Debating an IDer

(NB: Saving the comments from an old blog for posterity)

(from friendlyatheist.com comment)

Brett (or is it Mike?) thinks he’s being censored unfairly. I’ve invited him to post his comments here since they’ve been deleted from FA.

Maybe I’m just taking the flamebait here but we’ll soon see.

Written by Tao in: Uncategorized |
31 Comments »

Mike (aka Mr. Troll) says:
March 2, 2009 at 14:45

What would you like to chat about?
*
Tao says:
March 2, 2009 at 14:49

Don’t really want to chat, I want to help figure out your problem on FA.
*
Mike (aka Mr. Troll) says:
March 2, 2009 at 15:15

Hi Tao… there is currently no problems since Siamang replied to me. I still may be deleted but maybe not. I think I have tangled the blog enough… not to be deleted. Next time I will just reply to myself and argue against my point of view so as not to be deleted.

So… just curious… what is your absolute favorite piece of evolutionary evidence that did it for you? That one thing that just screams out…EVOLUTION?

Also… in reading your other article… i think the Intelligent Design people would argue with you. They are not Creationists… in fact I disagree with some ID people. ID means that we could have been planted here by Aliens. I disagree. However, ID is more accepted in the scientific community than Evolution. Have you studied the Cell? The complexity is more than any scientist can wrap their mind around… it screams our ID. For me that ID is God.

Nonetheless, what is your favorite piece of evidence
*
Tao says:
March 2, 2009 at 16:04

The simplicity and elegance of it all. Can’t say I have a favourite piece of evidence though there’s plenty I get a kick out of: the reducible complexity of the eye, selective breeding (human selection of dogs, for example, breeding them for their desired traits leading to what will ultimately amount to different species since some breeds can’t breed with others, banana cultivars and all the problems with them over the past 30 years. Then there’s understanding systems, ecology, and game theory… nucleosynthesis, physics and chemistry… Can’t say I’ve “studied” the cell, not since science class anyway. I’m not a scientist, nor do I claim to be, but I do understand the scientific method so I understand that science is a process.

“However, ID is more accepted in the scientific community than Evolution.”

This is laughable. I’m sorry, but this is either a blatant lie on your part or you were terribly misinformed by someone blatantly lying to you.

As to the “other article” I wrote, you’ll have to be more specific. Was there something you wanted to comment on?

And of course, lack of understanding the science (either yours, mine or the scientists) is not evidence of a creator.

My own interest is in the psychology of it all. Understanding and appreciating perceptions and how ideas can form and mutate (evolve even!) to become the religions we have today. So for example, in my first comment to you back at FA, I asked you this:

“Do you know for a fact that the god you believe in exists?”

If you answered, I didn’t see it.
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 3, 2009 at 08:19

So big explosion = elegance and simplicity.

You are not a scientist not do you claim to be = agnostic?
ID = search the net… academia will reveal the truth.

Do I now God exists… the answer was a simple YES.

If you didn’t see it… how can I trust that you would properly research any other subject such as ID? My answer was not buried, nor was it contained in some obscure language.

Good Day
*
Tao says:
March 3, 2009 at 16:45

Sorry, what? Where is there an explosion in evolutionary theory?

I have no idea what this means: “You are not a scientist not do you claim to be = agnostic?” Have you already forgotten what “agnostic” means?

Believe me, I’ve done far more research on ID than it deserves. So telling me to research it does nothing for your cause. For you to make such an extraordinary claim that ID is more accepted in the scientific community than evolution demands evidence.

Surely you’re not talking about the ~761 names on the Dissent from Darwinism petition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

Which Project Steve trumped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

And the Clergy Letter Project thoroughly humiliated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project

That’s right 11,000+ American clergy reject ID.

Not to be outdone, the Vatican initially didn’t even want to invite ID people to their conference — starting today — saying ID isn’t science and is poor theology.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJK9enh8baMhdRguzkPFWcjJj9NQD968S0K80

So if you don’t believe the Pope when he says ID isn’t science, maybe you’ll believe the court ruling in the Dover case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

So not only is ID not supported in the scientific community, ID isn’t even science. If you understood what science is as well as how and why it works, you would understand the myriad of problems with ID.

Ok, I found your response. No reason to be a jerk about it. The way WP comments work I didn’t see it initially since it was posted while I was commenting. I only later checked for comments posted after mine.

Anyway, so if you *know as fact* that the god you believe in exists, you either must be able to prove it scientifically or you are all knowing. So which is it?

Your last remark in that posting where you answered my question was nonsensical. Do you believe in Rajoricak? Yes or no? You either believe in Rajoricak or you don’t. Whether or not you believe in Rajoricak is completely independent of any knowledge you may have of Rajoricak.

The following link is for my benefit:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/02/21/help-the-atheist-bus-campaign-happen-in-ottawa-canada/#comment-277508

*
Mr. Troll says:
March 4, 2009 at 09:35

Big Bang… or do you have a different view of how life started?

Vatican is not Christianity, nor are Mormons or other cults. So I really don’t care about their views.

11,000+ American clergy reject ID… so what… more than that accept gay marriage… does that mean it’s TRUTH & OK? Nazi Germany thought that the extermination of 6 million Jews was right… since those are big numbers that that mean it is right and = TRUTH & OK? Come on… you are smarter than that!

Want to do more research… a little deeper than wikidepia.. start at…www.icr.org.

I can load you up with 50-60 other links when you are ready, but this is a starting point.

I was not being a jerk… you called me a Troll.

I will prove to you scientifically… – but I would like to use the same science you use… fair enough? Oh, and after I use the same science you use…. I will exceed your science. How is that for a challenge.

Here we go… using “Science”… PROVE to me that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.
*
Tao says:
March 4, 2009 at 16:16

Mike….

First of all, I did not call you a troll. I said I think you are a troll which is actually very different. You see, I don’t know that you’re a troll but I believed you may have been. Not being one to confuse belief and knowledge, I offered up this forum to give you the benefit of the doubt. To deride me for honestly missing your post to me was jerkish, as was intimating or assuming that my research on these subjects was limited to wikipedia. Fact is, for the point I was making, wikipedia suited my purpose. If I were to send you all the sources I have read, watched, listened to or spoken with, the Purolator couriers that would be required would be furious. You best clear out a room or two too.

While I’m amused at how quickly you resorted to Godwin’s Law, what is more curious is that you seemed to completely miss the irony….

You are the one who made the statement that ID is more accepted in the scientific community than evolution is. I can only assume you wrote that for a reason to try and make a point so it seems you think it is a valid argument to say “more people agree with x, therefor x is true.” I asked for evidence of your claim which you couldn’t provide, so I provided my own evidence that the vast majority of the scientific community — especially in the relevant fields of biology, etc — think ID is bunk and not science.. I went on to show that American clergy and the Vatican itself — a very prominent Christian institution regardless of your classification of Catholicism as a cult — think ID is poor theology. After all of this you turn around and say that an idea’s popularity isn’t important? Of course it isn’t important! So why did you say that “ID is more accepted in the scientific community than evolution?” A claim that is not only laughingly incorrect but also completely unimportant? You’re just arguing against yourself. An idea’s popularity is not important because what people believe is not knowledge, truth or real regardless of how strongly they may believe it.

On to the rest of your comment….

Ok, I’m going to have to clear up the Big Bang for you too? The Big Bang has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution. The two concepts belong to very different branches of science and I thought we were talking about evolution. The Big Bang also has nothing to do with life starting. The Big Bang is a cosmological model that explains the early stages of the universe. It is not the only model. Big Bang cosmology requires a singularity. Well, actually, the Big Bang model came out of mathematics that required a singularity. There are alternative interpretations that don’t require a singularity at all. We live in a very exciting time for quantum physics since our understanding of it is increasing very rapidly. Physicists are working on these questions right now.. things like the curvature of space-time, etc. Last I heard, the Big Bang model is falling out of favour. I don’t know, but I believe that the universe is probably persistent or fluctuating. People tend to assume that all we know is all there is to know. I also wonder if people are searching for the beginnings of the universe because so many have been taught that it was created, so it must have a beginning.

Speaking of, I read a few pages at icr.org. It’s interesting that the blurbs promise a lot more than the following articles deliver. I’ve already found numerous logical flaws and misunderstanding of science. For example, one of the articles on science talks about “absolute truth” which is a concept completely contradictory to the scientific method. Following that, the site seems to be following the standard teleological argument that has been refuted countless times or is otherwise using the God of the Gaps type argument. Lack of understanding of science is not evidence of a creator, whether that lack of understanding is yours, mine or the scientists. So given that I reject the teleological argument, do you have any other specific arguments to make? I wouldn’t have the time or inclination to test drive every colour Edsel, nor would I need to to know it was a junk car.

Well, I have no idea what this means. My science is the scientific method, so how would you exceed that? Do you have an improvement on the scientific method? If so, scientists would love to hear about it.

You want me to use “Science” (sic) to prove to you that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa?

I think I know where this is going but I’ll bite because I’m curious and everyone loves a train wreck. But first I’d like to make one caveat clear….

My standards of proof are pretty low for art history because I simply don’t care. Whether or not da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa is trivial as far as I’m concerned. If it came out that someone else did, my life wouldn’t change one bit. My assumption and my acceptance of conventional wisdom that the work was da Vinci’s does not have any implication at all in the way I live my life. If someone else believes it was not da Vinci, I couldn’t care less as I couldn’t imagine their belief having an implication that would affect me or anyone else. The question of a god is very different. The existence of a god or gods would definitely have an implication on my life depending on which god or gods were real or not. Even if other people believe in a god, that often creates implications that affect me. The question of the existence of god is an important one, and not to be taken lightly because of the implications. It is most definitely not trivial. So while I may never have definitive proof to know that da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, since it isn’t important, what evidence I do have may be enough of a reason to believe that he did. That da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa is not an extraordinary claim, but that a god exists is most definitely extraordinary.

With all that said, and keeping in mind my ignorance and limited interest in art history so I don’t know much of their forensic techniques, here is as far as I can go proving Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.

Here’s the general outline…

1. Define the terms and state any assumptions.
“Leonardo da Vinci is _____”
2. Identify a known and certain link between da Vinci and any of his works.
“Given direct evidence, we know for a fact da Vinci painted ______”
3. Determine if there is a certain forensic link between the work identified in #2 and the Mona Lisa.
“The person who painted _____, also painted the Mona Lisa.”
4. Conclude
“Therefore, da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.”

Details:

1. Define the terms.

This is incredibly important, particularly the way you define Leonardo da Vinci. It is determining where you start with the rest of your logic. For example, if you start with the body in da Vinci’s tomb and attempt to prove that that body belonged to the person who painted the Mona Lisa, that would require different evidence. You might look at DNA evidence, a chemical analysis of the bones to determine if the person was exposed to paint. Maybe you can compare those traces to the paints used in the paintings attributed to da Vinci.. a link that might only be valid if the same traces weren’t found in all paint from the period, which could also be tested. Perhaps the finger bones were deformed from all the writing/painting? It may not be possible to prove with 100% certainty that the body is da Vinci’s, perhaps it was an assistant’s or a family member’s?

If it’s not possible to prove the body is da Vinci’s it may be necessary to define Leonardo da Vinci more loosely in terms of what we know of the story of da Vinci, by defining him based on what the history books say about him. This is far from ideal and we must be careful not to jump to conclusions by blindly assuming the books are true or in establishing connections not supported by evidence.

If, instead, you define da Vinci as the painter who painted _____ (the painting from #2) then no further evidence is required. This would be a tautology and circular logic. That is, it would be fallacious. This would also not be scientific since it is not falsifiable.

2. Identify a known and certain work….

Again, this may be more difficult than it seems. We might find contracts between da Vinci and his sponsors, but can we confirm that the body from #1 is the one who completed the commission? We must be able to rule out that the work was the work of an impostor or a student or mentor. Can we match DNA to a paintbrush and the paintbrush to a painting? If we can, great! If not, do we have evidence that da Vinci was locked alone in a room with paints and a blank canvas and after a period of time out came da Vinci and a finished painting? If we can definitively match DNA or something else definitive to the Mona Lisa, great, we’re done. But I’ll take it for any painting.

Note that with many of these techniques it may be impossible to be 100% definitive. Even DNA evidence may come back as 99% probable which is very, very probable, but far from 100% certain.

3. Determine if there is a certain forensic link to the Mona Lisa…

If in #2, we couldn’t find a direct forensic link between da Vinci and the Mona Lisa, can we find direct forensic evidence between the Mona Lisa and the other painting from #2? I assume art historians and forensic specialists have a system for matching brush stroke styles similar to handwriting analysis. Perhaps it is thought, for example, that the technique in both paintings is so difficult and rare that it is unlikely two contemporaries would be able to do it. Perhaps there is chemical or physical evidence to suggest they were painted on the same easel or were painted with the same paints or brushes. I suppose it may be possible to conclude with this kind of evidence that two paintings were painted by the same individual, regardless of who that individual might be. But again, many of these techniques, like handwriting analysis, are not 100% foolproof, but instead strive for likelihood. Also, we would have to be able to rule out impostors, students and mentors.

Knowing how common counterfeiting and fraud are, I would not at all be surprised to learn that certain pieces of the masters were not actually painted by who we think. Perhaps the works of da Vinci are the works of two men, one an expert mimic?

If the link is not definitive, the link is not definitive. If it is a likelihood, we must consider the topic as a likelihood rather than a certainty.

4. Conclude…

It’s important to follow the evidence, not to start with a conclusion and attempt to find evidence that fits the desired conclusion.

So there we have it.. since the techniques and evidence required are not available to me and nor do I have the expertise or even inclination to do so, I have not been able to prove that da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. I think I have summarized somewhat adequately — to my knowledge — the type of evidence and forensic work that would be required. I fully admit it may not even be possible to prove definitively.. although given my initial caveat, 100% certainty may not be required for something so trivial. I know someone painted the Mona Lisa because I know how paintings are made. I could care less whether it was da Vinci or Michaelangelo or Donatello or Raphael who did it.

PS: Do you finally understand the difference between knowledge and belief? Did you understand my Rajoricak example?
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 5, 2009 at 08:37

So to sum it up…. you can not prove it scientifically.

I understand your arguments and your attitude towards art. Lets turn to Darwin. 200 years later… can you prove scientifically that he wrote the Origin of Species. Please just answer Yes or No.

Have you read Origin of Species?
*
Tao says:
March 5, 2009 at 10:59

Wait, what?

I thought you were going to not only use my science but exceed my science to prove that the god you believe in exists. So I went to the trouble of writing all that out only for you to change the subject? What kind of a discussion is that? What kind of answer were you looking for? For that matter, do you rescind your statement that “ID is more accepted in the scientific community than evolution?” Are you going to provide the evidence for your claim I was asking for or are you simply going to ignore it? Speaking of….

PS: Do you finally understand the difference between knowledge and belief? Did you understand my Rajoricak example?

But to sum up the da Vinci argument. *I* do not have the forensic tools or knowledge available to prove conclusively that da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. However, I do know what types of tools and knowledge would be required. I’m sure art historians would know of other tools as well which would work just as well as mine if not better. That’s part of the beauty of science… different experiments coming to the same conclusion is pretty conclusive if no other experiment contradicts the conclusion. If art historians were inclined to do so, they may very well be able to prove it conclusively. They probably wouldn’t bother because as far as I know there really isn’t any legitimate doubt about who painted the Mona Lisa.

So, no… I don’t think you really understood because you’d realize that my answer for Darwin is the same as for da Vinci. *I* do not have access to the forensic resources or techniques that would be required. However I do know the types of forensics that would be required and they are the same types of things as with da Vinci. Instead of studying brush stroke techniques, you could study linguistics, for example. So I could devise a scientific experiment that could prove Darwin wrote it. Again, I wouldn’t care to because it’s not important. It would make no difference to me if it turned out that his sister wrote it, for example.

I’ve read bits and pieces of The Origin of Species. Why do you ask? Have you read the Windows 3.1 manual? What about BBN’s 1968 proposal to ARPA?
*
Mike (aka Mr. Troll) says:
March 5, 2009 at 12:01

Yes… I will

Your Rajoricak Example… Yes I understood.

But it seems that you get so caught up in your own words and ideas that you can not simply answer the question. I just asked you for a simple Yes or No… and you can not do that for me… can you?

I ask the question again… Can you prove any History using the Scientific Method. YES or No. Please do not give a long winded answer. I completely understand your long winded answer to the paintings and Darwin, but to be clear and not leave any doors open on the issue…. I would like a Yes or No.

So here it is again. Can YOU (TAO) prove using the scientific method any History including the stuff you had for Lunch Yesterday?

I want to keep this as simple as possible… I will come back to other ideas that I have started, but It is best to understand YOU first. Perhaps those ideas will be relevant, or not.
*
Tao says:
March 5, 2009 at 13:03

So do you believe in Rajoricak? Yes or no. Simple questions, right? I asked you this three comments ago and you still haven’t answered.

So do you have proof that ID is more accepted in the scientific community than evolution? Please provide it if you do or rescind your statement. I asked you for this evidence as soon as you made the claim. How simple can that be? If you make a claim, you must be able to provide evidence.

I’m baffled that you think I’m getting caught up in my own words with my “long winded” answers. You asked me to prove da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, so I provided a framework for whatever experiments would be needed to prove it. Do you actually need me to go hire forensics experts to actually perform the experiment to understand the logic behind the experiment? Does it matter if *I* couldn’t actually perform it if someone else could? Does that invalidate the logic for your purposes?

The exact same logic is required to provide evidence for anything whether the conclusion ends up being probable or definitive proof. Whether *I* can prove it myself right at this very moment depends on what it is. I could, for example, prove I was at a certain concert a few years back because I can provide a picture of me at the concert, taken with the lead singer of the band and a few of my friends. I can produce a ticket stub and other evidence that the band was there, and that the person in the picture was the lead singer of the band. I’m sure you can see enough detail of the venue in the background of the picture to prove where the picture was taken. I could also provide witnesses that I was there. So for that particular piece of history, any court of law would accept my evidence as proof I was there.

See, I really don’t think you understand my answer to the da Vinci question because if you did, you would understand why this question is a false dichotomy. You’re asking me to choose between these two statements:

1) Yes, I can prove any history using the scientific method.
2) No, I can not prove any history using the scientific method.

I cannot choose either response because I can prove some history using the scientific method. What history I can prove depends on whether or not I have the tools/knowledge to perform an experiment similar to the one I outlined in the da Vinci comment. I can’t be any more clear and concise than that while still being complete and correct.

Unless what you’re really looking for is me providing an answer that is not complete or correct? That way you can use “my science” as a model for your own incorrect and incomplete logic for your proof of god. But what you promised me was that you would actually use my science as your proof. So use my science as I have outlined. Don’t keep asking me to water down and oversimplify science to suit your purposes. No matter how simple a statement may be, it is still bound by the forum of logic and the scientific method.

If you still don’t understand, just provide your proof that the god you believe in actually exists and we can talk about that. Honestly, I’m getting tired of having half of what i write ignored and of you even ignoring half the things you say (ie, still waiting on that evidence about ID acceptance in the scientific community).
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 5, 2009 at 15:50

My Friend… my question to you was no rhetorical… Your question to me was… because you then decided to answer it.

“Your last remark in that posting where you answered my question was nonsensical. Do you believe in Rajoricak? Yes or no? You either believe in Rajoricak or you don’t. Whether or not you believe in Rajoricak is completely independent of any knowledge you may have of Rajoricak.”

Have you read the Bible?
*
Tao says:
March 5, 2009 at 17:00

None of my questions have been rhetorical and you still haven’t answered them. Note that I have answered every one of your questions in detail and you can’t answer my simple questions.

What is the difference between theism, atheism and agnosticism? Do you believe in Rajoricak?

Do you rescind your claim that “ID is more accepted in the scientific community than evolution?” If not, please provide evidence of your claim. It is very simple. Prove it, or take it back. Which is it? This is not a rhetorical question.

You said you could prove that the god you believe in exists using “my science.” I have shown you, briefly, how science and logic can prove something. So go ahead and use “my science” to prove that your god exists. If you cannot do so, own up to it… don’t just pretend that part of the conversation never happened. Just please think back and remember the implications I warned you about when I asked if you *knew as fact* that the god you believe in exists. Because if you can’t *prove* it, you don’t *know* it.

Don’t worry, this isn’t some trick… Just because you can’t prove your god exists, that doesn’t prove your god doesn’t exist. All it does mean is that you don’t *know* that the god you believe in exists. Rather than knowledge, that would be belief. There is nothing wrong with belief and faith, I just want you to be honest and admit that what you have is belief in, and not knowledge of, the existence of your god. Like I said before, in a marriage it’s probably much better to have faith in the fidelity of your spouse rather than knowledge of it because of private investigators, etc.

Have I read the Bible?

Is this a completely new tactic you’re trying on me now? You’re going to like this one even less because yes, I have read the Bible. All told I’ve read it quite a few times. I own a few different versions of it as well as other religious texts. For variety I have or have read books or articles by various religious figures like Pope John Paul II and Billy Graham and apologetics like Philip Yancey and Lee Strobel.

You see, you probably won’t find many atheists with my kind of Christian pedigree. A long time ago I was being groomed for the priesthood and even worked as a Sacristan for 5 or so years at my former church. I once even won a trivia game show (like, on TV and stuff) and my Biblical literacy was a big reason for that. So please consider that I’ve read it before whenever you give me Bible quotes.. and please consider yourself what it is, exactly, that you’re trying to prove by quoting anything.

In a rush, hopefully that last sentence makes sense.
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 6, 2009 at 08:57

Do you believe in Rajoricak?

Yes I Do
No I Don’t

That is about as clear as an answer As I get from you.

When you proceed to answer a question after you have asked it it then turns the question into a rhetorical question.

With your verbal diarrhea you seem to think that you can overcomne giving me a straight answer. In a court of law… if you were asked a Yes or No Question you can not continue with your verbal leakage. So just answer YES or NO. Using the scientific Method can you prove History? Yes or No… what is your answer?

Secondly… having read the bible in a few “short” sentences can you tell me its purpose as a whole… and also what the Old and New testaments were about?

I have come to believe that you can read… but there is a lack of understanding. Prove me wrong by answering Yes or No. to my question.
*
Tao says:
March 6, 2009 at 12:24

Verbal diarrhea? Is that a technical term?

Have you ever actually been in a court of law? You’d be laughed right out of it. You’re asking a question that is not yes or no and demanding a yes or no answer. Have you ever actually watched a senate hearing, for example? Believe me, you’d never get a word in edge wise going the way you are. I have answered your question as clear as I can while still being correct and complete. If you are going to restrict me to a one word answer, mine would be “some” as in, “I can prove some history using the scientific method.” I’ve already said all this when I explained, briefly, what kind of evidence would be required to prove anything. So if that evidence is there, yes I can prove it. If not, no, I can’t. It’s not up to me or even the logic to determine where the evidence is.

My question on Rajoricak is different. It IS a yes or no question. How can you not be sure if you believe in Rajoricak or not? “Some” doesn’t work in this case because you can’t just believe in Rajoricak’s legs. And whether you believe it or not is merely in your head so no external data or evidence is required.

I don’t see how this is so difficult to understand for you. Have you ever studied symbolic logic in a philosophy class or, say, done any computer programming?

What is the difference between theism, atheism and agnosticism? Do you believe in Rajoricak?

I haven’t answered any of these questions so I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. I’m still waiting on your answer to those questions.

The Old Testament, in particular, is a collection of stories representing the oral tradition and cultural history of a tribe of semites and their neighbours after the agricultural revolution. The fall of Adam and Eve is the story of the agricultural revolution and it continues from there.

The purpose of the New Testament seems less clear but the stories in them (particularly the Gospels) seem to be a modernization (for the time) of the Jewish mythology (ie, animal sacrifices make us look silly) while being a manual on passive resistance to Roman rule while trying to keep up the morale of a poor and oppressed people. Basically, Jesus made it cool to be persecuted. Being oppressed was almost a virtue. This is probably why so many (especially fringe) Christian groups have a persecution complex.

Please refrain from your baseless and inane ad hominems. And please actually answer my questions for once..
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 6, 2009 at 16:06

So you admit your that the scientific method you would you can not give you an absolute answer of Yes or No… only “some” Is that correct?

Bible: How do you know it is stories and not history? What Science are you using to set the idea in your mind that it is a collection of stories? Please explain the difference between History and a Story. I.e. the Holocaust was it just a story? or is it History?
*
Tao says:
March 6, 2009 at 17:23

Still waiting on this:

What is the difference between theism, atheism and agnosticism? Do you believe in Rajoricak?

I have no idea what this means:

“So you admit your that the scientific method you would you can not give you an absolute answer of Yes or No… only “some” Is that correct?”

The scientific method is the best process we have for determining characteristics of the universe in an objective sense. The claims that can be made are limited to the evidence available. Personally, I am limited by skill and equipment, so what *I* can do is different from what Stephen Hawking can do which is also different from what some genius scientist 100 years from now will be able to do. I am not arrogant enough to presume to know what evidence will be available to scientists 100 years from now. Science is a process or a way of doing things.

As for the Bible…. wow, okay….

What science am I using?

Lets see. I own a few Bibles as I mentioned before so I know the Bible exists. There are a few different English translations but for these purposes it wouldn’t matter which translation I used. I know there is some controversy on the translations (and from the Coptic / Greek as well) but the details don’t matter for our purposes. There are old copies of the Bible in museums all over the world so I know the text is historic and that to a large extent, the substance of the books haven’t changed all that much though certain details have certainly been lost in translation. Again, for our purposes, these details are inconsequential. So now I can read the Bible and observe that much of it is a collection of accounts of incidents or events which is pretty much the dictionary definition of a story. Therefore, I *know as fact* the Bible is a collection of stories. This is how logic works. Surely you don’t disagree that the Bible is a collection of accounts of incidents and/or events?

Now that we’ve come to that conclusion together:

-If you believe the bible is more than that, that is fine. Just like I believe the story of the fall of Adam and Eve is the story of the agricultural revolution. That is a belief, I might add, that is growing in popularity in certain fields like archaeology and anthropology as well as with us common folk. We may one day have enough evidence to prove it.

-If you “know as fact” the bible is more than that, that would be fine too as long as you can prove it. But you must be able to prove it, and if you can’t, it isn’t knowledge.
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 6, 2009 at 18:00

Ok… but how does one distinguish History form a simple story?

I am not avoiding your questions BTW… I just do not want to get lost/ side tracked in a bunch of other ideas? The concept needs to come back to the original question of evolution. Are we agreed?

BTW… I know what you are going to do tomorrow.
*
Tao says:
March 6, 2009 at 18:22

Evidence is required to determine the historicity of the stories. Evidence is always what is required and one must always follow the evidence wherever — and only as far as — it leads.

Well it sure seems like you’ve been avoiding my questions. You’ve made two pretty major unsubstantiated claims which I thought were pretty central to the topic we were discussing. I’ve requested evidence which you’ve failed to deliver and I’ve provided my own evidence. Can’t imagine why you’re waiting to provide the evidence that ID is more supported in the scientific community as that should be easy, or you could just admit to being wrong.

I’m more forgiving about the second claim about using “my science” to prove god exists though I am still expecting you to give it the old college try. Though I still suspect you’ve been trying to bait me into offering up my own oversimplified and fallacious arguments. I’d love to be proved wrong so I’m being patient. Just make your point soon, ok?

Do you really *know* what I am going to do tomorrow? What might that be?
*
Mike (aka Mr. Troll) says:
March 9, 2009 at 13:05

Hi Tao,

Was away for the weekend…. Hope yours was good.

I have limited time in my day and think (at least) on my end that that the MOST IMPORTANT focus for me in my dialogue with you is….

“””The question of a god is very different. The existence of a god or gods would definitely have an implication on my life depending on which god or gods were real or not. Even if other people believe in a god, that often creates implications that affect me. The question of the existence of god is an important one, and not to be taken lightly because of the implications. It is most definitely not trivial.”””

For me all other statements can be answered in time.

Can we agree that the question of God is paramount to our discussion?

Also I do *Know* what you did this week-end.
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 12, 2009 at 11:53

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/12/atheist-bus-campaign-in-ottawa/

Can you post my comments (to the above) please…. I guess I have been labeled as SPAM again… no freedom

Remember the names of the seven city council members who voted against free speech and keep an eye on them.

You guys… You see it’s not about free speech! You have no faith in democracy. You will go out and target those who oppose your beliefs.

REPENT and stop your whining. You will face God on judgment day and will be held accountable.

One of us is right… I will look for you on that day… See Revelations 20:12 (you guys make an appearance in the Bible).. and I will be free from your blood.

*
Mr. Troll says:
March 12, 2009 at 11:55

Actually had to post it under another name… lets see if it cet yanked…. Freedom of Speed Eh?
*
Mike (aka Mr. Troll) says:
March 12, 2009 at 13:14

I wont bother you anymore… but The friendly Atheist just deleted me again.

I posted this in reply

Mr. Hemant,

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you thought my postings were span…. I am trying to dialogue with your members and you keep deleting. Tao… can you help? I have been yet again deleted by the “Friendly” Agnostic.
*
Tao says:
March 12, 2009 at 14:26

Ok Mike.. once again it’s time to give you a lesson on Internet etiquette.

A blog owner has ever right to moderate their comments however they deem fit. You don’t have any right at all to proselytize here or on FA. That is not freedom of speech. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you’ll stop whining and maybe be able to have an intelligent discussion. But from all our discussions, it seems like you’re only merely interested in expressing your own opinion, rather than listen to others.

Furthermore, making up names for people isn’t going to help your cause at all. Especially when you don’t even use the words properly… haven’t we been over the definitions of atheism and agnosticism? If you still don’t understand what those words mean, we have an even bigger problem.

When you freak out like you’ve done here for no good reason gives me no desire at all to bother with you. On most blogs, comments that have links in them need to be approved. So forgive me for not approving your comment in the two minutes between you posting it, and you complaining about it. Once again you are judging things when you don’t even understand how they work.

Now then. I will absolutely not post that comment for you on FA. It is trolling, proselytizing and just plain wrong. It doesn’t add to any discussion and I’m glad Hemant deleted it.

It is curious for all your talk of freedom that you don’t respect Hemant’s freedom not to have your proselytizing on his blog. Between changing your name and asking me to post it, you keep trying to circumvent his authority on his own blog which is essentially private property. Hemant’s blog is not owned by the government. So what right do you have to infringe on Hemant’s private property?

Anyway.. as for our own discussion. I’m not letting you off the hook so easily. There are a number of questions you have refused to answer. You have promised me answers and I expect them.

As for this…

“Can we agree that the question of God is paramount to our discussion?”

I don’t even know what our discussion is about. At first it was about you being censored and after I offered to help with your dispute, you switched to talking about evolution. I proved your claim wrong so you started talking about science and you said you would use “my science” to prove there was a god but have refused to do so. So while I think I’ve been following along and answering all your questions, I don’t think you’ve been able to keep focus. It’s probably because your objective here is not to have a discussion about freedom of speech… it’s not to have a discussion about evolution… it’s not to have a discussion about the scientific method. It seems like, for you, the discussion is simply you proselytizing. Maybe I’m wrong and maybe it’s just that you don’t have the time or the focus to be thorough. But I would like you to focus and make your objectives known. At the very least that would let me reply within context so I don’t feel like I’m wasting my time when I write thoughtful answers to your questions only for you to change the subject.

So, I’m fine with continuing.. just please, make a point and stick to it.

So what did I do on the weekend?
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 18, 2009 at 14:44

Tao,

One step at a time… Like I have said many times… waht is important to me is You… and your understanding of God . Nothing else matters. We can talk and talk and talk and it will not gain you any insight as to who God is. ID and Science and all that stuff we can discuss, but you see how one thought ends up being mini-essays. I do care to discuss, but in due time.

BTW… If I tell you what you did on the week-end and what you will do next week-end… What reward do I get? What would you call me?
*
Tao says:
March 21, 2009 at 02:01

One step at a time Mike? All you’ve been doing is side-stepping the issues. You’re the one who has brought up every issue we’ve discussed, only to change the subject. I want to know why you keep on changing the subject and avoiding my questions.

As for your objective:

waht is important to me is You… and your understanding of God . Nothing else matters. We can talk and talk and talk and it will not gain you any insight as to who God is.

Sorry, no. This doesn’t interest me at all.

First of all, I don’t appreciate being talked at which is essentially what you’ve been doing. You just throw unsupported claims at me and then shrug when I disprove your claims. If you want to have a discussion, that involves understanding going both ways which means you can’t just pretend parts of the conversation didn’t happen because they involve you being wrong.

Secondly, your objective seems to show your closed mindedness. What about your understanding of the issues? Do you not seek to gain insight yourself or do you think you know all there is to know? How arrogant is that? How foolish is that considering the lack of understanding you’ve already shown?

Thirdly, who are you to say I don’t have insight into what gods are? I already hinted at the extent of my Christian pedigree. Furthermore, I am perfectly content with my level of understanding of gods and especially content of the methodology I use to expand my understanding. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you and I don’t share the same methodologies.

Finally, I have no interest in a discussion of the nature of the Christian god. Likewise, I have no interest in a discussion on what shade of pink the Invisible Pink Unicorn is. First, prove that it exists, then we’ll talk. You’ve already claimed to be able to do it.. so do it. Prove that the god you believe in actually does exist. See, I can prove that my idea of what gods are actually exists.. anything more than that is conjecture.

So here’s the thing Mike… I’m not interested in having this discussion based on your stated objective. If I wanted to be preached at, I’d go to church. My blog certainly isn’t the place for that. So I’ll give you a choice.. either rethink your objective and post with intellectual integrity so we can have a two-way conversation.. or leave. If you choose to leave, before you go I’d appreciate you following through on your promises and admit you were wrong about ID’s acceptance in the scientific community and prove god exists using “my science.” Simple.

PS. What reward do you get for knowing what I did on the weekend? Uh, the satisfaction of being right? Honestly I’m already bored of this part of the conversation… so.. get on with it?
*
Mr. Troll says:
March 21, 2009 at 11:47

Tao,

If you and I were walking along discussing politics and you happened to fall into a hole that you could not get out of… what should my response be? Sit and keep chatting politics with you or to try get you out of the hole?

You claim that God does not interest you at all… yet you seem to have fun posting on Atheist websites. What is more puzzling is that you said…

…..The question of a god is very different. The existence of a god or gods would definitely have an implication on my life depending on which god or gods were real or not. Even if other people believe in a god, that often creates implications that affect me. The question of the existence of god is an important one, and not to be taken lightly because of the implications. It is most definitely not trivial…..

This changed everything. Did I somehow misunderstand you here?

My objections are clear… prove God exists and get you saved. That’s it. Am I the one with a closed mind or are you? Who is living in the box?

As for what you did on the week-end… I’ll let that hang for a wile. If you get bored that easily… well…
*
mike says:
April 6, 2009 at 01:00

Well….

I waited… but you made the choice not to engage in (or continue) a discussion that you said was important to you.

Good luck with the goats.

Mike
*
Tao says:
May 13, 2009 at 09:46

No Mike, you misunderstood yet again.

This issue is extremely important to me, but so is a generally accepted rules of conduct and of information. Clearly you have no appreciation for the latter. Conversing with you is not at all important to me. I don’t get a gold star from Charles Darwin for making you understand how the world works. I have asked you question after question and you can’t or won’t answer them in favour of obfuscations and accusations. This is pointless for me if all you’re going to do is make unsupported claims and back off them (while still asserting them) after I’ve shown them to be false. That’s not how this works.

You’re trying to sell me something inside a tiny black box in the palm of your hand and you’re telling me it’s a fleet of working full-size luxury cars. An incredible claim, but you’re avoiding all questions of how that is even possible. You’re whole argument is based on, “Don’t you want a luxury car?”
That’s manipulation of the highest order. That kind of statement might be entertaining banter for a bunch of elementary school children when you make their hair stand on end, but it has no place in an intellectual conversation. You’re talking to me like a stage magician and when they talk like that they are trying to convince the audience their slight of hand is actually magic. It isn’t, and it never will be. There’s no such thing as magic.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think you’re doing this on purpose. This is 5000 years of the evolution of religious manipulation. You think this way because this is how your religion has survived against all the others. You’re merely parroting the way of thinking that convinced you.

But here’s the thing, you’re just not that special. You may like to think you’re speaking from authority, but you’re not. Even if you were, that’d be irrelevant. What is important is evidence and good old fashioned empiricism and objectivity. On these matters you’re way out of your league. Yet still, you want to take the role of teacher (actually, stage magician) and speak from this non-existent authority. I’m just not buying it. Your arguments for the existence of god should be able to stand on their own — and remember, you said you could scientifically prove the existence of god. Science is objective, it doesn’t matter whether its you or me doing it or Stephen Hawking. What matters is if we follow the scientific method and the quality of our evidence.

So here’s the deal Mike. Quit obfuscating and stop with the manipulatives. If you actually have some proof, lets see it. If you decide to post something and it doesn’t actually further this conversation, it will be deleted and that will be the end of it.

(NB: No further posts were made.)

Debating an IDer

Leave a Reply

Archives

Blogroll

Links

More Me

Articles