Dawkin's Delusion

[Neandertal Ned]

Dawkin's Delusion is a serious psychic disorder or mental aberration and disturbance afflicting many atheists today. This is the only conclusion that Christian psychologists, philosophers and the Christian laity can come to in light of the new evidence provided by a leading Christian theologian.



Do you have any objections to Christians labeling such a serious psychic disorder or mental aberration and disturbance as exhibited by Dawkins as Dawkin's Delusion?

[Divine Insight]

Being divinely intuitive, how could you? Even the devil acknowledges the existence of spiritual beings. For the spiritually-minded, it is difficult to believe anything that atheists like Marx, Darwin, Freud or Dawkins say.

A "devil" is a spiritual being. Whether real or fictitious. So it's meaningless to suggest that a devil acknowledges the existence of spiritual beings since it would be one itself. Why wouldn't it acknowledge its own existence?

I personally don't believe in devils. Unless you want to consider evil humans to be devils, then I conceded that devils exist and live among us. But they are ultimately harmless to those of us who are divine spirits.

Christians have no choice but to believe in spiritual devils, because Jesus is said to have cast them out of people, not the least of which was Mary Magdalene who was supposedly infested by seven spiritual demons.

You say that for spiritually-minded people it is difficult to believe anything that atheists say, but that's not true. Much of what atheists say it clearly the truth.

I certainly agree with their observation that evolution is true.

I also agree with many atheists that the Abrahamic pictures of God (i.e. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) are far too absurd to have anything to do with any supposedly all-wise sane supreme being.

So I'm in complete agreement with what many atheists have to say.

There are few, if any, atheists who could actually poke a whole in my spiritual beliefs and philosophies. At best they simply don't understand them. At worst, they might think they do understand them but have it all wrong.

But this doesn't bother me because I know better. I understand how their secular understanding of the world is not in conflict with my spiritual understanding of the world, and that's all that I require.

It's not important to me that they understand it, because I have no problem with atheists.

It's not important to me whether other people recognize their spiritual nature or not. That's their journey, and quite frankly, it's none of my business.

Although it would become my business if they tried to force me to become an atheist by law, or whatever. But they don't do that.

[Neandertal Ned]

Such as? What evidence do you provide your targets with in order to convert them to your beliefs?

I don't try to convert anyone. When I debate with people I provide evidence for my argument on whatever the topic is. It is up to them to rebut that argument.

Why do they have to rebut your argument? Can't they just say that they believe in someone else's argument?

In every debate anyone can be correct and have evidenced truth.

Wouldn't that be up to those watching, reading or listening to the debate to decide?

It starts as nill and works its way from there. I only post what I can actually evidence.

How is that any different from what other posters do?

If I cant evidence it then I don't believe it.

Does that mean that I need evidence of evolution to believe it?

If I am not familiar with the topic, I sit back and read and study until I am familiar with the subject.

Can't others do the same and come to different conclusions about the topic than you did?

[Nickman]

Why do they have to rebut your argument? Can't they just say that they believe in someone else's argument?

Its called debate, which has rules to abide by in order for intellectual thought and analysis of ideas to be fruitful.

How is that any different from what other posters do?

Its not

Does that mean that I need evidence of evolution to believe it?

You don't need any evidence to believe anything, but I don't use this approach. If I don't have evidence I don't believe. IOW, I look at faith as a handicap, and a digression to intellectual thought.

Big Hoss from Pawn Stars said once, "If I believe every story that every person has for the items they bring in the store, I would have a shop full of magic beans and fairy dust.

Can't others do the same and come to different conclusions about the topic than you did?

Sure, the reason why people come to different conclusions for the same topic is because of Bias, and prejudice. Every topic has truth about that topic as an absolute. Whether that be truth on the contrary or in agreement. Take a table for instance. It has absolute truths to it. It is hard, it is made of wood, it is brown, it has four legs. Anything contrary to these four attributes is false about the table regardless of what spin or bias you put on your argument. As I said before, Truth will always overcome scrutiny. Every subject has truths (things that are true about it) and lies (things that are not true about it). It is our duty as intellectuals to find out what those are via logic, reason, and scientific scrutiny.

[Neandertal Ned]

Why do they have to rebut your argument? Can't they just say that they believe in someone else's argument?

Its called debate, which has rules to abide by in order for intellectual thought and analysis of ideas to be fruitful.

Ok, but there are no rules governing the acceptability of evidence, are there? Nothing in science establishing the Rules of Evidence or something like that.

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

You don't need any evidence to believe anything, but I don't use this approach. If I don't have evidence I don't believe. IOW, I look at faith as a handicap, and a digression to intellectual thought.

Of course, but you do have faith in your intellectual prowess to distinguish between faith, evidence, belief and intellectual thought, do you not?

Big Hoss from Pawn Stars said once, "If I believe every story that every person has for the items they bring in the store, I would have a shop full of magic beans and fairy dust.'

Yeah, Big Hoss is kewl. Do you think he would believe your fairy story about evolution?

Sure, the reason why people come to different conclusions for the same topic is because of Bias, and prejudice.

I'm surprised that you would admit that about your conclusions.

Every topic has truth about that topic as an absolute. Whether that be truth on the contrary or in agreement. Take a table for instance. It has absolute truths to it. It is hard, it is made of wood, it is brown, it has four legs. Anything contrary to these four attributes is false about the table regardless of what spin or bias you put on your argument.

You are not talking about the Table of Elements or the Table of Evidence, are you?

As I said before, Truth will always overcome scrutiny. Every subject has truths (things that are true about it) and lies (things that are not true about it). It is our duty as intellectuals to find out what those are via logic, reason, and scientific scrutiny.

How did you find out that you are an intellectual? Did you use the scientific method or are you just taking it for granted?

Do you have a scientific definition of 'truth' or do you use the term in the same metaphysical sense that most people do?

How would an intellectual like you handle Pilate's question; what is truth?

[Nickman]

Ok, but there are no rules governing the acceptability of evidence, are there? Nothing in science establishing the Rules of Evidence or something like that.

Evidence needs no rules. Evidence is either for or against something with no bias or prejudice. It is our duty as humans to look at evidence and where it leads.

Of course, but you do have faith in your intellectual prowess to distinguish between faith, evidence, belief and intellectual thought, do you not?

I dont think using my brain to assess information has anything to do with faith. I rely and trust my brain because it has evidenced that it is able to distinguish between good and bad decisions and information. It is able to conquer problems and guide me in knowledge of known facts.

Yeah big Hoss is kewl, but would he believe your fairy story of Evolution?

Who said I believe in evolution? You stereotype me because I am an atheist. Although, evolution does explain the process of changes among life as a gradual process, im not on that bandwagon. I do see evolution at work in everything from language, culture, animals and other aspects, but I think we are very very far off from understanding evolution. I don't have enough facts and evidence to completely agree with evolution as a proponent or to even explain it on an intellectual level.

I'm surprised that you would admit that about your conclusions.

Why are you surprised? You don't know me so how can you be surprised by me without knowing anything predictable about me?

Do you have a scientific definition of 'truth' or do you use the term in the same metaphysical sense that most people do?

How would an intellectual like you handle Pilate's question; what is truth?

Truth is based on scientific constants. When something can be consistently shown in every aspect that it is indeed fact then there is no denying it. Example from the table, this table is hard, when I bang on it with a hammer it is hard, when I head but it, it makes my head hurt, nothing I bring to the table can refute the fact that it is hard. Therefore, I can say that the table is hard and it is truth.
[/quote]

[Nilloc James]

For the record:

The wiki page provided on 'rules of evidence' is about the application of evidence in a court setting. It does not mean that is the way to apply evidence in every setting, particularly the method that matters here, the scientific method.

[Neandertal Ned]

Ok, but there are no rules governing the acceptability of evidence, are there? Nothing in science establishing the Rules of Evidence or something like that.

Evidence needs no rules. Evidence is either for or against something with no bias or prejudice. It is our duty as humans to look at evidence and where it leads.

So if there are no rules governing the scientific acceptability of evidence then everything and anything may be presented as 'evidence' and nothing can be scientifically ruled out.

I dont think using my brain to assess information has anything to do with faith. I rely and trust my brain because it has evidenced that it is able to distinguish between good and bad decisions and information. It is able to conquer problems and guide me in knowledge of known facts.

Your brain guides you in knowledge of known facts? How do you know that your brain knows anything? Don't you have a mind?

Who said I believe in evolution? You stereotype me because I am an atheist. Although, evolution does explain the process of changes among life as a gradual process, im not on that bandwagon.

You may not be on that bandwagon but if you believe that "evolution does explain the process of changes among life as a gradual process," then you do believe in evolution.

I do see evolution at work in everything from language, culture, animals and other aspects, but I think we are very very far off from understanding evolution.

I don't think anybody understands evolution any better than they understand creation.

I don't have enough facts and evidence to completely agree with evolution as a proponent or to even explain it on an intellectual level.

Who does? That doesn't stop devoted Dawinists from pontificating on it ad absurdum.

Why are you surprised? You don't know me so how can you be surprised by me without knowing anything predictable about me?

It is by not knowing anything about you that I may be pleasantly surprised to learn something. If I did know everything about you then nothing you said would surprise me.

Truth is based on scientific constants.

What is 'truth' though? Is it empirically observable or measurable? Can it be quantified?

When something can be consistently shown in every aspect that it is indeed fact then there is no denying it.

If this is your definition of truth, then evolution cannot be said to be truth.

Example from the table, this table is hard, when I bang on it with a hammer it is hard, when I head but it, it makes my head hurt, nothing I bring to the table can refute the fact that it is hard. Therefore, I can say that the table is hard and it is truth.

So you need to personally experience the sensorial and physical existence of something for it to be called a fact or truth. By that limited definition of what a fact or truth is, nothing theoretical or metaphysical may be called factual or truth.

[Neandertal Ned]

For the record:

The wiki page provided on 'rules of evidence' is about the application of evidence in a court setting. It does not mean that is the way to apply evidence in every setting, particularly the method that matters here, the scientific method.

So there are no legal or universally established rules of evidence governing the scientific acceptability of what may be qualified as evidence.

Everyone is free to pick and choose whatever they want to qualify as scientific evidence and to claim that their scientific evidence supports whatever scientific claim they choose.

Nice.

[Nickman]

So if there are no rules governing the scientific acceptability of evidence then everything and anything may be presented as 'evidence' and nothing can be scientifically ruled out.

Anything and everything MAY BE PRESENTED as evidence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence will hold up to scutiny. You don't seem to understand the scientific process, which is common sense to most people.

Your brain guides you in knowledge of known facts? How do you know that your brain knows anything? Don't you have a mind?

Im not gonna play silly word games with you. Im sorry you can't understand how your brain works and how it processes knowledge.

You may not be on that bandwagon but if you believe that "evolution does explain the process of changes among life as a gradual process," then you do believe in evolution.

It explains it a heck of a lot better than "god did it". Saying god did it, doesn't answer any questions, it actually makes more questions.

I don't think anybody understands evolution any better than they understand creation.

Thats your opinion. Although I an not 100% online with evolution, it atleast has explainations with evidence to it.

What is 'truth' though? Is it empirically observable or measurable? Can it be quantified?


If this is your definition of truth, then evolution cannot be said to be truth.

So you need to personally experience the sensorial and physical existence of something for it to be called a fact or truth. By that limited definition of what a fact or truth is, nothing theoretical or metaphysical may be called factual or truth.

Again im not gonna play word games. Truth overcomes scrutiny. So we put evidence for any topic tothe test and when it can be continually shown to be correct then it becomes truth.

[Neandertal Ned]

So if there are no rules governing the scientific acceptability of evidence then everything and anything may be presented as 'evidence' and nothing can be scientifically ruled out.

Anything and everything MAY BE PRESENTED as evidence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence will hold up to scutiny. You don't seem to understand the scientific process, which is common sense to most people.

What evidence of evolution is to be used in a scientifc experiment which would demonstrate that an evolutionary hypothesis was scientific. If there is no material to experiment with then the scientific process or method would not be fulfilled.

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/ ... ciproc.htm

Im not gonna play silly word games with you.

What is silly about asking questions about the human brain and mind?

Im sorry you can't understand how your brain works and how it processes knowledge.

I don't know anyone who does.

It explains it a heck of a lot better than "god did it". Saying god did it, doesn't answer any questions, it actually makes more questions.

Ok, but you asked where I got the idea that you believed in evolution. Now we know that you do.

Thats your opinion. Although I an not 100% online with evolution, it atleast has explainations with evidence to it.

That's your opinion.

Again im not gonna play word games. Truth overcomes scrutiny. So we put evidence for any topic tothe test and when it can be continually shown to be correct then it becomes truth.

How do you test evolution to show that it is correct?

Do you do experiments with certain species which may cause them to mutate?