Interesting conversations.

It’s pretty sad when I have so few good conversations on here that when I do I feel compelled to make a blog post about it. 🙂 I guess I actually need to link to my blog in my emails and message board postings and stuff more often…

Anyway, there’s a conversation in the comments for my post:
♦ On sexuality, feminism, and being a man, baby.
with Amy from the site Stands to Reason (as ironically named as “The Discovery Institute”, but she sure seems very nice and reasonable), that starts talking about sex and religion and ends (as usual for me) discussing the absurdity of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Then over on Soujourner:
♦ Where Does ‘Ought’ Come From?
Mark calls naturalism’s claiming that there are “oughts,” that is, moral and ethical behavior, “a bunch of hogwash.”
So, I call him on it as he tries to deflect the issue into a false dilemma and complete and utter mischaracterization of the naturalist worldview. He’s comfortable attacking and mocking something he has no interest in actually learning anything about; but like most believers, ignores reasoned and rational challenges to their attacks. Ignores, moves the goalposts, or deflects. I will guarantee you that within 90 days he’s going to have another post attacking and mocking naturalism and he’s going to use the same misrepresentation and false understanding with no attempt to understand what he’s attacking.

Like how Ray Comfort still uses his “banana argument” to prove God’s existence and ridiculous drawings of duck-bunnies to ridicule evolution, even though for literally years he’s been shown how fallacious and absurd his arguments are in pure logic, not even with refutations with counter arguments or positions or evidence–his banana shtick is utter garbage from a purely logic point of view. His duck-bunny pictures are laughably…I’m sorry, stupid and gross misunderstandings of what evolution even claims to describe. But, he has no interest in changing or learning or understanding or reasoning. He’d rather go blithely on with his absurdities, thinking he’s got it all understood while people are literally laughing at his ridiculousness.

Even people who are supposed to be more educated and intelligent, like Michael Behe, ignore evidence that disprove their claims. Behe made challenges to evolution in his early books (books, not scientific journal articles or science symposium or conferences where real science debate happens). And then slews of response was generated with painfully detailed and evidence supported refutations of his claims. But not only has he subsequently ignored these refutations, but has the audacity to claim his challenges have been unmet by the scientific community!
You really have to ask yourself, do these people really exist in their own little worlds? Are they that deluded and honestly don’t see the evidence? Or do they see it, but choose to ignore? Which is worse? Delusion or willful dishonesty?

In Comfort’s case, I think he’s delusional. Behe, I’m not sure I can give him that much leeway.