Re: A Reply for Ray


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:37d6ae35-f47c-46a9-9e14-3db1ff754886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 23, 4:04 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Apparently, in an attempt to run away from his defeat in recent threads,
Ray
is now charging that I am 'on the run' from this post. Why I'm supposed
to be "on the run" from a post that wasn't even addressed to me, or was a
reply to any of my posts, is anyone's guess. But, I'll play, and reply to
this post from two weeks ago.

In return, I request that Ray honestly returns to the discussion of the
fossil KNM WT 15000, which he in a fit of cowardice, ran away from, after
throwing insults, and false charges of racism.

So, here's the post Ray says I'm 'on the run' about, with my comments
added:

On Feb 8, 10:16 am, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In his book _Evolution for Everyone_ David Sloan Wilson proposes five
major evolutionary hypotheses about religion, and suggests that by
looking at a large number of case studies of various religions these
hypotheses can be tested and the most likely one selected.
In another book, _Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the
Nature of Society_, he did exactly that and claims that he was able
to
verify one of those hypotheses. In chapter 28 of _Evolution for
Everyone_ Wilson writes:
"My main hypothesis was that religious groups are products of
cultural
group selection and are indeed like bodies and beehives.
This is exactly what Darwin concluded in "Descent Of Man" (1871:394-95

Vol.2, 1st ed.).

The above claim is advocating Materialism; religion originates from
material entities, whether animate or inanimate.

Since human beings are material entities, religion would have to have
originated from them. Also, I don't think it's very likely that inanimate
objects have any kind of religion. Please note, that this does not mean
that God doesn't exist, it only means, in my opinion, that humans
originated
religion to worship their concept of God. I believe that God existed
before there were humans to originate religion.


Dana has persistently claimed that "science uses methodological
naturalism".

This is correct. Science does use methodological naturalism.


Of course the first thing one notices about such a claim
is that it is silly to claim that every person involved in science
uses MN;

Why is it "silly"? It's one of the basic rules of science.

and no one person could possibly speak for all of these
persons.

Why not? Everyone who plays baseball uses the rules of baseball.
Everyone who plays football (American football that is) is required to
follow the rules. If someone does not use methodological naturalism, they
aren't doing science.

Atheists do not subscribe to MN, but Materialism, and these
persons populate science in great numbers as everyone well knows.

Ray, it really doesn't matter what "atheists" do. Science is not atheism.


Dana's comment above is useless. He evades the fact (which still
places him On-The-Run) that the comment he responded to presupposed
Materialism, not MN;

The "comment" I'm replying to is yours. Some individuals may choose to
accept materialism, but science itself operates under methodlogical
naturalism.

the same offered five materialistic theories to
explain the existence of religion.

The speculations offered above are not theories, Ray.

Dana evades this central issue with
a massive non-sequitur, gross caricature, willful distortion, and
brazen misrepresentation.

While Ray makes those charges, he does not show that they are true. I've
never misinterpreted anyone deliberately, and there is no distortion, or
caricature here at all.

I explain Dana's "reply" to indicate the
inability to address the main issue, which again, is his claim that
"science uses MN" but the original topic subject listed five
mainstream theories that presupposed Materialism to explain the
existence of religion.

Again, Ray, speculations are not theories. And how does the above have
anything to do with the scientific method? These are speculations about
the beginnings of religion, not about how science operates.

This topic and its theories and every person
practicing science mentioned in them is not using MN, but Materialism.

Ray, you are mistaking personal attitudes of individuals with the overall
rules of science. Science as a whole does not assume that nothing beyond
the material exists, as such a thing can't be disproven or tested. There
are scientists who may believe in "Materialism" , but there are scientists
who believe in the supernatural as well.


Now, in this context, after explaining what is going on, re-read
Dana's comment (above) and see that it is indeed "a massive non-
sequitur, gross caricature, willful distortion, and brazen
misrepresentation" of the simple issue at hand.

Ray, using buzzwords you don't understand doesn't make your claims true.

Dana remains On-The-Run.

Again, how can I possibly by "on the run" when I've addressed the issues?
Your claims are wrong, and remain wrong.





The same explicitly
says religion does not originate from Deity, which, of course, is the
claim of all mainstream religions, especially Christianity and Islam.

Why, exactly, would a Deity need to originate a religion? To worship
itself? Humans originated religion, to worship God.


Imagine that; Deity did not originate religion.

Notice Ray doesn't answer the question. The Deity does not have to
originate religion. Religion is for people, not for deities.

This is a
materialistic belief advocated by a person who claims to be a
Christian and that science uses MN.

A "materalistic belief" is that "matter exists". It has nothing to do with
the nature of God.

snip

Well, it's quite true that evolution created the brain. Whether or not
God
existed before there was a brain to comprehend the concept of God is
another
matter.


Materialism.

A concept you apparently have no idea about.


This "Christian" is not sure "Whether or not God existed before there
was a brain to comprehend the concept of God is another matter".

I happen to believe that God existed before there were beings who could
comprehend them. That's a belief, based on faith.


Two times now "Christian" Dana Tweedy has said God did not originate
religion and he is not sure God existed before the human brain
existed.

Apparently Ray has difficulty reading what I wrote. I did not say that I'm
"not sure" God existed before human brains. And twice I've pointed out to
Ray that HUMANS originated religion as a means of worshiping God. God has
no need to "originate" a religion.


Materialism says the brain created God - He does not exist.

Even if that were true, so what? I don't accept materialism.


Obviously, Dana is horribly confused.

Obviously, Ray is clueless about what I believe. Par for the course.




"Christian" evolutionists are ignorant fools or not real Christians. I
choose the latter.

You are wrong in both assumptions. Christian evolutionists have accepted
the scientific evidence that so well establishes the fact of evolution.
They are not so afraid of the truth that they must deny it. They also
believe that God exists, and have faith that he does.

4. Religion is a form of "dancing with ghosts." It is a behavior that
perhaps made sense in man's early cultural evolution, but is actually
maladaptive in today's advanced mega-societies.
Materialism presupposed; again this comment says Deities do not exist,
evolution is the Creator.

So, again, why can't God use evolution as his means of creation? You keep
avoiding this question, and running away from it.


Your "question" is not a real question but a rhetorical point
attempting to brainwash people into accepting evolution to be the
"real way" God created.

No, Ray, it's a question, you keep running away from. Why can't God use
evolution as his means of creation. I don't have to "brainwash" people,
all I need to do is point to the evidence for evolution. I believe that
God created that way, because the evidence is clear that is how life
diversified. If I am to believe in God, I must accept that is how he
created.

Evolution always means that God did not
create.

No, Ray, that's your false assumption. Many people, since the time Darwin
first proposed the idea, have accepted that God created by means of
evolution. You are claiming that evolution means that God did not create,
but you can't answer the question. Why can't God use evolution as his means
of creating?


Creation always means that evolution is false.

Again, that's your own false assumption. Just because you wish to
re-define terms to mean what you want, that doesn't mean your definitions
are correct.

Intentionally
conflating to antonymic terms indicates willful corruption or
inexcusable ignorance.

Again, you keep forgetting the most most likely option, that you are
mistaken. Evolution and creation are not antynyms. There is no reason
that God can't use evolution as his means of creation.



5. Religion is a non-functional byproduct of something else in the
human
psyche that is adaptive. This hypothesis is favored by Pascal Boyer in
his book _Religion Explained_ and Scott Atran in his book _In Gods We
Trust_.
Another explanation that presupposes Materialism; again, all of these
sources are advocating Materialism - God is not the cause of religion
but evolution.

All of science uses methodological naturalism.

The original topic proved you wrong as it documented five mainstream
theories that presupposed Materialism to explain the existence of
religion.

Again, the above were not "mainstream theories" but speculations about the
origin of religion. There's no way such claims can be tested, or refuted.
My statement stands, and simply because you make a claim, it's not
necessarily true.




As for the claim that "God
is the cause of religion", I again ask, why would God need to cause a
religion? God doesn't need to worship himself.


This repeated comment was addressed above and may I add shows the
degree of how deluded Dana the "Christian" is.

Again, Ray argues by unsupported assumption. You still haven't addressed
the question. Why are you assuming that God needs to cause religion?

He is, of course, an
Atheist, as all of his comments correspond to the moronic beliefs of
Atheism and make no sense whatsoever.

Ray, you are quite aware that I'm not an atheist. Your inablity to grasp a
point does not mean the point makes no sense.




The only other option is that Dana is horribly deluded.

Or, that you are wrong.






"Christian" evolutionists cannot be this dumb that is why they are not
real Christians, but Atheists.

Ray is assuming that "Christians evolutionists" must be either "dumb" or
"atheists". He keeps forgetting the other option, that he is wrong, and
that Christian Evolutionists have faith in God.

Ray runs from this as well....

snip

Standard Materialism: God does not exist, deities were created by man
who was created by evolution.

Ray, why can't evolution produce a being capable of comprehending God?

No answer?



What liar was telling me recently that "science uses methdological
naturalism"?

Whoever was telling you this was telling the truth. All science uses
methodological naturalism. I told you that, and many others have pointed
out the same thing.


The original topic OP shows five theories and many persons using
Materialism. Evading this fact by mindlessly repeating the same thing
over and over indicates the inability to refute and that you are OTR.

Ray, I've always been able to refute your claims, and I continue to refute
them. You've never had me "on the run" and I'm sitting right here. You
keep runing away from the evidence of evolution, and hiding behind your
"paper" whenever you can't address something. As I've pointed out above,
the "five theories" are speculations. They don't represent science, or how
science operates.


Not one explanation says Deity is the source of religion, but all
"explanations" presuppose Materialism.

Again, Ray, why would a Deity be the "source of religion"? The source of
religion is the need for humans to believe in something beyond the
natural.
Why does that mean that God can't have existed before humans evolved?

DJT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As nonsensical as it gets. Maybe Dana is deluded.

Maybe Ray is wrong. I suggest that this is much more likely. Note that
Ray has avoided answering my questions.


Every scientific person mentioned in the original OP is a Atheist-
Materialist.

Why would this matter, even if it were true? Not all scientists are
"atheist materialists" and science uses methodological naturalism, not
strong materialism.

Your silly contention that "science uses MN" is refuted.

How, exactly? You didn't offer any evidence that science does not use
methodological naturalism. You don't offer any evidence that science
itself is atheist. You haven't offered any evidence that the nature of
science denies the possibility of the supernatural. All you did was
mention some speculations about how religion began.




Darwinian science is Materialism. They have no regard for God and
every piece of literature they publish presupposes this fact based on
the "fact" of evolution.

No, Ray, "Darwinian" science is just science. Science is not "materialism"
it's a process that uses methodological naturalism as a matter of necessity.
Scientists are individuals, and many of them have "regard for God", but the
process of science is not interested in protecting any particular religious
belief. If your religion can't stand a collision with reality, it's not
the fault of science for describing that reality.


Dana's only reason for being is to misrepresent that blatant pro-
Atheism nature of evolution.

How could I 'misrepresent' something that does not exist. There is no "pro
atheism" nature of evolution.

Of course since over half of all adults
in the U.S. are Creationists,

The ignorance of US adults is hardly relevant. Over half belive in
Horoscopes, and most can't find India on a map. Among educated people, the
percentage who accept evolution is much higher than 50%. If you choose to
depend on the ignorant, go ahead.

his crusade has failed miserably.
Evolution is Materialism and Materialism is Atheist ideology.

Ray, I have no crusade. Evoution is a scientific theory. It's not
materialism, and it's not "atheist ideology". No matter how often you
repeat this falsehood, it still doesn't become true.



"Christian" evolutionists are fools or horribly deluded.

Or, you are wrong.

The Bible
explains them as caring more about what the secular world thinks of
them rather than God. In other words, they are not real believers.

Frankly, I don't care what the "secular world" thinks of me. I believe in
God, and I accept the scientific evidence of evolution. Ray thinks he can
tell others what they believe. Like many other things, Ray is wrong about
this as well.

DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?
    ... There are still people that put "God in the gaps" of our ... that the stars were a "firmament", that evolution was false, that the ... I gave you a list of things that science has disproven, ... (what that says about a religion supposedly inspired by God is your ...
    (talk.origins)
  • NBC: Phony Theory, False Conflict (Evolution & Intelligent Design)
    ... Neither saw science as an enemy of religion. ... Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according ... mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says
    ... brought about by natural causes" of evolution, ... will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be." ... but it wouldn't be religion if it didn't insist on some ... lies outside the realm of science and belongs to faith. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM [was Re: Evolutions problems]
    ... >>> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to ... >>Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. ... You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He ... >>breathed life into. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading