Good Old Professor Dawkins [modified]
-
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++.
A Jew who was attacked ceaselessly for challanging the religiousity and redundant practices of his society. Read your New Testament.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
It's not quite that simple. Many of these other gods definitely exist, they are simply not God or not even gods. Do atheists belive that the ancestors of Shinto believers don't exist, in a 4 dimensional universe, a tough one. Do atheists believe the troll rocks venerated by primitive nordic tribes do not exist, many still do. But yes atheist undoubtedly believe that Uhuru Mazda has no existence and fail to recognize the dangerous invocation of a powerful evil spirit.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Many of these other gods definitely exist
Uhhh...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
they are simply not God or not even gods.
Uhhh...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Do atheists belive that the ancestors of Shinto believers don't exist, in a 4 dimensional universe, a tough one.
...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Do atheists believe the troll rocks venerated by primitive nordic tribes do not exist, many still do.
...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
But yes atheist undoubtedly believe that Uhuru Mazda has no existence and fail to recognize the dangerous invocation of a powerful evil spirit.
Yeah...
-
It's not quite that simple. Many of these other gods definitely exist, they are simply not God or not even gods. Do atheists belive that the ancestors of Shinto believers don't exist, in a 4 dimensional universe, a tough one. Do atheists believe the troll rocks venerated by primitive nordic tribes do not exist, many still do. But yes atheist undoubtedly believe that Uhuru Mazda has no existence and fail to recognize the dangerous invocation of a powerful evil spirit.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
You can't worm out of it by shifting away from gods to other mythical beings. Your "unprovable" disbelief in other gods is the same "unprovable" disbelief that atheists have for your god.
-
Jesus healed Lazarus using supernatural powers. I'm pretty sure that there's a slight rift between science and religion...
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Jesus healed Lazarus using supernatural powers
How do you know that? Were you there? Did you at least read the Greek version of the New Testament? Or are you relying on what you saw in a movie once?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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
-
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
I called him an idiot in this thread for the very specific reasons that I gave that he contradicts the entire supposed basis for his position. This is not merely an abstract logical error in an otherwise sound argument. It is a fundamental flaw in what he saying and how he is saying it. This is not the first time he has uttered nonsense or behaved irrationally by his own measure. Hence he is an idiot in the classical sense. The 'egregious professor for the public misunderstanding of science' line is a joke on his title of 'emeritus professor for the public understanding of science', a politically awarded title that gives him a platform for his ideas that he would never have got from his science. My concern about science being brought into disrepute is precisely because of the contradiction between the high official position that the professor holds, his even higher public profile as the 'poster boy' for scientific rationalism and his being repeatedly found to be an idiot on closer examination. Most of the public will not engage in that closer examination, will accept what he says because of his status and will throw the science baby out with the 'gene worshiping, fist shaking at God, wacko' bathwater when he falls on his face as he invitably will, be it during his lifetime or only from a historical perspective. Either way he will damage science in the perception of the public and it cannot at this juncture afford much more damage.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
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
Dalek Dave wrote:
Teach Jews and Muslims about Refridgerators!
Err, I must take exception to this: I can't talk about muslims (though I think Halal is evry close to Kosher) but I have a fridge. My parents had a fridge as did thiers. If there were any fridges before that I can assure you they would have had them.
Dalek Dave wrote:
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.
Again, rubbish: Kosher and Halal is ALL about food hygiene: it's just that fridges have made it a little redundant. I don't keep kosher but those that do still have fridges and freezers, are perfectly clean but simply choose not to eat certain foods and to keep separate others. Bit pointless but certainly no worse than Mr Faithfulls unfounded assertion that god had a son. I mean, where's the evidence? (Sorry, Matthew, couldn't help myself...)
-
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."
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's exactly right.
And people who said 'there is no exoplanet' were wrong, and they were wrong even before the first exoplanet was discovered - unless you pretend their discovery by human beings made them suddenly appear in the Universe?
73Zeppelin wrote:
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
No, I must not. Because I don't claim, I won't claim you are wrong. Your beliefs are yours, you are entitled to have them. Maybe you're right, maybe not. I believe you are not, but I respect your faith.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
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:
The onus of proof isn't on those who don't believe, it's on those that do.
Seems to me both sides depend on belief. There are probably other metaphysical questions that cannot be answered by the use of physical experimentation, but require either inductive or deductive logic to even approach an answer. Unfortunately neither inductive nor inductive reasoning provides proof in the scientific sense.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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)
Another typical non-response that just demonstrates how correct I am.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
-
What is it about religion that completely shreds people's ability to think clearly? :confused:
-
A Jew who was attacked ceaselessly for challanging the religiousity and redundant practices of his society. Read your New Testament.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A Jew who was attacked ceaselessly for challanging the religiousity and redundant practices of his society.
No he wasn't. A large part of the populace welcomed his teachings - as a Jew. Even the most pro-Roman of the Gospels do not imply that he was attacked ceaselessly by the Jews.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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:
That's exactly right.
And people who said 'there is no exoplanet' were wrong, and they were wrong even before the first exoplanet was discovered - unless you pretend their discovery by human beings made them suddenly appear in the Universe?
73Zeppelin wrote:
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
No, I must not. Because I don't claim, I won't claim you are wrong. Your beliefs are yours, you are entitled to have them. Maybe you're right, maybe not. I believe you are not, but I respect your faith.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
KaЯl wrote:
No, I must not. Because I don't claim, I won't claim you are wrong. Your beliefs are yours, you are entitled to have them. Maybe you're right, maybe not. I believe you are not, but I respect your faith.
I understand that, but the problem with that position is that it is implicit that your belief is right and true and the beliefs of the Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists, Native Americans, etc... is completely wrong. And that's why religion can be dangerous - it can breed hate, disrespect, friction and extremism. This is precisely why I disagree with allowing religious ideology to dictate state-based morality and codes of law.
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank."
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A Jew who was attacked ceaselessly for challanging the religiousity and redundant practices of his society.
No he wasn't. A large part of the populace welcomed his teachings - as a Jew. Even the most pro-Roman of the Gospels do not imply that he was attacked ceaselessly by the Jews.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Please, the Pharaseas, the guardians of Jewish customs, practices and religeous laws, looked for every oppotunity to trap him, trip him up, kill him, as soon as his popularity amongst those they condemned as outcasts and sinners, mostly for being poor, became a threat to them. They accused him of breaking the sabbath, they famously accused him of blasphemy in front of the High Priest. You really are an odd fish for someone who claims to know his bible so much better then me.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
A Jew who was attacked ceaselessly for challanging the religiousity and redundant practices of his society. Read your New Testament.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
What's that got to do with it - you asked for what religious practices he was bound by. Since he was a Jew, he was bound by many - included but not limited to observance of the Sabbath, not eating unclean foods etc....
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'll takes God's opinion over yours,
Does He talk to you, Matthew? Does He tell you to embarrass Him by prattling on like this, or is it your own idea?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Does He talk to you, Matthew?
Yes.
Oakman wrote:
Does He tell you to embarrass Him by prattling on like this
If you know he's embarrassed then he clearly talks to you. Or maybe someone else does because he's always rather keen on spreading the good news when he talks to me.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Baptism? Walking on water?
yes, and water into wine.
------------------------------------ "October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in." - Mark Twain
-
What's that got to do with it - you asked for what religious practices he was bound by. Since he was a Jew, he was bound by many - included but not limited to observance of the Sabbath, not eating unclean foods etc....
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
My point, and his, was that he was not bound by them. He came to fulfill them. Huge chunks of the New Testament are specifically about this. To claim Christians as being bound by religious practice is as much as to say they aren't very good Christians, or they aren't very Christian. We had a little argument about this a few hundred years ago. You may have heard about it. It was called the Reformation.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
You can't worm out of it by shifting away from gods to other mythical beings. Your "unprovable" disbelief in other gods is the same "unprovable" disbelief that atheists have for your god.
No, there was no worming or shifting, we simply do not accept their definitions of God any more than you accept ours, this does not means that we stop believing in the existence of football because it is a god to some people, do you?
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)