Paul Dirac on Religion 2 (97)

This is what is so infuriating about debating with you. Conversations move on, topics change, they digress, dead ends are explored and back tracked. Discourse is multi sided and consensual.

Maybe it was tangential maybe not. So what?

There was argument about whether the bible would stand up in court and whether lawyers therefore believed in it or not.

There was discussion involving a certain lawyer and comparison was drawn with a Nazi. Still worthy of a Godwin, just as my "Not mentioning homosexuality, so I wont" is actually mentioning homosexuality.

The comment on affirmation is relevant in that it shows that the English legal system does not believe that the bible is the be all and and all of truth. Which I believe was the point being made at the time: "The bible would not stand up in court."

In order to convict the prosecution has to prove beyond all possible doubt. Now that would not be possible given that one is able to affirm, now is it?

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

Edited 21 Apr 11, 7:07 PM by proccie

An open-minded individual reading the threads on this forum would, I am sure, testify that SOME atheists DO use scorn and ridicule in place of argument.

For you to say I am the one responsible for it all is just untrue. But I doubt whether that bothers you.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

I doubt whether even you believe that this is what you intended when you used the word conflate. Again, your lack of honesty is clear.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

Hmmm. I wonder whether there is a "Godwin" equivalent for the time in a debate when someone falls back on the paedophile priests comment?

To be clear. Some paedophiles embark on careers as priests (or Scout Leaders, or teachers, or nursery school helpers etc etc) because it gives them a perfect opportunity for their dreadful activities. Would you say it is Scouting as an organisation that is to blame for such crimes, when a Scout Leader commits them?

To be clear again. There is NO excuse for any such crimes, nor for covering them up. And most importantly, those who commit them DENY the teachings of Jesus. As surely as someone like Harold Shipman denied the onus of the Hippocratic Oath, being to protect and preserve life. But do you blame the medical profession for what HE did?

You would do well to heed the "chalk and cheese" comment yourself.

As for the harm done by the Piltdown hoax, supported by scientists. Shouldn't a scientist be affronted by the fact that the main casualty was the TRUTH? Or doesn't that matter, in the bigger scheme of things?

Absolutely correct. And I am truly grateful for the tremendous advances that Science has given us. That should be balanced with the terrible opportunities it has given us for mass death and destruction too. Let's remain balanced.

However, the fact that it has controlled disease, made communications amazing, and done many good things is truly great.

There is no artificial choice to be made between science and faith. What bugs me is the persistent pretence by some on here that science opposes or disproves faith. It does not, and CANNOT.

There are things which are real but cannot be proven. Science is good with the material. It can weigh, analyse, dissect. It can probe, boil, measure. But it loses its way when it goes beyond its limitations. Science does not have ALL the answers. And this is not just true of matters of God. Science can measure what happens in your brain when you are in love. But measuring the brain does not explain love. As I have said before, science can analyse the paint on a portrait by Rembrandt. But it cannot sum up his artistic genius, nor the "pull" the painting may exert on our heart. Science can break down the notes in a piece by Mozart. But it does not scratch the surface of why that music can be so moving.

I have never claimed that my faith can be proven. At least, not in a crucible or a test tube kind of way. Some things are only proven in the knowing and experiencing. Like relationships. And knowing and experiencing God IS a relationship.

So what you say about science is true. I just wish you and some of your fellows here would recognise that that does not mean that science and only science can teach us the secrets of life.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

Touchy!

I certainly did NOT patronise you. I think I am in a better position to judge my own motivation than you are.

I thanked you for being objective enough to recognise that there have been brilliant theists. As you do not, unlike me, face the repeated slanging of some unbelievers here, you may not realise that there are indeed many of your fellow atheists who do NOT extend that degree of honesty to the discussions

Sorry about this, but you do. And I did absolutely nothing to "twist your words", other than quote them. Please show me how that is twisting your words - otherwise, I would welcome an apology. You do agree with me - in this respect only. That you can be intelligent and a believer. You are of course perfectly free to disagree with me over anything - and indeed, everything - else.

That is all I suggested. I am surprised you feel so exercised by the prospect that you feel the need to "protest too much". I hadn't realised that I must be regarded as so "unclean" that, even when I say something which is clearly true, and based on the evidence, someone has to feel so compelled to disassociate themselves from me.

Ah well.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

I am reminded of the saying, 'Never argue with an idiot. The first thing you have to do is think your way down to their level of stupidity, which is a territory best left to them'.

So what? A great deal of what.

Whenever I fail to address a certain point raised by any of the atheists here (and please count the number to whom I am responding, and how then many others are thick-skinned enough to argue from a similar perspective to mine), it is not long before someone is clamouring over why I haven't answered THEIR specific point. Even when I may have answered a multitude of others. And I will be accused of dodging it by raising another issue.

Yet you say a tangent is fine. Good. I will bear that in my mind, and the next time someone accuses me of it, I will refer them to you for a reprimand.

My bold, for a statement which would be a devastating attack on my case. IF I had ever suggested anything like the point you claim to disprove. Guess what? I did no such thing. Please feel free to contain your rebuttals within the realms of the points I actually make.

Finally. It ill behoves you to defend your right to introduce a tangent, which had nothing to do with the argument at the time, then now to compound that by making a statement to disprove a point I never made, when there remains UNANSWERED a whole list of points for which I have asked you more than once to provide a response.

I genuinely do my best not to avoid giving answers to matters raised. I realise I am not always successful. I am left to wonder whether some others on here don't even make the effort in the first place, to reply to points which are challenged.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon