Good Old Professor Dawkins [modified]
-
I said nothing about me being right. He is attacking 'religion' which, as we've discussed many times here, is an empty and meaningless definition used by the ignorant to classify lots of different things they don't want to know or undertstand as one thing they can dismiss and ignore because it is internally inconsistent, they having made it so by a stupidly broad definition.
digital man wrote:
This is laughable.
No, it is a serious matter, the man is menace, not to 'religion' but to the science he claims to represent.
digital man wrote:
according to your own publicity
My publicity certainly says no such thing. I am an artist first a politician second and a scientist only by training. As to reason mine is undoubtedly imperfect but the egregious professor escaped from reason altogether a long time ago.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I said nothing about me being right.
And yet that is how you come across. Perhaps a little less condescension and arrogance and an assertion that only your beliefs have validity. No one likes a smart arse.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No, it is a serious matter, the man is menace, not to 'religion' but to the science he claims to represent.
Nonsense: he may be a menace to you and your 'beliefs' but he merely states that which is thought by many.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As to reason mine is undoubtedly imperfect but the egregious professor escaped from reason altogether a long time ago.
Okay: let's go with this for a moment: give me an example and explain why that example clearly demonstrates your assertion.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is impossible to prove a negative.
Although the professor claims to have done so. How else can he 'know' that there is no God as repeatedly and publically claims. Since God does not require atheists to maintian the universe, he merely loves them and preserves them, he is not required to go on doing so indefinitely and will one day give them what they want, a place without God, this is hell. Only people who lack the ability to believe need God to give them them the gift of faith. This is everyone. It is enough to believe that God has died for us in the person of his son Jesus, without believing that we can fully comprehend this statement or its implications.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It is enough to believe that God has died for us in the person of his son Jesus
No, it isn't. Provide evidence/proof that these are more than childish words of comfort to the simple.
-
Ka?l wrote:
Can you prove there is no God or is it just a belief?
That's a non-argument. The onus of proof isn't on those who don't believe, it's on those that do. If you want to invoke the concept of 'god', then it's up to you to prove his existence, it's not up to others to demonstrate his non-existence.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
Excellent: well said.
-
Ka?l wrote:
Can you prove there is no God or is it just a belief?
That's a non-argument. The onus of proof isn't on those who don't believe, it's on those that do. If you want to invoke the concept of 'god', then it's up to you to prove his existence, it's not up to others to demonstrate his non-existence.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
Which demonstrates neatly that while you believe that you make the rules, like those you've stated above, and any 'god' concept must play by your rules. Those who believe in God believe he makes the rules and they are rather different to those you would like to impose. There is no onus of proof. God is the great 'I am', this is the origin of our word Lord. In this God reveal himself as the principle of being. There is no matter 'invoking' a human made priciple of 'god', this is an irrelevance as any human made principle is not God. The onus in fact is on those who do not believe to do so and on those who do to make God known to those who don't. Our world views are in so contrary that any useful discussion is difficult but from as neutral a point of view as I can reach there is a clear difference between them. Whereas the God centered world view fully comprehends the POV of the atheist both why and how and where it goes wrong, the reverse cannot be said.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
You see atheists on one hand versus any and all belief in any and every 'deity' on the other. I see the singular truth of the Christian message on one side versus an endless array of lies of all hues and tastes on the other. Atheism being only one simplistic and minor variation. Far from all being right, they are all wrong, including atheism, genuine and feigned as in the case of the professor who apparently believes genes to be divine :doh:
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I see the singular truth of the Christian message on one side versus an endless array of lies of all hues and tastes on the other.
You and atheists are identical in disbelieving in thousands of gods, it's just that atheists disbelieve in one more god than you.
-
You see atheists on one hand versus any and all belief in any and every 'deity' on the other. I see the singular truth of the Christian message on one side versus an endless array of lies of all hues and tastes on the other. Atheism being only one simplistic and minor variation. Far from all being right, they are all wrong, including atheism, genuine and feigned as in the case of the professor who apparently believes genes to be divine :doh:
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
I cannot help the delusional fools who believe in mumbo jumbo written by bronze age shepherds, I can, however, offer psychological help and deprogramming of the mind washing you have been subjected to. The teaching of religious dogma to children is Child Abuse of the worst kind, it hides under the veneer of respectability and yet inculcates obscenities in the form of acceptable behaviour. All major religions teach that women are less than men. That a belief system treats over half the worlds people as less than human, is obscene. They all teach that theirs is the true way and have killed those who disbelieve. Many teach that certain foods or practices are inherently evil. Dim, very dim! Religion is all about control, but if you are to be truly free you must throw off the shackles of Dogma and wear the mantle of Humanity!
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
:laugh:
73Zeppelin wrote:
Not one ounce of truth contained in any of that.
Which is of course your
73Zeppelin wrote:
Purely personal opinion
and can therefore according to you can be easily dismissed. Having successfully argued against yourself without so much as touching on anything that I actually said you demonstrate very well how it is possible to be intelligent, clever, articulate and yet without reason. Just like the egregious professor himself. I'm sure you're pleased. :)
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
You seem to live in a state of persistent confusion Matthew. I'm not arguing for the existence of magikal sky-beings and fairies like you are. Indeed, I'm not arguing the existence of anything. I forgive you for misunderstanding this easily overlooked point because you seem to have a long and established record on that front. You see, it's you that is trying to claim the existence of 'god' - I don't need to argue anything at all. If you are trying to present 'god' as 'truth' than you have to show 'truth' without taking the existence of 'god' a priori. That's what you don't seem to understand. I'm not making an a priori claim for anything. And I don't have to - it's you and you alone that has to make the case in favour of your belief and not me that has to demonstrate that it's false. Invoking fictitious beings as 'truth' and then saying I have to demonstrate their non-existence in order to disprove them is idiocy of the highest order. Sorry, but nice try - unfortunately it's all I've come to expect from you and Ilion.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
-
Which demonstrates neatly that while you believe that you make the rules, like those you've stated above, and any 'god' concept must play by your rules. Those who believe in God believe he makes the rules and they are rather different to those you would like to impose. There is no onus of proof. God is the great 'I am', this is the origin of our word Lord. In this God reveal himself as the principle of being. There is no matter 'invoking' a human made priciple of 'god', this is an irrelevance as any human made principle is not God. The onus in fact is on those who do not believe to do so and on those who do to make God known to those who don't. Our world views are in so contrary that any useful discussion is difficult but from as neutral a point of view as I can reach there is a clear difference between them. Whereas the God centered world view fully comprehends the POV of the atheist both why and how and where it goes wrong, the reverse cannot be said.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which demonstrates neatly that while you believe that you make the rules, like those you've stated above, and any 'god' concept must play by your rules. Those who believe in God believe he makes the rules and they are rather different to those you would like to impose. There is no onus of proof. God is the great 'I am', this is the origin of our word Lord. In this God reveal himself as the principle of being. There is no matter 'invoking' a human made priciple of 'god', this is an irrelevance as any human made principle is not God. The onus in fact is on those who do not believe to do so and on those who do to make God known to those who don't.
That made less sense than you think.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Our world views are in so contrary that any useful discussion is difficult but from as neutral a point of view as I can reach there is a clear difference between them. Whereas the God centered world view fully comprehends the POV of the atheist both why and how and where it goes wrong, the reverse cannot be said.
So you're taking the "You're too dumb to argue with me" approach. How very Ilion-esque.
-
Which demonstrates neatly that while you believe that you make the rules, like those you've stated above, and any 'god' concept must play by your rules. Those who believe in God believe he makes the rules and they are rather different to those you would like to impose. There is no onus of proof. God is the great 'I am', this is the origin of our word Lord. In this God reveal himself as the principle of being. There is no matter 'invoking' a human made priciple of 'god', this is an irrelevance as any human made principle is not God. The onus in fact is on those who do not believe to do so and on those who do to make God known to those who don't. Our world views are in so contrary that any useful discussion is difficult but from as neutral a point of view as I can reach there is a clear difference between them. Whereas the God centered world view fully comprehends the POV of the atheist both why and how and where it goes wrong, the reverse cannot be said.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which demonstrates neatly that while you believe that you make the rules, like those you've stated above, and any 'god' concept must play by your rules. Those who believe in God believe he makes the rules and they are rather different to those you would like to impose. There is no onus of proof. God is the great 'I am', this is the origin of our word Lord. In this God reveal himself as the principle of being. There is no matter 'invoking' a human made priciple of 'god', this is an irrelevance as any human made principle is not God. The onus in fact is on those who do not believe to do so and on those who do to make God known to those who don't. Our world views are in so contrary that any useful discussion is difficult but from as neutral a point of view as I can reach there is a clear difference between them. Whereas the God centered world view fully comprehends the POV of the atheist both why and how and where it goes wrong, the reverse cannot be said.
This is complete and utter tripe and not worthy of a response. Like I said above - you don't invoke invisible objects and then argue they exist as truth until your opponent disproves them. That's idiocy.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which demonstrates neatly that while you believe that you make the rules, like those you've stated above, and any 'god' concept must play by your rules. Those who believe in God believe he makes the rules and they are rather different to those you would like to impose. There is no onus of proof. God is the great 'I am', this is the origin of our word Lord. In this God reveal himself as the principle of being. There is no matter 'invoking' a human made priciple of 'god', this is an irrelevance as any human made principle is not God. The onus in fact is on those who do not believe to do so and on those who do to make God known to those who don't.
That made less sense than you think.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Our world views are in so contrary that any useful discussion is difficult but from as neutral a point of view as I can reach there is a clear difference between them. Whereas the God centered world view fully comprehends the POV of the atheist both why and how and where it goes wrong, the reverse cannot be said.
So you're taking the "You're too dumb to argue with me" approach. How very Ilion-esque.
His signiture states that Happiness is Freedom. This presents a dichotomy. He cannot be happy, for he is not free, he is bound by his religious observances. But ignorance is bliss! :)
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
His signiture states that Happiness is Freedom. This presents a dichotomy. He cannot be happy, for he is not free, he is bound by his religious observances. But ignorance is bliss! :)
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
What is it about religion that completely shreds people's ability to think clearly? :confused:
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which demonstrates neatly that while you believe that you make the rules, like those you've stated above, and any 'god' concept must play by your rules. Those who believe in God believe he makes the rules and they are rather different to those you would like to impose. There is no onus of proof. God is the great 'I am', this is the origin of our word Lord. In this God reveal himself as the principle of being. There is no matter 'invoking' a human made priciple of 'god', this is an irrelevance as any human made principle is not God. The onus in fact is on those who do not believe to do so and on those who do to make God known to those who don't. Our world views are in so contrary that any useful discussion is difficult but from as neutral a point of view as I can reach there is a clear difference between them. Whereas the God centered world view fully comprehends the POV of the atheist both why and how and where it goes wrong, the reverse cannot be said.
This is complete and utter tripe and not worthy of a response. Like I said above - you don't invoke invisible objects and then argue they exist as truth until your opponent disproves them. That's idiocy.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
We all know there is but one god, The Flying Spaghetti Monster[^], all venerate his noodly appendages. His Day of Celebration is the 19th September, and I seem to remember many here celebrating. (International Talk Like A Pirate Day).
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I said nothing about me being right.
And yet that is how you come across. Perhaps a little less condescension and arrogance and an assertion that only your beliefs have validity. No one likes a smart arse.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No, it is a serious matter, the man is menace, not to 'religion' but to the science he claims to represent.
Nonsense: he may be a menace to you and your 'beliefs' but he merely states that which is thought by many.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As to reason mine is undoubtedly imperfect but the egregious professor escaped from reason altogether a long time ago.
Okay: let's go with this for a moment: give me an example and explain why that example clearly demonstrates your assertion.
digital man wrote:
And yet that is how you come across. Perhaps a little less condescension and arrogance and an assertion that only your beliefs have validity. No one likes a smart arse.
Indeed. Would you prefer me to say as so many other do that I don't really believe what I believe, to caveat every sentence with 'what I think might be wrong'. Strange that this is never required of the likes of the professor dont you think?
digital man wrote:
he merely states that which is thought by many.
If he merely stated it perhaps but he rams it down the throats of others with full 'religious' zeal and promotes campaigns such as in the OP that contain no 'reason' or 'science' but are acknowledged to be modelled on 'religous' advertising ( Where he ever sees this I don't know I haven't seen any for 15+ years ). Almost everything he does in public is consistent with trying to turn his narrow brand of 'scientific' atheism into a religion.
digital man wrote:
give me an example and explain why that example clearly demonstrates your assertion.
I have given them throughout this thread, from his total self contradiction to his unfounded assertions that he 'knows' that there is no God. He speaks of reason but he does not employ in the only way it can be of value, consistently.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
A nice one liner but it betrays a basic misunderstanding shared with the idiot professor, that their is a contradiction between faith and science. There is none and although faith would remain faith without the practice of the scientific method, being a more fundamental and primary part of life, the reverse is not true.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Jesus healed Lazarus using supernatural powers. I'm pretty sure that there's a slight rift between science and religion...
-
digital man wrote:
And yet that is how you come across. Perhaps a little less condescension and arrogance and an assertion that only your beliefs have validity. No one likes a smart arse.
Indeed. Would you prefer me to say as so many other do that I don't really believe what I believe, to caveat every sentence with 'what I think might be wrong'. Strange that this is never required of the likes of the professor dont you think?
digital man wrote:
he merely states that which is thought by many.
If he merely stated it perhaps but he rams it down the throats of others with full 'religious' zeal and promotes campaigns such as in the OP that contain no 'reason' or 'science' but are acknowledged to be modelled on 'religous' advertising ( Where he ever sees this I don't know I haven't seen any for 15+ years ). Almost everything he does in public is consistent with trying to turn his narrow brand of 'scientific' atheism into a religion.
digital man wrote:
give me an example and explain why that example clearly demonstrates your assertion.
I have given them throughout this thread, from his total self contradiction to his unfounded assertions that he 'knows' that there is no God. He speaks of reason but he does not employ in the only way it can be of value, consistently.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
OK I will take your argument. I KNOW there is no god, Prove me wrong.
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
Jesus healed Lazarus using supernatural powers. I'm pretty sure that there's a slight rift between science and religion...
He 'used the force'. Some bearded wizard living in a desert taught him about this energy that can do your wishes, and to use it, you wonder around with people in sack-cloth robes and straggly beards telling people about good and evil.
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It is enough to believe that God has died for us in the person of his son Jesus
No, it isn't. Provide evidence/proof that these are more than childish words of comfort to the simple.
The historical fact of the ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the full and final proof. In this he showed his supremecy over sin and death and demonstrated that the power of God is sufficient to save each and every one of us. These are not words of comfort to those who do not believe for if you accepted them it would mean the end of your world and your life as it now is. Those who think 'religion' or more specifically Christianity is a crutch are ignorant to the point of idiocy. Did he not say, 'Take up your cross and follow me'. But the ressurection is comfort indeed to those who do believe. It is the great victory that secures our inheritance. Though we may bear a cross in this life we are gaurenteed an eternity with God. What can separate us from the love of God? Neither height nor depth, not the powers of this world or of heaven or hell, not even sin and death. This is the absolute security of the redeemed, won at the cross. Can science speak to these things? Can it engage with such concepts much less pronounce on them? No, not without ceasing to be science and so denying itself. Let the scientists study what may be observed and propose their theories in the full humility of the knowledge that we at best are only ever thinking God's thoughts after him. A proper perspective will not harm science but God willing will redeem it.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
He 'used the force'. Some bearded wizard living in a desert taught him about this energy that can do your wishes, and to use it, you wonder around with people in sack-cloth robes and straggly beards telling people about good and evil.
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
If Jesus had expounded on optics or electrodynamics as well as morality, then maybe he'd have lent himself some credibility.
-
The historical fact of the ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the full and final proof. In this he showed his supremecy over sin and death and demonstrated that the power of God is sufficient to save each and every one of us. These are not words of comfort to those who do not believe for if you accepted them it would mean the end of your world and your life as it now is. Those who think 'religion' or more specifically Christianity is a crutch are ignorant to the point of idiocy. Did he not say, 'Take up your cross and follow me'. But the ressurection is comfort indeed to those who do believe. It is the great victory that secures our inheritance. Though we may bear a cross in this life we are gaurenteed an eternity with God. What can separate us from the love of God? Neither height nor depth, not the powers of this world or of heaven or hell, not even sin and death. This is the absolute security of the redeemed, won at the cross. Can science speak to these things? Can it engage with such concepts much less pronounce on them? No, not without ceasing to be science and so denying itself. Let the scientists study what may be observed and propose their theories in the full humility of the knowledge that we at best are only ever thinking God's thoughts after him. A proper perspective will not harm science but God willing will redeem it.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The historical fact of the ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the full and final proof.
[Citation needed]
-
Ka?l wrote:
Can you prove there is no God or is it just a belief?
That's a non-argument. The onus of proof isn't on those who don't believe, it's on those that do. If you want to invoke the concept of 'god', then it's up to you to prove his existence, it's not up to others to demonstrate his non-existence.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's a non-argument
It's a question.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The onus of proof isn't on those who don't believe, it's on those that do
So what you say is that nonexistence of anything is considered as true unless proven otherwise, right? That is saying 'There is no exoplanets' was true until we discovered some of them. Woops. Any proposal has to be demonstrated to be considered as true. Before that it is plausible, or not. The current status on God is that we don't know, no one having been able yet to prove neither its/his/her existence nor its/his/her nonexistence.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?