Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Stuu]

You couldn't read the reason?

I can read. But did you write a reason?

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

We told you that this stuff is not a simple definition

But Stripe needs a simple definition. I'll leave it to others to determine why that may be.

 

[6days]

But humans don't answer to a god either.

The One who made your knees says..." It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'" Rom. 14:11

 

[Stripe]

I went ahead and looked it up. You are correct here, Stripe. As with mules, female ligers are normally fertile. And as with mules (donkey+horse), per Haldane's Rule tigers and lions aren't the same species because only one sex is born fertile. Due to this, a true hybrid "species" cannot possibly form because two fertile ligers (or tigons, if you like) can't possibly ever meet up and produce offspring. So even though tigers and lions can reproduce together, their offspring can't form a stable population and they are therefore different species.

So are we going to change your definition?

I can read.

Great. Then start with the sentence where I explained why you should define words carefully. :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

So are we going to change your definition?

I don't recall offering a definition, and if I did it doesn't really matter. I am not an authority on what defines a species, but there are scientists who are and they came up with a "definition" that applies to nearly all of the organisms in existence. For the outliers and hybrids, rules and corollaries were first postulated, and then later confirmed through work with chromosomes.

Unlike you, I am not defending a belief. I'm just letting you know that yours stands up to real scientific analysis about as well as a straw house stands up to a hurricane.

 

[Stripe]

I don't recall offering a definition, and if I did it doesn't really matter. I am not an authority on what defines a species, but there are scientists who are and they came up with a "definition" that applies to nearly all of the organisms in existence. For the outliers and hybrids, rules and corollaries were first postulated, and then later confirmed through work with chromosomes.

OK. What is that definition?

Unlike you, I am not defending a belief. I'm just letting you know that yours stands up to real scientific analysis about as well as a straw house stands up to a hurricane.

But you won't tell us what the definition is.

 

[Stuu]

Then start with the sentence where I explained why you should define words carefully. :up:

So you mean words like eternity, creation, god, speed of light. Those sorts of words that you have very careful and clear definitions for.

Yes I can see how you are not being even slightly grossly hypocritical here.

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

OK. What is that definition?

You don't understand the purpose of contextual quotation marks I see. They were used because there is no one perfect, clear-cut definition. There are rules and corollaries that go alongside any description.

I'll offer you this link for you to read. Yes, I know it's in vain
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

But you won't tell us what the definition is.

You teach English, right? Read the link

 

[Stripe]

So you mean words like eternity, creation, god, speed of light. Those sorts of words that you have very careful and clear definitions for. Yes I can see how you are not being even slightly grossly hypocritical here. Stuart

Nope.

Species.

Define that

There is no one perfect, clear-cut definition.

I know.

Which makes the word useless is a scientific discussion.

You teach English, right?

Not any more. :banana:

 

[Stripe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Your link does nothing but back up everything I've said.

 

[Stuu]

Species.

Define that

Already did.

Maybe you should read the thread.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

So you, who rejects evolution by natural selection, are now attempting to make semi-evolutionary arguments for the superiority of god belief!

You'd think I came from that background or something....

Let me have a go: we are social animals, adapted to working together for the common good of being successful at survival and reproduction. Our genes and our social conditioning work together to make us function in this way. Our genes got that way because of the long slow process of decreasing the frequency of genes that tend to lead to antisocial / anti-human survival behaviour. Those who behave this way are less likely to participate in reproduction of the next generation, so those negative genes decrease in frequency. That is not to say those negativebehaviours don't exist, but overwhelmingly humanity is not like the images you see on the news. They are, grossly, the exceptions not the rule. Think of how many Americans didn't commit murder or rob a grocery store today. And this arises because natural selection does the weeding very well, although not perfectly, as you would expect. So what motive have I not to rob you? Robbery is unfair, and humans have a strong inherent (genetic, no doubt) sense of justice. Robbery threatens the ability of a tribe to work together, the best way they can all survive and thrive. Would a woman pick a robber or a financially self-providing male mate as her preferred option? Who gets to pass on their genes?

:nono: Naïve even. A good many of those at the top, are there specifically because their values are utilitarian. I've no idea the #'s, but beyond doubt many are unconscionable if not altogether criminal.

As Christopher Hitchens used to enjoy asking, name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer; the second challenge: can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

Easy for both. I find Hitchens an angry man, not a logical one.

Humans are apes. But humans don't answer to a god either.

It is an answer to your unsaid prayer that I know there is a God. It has changed me. My background was void of your social sensibility.

Einstein called himself at various times agnostic, a religious nonbeliever, pantheistic, and a believer in Spinoza's god.

As I said, I'm well aware of Einstein's faith and how it was expressed. Again, he said science without religion was daft and handicapped (my paraphrase). That kind of statement is nowise touched by anything else.

From the Holy Wikipedia:

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike".

Misquote. He certainly did not. I know exactly what he was talking about, and it was man's religion, especially and most, concerning anthropomorphic views of God (not Judeo/Christianity in particular, though he did critique the Old Testament), not God/deity. Of course an atheist would twist his words. You very well would have to do so. He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems." Spinoza said necessarily God must exist. Spinoza further said that God cannot be like the anthropomorphized man, like Greek or Norse Gods, not the JudeoChristian God. You misunderstand Einstein and Spinoza to suggest otherwise. Einstein rejected the term atheist I think mostly on the grounds of that last part above: our knowledge is imperfect and so it would be a mistake to be absolutist about the non-existence or nature of gods. If you don't understand Spinoza, you don't understand Einstein because Einstein was well-read of Spinoza. He didn't say his view of God was nearly the same without the weight of knowing Spinoza. Spinoza sees the universe as a panentheistic/pantheistic hybrid expression/essence of His being. When you try to look through the quite complicated language of Spinoza , there is very little difference between what Einstein describes as his beliefs and Richard Dawkins - the 'world's most famous atheist' - describes as his. Yet atheism is a doubt that any gods exist, not the embrace that one certainly, and beyond reasonable logic doubt, does. Of course there is purpose in the universe because animals exhibit purpose. But what you mean is there is a universal intelligence making and running everything with some purpose in mind. Spinoza and Einstein argued exactly this. And what does 'points to' actually mean? It is a platitude you see creationists using all the time. It is, actually, a very dishonest way of trying to suggest to you some kind of scientific robustness, without saying what science would have to say: there is unambiguous evidence that there is a purpose behind the operation of the universe. But of course that is wrong, because there is no unambiguous evidence for a purpose at all. I promise you I have thought carefully about this, so if you can actually give me something better than the cheap 'points to' I will listen. Spinoza's proof is that unless the origin has it, you cannot. That is, that evolution cannot create out of nothing purpose, because the very act is purposeful. Darwinism and the offerings of the science community are counter-intuitive to that logical claim. Spinoza said it 'couldn't happen' because, nature/ the universe are only capable of producing after it's kind. In a nutshell, this: You cannot have 'purpose' and 'intelligence' or anything else without it already being a part of the universe, and in this sense, necessitates God (jumping a few of his proof steps, but this is essentially it). The other hypocritical aspect is that no religious believer can tell you what the 'purpose' of the universe is. I guess that would be blasphemy. Or, if they try to tell you it is never consistent from one believer to the next. So wouldn't it be a little bit humbler not to mention it until you've got your story straight? Spinoza said it is that which is already consistent with what the universe/nature (God) can produce. I think, even in that sense, they were both not against superstition 'existing as an expression' but rather saying it was an incomplete one. If you think of it in those terms, they weren't less religious, they were more so, in their minds because they felt/believed they were grasping God without hangups. They would not have bothered wrestling with a Noahic Flood if they deemed it superstitious. I don't believe they dismissed supernatural events altogether, just didn't find them relevant. I think that makes sense to a point, because especially Einstein was interacting with God in the fields of study he understood. In that sense, God was personal in that he experienced God there and expressed that is why he was convinced. He never would have said that science without God is lame, otherwise.

 

[Stuu]

Naïve even. A good many of those at the top, are there specifically because their values are utilitarian. I've no idea the #'s, but beyond doubt many are unconscionable if not altogether criminal.

So you equate utilitarianism with criminality? There is nothing in what I wrote that contradicts concepts of dishonesty and alpha status within a tribe. Indeed there is a good case to be made that religion arises from the set of empty threats made by leaders against dissenters in a tribe that unseen and unknowable forces would punish dissent - all for the good of unity of action within the tribe, supported by those threats on behalf of non-existent gods. There's no reason not to interpret god belief in exactly the same terms today. The 'believe there are gods' genes are likely present because of their survival value within the tribe. But in a globalised world they are becoming a liability. Perhaps that is why christianity is dying in the West.

Easy for both. I find Hitchens an angry man, not a logical one.

Easy for you to say easy.

It is an answer to your unsaid prayer that I know there is a God. It has changed me. My background was void of your social sensibility.

So where Einstein was full of doubt about whether you could rule out gods, you have no doubt about their positive existence. You have no credible argument against the most convinced atheist. The atheist however has the absence of unambiguous evidence on his side.

Thank you for your diatribes about Einstein. As I remember it the discussion about Einstein, then Spinoza originated with your remarking on Einstein's intelligence and your association with that and his recognition of gods. I'd like to go back to that, because I reject the premise of the appeal to intelligence. I think Einstein was wrong to conclude the necessity of any god. You can be intelligent and wrong. His god was only his conception of the apparent order in the universe, and not the origin of that order, but nevertheless why call it god?

science without God is lame

I think the fact that you have got this quote so fundamentally wrong really disqualifies you from pontificating on the beliefs of Einstein anyway.

And you don't appear to have defended 'points to' of the basic charge of charlatanism.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

So you equate utilitarianism with criminality? There is nothing in what I wrote that contradicts concepts of dishonesty and alpha status within a tribe. Indeed there is a good case to be made that religion arises from the set of empty threats made by leaders against dissenters in a tribe that unseen and unknowable forces would punish dissent - all for the good of unity of action within the tribe, supported by those threats on behalf of non-existent gods. There's no reason not to interpret god belief in exactly the same terms today. The 'believe there are gods' genes are likely present because of their survival value within the tribe. But in a globalised world they are becoming a liability. Perhaps that is why christianity is dying in the West.

Yes there are, Stuart. Christianity is counter-intuitive. The individual is to become self-negating, not to serve the hierarchy, but to genuinely love. Even Jews but they miss it. They yet do not think their scriptures are about loving God and loving man, but these are Christianity's only directives.

Easy for you to say easy.

Yep. There are many, but example #1, praying for another's well-being. I think his retort is 'that does no good,' but he is incorrect. There are studies that show "I'm praying for you" genuinely helps patients, whether they are Christians or not, by example.

So where Einstein was full of doubt about whether you could rule out gods, you have no doubt about their positive existence. You have no credible argument against the most convinced atheist. The atheist however has the absence of unambiguous evidence on his side.

I don't think you understand Spinoza's God. You cannot doubt He exists, because everything that exists, comes from Him. Another short summation: You cannot doubt all that exists, including meaning and purpose, because it verifiably exists. His first proofs were that if you are self-awareness, then self-awareness comes from the universe. It is a bit of circular-reasoning, but what he was saying is that if you can verify a thing exists, it has to also reflect upon where it came from in exactly the same way you observe it, thus, as we are products, the something that created us necessarily is also self-cognizant and aware. It is very much against Darwinism, as it pertains to what we know and value, simply because it embraces purposeful design as necessary. That's why Einstein said science without God was lame. He believed Spinoza was logically and irrefutably correct. Einstein was convinced of it due to his experiments and observations of the universe and mathematics.

Thank you for your diatribes about Einstein. As I remember it the discussion about Einstein, then Spinoza originated with your remarking on Einstein's intelligence and your association with that and his recognition of gods. I'd like to go back to that, because I reject the premise of the appeal to intelligence. I think Einstein was wrong to conclude the necessity of any god. You can be intelligent and wrong. His god was only his conception of the apparent order in the universe, and not the origin of that order, but nevertheless why call it god?

My point was, whatever things convinced Einstein of Spinoza's God, were from his studies and he deemed them integral both to his success and the interaction of God with them. IOW, when we teach him in school, we are teaching a bit of his religion in the process. Spinoza, again, said that one thing is inseparable from it's origin. If you see it, it exists, thus intelligence exists prior to your or my inception, and is seen in the universe. When Paul repeats it in Romans 1 (or they him rather), it is this sense that creation declares the glory of God. Paul did argue similar to Spinoza's God.

I think the fact that you have got this quote so fundamentally wrong really disqualifies you from pontificating on the beliefs of Einstein anyway.

New York Times, 1930. Read it. It is exactly this.

And you don't appear to have defended 'points to' of the basic charge of charlatanism.

Stuart

Wow, Stuart. Inane cheap-shots and character assassination? You could probably be a speech writer for Donald Trump.

 

[Stuu]

Yes there are, Stuart. Christianity is counter-intuitive. The individual is to become self-negating, not to serve the hierarchy, but to genuinely love. Even Jews but they miss it. They yet do not think their scriptures are about loving God and loving man, but these are Christianity's only directives.

Christianity is totalitarian. Who do you have to go through to get to god? Is there any punishment to be applied if you just aren't interested? Totalitarian leadership within a traditional nomadic tribe might have promoted their survival and reproduction. In the global context totalitarian leadership limits human potential in an unjust way.

The death of christianity is a positive factor in the life of humanity.

Yep. There are many, but example #1, praying for another's well-being. I think his retort is 'that does no good,' but he is incorrect. There are studies that show "I'm praying for you" genuinely helps patients, whether they are Christians or not, by example.

Sorry. Cite the evidence or withdraw (you will find meta analyses of such studies actually say that you have a slightly higher risk of dying of post cardiac surgery complications if you know people are praying for you, but apart from that intercessory prayer has no significant effect).

I don't think you understand Spinoza's God. You cannot doubt He exists, because everything that exists, comes from Him.

That's circular logic.

Another short summation: You cannot doubt all that exists, including meaning and purpose, because it verifiably exists.

It could be an illusion. You have no way of eliminating that. Ask Descartes.

His first proofs were that if you are self-awareness, then self-awareness comes from the universe. It is a bit of circular-reasoning

Good of you to admit it. I'll stop you there, then.

That's why Einstein said science without God was lame.

"science without religion is lame"
Which is a very different thing for Einstein to have said, which is why I replied that you had disqualified yourself from credible comment.

Stuu: And you don't appear to have defended 'points to' of the basic charge of charlatanism.

Wow, Stuart. Inane cheap-shots and character assassination? You could probably be a speech writer for Donald Trump.

I'm not attacking you, I'm suggesting that you have made a claim you can't defend. That is, it is legitimate to claim that something 'points to' a creator in a way that clearly intends to exploit the reputation of the scientific method despite not being a scientific claim. In other words, doing exactly the same as a snake oil salesman.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Already did.

Nice try. There was a challenge that showed your definition fails.

 

[Lon]

Christianity is totalitarian. Who do you have to go through to get to god? Is there any punishment to be applied if you just aren't interested? Totalitarian leadership within a traditional nomadic tribe might have promoted their survival and reproduction. In the global context totalitarian leadership limits human potential in an unjust way.

If God were a player in the universe, you'd have a point, but as the one who owns everything, including you and I and really whether we like it or not, of course it is totalitarian. The fact that you 'can' deny Him is a sign of graciousness or allowance, no? I don't really think any of us genuinely complain about the rules, they are actually a part of our values and make-up.

The death of christianity is a positive factor in the life of humanity.

Listen, it would necessarily have to be a dictatorship regime. Those are always dismal, except for perhaps the oligarchy. There will be no death to Christianity, because God exists. China, whose atheist/communist government shot down Christian and other protestors, dead, has the largest and fastest growing Christian population the world has ever known. There are more Christians on the planet today, than there has ever been. It will quickly even become 'that ever existed.' Evolution was the first thing taught in communist schools, and specifically to end religious views and religion among its populace. Many atheists carry Roddenberry's idea of a utopia without religion. Though he and even Shatner held to atheism, even the writers gave Kirk pro-Christian dialogue and a pro-democratic/republic message.

Sorry. Cite the evidence or withdraw (you will find meta analyses of such studies actually say that you have a slightly higher risk of dying of post cardiac surgery complications if you know people are praying for you, but apart from that intercessory prayer has no significant effect).

We even have The Cancer Institute that focuses on the well-being of patients and 'includes prayer by doctors and nurses.' I'm not sure what kind of research they are doing over across the water, but no, I won't retract it. I have seen the cardiac complication publication. Still hold it suspect though it has been over a decade since I've seen that report or any necessary further work over the matter. The control of the oddball tests often include not telling patients they are being prayed for. There are all kinds of problems with a study like this, the main being it is insensitive to those suffering and I think, unconscionable. It was a poorly conceived and carried study/experiment and imho, was doomed to callous failure before it was even started.

That's circular logic.

It could be an illusion. You have no way of eliminating that. Ask Descartes.

Good of you to admit it. I'll stop you there, then.

Any proof is circular, or another way to say it is that the proof is contained. Take for example 2+2=4. How do I prove it? Not by introducing other numbers, but by switching functions using the same numbers. Showing its reverse, and consistency, is circular/closed. If it wasn't, then you couldn't prove 2+2=4.

"science without religion is lame"
Which is a very different thing for Einstein to have said, which is why I replied that you had disqualified yourself from credible comment.

You really should read him/need to read him. Whatever else you may dig up on Einstein, a formal presentation of God that favors strongly, Judeo-Christianity, cannot be mistaken. This is the context from which this quote is taken.

Stuu: And you don't appear to have defended 'points to' of the basic charge of charlatanism.

Both of these were blind and completely erroneous assertions. Documents stand by themselves and are easily verifiable. I've little desire to spit back. These kinds of contests never interest me.

I'm not attacking you, I'm suggesting that you have made a claim you can't defend.

Er, don't know what attacks look like on your side of the ocean, but this might explain some of the ugly given off by a number of your better known atheists. Could it be they don't know they are offensive? :think: (I think they do, despite asserting they are 'happy people' especially Hitchens).

That is, it is legitimate to claim that something 'points to' a creator in a way that clearly intends to exploit the reputation of the scientific method despite not being a scientific claim. In other words, doing exactly the same as a snake oil salesman.

Stuart

We are talking about Einstein. It is a pretty simple thing to read if I am correct (I am).

Dialogue only allows for you (or I) to be corrected of an error, and only if that person is willing to investigate (link) and change their wrong conception. You are horrendously in error on this one, and worse, without lifting an investigative finger, raised an inept accusation, thus exacerbating your wrong conception.

 

[Stuu]

Nice try. There was a challenge that showed your definition fails.

It appears that only you have a problem with the definition of species. Everyone else seems to understand (not the other YECs obviously) what that quite complex and nuanced definition is and how it is used in the biological world. It appears to be reasonably clear, actually.

Sorry if you are struggling to keep up. Let us know if we can do anything else to help.

Stuart

 

[6days]

It appears that only you have a problem with the definition of species. Everyone else seems to understand (not the other YECs obviously) what that quite complex and nuanced definition is and how it is used in the biological world. It appears to be reasonably clear, actually.

No problem with the word as long as you realize its nuanced to fit a belief system.

Evolutionists, sometimes label things as different species, for no reason other than to bolster their own beliefs.
Example 1 Neandertals
Evolutionists seem desperate to deny the humanity of Neandertals by calling them a seperate species stating they did not interbreed with 'moderns'. Science proved that wrong... we are descendants of Neandertals. So, according to popular definition of that nuanced word.... Neandertals should be considered the same species as you and me.

But whoa..... evolutionists still try deny the humanity of Neandertals by calling them a sub species. Some evolutionists still fight to keep them classified as a sepetate species. There arguments are often silly and illogical saying things like their nose structure was different therefore a different species. Humans today have a greater range of skeletal differences with each other, than we do with Neandertals yet we don't see evolutionists calling modern people a different species.. Science keeps bringing evolutionists to the Biblical position.... we are all one blood. We are all the same created kind.

Example 2 Darwin's Finches
This icon of evolution actually turns out to be in support of the Biblical creation model. Evolutionists had determined there was 13 different species of finches on the Galapogos. But... science is now showing that the finches had simply adapted to various environments causing them to be less fit (Natural selection eliminates pre-existing genetic info). It turns out the finches can, and do interbreed. The 'hybrids' actually seem more fit as the genetic info lost through selection , is reintroduced through interbreeding. The finches were not separate species ... They are the same created kind.

 

[Stuu]

If God were a player in the universe, you'd have a point, but as the one who owns everything, including you and I and really whether we like it or not, of course it is totalitarian.

Do you not think then we should fight for our sovereignty, our autonomy? This capitalist model of the universe leaves you as a perpetual serf, in this life or the next. Eternal grovelling existence. No thanks.

The good news is that actually none of it can be true. We live in the free West (as much as that is a thing) and we die properly in fealty to no sky demon and our atoms are recycled for some other living thing to carry the baton forwards.

Even if christianity were true it can't be called desirable.

The fact that you 'can' deny Him is a sign of graciousness or allowance, no?

But it is all being saved up for me, right? This chattel belonging to your god that is my body and soul (whatever the heck that is) does what it does, then when it dies it waits around for judgment day. Then the corpse is dug up and judged (by a judge that is morally corrupt, given its killing of over 20,000,000 humans if you believe the mythology) and if, as you suggest this corpse is found wanting then it is destroyed by burning sulfur / tortured forever, depending on how you interpret the mythology. And of course it took the arrival of baby Jesus for this horror story to be inflicted on the planet.

If you believe all that then you are either gullible or your education has been so neglected that you are living in a modern-day dark age and you brain is being hijacked by god memes, as they are very good at doing.

I don't really think any of us genuinely complain about the rules, they are actually a part of our values and make-up.

Are we talking about scriptural rules or democratically determined laws? Humans had values for at least 180,000 years before Judeo-christianity was invented.

Listen, it would necessarily have to be a dictatorship regime. Those are always dismal, except for perhaps the oligarchy. There will be no death to Christianity, because God exists. China, whose atheist/communist government shot down Christian and other protestors, dead, has the largest and fastest growing Christian population the world has ever known. There are more Christians on the planet today, than there has ever been. It will quickly even become 'that ever existed.' Evolution was the first thing taught in communist schools, and specifically to end religious views and religion among its populace. Many atheists carry Roddenberry's idea of a utopia without religion. Though he and even Shatner held to atheism, even the writers gave Kirk pro-Christian dialogue and a pro-democratic/republic message.

Sure, I'm not advocating an atheist state. That would be dystopia as much as any theocracy is. I advocate for a secular state.

We even have The Cancer Institute that focuses on the well-being of patients and 'includes prayer by doctors and nurses.'

Why don't they just say that there is a list of things that don't work, so they won't be wasting their time with them. Prayer, homeopathy, you know the kind of thing. It is a disgrace, really, to apply pseudoscience when people are desperate.

The control of the oddball tests often include not telling patients they are being prayed for.

If you think that is oddball then how the heck can you hold an opinion on what the meta analyses of prayer studies say? Surely the key point is to eliminate placebo effects. Or are you saying the rules are that your god only intervenes if the person is aware of the request?

There are all kinds of problems with a study like this, the main being it is insensitive to those suffering and I think, unconscionable. It was a poorly conceived and carried study/experiment and imho, was doomed to callous failure before it was even started.

I forgot that you were an expert on experimental design and experimental ethics.

I think actually it's just that you don't like the results so you rubbish the work. Much like you do with Einstein's tricky spirituality and natural history. Your instinct is to go to Answers in Genesis to see if they can help you trash what you don't like. Now, my instinct is to go to rationalist-type websites of course but that is usually to check I haven't made a mistake or misrepresented a religious point of view.

Any proof is circular, or another way to say it is that the proof is contained. Take for example 2+2=4. How do I prove it?

If you mean literally 2+2=4, then you don't have to prove it because (and I think you are saying this) mathematics is a self-referential system. Its rules work in complete isolation. 2+2 is 4 by the definitions of the discipline. If you mean how can you demonstrate that 2+2=4 has any meaning, then you would have to go to the work of Bertrand Russell to get a justification. You could read his Why I Am Not A Christian while you were at it!

Circular logic is a fallacy, something to be avoided when making a rational argument.

Er, don't know what attacks look like on your side of the ocean, but this might explain some of the ugly given off by a number of your better known atheists. Could it be they don't know they are offensive? (I think they do, despite asserting they are 'happy people' especially Hitchens).

Christianity is profoundly offensive. I don't hear you apologising.

If you kept your nasty hobby within the confines of private property and stopped allowing it to leak out into the public sphere where it causes misery and conflict wherever it seeps, then perhaps you wouldn't be hearing so many angry sounds.

So you understand the atheist sentiment as it is sometimes felt, right?!

Stuart