Good Old Professor Dawkins [modified]
-
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?
-
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."
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)
-
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)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You're right I don't. There is no matter or concept of disproving God less even than of disproving yourself.
Now you're just being obtuse. You are invoking invisible objects. Since you like to believe that you're not why don't you prove 'god' exists like I already asked of you?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
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.
I don't care if you take my opinion or not - understand that taking the opinion of an imaginary being could get you certified. As for the authority mumbo-jumbo you can say what you like, unfortunately it means nothing.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
-
It is impossible to prove a negative. And since atheists do not require a god to explain the universe, they merely observe and learn, they do not require a god to be believed in. Only people who lack the ability to think for themselves need a god to do the explaining for them. It is enough to believe that a garden is beautiful, without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it!
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
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
-
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
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:
You're right I don't. There is no matter or concept of disproving God less even than of disproving yourself.
Now you're just being obtuse. You are invoking invisible objects. Since you like to believe that you're not why don't you prove 'god' exists like I already asked of you?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
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.
I don't care if you take my opinion or not - understand that taking the opinion of an imaginary being could get you certified. As for the authority mumbo-jumbo you can say what you like, unfortunately it means nothing.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
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)
-
If Jesus had expounded on optics or electrodynamics as well as morality, then maybe he'd have lent himself some credibility.
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
-
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
-
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."