Some folks believe in God!
Dawkins doesn't!

I got that!

For all Richard Dawkins knows, and as he as admitted as much, God does exist!

Simple enough!

And I am a simple minded fellow!

Regarding the fundamental issue, and trying to present and explain the affirmative position implicitly or explicitly taken by atheists and atheism, I happened to be called out for a discussion with an atheist about that over on James Randi's venue.

So, not knowing any better, I accepted Dr. Dziubla's call.
Dr. Dziubla is a research scientist at the University of Kentucky.

He called.
I answered the call.

Our one-on-one discussion on atheism is reported, without all his whiney, interloping atheist friends' posts on the James Randi venue, at my place:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/24058

It's not all that long and, if you care for my opinion, is quite an interesting and historical exercise regarding the fundamental issue as to atheism. It's also somewhat of an update on the issue as debated between Alexander Campbell and Robert Owen about 160 years or so ago.

While I may try to keep up with any comments/feedback here, I would appreciate it if seriously interested folks would respond at my place. You don't have to be a member to post there. I you are signed in to YAHOO!, you can just use the "reply" and/or "post" features found at the site.

Otherwise, you can just try directing an e-mail to:

Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

See y'all there, or not!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

So here's a WWI German soldier with a cat on his head.

it is a waste of time and effort to debate the religious on the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods because in some warped way it gives them credibility. Why would an atheist want to give credibility to someone when credibility is not deserved? This is a rhetorical question for those who are challenged in any way (not you onager).

How is that wild ass catapult thing going?

Now I just have to figure out how to get the wild ass into the catapult...

As you probably know, Richard Dawkins got Gould's advice straight from the horse's mouth. And took it:

Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P. Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it."

The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't.

To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms."

Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

The whole article is good:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

In recent days, including today, Ken Ham and his surrogate Georgia Purdom have been on the run from me.

I had thought that, given how many times young-earth creation-science promoters had made reference to Ken and AIG, and in light of Ken's "challenge" to Bill Nye that's making the rounds, it would be a good time to ask Ken to clear up some problems his fellow young-earth creation-science promoters had regarding his fundamental positions regarding my "Goliath of GRAS" argument/exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters like Ken Ham.

My postings to their FaceBook pages have been deleted. I have received no legitimate replies to my multiple efforts to get Ken Ham to "come out" and "come clean", and his supporters won't document their efforts to get Ken Ham to "come out" and "come clean" regarding my legitimate requests to settle the issue regarding the veracity of my representations of his positions on my "Goliath of GRAS" argument/exercise.

It's like they don't want to "come out" and "come clean" about what they believe on certain, practical, relevant, fundamental matters regarding why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

I've dealt with that in more detail in other recent subject threads here on the DU.

Fortunately, Dr. Dziubla and I were not like Ken Ham. Dr. Dziubla challenged me to discuss my atheism argument and so I did.

Interestingly, for me anyway, an atheist sort using the name of Richard Ewald tried to challenge me regarding the issue in the Dziubla debate when we crossed paths on The Christian Post.

I tried to accommodate his approach to the matter and when I did.....he ran off!

You can review that history in the archives of my list beginning at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28041

If you have an interest in such things, you can also review Richard's posts on the subject directly as his messages (unless some have been deleted) on The Christian Post which are archived beginning at:

http://friend.christianpost.com/people/richard-ewald

He doesn't have that many, so it's easy to find the ones he wrote to me. I am "NonAnonymous" he addresses in his few postings on the subject.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

what is your stance on atheism?

Did you review my debate with Dr. Dziubla?

Otherwise, you asked:

> What is your stance on atheism?

In simple terms:

Atheists do not believe there is a God.

I do.

That historic Dziubla v. Baty Debate is archived at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/24058

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

after reading your posts and your other internet postings but wanted to make sure I read you correctly.

I am a big fan of the late Stephen Jay Gould, PhD., and I agree with his stance on debating theists of any stripe. I wish Dr. Dawkins would have take Gould's advice to heart. Of interest, Gould and Dawkins have opposing views on evolution. Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium was and is still dismissed by Dawkins. Dawkins is in the camp of steady state evolution. In that respect I would disagree with Dawkins on this one point. This is why science rocks, it is all in the nuance.