Sure!

I'm sorry if this disappoints anyone, but I'd prefer not to talk about my genitals. It's not that I'm uncomfortable with the topic, or that I mind anyone else discussing their appendage; it's just that my description of my own dick I don't believe can much enrich anyone else's life or knowledge. I don't want to step on any toes. I'm willing to believe that anyone of you might possess feature or an aesthetic unique to your personal anatomy. Other than occasionally allowing myself a little ego boost from my girlfriend's obviously biased and unprovable predilection for my personal organ and her very special relationship with it, I don't consider myself in possession of tissue that is remarkable from countless other hominids.
Regarding the theory evolution, really "theory" in general: The epistemological questions are, of course, always important to ask. Not asking ourselves "how do I know" when given evidence or opportunity to answer "what do I know" would set us back centuries in the development of our collective understanding (if such a thing exists). Whether one agrees with all or any of Decartes conclusions about ontology, I think (perhaps either too optimistically, or egocentrically) that most of us could agree that the epistemology that supported his explication of existence is sound. I'm pretty sure that most of us could also agree that regardless of how vital to our individual comprehensive perspectives some intangible or indescribable elements may be, in order to exchange ideas with each other meaningfully there must be at least some kind "standard operating procedure" to which deference is given concerning how to qualify an argument's validity. I think that if we all try to do this, if we could perhaps even call a "cease-fire" and get together to reach just a very basic consensus on a litmus for our debate, we stand a much better chance of actually generating a synthesis out of our disparate ideas. Believe it to be naivete if you must, it wouldn't shock me to discover it indeed is, but I do not believe in opposites. Binary opposition is an abstract concept that humans impose through culture to identify and reconcile perceived conflict in reality. Good/Bad, Man/Woman, Black/White, Night/Day, all of these pairs are almost universally seen as bipolar, and yet though different, in reality they are not opposites in any sense other than in representation of duality itself, as a concept. We use the relationship for assignment of explicit definition, essentially using negation to build identity. Our reality is full of things that "are" because they "aren't." Both dimensions contribute to defining something's objective existence, as thesis and antithesis, and so it is not a matter of sufficiently advocating one side in furtherance of one position's adoption and another's demise. It seems far more helpful, in my opinion, to approach EVERYTHING as data, and make no distinctions about value or veracity beyond whatever independent relevance is in the impassionate display of information.
Do not mistake me for a relativist. On the contrary, I believe that everything is absolute. If there is a concrete existence independent of my perception, the formal aspects of that existence cannot be suspended by my assessment. However, my personal experience with reality is based entirely on how my mind and senses interact with my environment and interpret the data made available to me. Though I suspect so, I cannot be sure that my interpretation is a subjective response to stimuli from static forms, because I simply cannot identify information available to me that is not 100% enslaved to my mind. My hope is that through sharing our experiences within reality some confidence can be gained and a trend toward continuity be initiated.
I do not believe in any god, nor will I unless I am presented with sufficient data which indicates that a god is the the best or most reasonable explanation for the conditions of our existence. Debating or investigating YHWH can't contribute anything to my approach to understanding the things I feel I must, and I suspect that most of the theists here would agree on the futility of investigating or intellectualizing your way into faith. Faith must come spontaneously, be it descended upon one's soul like a dove or a matter of synaptic activity, one cannot talk themselves or others into Faith. But the moment I engage one of the theists with the presumption that evidence against the rationality of "belief" will dominate, because then I am no longer learning anything new except perhaps fresh words to describe what I've already decided. I truly do not believe it's likely that I would be convinced, but if there comes a point where the numbers seem to be adding up to a total I had not calculated, I want to be sure to hear it.

I need to go to sleep, but there was something else i wanted to mention. If I start a forum topic entitled "Free Will, Quantum Theory and the Inevitability of Everything" would anyone join?
My apologies if any of the above has typos simply hard to read, I've been up all night and am thinking less clearly by the second.

Peace love dope

Ty:

"Fine, but it was ours to begin with. You brought your dick to our circle. You don't get to complain when we make fun of it."

Can't argue with that!

"You could actually name this site "Atheist Circle Jerk" and no one would know the difference."

Fine, but it was ours to begin with. You brought your dick to our circle. You don't get to complain when we make fun of it.

Joe:

"If gleaner63 and caddy are finished their little circle jerk perhaps we can get this thread back on topic."

Wow. You could actually name this site "Atheist Circle Jerk" and no one would know the difference. But hey, *nice* argument.

Ah, sorry to hear that.

Your take on some of the attempts at philosophical argument has been missed. There is a precision to your ability to point out flawed arguments that my sledgehammer style lacks.

Oh, no, I like me some Godbots. It is only that right now, I can only access the site at work, as my home computer is toast, and so my participation is somewhat intermittent.

Btw, Nope, glad to see the recent god-bot invasion didn't fully chase you off.

Yes, but the benefits package is AWESOME!

:)

Wonder why that is. . .

The job of 'Atheist' is woefully underpaid?

"I think when you published your opinion in a public format that contradicts others' opinions you should expect an argument, or at least a discussion. Especially when that opinion is comprised of mistaken presumptions of another's beliefs. "

I don't disagree McHonza, but that's not what's happening here. You are saying these opinions disagree with YOUR beliefs. That's fine. But there are many people out there who do have the fundamentalist worldview that those opinions were critiquing.

You'd have a better leg to stand on if we sat here going, "McHonza believes this!" So far, no one has done that that I know of.

And, again, misrepresentations of what atheists believe happen all the time on religious boards. Somehow, the atheists seem very unmotivated to track all those forums down and show them why they're wrong. Wonder why that is. . .

@caddy - Hypothetically, if the ToE were to be supplanted by a new and different theory I'd be thrilled! So would all of the people I know.

You see, science isn't about 'pet' theories... it's about truth. The ToE is so widely accepted NOT because the scientists ~want~ it accepted but because it works. Every time. It accurately makes predictions. The fossils ALL support the theory. There is no evidence which puts the ToE into dispute.

I think when you published your opinion in a public format that contradicts others' opinions you should expect an argument, or at least a discussion. Especially when that opinion is comprised of mistaken presumptions of another's beliefs.

Ok, but some do, and I feel no need to go to their websites and argue that with them.

I mean, I don't believe that humans are a collection of random chemical processes and atoms banging around, but Caddy insists on coming here to argue that we aren't.

What Caddy has been doing is pretty much the same as if I went to a Christian website that shared your view on atheist morality and hell, and spent a lot of energy arguing against those two things.

Christians think atheists have no morality, and that we are all going to hell.

I don't think either of those.

Caddy, where did you get your science degree from?

I got mine in moleuclar biology and neuroscience from Columbia.

OH yeah, LRA! Where is this magical bubble of energy! Huh?!

:)

"What will agnostics & atheist think about the possibility of "ToE" being supplanted by "Design." Let's just assume for the sake of argument."

That's about as likely as alchemy making a comeback and supplanting chemistry. But since I spend a great deal of time reading on science related issues, I will be fascinated to see anyone in the ID camp actually present anything that is evidence for their beliefs.

We're waiting.

*crickets*

My favorite fundie quote:

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Fundies_Say_the_Darndest_Things

LOL! Creationists can sure say the dumbest things, can't they???

"It may have something to do with atheists who are formal fundamentalists thinking they have an accurate idea of what Christian faith is about. "

Why do you give a shit? Honestly? I don't care that Christians think atheists have no morality, and that we are all going to hell. Going to a Christian website to argue that I do too have morality seems incredibly silly.

"I Sense that some of my friends are "puckering" up !"

You really do live in a strange place inside your own head, don't you?

@Joe Agnost

I think the "ToE" has been extremely weakened in the past 30 years. Some would disagree with me. With that said, I'm not sure how long it will take for the "ToE" to be supplanted. It doesn't concern me. I don't worry about it, nor does it keep me up at night. I do think there are many good Ph.D Level IDers out there who are writing and and saying some good things.

The bigger question is: What will agnostics & atheist think about the possibility of "ToE" being supplanted by "Design." Let's just assume for the sake of argument. What IF: How do you then " R E A S O N " ?

^
I Sense that some of my friends are "puckering" up !

@ McHonza ** Thumbs Up **

It may have something to do with atheists who are formal fundamentalists thinking they have an accurate idea of what Christian faith is about.

"Had an atheist call me a "kook" on another atheist internet msg board"

I do admit to wondering why religious people feel compelled to find atheists forums and aggressively post to them. I don't ever go to religious boards to tell them how wrong they are. I doubt anyone here does. Makes me wonder what the point is.

Unfortunately, you don't not seem to understand what an Ad Hominem argument actually is.

If I say you are stupid and ugly, and therefore no one should listen to you, that is an ad hominem attack. If I say your argument is stupid and utterly lacking in facts or logic, that is NOT an ad hominem attack. People rip your arguments to shreds, and point out where they fail. But while that may be mean, or 'ungenerous', it is not actually ad hominem. Get your terms straight.

I may have missed one, but I can't find an instance where anyone actually engaged in true ad hominem with you. You claim to be a good debater, you seem not to be overly familiar with actual good debate tactics. You engage in bad tactics like strawman attacks, appeals to authority, and so on all the time. And when you accuse your opponents of bad tactics, you actually misdiagnose what they are doing.

This doesn't seem to support your claims about your debate skills.

If gleaner63 and caddy are finished their little circle jerk perhaps we can get this thread back on topic.

Does anyone still use that tired line: "evolution is just a theory"? Does anyone not understand that there are no ~scientific~ theories in addition to the ToE? Does anyone think there is anything ~other~ than the ToE that should be taught in science class regarding the variety of life we see on earth?

** smiling **

Debating is not for everybody, obviously. I've been debating for 10 years now. The best tactic of 90-95% is "Ad Hominem." I am occasionally plesantly suprised by a handful here or there like Fregas, Kenneth L. They are rare.

When I can see no spirit of generosity there is really no use in going further.
Of course you know I'm going to pay for this post with reems of "Ad Hominem" right?

Caddy,

Yep. Had an atheist call me a "kook" on another atheist internet msg board. When I returned the favor, the fellow had a fit. He got very, very offended. And this from someone claiming he was a college professor.

Yep, glad someone else notices that too, gleaner63.

"I'm all for dissenting opinion. I am not for religious evangelism — not in my house, and not in my blog — unless by invitation. Is this really so hard for you to understand, Caddy? I'm not sure how to make it any simpler."

You have to absolutely love the tactics of the garden-variety internet atheist. For them, when confronting a theist, it's "anything goes". But when a theist makes the slightest error, all of sudden the atheist becomes "offended" and demands we then play by their rules. Absolutely stunning.