George,

<<...there are no rational reasons (binding for everybody, like reasoning in logic or mathematics) to prefer Sagan’s version of reality to its alternative, or vice-versa.>>

Not “binding” in that sense, no. But I still think it’s more rational to take Sagan’s version of reality. By taking your presupposition #2, a specific assumption is being made about the existence of something, whereas Sagan’s reality could simply be “nothing until something’s proven.”

I believe it’s more rational to accept the negative (non-existence of something) as the default assumption. I don’t think that God is any different from Bigfoot and fairies in this sense.

<<There are millions of Christians, religious Jews, Muslims, and in a certain sense also Hindus and even some Buddhists, of different cultures, intellectual level etc., who do not think the Divine is hiding.>>

People can convince themselves of anything if they feel the need for it.

Considering people sense the divine is so many different ways throughout all the different religions, it doesn’t say much for the credibility and accuracy of those feelings.

If Jesus “saves”, then he’s obliged to make his existence obvious to us. Even those of other religions. He can’t “not want to force Himself upon” us and then punish us for not believing.

<<God works in mysterious ways” is not an argument...>>

I’ve heard it used as an argument many times.

Dan,

<<So many of your responses over the years have alleged deceit on the part of those with whom you disagree.>>

There’s nothing “alleged” about my examples above:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151831
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151832

<<This tactic reflects more on you than anything else.>>

Not when my claims are substantiated.

<<Earlier you cried “Ad Hominem Argument” when I merely suggested that you’d borrowed a line from someone else.>>

No, you suggested a lot more than that. Just scroll up and see. You’re not being truthful here.

<<Yet the most popular theme of your arguments is that your opponents are telling lies.>>

There’s a big difference between clarifying something with someone (like your ‘Grim’ analogy) and deliberately repeating a flawed argument you now know to be demonstrably false.

Continued...

...Continued

<<So much so, that it is akin to a slander campaign.>>

No, slander is a false accusation made to damage the reputation of someone, and I have always been able to back my claims with examples. So your accusation here is, ironically, slanderous due to the fact that it’s a demonstrably false claim.

<<I don’t know why you can’t see the real ad homenim argument in your own writing.>>

My arguments aren’t ad hominems, because I address the issues, I don’t just attack character and avoid the issue at hand.

As I have shown in examples with www.creation.com and Expelled, deceit is at the heart of Creationism and thus it is appropriate to raise this issue of deceit.

<<I think you would be better off addressing the points made by adversaries than attacking someone’s moral integrity whenever they make a challanging point.>>

Exactly.

That’s why I’ve never dodged a challenge (as my posting history shows), like you are with the issue of Quote Mining.

<<I asked you a question, and apart from alleging deceit, you provided some links. As most of them just lead to other links, I got tired of chasing my tail.>>

No, none of them require that you click on other links, particularly the one above (although other links are available). I’m not sure why you’ve made such an untruthful claim when one only needs to click the link above to see that what you’ve said isn’t true (http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php).

<<So what about answering the questions?>>

On second thought, the link didn’t entirely answer the question.

Yes, order can imply intelligent input, but evolution (among other things in nature) has shown that this isn’t always the case. You can believe that the order of the universe implies a creator, but evolution still remains a fact just as it would even if you could disprove abiogenesis.

Unfortunately though, you’re still faced with the problem I highlighted in an earlier response, of the inherent deceit in Creationism. False accusations of ‘slander’ and ‘dodging challenges’ are only counterproductive.

You’re only compounding the problem and, ironically, helping to prove my point.

Quote of the Month,

“As I’ve said before, it would be a real tragedy if someone were to read Dan’s posts and think he actually had a point.”

AJ Philips (27/9/09)

AJ Philips,
I think we have begun to move in circles: you repeat yourself (about Jesus, about what is convincing evidence) and I could probably respond only by repeating myself.

So let us just agree to disagree, but let us not hijack terms like rational or moral: Both a theist and an atheist can be rational in choosing his/her fundamental premises on which to build his/her world view (for reasons opaque to the other side), and both a theist and atheist can be moral (in the simple sense of serving the good of humanity and the planet) in his/her actions although the motivations might be different.

I am really thankful for the insight I gained into your thinking about these fundamental matters of life and existence (irrespective of to what extent they are shared by other atheists) and I hope you feel, at least partly, the same about my expositions.

Dan
I hope you will not mind, but could you please tell me what are your qualifications as a molecular biologist, or just any biologist? I am asking, because I am certainly not one: though a mathematician myself (probably too old) I could follow neither William Dembski’s argument based on mathematical statistics, nor its rebuttal. My intuitive feeling is that he poked holes into neo-darwinism, but could not fill them with plausible alternative scientific (not metaphysical) explanations.

Dan,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to me like you’ve quoted that line of mine in order to make it appear as though I’m trying to portray you as dishonest so that others don’t think you’re making any good points. By doing this, you are taking what I’ve said out-of-context and therefore, it constitutes Quote Mining.

One point I couldn’t fit into my last post, was that I do line-by-line rebuttals of your posts so as to not miss a point. So not only was it unfair of you to accuse me of dodging challenges, but it is also not fair of you to disregard this in what you were trying to imply with your quote. My line-by-line rebuttals of your points, disprove your implication.

Besides which, it is my factual and well-reasoned responses to your arguments that do the discrediting, not my points about untruthfulness. They're only a side note.

I pointed out some classic examples of Quote Mining which were slanderous towards Darwin. I mentioned that you still have that point that I’d made (in response to one of your comments) to overcome (as I felt you were deliberately avoiding it), because without giving a good explanation or excuse for my examples of Quote Mining, you were only beating a dead horse.

Instead of addressing the issue, you continued to evade it by making accusations of slander which, due to their false nature, amounted to slander themselves.

As if that wasn’t ironic enough though, you have now added another layer of irony on top of it all by taking one of my quotes out-of-context, thus committing the same offense that I’m wanting you to address in the first place.

What is this if not a thing of beauty?

To your credit though, other than this little slip-up, you’ve pretty much stopped the Quote Mining now. But never - even in your earlier days here on OLO - have you ever Quote Mined me personally.

I honestly don’t know if I should be flattered or offended.

George,

“Pareidolia” was the word I was trying to think of in my last response to you regarding those around the world who sense the divine.

Anyway, I agree we’re about to start going in circles, so I’m happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that for now.

You’ve always seemed genuinely interested in understanding non-believers, so I’m honoured to have given you an insight into a non-Theist’s way of thinking. You’ve certainly given me a good insight into what non-fundamentalist Christianity is all about.

Thanks!