André’s Comments (group member since Jul 16, 2010)

André’s comments from the Debate group.

John wrote: "I'm going to respond with the assumption that I have represented you correctly. If I haven't, I trust you will correct me."

Yep, that's what I meant. The "convincing arguments" for the existence of god are only convincing as long as you are unaware of the atheist's arguments, this is why the last refuge of the religious is saying that god is outside the realm of science and that it's a matter of faith.


John wrote: "If you can make a credible claim that millions of people believe that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then, while I don't believe it myself, I certainly would be agnostic about it."


Oh right, just because millions of people believe in god it makes the hypothesis much more likely to be true. I see how well that turned out in the past, wasn't it a common belief that diseases were caused by god, sin or something like that? Imagine if no one realized that it wasn't true, how would life be without medicine?

And I'm an agnostic about god as much a I am about the Invisible Pink Unicorn and a million other things.


John wrote: "Further, in the case of God blessing someone with recovery from some injury or illness, it may also depend on the faith of the person who is ill or injured. There is no way to determine someone's faith, therefore faith is a variable that cannot be controlled."

Ok, so let me ask this question: Why have no amputees been healed? Does no one have enough faith?

John wrote: ""John wrote: Hi André. If you will read my post 115 carefully you will see that I don't say anything about supporting or not supporting Goodreads requirements."

Ok, my mistake. So let me ask, what..."

That makes things clearer. I agree with most of your post. You are right that "ruling with an iron fist" did not really fit what i wanted to ask(that which you answered in the next paragraph), but since English is not my first language slips like that occasionally happen ;)

The only thing I disagreed with was GR's decision to delete Nathan's posts without even trying to warn him first and with such a weak reason(swearing).
The GR staff should only interfere in more extreme cases(which I don't think Nathan is), because I doubt they could enforce those rules without being unfair otherwise. I don't see them deleting those religious people who have made posts claiming others are going to hell(threatening or harassing?). Wouldn't discussing some religious beliefs fit one of their prohibitions?

John wrote: "Hi André. If you will read my post 115 carefully you will see that I don't say anything about supporting or not supporting Goodreads requirements."

Ok, my mistake. So let me ask, what do you support? The right of free speech or the right of the GR staff to rule this site with an iron fist?
If you support the right of the GR staff, don't you think it's unfair of them to decide so arbitrarily on which people to delete?

Xox wrote: "Getting back on topic.

Should we expect a book site like Goodreads to uphold the right of freedom of speech and let people express themselves freely. Afterall, this is not just any social site, ..."

Wrong topic Xox ;)


John wrote: "OK, but keep in mind that the key word in your statement is "assume." Since you reject the possibility that God exists, you are left with that hopeful assumption as your only alternative."

I was in a rush so I may not have used the right word. As god is not a valid hypothesis(there has been no convincing argument for it) so the only possibility left is that the origin of life is still unknown to us. "Assume" was a word that didn't fully express it.

And I have to point out that there aren't only the options:
-There is an origin of life of which we can find evidence(the most likely)
-God created it(almost laughably unlikely)

There is also the option:
-There is an origin of life that will forever be unknown to us(possible, but not likely)

Assuming that because there is no evidence regarding the origin of life that "god did it" is a logical error.


John wrote: "I would think that the more reasonable approach would be to take the agnostic position that while one cannot know there is a God, still, God might exist after all and be the creator of life in the Universe."

Of course, just as you should be agnostic about the Invisible Pink Unicorn? I think the more reasonable approach is to avoid believing any extraordinary claim that has no evidence.


John wrote: "Are you suggesting that everyone who believes the existence of God is logical is simply a "wishful thinker"?"

Not all of them, just many of them. Some have never thought about it, some don't want to think about it and others aren't even allowed to think about it.


John wrote: "but there are also many well-regarded thinkers (not just wishful thinkers) who consider the idea of God to be completely logical. Examples would be G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis."

Until now all the ideas I saw from those "well-regarded thinkers" were full of holes obvious for the people not suffering from confirmation bias. There is also something called cognitive dissonance.


John wrote: "The variables involved in experimenting on God cannot be controlled."

Why? Please explain.


John wrote: "Scientists who believe in God recognize this and so do not include in their scientific papers any reference to spiritual guidance they may feel they had in their research."

Of course! So silly of me to think they did that to avoid being ridiculed.


John wrote: "Such guidance could not certainly be duplicated by other researchers and so shouldn't be included as part of the scientific work."

I agree. The guidance would probably not be duplicated, but the research certainly would be possible for others without such guidance. What an unnecessary thing this guidance is, isn't it?

John wrote: "André, faith is not confined to the realm of religion."

That I can agree with, but it is the only place where it is so highly praised.


John wrote: ""He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." This is precisely the situation that currently exists with respect to the origin of life."

I said that "we can just accept that all we have are(as of now) unconfirmed hypothesis." Probably evidence will be found or maybe it won't, it is a fact that evidence regarding the origin of life hasn't been discovered to this day(God = illogical in the next part of my post) so based on us being here(that there was an "origin of life") we assume that there exists evidence which just hasn't been found.


John wrote: "There are millions of people who see the existence of God as perfectly logical."

So what? I attribute this to the power of wishful thinking, besides there have been many philosophers who have shown how illogical it is. Example: The Riddle of Epicurus.



John wrote: "Would you consider saying that the idea of God is not, and cannot be, supported by scientific evidence?"

It is not. << This I agree
Cannot be? Depends on what you believe about god. Do you think prayer works? That sinners are punished? That god is benign? These and many others could be supported by evidence but are not.

John wrote: "Therefore if you prefer to believe that there is no God who created life, then you are, for the present, left with nothing but to have faith that it must"

There is no need for faith(don't try to bring us to down to religious level), since the idea of god is illogical we can just accept that all we have are(as of now) unconfirmed hypothesis.

John wrote: "In Goodreads case, they specifically prohibit speech that "contains any information or content that we [Goodreads:] deem to be unlawful, harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive..."

Are you saying you support this? I find it hard to believe since this could include a lot of religious beliefs...

John wrote: "André, are you answering for Lauren, or did you mean this response for someone else? "

I'm not sure if you're really expecting an answer for this one, I thought it'd be obvious by my use of "I guess", but here you go... Since my name isn't Lauren and I never claimed to be one to have talked to the 1st grader I don't see how I could answer for her.


John wrote: "And here's a question to think about if you like your first grader's reasoning. Does it make sense that any kind of living, reproducing species just appeared, uncreated, out of nowhere?"

It's a bit more complex than appearing out of nowhere, were you simplifying it in such an absurd way on purpose?

John wrote: "André wrote: "Seriously? I'm away from the internet for 1 week and this is what I find when I get back?
If you get distressed by swearing on the internet I'd hate to see how you cope in real life...."

I don't think I've said anywhere that swearing is necessary to engage in effective debate, did I?
All I'm saying is that it's almost impossible to expect an internet discussion that does not offend anyone, and even if it were possible there are plenty of things worse than swearing.

Seriously? I'm away from the internet for 1 week and this is what I find when I get back?
If you get distressed by swearing on the internet I'd hate to see how you cope in real life.

I fail to see why people are complaining against Nathan... GR should either:
-Delete all "abusive" posts, which I don't think anyone will agree with since we have no way to define what should be deleted. (I'm sure I could find many posts that offended me a lot more than swearing)
-Overlook Nathan's swearing as they did with all the others.

It would be different if all he did was swear, but normally it's: "The point I'm trying to make is X. By the way, you're a jackass."

John wrote: "I'm just curious, Lauren. What did the first grader say to you that con..."

"Kind of like there is no evidence for evolution and the big bang???" <--- I guess he saw this post and then he loled.

Dan wrote: "But I think that the failure of basic reason is more dangerous, the idea that you can invent your own reality and disregard facts of which you do not approve."

This is the main reason why I disagree with those who claim faith(belief without evidence) is a good thing.


Nathan wrote: "With anything else, you must look at the evidence and see what is most likely true based on it. Invisible man in the sky? Not very likely. "

Just to add: That some people lied? Very likely.

♥A.K.~ * wrote: "That's really rude to insult people you don't know. And please don't talk about people and call them names behind their backs, it's impolite."

Behind their backs? -.-
She's posting it on the internet where anyone can see it, I'd hardly call it "calling them names behind their backs".

♥A.K.~ * wrote: "Sheeky is completely correct."

If you didn't notice you are part of "everyone bitching over stupid stuff", isn't it obvious that it came this far because you kept being offended by their posts and felt the need to defend your right to use the picture of a carebear?

Air wrote: "I read the last two pages, I actually thought it was pretty funny. XD"

I agree. I loled.

How long have you been using the internet A.K.? You should already expect being mocked for using the picture of a carebear.

Oh, no! There's a problem...
If he cried how would I know if they are crocodile tears? 0_0

Lauren wrote: "I don't. I know my chair will hold from previous observation."

Yup, apparently some people find this concept hard to grasp.

Xox wrote: "André wrote: "I think that it's kind of pointless to debate death penalty while the process of deciding who is guilty or innocent is so flawed."

We debate it because it still exists. Even if you a..."

What I mean is that as you said we could debate if the state has the right to enforce death penalty, but this should only be discussed in theory when together with a system that is as close to fail-proof as possible.
As long as the miscarriage of justice(as has been pointed out) and other things still happen I think the death penalty shouldn't even be considered an option.

Sophia wrote: "Oh, please.
Once a person has grown up they have a mind of they're own! It's just a weak excuse that you've been brought up that way!"

If it is that easy why are there so many adults in the world who ignore reason and still believe in creationism?

Nathan wrote: "I bet he's ugly too. That's why he doesn't post any pictures of himself.

No, I think that is a picture of him. He has a crocodile head! Sick...he is ugly."

Ugly? He looks nice :)
Can I have a pet just like him?

Late introduction since it's my third post, but better late than never. I'm 19, an atheist and live in Brazil.

I think that it's kind of pointless to debate death penalty while the process of deciding who is guilty or innocent is so flawed.