idea of what people say.

Of course I do. Evidence that only an individual sees is only evidence of what an individual sees. We get evidence for what is objective by asking others opinions, such as 'did you see that too?'.

That a claim can be independently corroborated means that you can personally find out by seeing with your own eyes as it where.

No, it doesn't. That may be possible, but it is not necessary.

Right. And I justified these beliefs partially on propositions I find obviously true, such as that some ethical precepts are objectively true.

No. What happened is you failed to justify them. You don't get to justify things by just claiming you have.

If you had studied a little philosophy you wouldn't walk so easily into this kind of conceptual minefields Steve.

This from someone who uses 'it is obvious' as evidence, and makes major errors like a misunderstanding of complexity and abstraction. You fall into conceptual minefields all the time, so you are really in no position to criticise others.

- Idealistic theism works better than scientific naturalism as a theory of reality.
- Show me.
- Here.
- No there's a bit there that is based on what you think is obvious so it doesn't count.
- Here's some more.
- No, prove it.
- Well, I can't prove it, but it is good evidence.
- No, because you are not convincing us.
- Here's some more evidence.
- No, you simply don't understand science, neither math, nor logic.
- Here's some more.
- No, you believe in the resurrection of Jesus which shows that no matter what you say you are just another creationist, and creationists have it all wrong.
- Here's some more.
- Doesn't work; Buddhism is atheistic too.

Ok, I have no objection most to that.

The thing is, it really us up to you back your claims. If you fail to convince us through what you claim is good evidence, but which we don't, that is your problem. All that dialogue shows is that you simply haven't provided what people call evidence. What is true about the above is that you keep saying 'here is more evidence'. That does not mean you were actually presenting any.

Don't forget that you have been shown to be prey to fundamental logical and a scientific and philosophical flaws. What you seem to think is evidence is simply not acceptable by anyone with reasonable philosophical or scientific experience.

You think Steve I am here trying to convince you or anybody else; in fact I am here in part to see how atheists would respond to my arguments. And so far I am underwhelmed.

You have had thousands of responses, dealing with every detail of what you claim. We have gone over every single point time and time again. We have even ignored you pressing the 'reset' button again and again and apparently forgetting past conversations.

And you claim you are underwhelmed?

It's true that it is difficult to find out what objectively exists. That's why the better method is to compare one to one different beliefs systems about what objectively exists.

No, that is not what one should do. One should start with the simplest set of ideas combined with skepticism.

That's much easier, and indeed I find that when one compares idealistic theism with scientific realism the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the former.

No, you don't find that, because, as we have shown, your assumptions are mostly wrong, such as your understanding of complexity and abstraction.

In the context of this debate I don't wish for your sympathy, slight or not. What I wish for are some stronger counterarguments.

(I am not sure you understood the use of the 'sympathy' idiom here. It meant 'acceptance', as in 'acceptance of views'.)

Just about every foundation for your beliefs have been shown to be flawed. How could you possibly need any further stronger counterarguments?

But anyway, this should not be about counterarguments. You are the proposer of ideas. This should be about evidence for the ideas. You are attempting to switch the emphasis away from you.

Forget about my belief in Jesus's resurrection, that's a red herring. This particular and tentative belief of mine, i.e. that the closest disciples of Jesus did have some remarkably realistic experiences of Jesus after his crucifixion, has nothing to do with my main claim that idealistic theism works better than scientific realism.

I am afraid I have trouble accepting this. It shows how profoundly mistaken your approach is. Start with a Christian set of beliefs and compare them with other worldviews, and see if they are better. Well, the problem is that unless you are honestly prepared to pare down your beliefs to a rational magic-free subset, your views are going to be tainted by a desire to bend rules.

The problem is you claim to be promoting a viewpoint which is entirely compatible with science. Assuming Jesus's resurrection does not seem to me to be compatible with that.

534. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88188 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 6:38 am

I explain why your oft repeated point that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus is a red herring.

I believe it is at the absolute core of things. It explains why you want idealistic theism in the first place. It explains why you try and twist meanings, set up naturalistic straw men to attack and so on. You have this mistaken belief that idealistic theism is some kind of justification for Jesus rising from the dead.

The fact is, you believe in magic. That is part of your worldview. You believe in a God who intervenes in a way that is not amenable to scientific investigation, and contrary to scientific ideas. You claim it is in some posts, but that is not a scientific approach. Science isn't believing anything you like until it is disproved. It is not rational to believe that Jesus was resurrected until they dig up the body.

You see, you can argue all you like for idealistic theism, but we know we won't get anywhere because you are prepared to bend any rules in order to get magic into the picture. Because if you believe that, then, at heart, you just don't believe there are any rules at all.

This really isn't about ontology, or epistemology, or any other deep philosophical attitude. That is all just camouflage. It is about trying to justify magic. You want to try and show that scientific naturalism is wrecked so that you can justify believing whatever you like, even though this in no way follows.

To put it bluntly, it is equivalent to attempting to discuss astronomy rationally with someone who believes with all their heart that their auntie is a venusian.

535. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88174 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 3:45 am

It's naive to ask people for "proof" simply because there cannot be any proofs for ontological claims.

You aren't asking us to believe ontological claims. You are asking us to believe that certain things are true in reality, like God being in three bits, and Jesus being resurrected. You are simply trying to divert people from your belief in magic; magic that has had a supposedly real effect on reality, and that contradicts science.

So when many an atheist keeps asking like a broken record "prove it, prove it" they are only evidencing how clueless they are about epistemology.

When a theist keeps making claims like a broken record along the lines "there are objective ethics" and "Jesus was resurrected" without being able to show either any convincing objective evidence or any acceptable axioms and formal logic to get to that conclusion, that is the clueless approach, I would suggest.

As for religious beliefs sometimes having bad consequences it's true, but these pale when compared to some of the consequences of atheistic belief systems, so your argument is not only irrelevant but is also misguided.

Nonsense. There is not the slightest difference between your practical approach to ethics - "I believe there is a true map of ethics, but I don't know what it is, so I shall do my best" and the more honest approach "I don't know if there is a true map of ethics, so I shall do my best".

The danger of your approach is that some people do believe they know what the true map of ethics says, and not just that, but they believe that they have (the true danger of theism) the highest possible authority backing their view, and use their supposed knowledge of the true ethics to bomb people.

What you just don't seem to be able to (or want to) understand is that the true danger of a theist understanding of ethics is the sheer force that religion puts behind ethics - it attempts to give infinite and enternal justification for things - do this and you will get eternal pleasure. Do that and you will burn forever. Even some of the mildest theists believe that what is right is backed by infinite authority. This is the problem - theist ethics are sometimes effectively rocket-fuelled, in a way that rationalistic efforts aren't (although by no means always... if someone threatened a member of my family..) If they happen to point in the wrong direction....

Another problem is that theist ethics can be about damn stupid things, like headscarves and female mutilation... by divine authority.

Get rid of the divine authority, and a more reasonable discussion is possible.

536. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88152 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 1:54 am

You may find Hitchens distasteful but I fail to see where his ethical stance violates the atheistic worldview (whereas George W Bush's ethical stance does violate the Christian worldview).

How many times do you need to be told!

The 'atheist' worldview includes Hitchens, Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, and (it seems) Mother Theresa.

there is no single atheist worldview in terms of ethics

Atheism is nothing more that a lack of belief in God.

There is no point attempting to put forward a theistic viewpoint on ethics unless you can show what the right viewpoint is. You can't.

And you can't say that the existence of objective ethics helps, if you can't point to what those objective ethics are.

Look - it is simple. Suppose you are driving around an unfamiliar town and are lost (call it ethicsville) and are lost. You don't have a map. All you can do, is just try your best. The fact that a map of the town does actually exist somewhere doesn't help if you don't have access to it.

This is one of the biggest flaws in your reasoning. You claim we can't know what God is, but them you claim that God is good - but so what? That doesn't help if we can't know what that goodness is. You claim that there are objective ethics - but so what? That doesn't help if we can't know what those ethics are.

You see, this sort of reasoning is a total failure, as here:

But the fact that atheists do not really let atheist logic dominate their ethical reasoning is one more consequence of the fact that we are all built in the image of God and have therefore an innate sense of ethics.

We all have an innate sense of ethics as we are all build in the image of God. But how does that help? Bin Laden has an innate sense of ethics. So do you. I hope they are different. So unless you can tell which bits of the innate ethical sense are the right bits to take notice of, how does this idea help at all?

Your theistic reasoning adds precisely nothing as a practical guide to how we should live.

537. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88149 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 1:20 am

But, once again, to conflate theism with Biblical literalism is an obvious and gross strawman

Except for when people do believe what is literally in the Bible, such as the resurrection of Jesus. Yours is no subtle theism, with God hiding behind Nature - you believe in magic.

Think of it: theism makes every single human being a receptacle of divine grace.

Please point to your divine-grace-O-meter that indicates the presence of this grace.

Theism degrades people, as it claims they get goodness, strength and grace from God, rather than from themselves.

I consider it in some ways just like the 'Ancient Austronaut' ideas that were so popular years ago: People could not have built the pyramids, as they were not capable enough. Aliens had to have helped. In the same way, theism claims that people need God's help to do moral acts.

538. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #88119 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 6:32 pm

My conclusion is that the theist view of the world, which among denies the kinds of assumptions behind the ultimate 747 gambit, is not falsifiable. Accordingly, the gambit is not successful against all comers. But the responses to it look awfully contrived once you step out of a supernaturalistic image of the world.

I am not so sure. I think it may be possible (although I have not looked into this in any detail) to argue about the requirement for complexity in order to possess knowledge, and make decisions on that knowledge, in a sufficiently abstract way, not talking about anything physical. I think the only way then for theists to deny the assumptions behind the ultimate 747 gambit would be to either say 'no rules or laws apply in the supernatural world', or simply try and re-define words like 'simplicity'which is clearly an admission of defeat (although it is unlikely to be recognised as such).

539. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88110 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 5:46 pm

I have taken trains, buses, planes, taxis, etc with nothing happening.

I think the occasional bag search is worth keeping that the case. It is certainly worth it if it prevents.

I generally support what you are saying. As I said, I think ID cards are problematic. I just don't think the kinds of things mentioned in that Daily Telegraph article (from a newspaper that is going to do its best to spin things against a Labour prime minister anyway) are that bad at all.

These will be seen as a measure against them as a religion, not against terrorism.

Part of Gordon Brown's plan is to persuade young Muslims away from fanatics, not condemn their religion.

540. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88097 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 4:22 pm

And more...

That is not a sign of "powers that be" wanting to "protect". It sounds like an eminently sensible response to things that have already happened, like the attempted attack on Glasgow airport only a few months ago.

Tracking people with ID cards is one thing, and I think it is dumb (I doubt it is even going to work - UK government IT projects have a record of failure), but baggage checks on public transport are reasonable, and if they help stop us getting blown up, I have not the slightest worry.

541. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #88092 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Theists will deny that God is complex in any way that should trouble them, since He's supposedly an eternal spirit (and, for example, spirits have no moving parts).

I am interested in this point. I just don't see how God can in any way be considered simple. If he has omniscience, and makes decisions based on knowledge, then there must be an awful lot of states and state changes in that spirit-substance?

542. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88090 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Basically, DG is left having to burrow God deeper and deeper into theoretical dimensions in the fabric of existence that would make God so ephemeral, he, and the dimensions containing him, may as well not exist anyway.

Ah, but not quite. This is because what DG believes is a squished-together hybrid of idealism and Christianity. He believes in the resurrection of Jesus, something that should be repeated as often possible, I believe. This is someone who wants to talk about truth, about proof, about how idealistic theism agrees with science. But that 'rising from the dead' bit sort of puts a spanner in the works of all that lot.

543. Holy communion

Comment #88050 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 10:49 am

Their duty is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable - surely we should wear their barbs with pride as evidence that we are accepted into the mainstream?

I don't think it is evidence of being accepted into the mainstream (although I believe we are). I think it is evidence of one cartoonist thinking that being gay is something to laugh at. I don't think it is in very good taste (and it doesn't even have the merit of being funny), and while kids are being bullied for being gay it think it could even be considered a little harmful.

I have to say though, that it is a delight to see a young gay man like you so optimistic about things - it shows how far we have progressed.

544. Holy communion

Comment #88044 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 9:11 am

I think that in the current liberal cultural climate of the United Kingdom the elderly religious bigots seem vastly out of touch, and getting further out of touch with every passing day.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of middle-aged and young bigots. We have twits like Chris Moyles (a British DJ) thinking it is funny to use 'gay' to mean 'bad'. We have a major problem with bullying of gay children in schools.

We are living in a golden age for British homosexuals and I am very glad indeed that I was born into it.

I would not quite say golden age. I mean, it is really nothing more than being able to get on with our lives like anyone else.

but while the going is good let us laugh and let the world laugh with us.

This isn't laughing with us, they are laughing at us. This fuels discrimination.

545. Holy communion

Comment #88034 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 7:49 am

Steve99 do you think that any image/text (or whatever) that you or someone else interprets as exploiting a stereotype of a particular group in a negative way should not be published?

It is a matter of degree. I don't like the idea of banning things, and that is not what I am suggesting.

Just because we are free to insult people, does that mean it is always acceptable to do it?

546. Holy communion

Comment #88025 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 7:23 am

Even if it was some stereotypical gay figure, is that itself offensive?

I am beginning to think that 'offensive' is too strong a word, but yes, I think it is, in this context. It is attempting to make Richard look silly by portraying him as gay. That is the association that annoys me.

And even if it is offensive, do we have a right not to be offended?

Absolutely not! But offense should be used with care.

Perhaps part of the path to full acceptance is being insulted just like everyone else!

Perhaps, but I think best not while there are still people who consider us evil, not just funny. That is my view.

547. Holy communion

Comment #88016 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 6:44 am

But since he isn't anti-gay, why should he mind being depicted as one?

I am sure he would not. But that isn't the point. I think it is offensive when stereotypes are used in this way.

I have a theory (which I am happy for people to knock down if they think it is ridiculous), which is that stereotyping gay men as effeminate is a defense mechanism. It allows them to be labelled as 'other', so that they can be put at a distance. It allows those who might otherwise question their sexuality to say "I need not worry - I am not like that". Of course, many gay men are effeminate. Many aren't though, and that is just so troubling for some.

Anyway, I am not really, really outraged. Just surprised that in 2007 a cartoonist could be so naive and silly, in what is supposedly a rationalist publication.

548. Holy communion

Comment #88005 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 5:31 am

That interpretation would simply never have occurred to me.

Fair enough, but no matter how I look at it I just can't not see that interpretation. An 'Out and Proud' sign, compared with that just SO camp portrayal of Dawkins.... it seems so explicit to me... but there you go.

549. Holy communion

Comment #88004 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 5:08 am

I think the allusion to the gay rights movement has nothing to do with the dopey, wide-eyed arm-waving image of Dawkins (the bluebirds are hardly a gay trope are they?

I think it does.

The only people who still try to do us down in Britain are elderly conservatives, the religious, and those few ignorant, uneducated people who do not know better. These people do not have much sway in our society. Certainly not enough to reverse the gains we have made.

I believe they do. We are talking about an established church, with bishops in the House of Lords, we are talking about politicians like Ruth Kelly being a member of Opus Dei.

Maybe some people really cannot tell the difference between the ridiculous stereotypes and real gay people. Maybe they do think we're all like that. Maybe the flamboyant public image we sometimes present of ourselves doesn't help to dispel this misconception,

I don't think we should be in the least ashamed about flamboyant public images.

As long as we still wear the, perhaps once necessary, kid gloves and take offense at anything even remotely parodic all we are doing is giving out the message that we are still frightened and do not have the confidence to laugh it off.

It is not a matter of fear, it is accepting that we are equal. That we are not merely 'tolerated', but fully accepted as part of society.

Do you think a parody of Dawkins that tried him look amusing by portraying him a black would be acceptable?

I have to admit, I can't quite see the gay link in the cartoon -- more a sandal-wearing hippy look at the pretty birds type thing rather than an effeminate gay man is what it says to me.

Just look at those limp wrists :)

550. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87997 by steve99 on November 14, 2007 at 4:00 am

So if I claim proposition P but am unable to explain what it predicts then you have the right to respond: first find out what P predicts and then come back to claim that P is true.

That is wrong. The response should be: "find out what P predicts that allows us to distingish P from other propositions".