Good Old Professor Dawkins [modified]
-
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?
Ka?l wrote:
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.
That's exactly right. People postulated the existence of exoplanets and then duly provided evidence (concrete) that they existed. If something similar happens with 'god' then it too will be accepted. Until that day, 'god' doesn't exist. Notice too, that it's been in excess of 2000 years with still no proof. I think that speaks volumes. Since there are those here that think nonexistence is somehow a viable state until disproven, then I proclaim that 'god' is a false idol and those that worship him are idolators who refuse to rightly recognize the true and divine authority of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the One and True Lord Thy God. Afterall, we know spaghetti exists so He must exist as well. This then, is an absolute and viable truth until you can disprove it. I also claim that all spaghetti strands are sentient and intelligent but are just laying dormant until Judgement Day when those that have eaten them shall be rightly and visciously judged before The Almighty. Please note that I am under no obligation to prove this fundamental truth - you must disprove it.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
-
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
You have entirely the wrong word here, 'Fact' does not mean 'Single Source from work of fiction'
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The historical fact of the ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the full and final proof.
[Citation needed]
I'd give you a 6 if I could.
-
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.
Again, you see the important line as between a belief or none but there is no such line. Atheists believe, they simply believe in an unprovable negative rather than a tranformational positive. I see the line as between true and false which is in the end far more important.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
As for the authority mumbo-jumbo you can say what you like, unfortunately it means nothing.
What is it I wonder that makes think anything you say is any more meaningful? Cute that you dismiss the concept of authority by appealing to your own and ironic that in this context you don't have any.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
What is it I wonder that makes think anything you say is any more meaningful?
Because I'm not arguing that the non-existent exists, like you are.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is impossible to prove a negative.
So it should be considered as the truth?
Dalek Dave wrote:
they merely observe and learn,
I don't see why religious people are denied the possibility to do the same.
Dalek Dave wrote:
without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it!
Without dreams there would be no science.
If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy! Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: It is impossible to prove a negative. So it should be considered as the truth?
Of course not, it is merely a fact. Truth should be based on fact, and fact is something religion is short of.
Ka?l wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: they merely observe and learn, I don't see why religious people are denied the possibility to do the same.
Because anything outside their dogma is considered wrong, mistaken, evil etc. Teach Jews and Muslims about Refridgerators! I understand that pork, in a desert, a thousand years ago was not a good thing to eat. But they haven't learnt much since about hygeine and food preperation. Teach Bible Bashers about Dinosaurs and they say it is a conspiracy to deny them the truth that the Earth was created by a space ghost in 4004bc.
Ka?l wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it! Without dreams there would be no science.
Dreams are totally explainable in science, they are the mind defragging. Please come up with pertinant arguments based on Fact, Evidence or Proof, do not just act as a mouthpiece for the dimwitted.
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
Again, you see the important line as between a belief or none but there is no such line. Atheists believe, they simply believe in an unprovable negative rather than a tranformational positive. I see the line as between true and false which is in the end far more important.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Yet you believe in the the "unprovable negative" of the non-existence of other gods, which is the view atheists have of your own god.
-
He did do some empirical experimentation on fluid dynamics.
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
Baptism? Walking on water?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The historical fact of the ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the full and final proof.
[Citation needed]
That gets a 5 but it's worth more.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
you don't invoke invisible objects and then argue they exist as truth until your opponent disproves them.
You're right I don't. There is no matter or concept of disproving God less even than of disproving yourself.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's idiocy.
Your opinion. I'll takes God's opinion over yours, and mine for that matter, any day. He after all does have all the authority.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
You are so conceited.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'll takes God's opinion over yours
You claim that god is this all powerful entity then claim to know his opinion. Wow, you ARE connected, hotline straight to god's thoughts! You also claim inability to disprove god. OK so you cannot disprove any god? or No god? It makes any further argument on your part, Spurious to say the least.
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
you don't invoke invisible objects and then argue they exist as truth until your opponent disproves them.
You're right I don't. There is no matter or concept of disproving God less even than of disproving yourself.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's idiocy.
Your opinion. I'll takes God's opinion over yours, and mine for that matter, any day. He after all does have all the authority.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Are you in God's good graces?
-
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
OK, accepting that the man who wrote this had no idea what he was talking about here is never the less a hasty demolition.
Dalek Dave wrote:
cannot help the delusional fools who believe in mumbo jumbo written by bronze age shepherds,
I've never met these people but I probably couldn't help them either.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I can, however, offer psychological help and deprogramming of the mind washing you have been subjected to.
Doubtful from someone who is clearly so ignorant.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The teaching of religious dogma to children is Child Abuse of the worst kind
Only if the dogma is wrong. What about if it's right?
Dalek Dave wrote:
inculcates obscenities in the form of acceptable behaviour.
We must take the authority of the author the he can judge what is acceptable and what is obscenity. Of course he cannot because he only has his flawed human understanding on which to base his judgement. The judge of the universe may not agree with him, tough.
Dalek Dave wrote:
All major religions teach that women are less than men
Straight forwardly false.
Dalek Dave wrote:
That a belief system treats over half the worlds people as less than human
What belief system, unspecific conflation that refers to a non definition.
Dalek Dave wrote:
They all teach that theirs is the true way
:doh: and clearly you don't.
Dalek Dave wrote:
and have killed those who disbelieve.
as well as those that do, those that believe differently and those that lie and claim they don't believe anything. Your point being?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Many teach that certain foods or practices are inherently evil
Which you have just done a few lines previous, prat, unless you're implying that religious indocrination of children is obscene but that doesn't equate to it being an evil practice, a satanist religious point of view but not one I'm about to countenance.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Religion is all about control
No it isn't or it wou
-
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
Dalek Dave wrote:
Many teach that certain foods or practices are inherently evil. Dim, very dim!
That's a bit of an "issue" of mine at the moment - where is PETA when we permit Hallal and Kosher meat to be prepared in the most barbaric method possible, with the insistence that the animal involved must not be anaethetised in any way? Frankly, I don't care if I offend anyone, but Muslims and Jews should be ashamed of themselves for permitting it to continue.
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
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.
Codswallop - utter, unabashed, unadulterated codswallop....what a tool...
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Forum:The Soapbox - off-topic rants Subject:Re: Good Old Professor Dawkins Sender:Dalek Dave Date:Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:13 PM His signiture states that Happiness is Freedom.
Incorrect, it states that Thucydides said as much.
Dalek Dave wrote:
He cannot be happy, for he is not free,
You speak of what you do not know, having never been free yourself how can you say I am not. What
Dalek Dave wrote:
religious observances
do you think I am bound by? What religious observances was Jesus bound by? Name one if you can. :)
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
What religious observances was Jesus bound by? Name one if you can.
Jesus was a Jew....you need a specific example?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
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."
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'm not arguing for the existence of magikal sky-beings and fairies like you are.
No, I'm not, read your bible.
73Zeppelin wrote:
it's you that is trying to claim the existence of 'god'
No, It's God who proclaims his own existence, my opinion on the subject is entirely derivative and can as you say be easily dismissed. His on the other hand cannot.
73Zeppelin wrote:
you are trying to present 'god' as 'truth' than you have to show 'truth' without taking the existence of 'god' a priori.
Says who? you state that I must but you lack the authority. God says that you must believe in him first for this is the beginning of wisdom. Then you can understand the rest. His authority trumps yours.
73Zeppelin wrote:
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
You'll note that this is contrary to the scientific method, not that that's particularly relevant here.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Invoking fictitious beings
Something you have talked about but I have not done.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I have to demonstrate their non-existence in order to disprove them
Is not what I said. There is no possible disproof of the truth so why would I ask you for one?
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
The 'egregious proffessor for the public misunderstanding of science' Richard Dawkins is an idiot interfering in things he knows little and understands nothing about. All this campaign will achieve is to publicize that fact to a larger number of people and bring science as a whole into disrepute as a result.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
While it certainly is easy to react with a knee-jerk to Prof. Dawkins rhetoric, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by calling him an idiot. It would have been more interesting to hear you pick apart his text or his delivery of said text using reason. I do not understand what you mean by bringing “science” into disrepute. The scientific method is not a movement, and it most certainly does not have prophets or leaders that can tarnish the results and understandings of the universe it has brought us so far. Are you saying that people will start to distrust their microwave ovens or question the validity of the theory of gravity because of this advertisment? If you have the time, I suggest you watch the ‘Beyond Belief’ discussions on the science network[^], they are well worth the time. As a teaser, Prof. Dawkins gets called on for his ‘attacks’ on religion by both Prof. Lawrence Krauss and Prof. Scott Atran. You might enjoy that even though they both use reason in stead of name calling. Cheers!
--- "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". -- Denis Diderot
-
Jesus healed Lazarus using supernatural powers. I'm pretty sure that there's a slight rift between science and religion...
Interesting. My Bibles don't say how he did it, only what he did. Do you know more?
"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
You have already proved yourself wrong by claiming knowledge that you cannot have. No further proof or in fact other proof can be obtained. It is impossible to KNOW for certain what is not true.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'm not arguing for the existence of magikal sky-beings and fairies like you are.
No, I'm not, read your bible.
73Zeppelin wrote:
it's you that is trying to claim the existence of 'god'
No, It's God who proclaims his own existence, my opinion on the subject is entirely derivative and can as you say be easily dismissed. His on the other hand cannot.
73Zeppelin wrote:
you are trying to present 'god' as 'truth' than you have to show 'truth' without taking the existence of 'god' a priori.
Says who? you state that I must but you lack the authority. God says that you must believe in him first for this is the beginning of wisdom. Then you can understand the rest. His authority trumps yours.
73Zeppelin wrote:
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
You'll note that this is contrary to the scientific method, not that that's particularly relevant here.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Invoking fictitious beings
Something you have talked about but I have not done.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I have to demonstrate their non-existence in order to disprove them
Is not what I said. There is no possible disproof of the truth so why would I ask you for one?
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No, I'm not, read your bible.
I have to STUDY the ridiculous thing! It's compulsory...and probably illegal too. X|
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No, It's God who proclaims his own existence, my opinion on the subject is entirely derivative and can as you say be easily dismissed. His on the other hand cannot.
My bed-goblin proclaims his own existence. He told me just then.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Says who? you state that I must but you lack the authority. God says that you must believe in him first for this is the beginning of wisdom. Then you can understand the rest. His authority trumps yours.
My bed-goblin says that you have to believe in him. He whispered it in my ear, just then. He has a weird raspy voice, it tickles my neck and sends shivers down my spine.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You'll note that this is contrary to the scientific method, not that that's particularly relevant here.
Ah, no wonder you have no confidence in the scientific method. You don't understand it.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Is not what I said. There is no possible disproof of the truth so why would I ask you for one?
Not good enough.