Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 91 of 167 (383660)
02-08-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by randman
02-08-2007 6:07 PM


Re: telling in itself
well, you have at least 2 evos here admonishing support for Dawkins with 1 supporting.
And pretty much as usual you ignore my point that one man does not represent an entire community simply by his own fiat.
You also ignored my analogy to labeling all IDers christian. Would you or would not not object? Or are you just going to convienently ignore it again.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 6:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 6:45 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 92 of 167 (383662)
02-08-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by pink sasquatch
02-08-2007 6:11 PM


Re: telling in itself
I prefer the approach that Sam Harris takes. He targets his message more toward the effects of religion rather than the notion of God. At least from what I have read and heard of him. His point is more about why are we giving religion a free pass to dictate practical matters of civilization without criticism.
As an example, you can display support for stem-cell research but it is poltically taboo to show how religious objections to step-cell research is total unobjective superstition.
I haven't read enough of Sam to know if like Dawkins he believes the question of the existence of God is scientific. I would hope that Dawkins is alone in that delusion.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-08-2007 6:11 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 93 of 167 (383669)
02-08-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Jazzns
02-08-2007 6:19 PM


Re: telling in itself
Not ignoring you. I showed the Haggard example was false. Dawkins has not lost his teaching position, nor really been censured. He is endorsed and widely respected in the evo community.
Glad to see some think he's gone overboard, but you can read this thread and see the absurd non-objectivity dominating the evo camp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 6:19 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 94 of 167 (383671)
02-08-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by pink sasquatch
02-08-2007 5:26 PM


An actual discussion of the book....
I attempted to read his book and found it annoying, insulting, and at times illogical - and to a great extent I agree with him. (So I didn't get very far... feel free to dismiss me as you like).
I'm about 2/3 of the way through but don't find it any of those things. Perhaps you and I could discuss it? (separately from loonies who haven't even read the thing).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-08-2007 5:26 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 95 of 167 (383683)
02-08-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object
02-08-2007 5:17 PM


Herepton writes:
Where does that leave the Buddhists?
It leaves them in the same place as the Muslims or any other revelatory faith which believes that a Divine Deity created reality.
Ray
Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. The only revelations found in Buddhism are found within the seeker, not delivered via revelation from a Divine Deity--nor does a creator deity play any role in Buddhism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-08-2007 5:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 7:58 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 167 (383684)
02-08-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by pink sasquatch
02-08-2007 6:11 PM


Re: telling in itself
But from what I've read, and heard, from Dawkins, he seems to almost intentionally play fast and loose with terminology. When Dawkins says "atheist", he actually means "agnostic."
Another way to look at it is that when you say "agnostic", you really mean "atheist." I'm not convinced there's a practical difference between the terms, other than a certain distaste on the part of self-described "agnostics" to use plain language.
That's nothing more than a cheap-shot, a claim that the only reason a scientist could doubt Dawkins' logic, veracity, or methods is out of blind respect for religion.
The only reason? I couldn't say. The main reason in most cases? Absolutely.
Somewhere in there he said the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis, and that is bullshit.
A god who has an effect on the universe? Absolutely that's a scientific question - a question with the answer "no, there's no such thing." "Gods" who have no effect on the universe? It's not clear how such a being even merits the term "god"; it certainly doesn't meet the definition. I'd say Dawkins' assertion is accurate. What, we're supposed to believe that science can't address the question just because you say it can't? I respect you plenty, PS, but I don't see why you should be believed on this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-08-2007 6:11 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 97 of 167 (383687)
02-08-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Omnivorous
02-08-2007 7:30 PM


Is Buddhism a religion then?
Is Buddhism a religion if it does not have a God or Creator?
I think it is. I think there is a lot of misinformation on what constitutes religion and that evo advocates are often actually teaching religion in the classrooms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2007 7:30 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2007 11:18 PM randman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 167 (383689)
02-08-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by randman
02-08-2007 6:13 PM


Re: telling in itself
Crash, there is widespread and overwhelming agreement that there is a Creator,
You say "a Creator", as though there's a consensus that it's just one of them, and that's absolutely not so. And most religions categorically deny that they're talking about the same deity as any other religion. Allah is not the same figure as Jehovah, not to Muslims, Jews, or Christians. And, of course, plenty of religious traditions assert multiple such creator figures. Some purport no creator.
The defining characteristic of the world's religions is that they can arrive at no consensus whatsoever. They're not even unified in disagreeing with atheists!
The fact there are differences in theological understandings of God is to be expected since the physical evidence for a Creator does not necessarily explain some of the other aspects of God, except that God possesses beauty, perfection, divine wisdom and power
In your personal religion, of course he possesses such things. Not so in other faiths. There is no consensus among religion - a defining characteristic of that which is made-up. On the other hand, atheists are in universal agreement that gods are wrong. That consensus is considerable proof that it is truly atheists who are being objective, here.
Still haven't read the book = inability to refute. (I'm quite indebted to you for that schema, RM; it really saves a lot of time.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 6:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 10:06 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-09-2007 6:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 167 (383693)
02-08-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by pink sasquatch
02-08-2007 6:11 PM


Re: telling in itself
pink sasquatch,
Somewhere in there he said the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis, and that is bullshit.
Imagine evidence that Jesus existed & his karyotype was discovered. OMG He really was the result of parthanogenesis!!
How many Christians would be saying "no, no, seperate magisteria please. This isn't admissible because it supports a religious contention."
That's bullshit. But then Dawkins pointed out that hypocrisy as well.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-08-2007 6:11 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 100 of 167 (383714)
02-08-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 7:59 PM


Re: telling in itself
You are still missing the point. There is unanimity on the attribute of a Creator or Divine Force that has created the universe. It matters not that there are other issues unresolved. There is overwhelming agreement on this attribute of God or the Divine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 7:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 10:18 PM randman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 167 (383719)
02-08-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by randman
02-08-2007 10:06 PM


Re: telling in itself
You are still missing the point.
You're apparently having great difficulty supporting your points. = Inability to refute, I guess.
There is unanimity on the attribute of a Creator or Divine Force that has created the universe.
I just refuted this, and it's a violation of the forum guidelines for you to repeat yourself without addressing rebuttals. But allow me to repeat myself. In fact, the concept of a single divine creator is not universal amongst religions. For instance, many religions posit multiple creative agencies, and some religions posit that the universe is eternal and uncreated.
Randman, if you intend on replying further in this matter I expect you to address my rebuttals, not simply repeat yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 10:06 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 102 of 167 (383726)
02-08-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 10:18 PM


Re: telling in itself
You didn't refute it, crash. You pointed out there are theological disagreements on what and whom the Creator is, but there is no real disagreement among religious people that the world was created, and that's because this attribute of God is linked to physical evidence in the world we live in. Ironically, the thing about physicality you mentioned having the ability to bring concensus works for the open-minded, and thus we see such an incredible high number of people that accept the world was created by some sort of God or Divine power.
However, it is testament to the arbitrary nature and rejection of this logic among scientists that they choose to ignore the very principle of objectivity they claim to adhere to, and so despite the mountain of evidence for God in the form of the designs of the universe, people like yourself insist on something completely illogical and unscientific, that the universe appeared without cause all on it's own, and without any Intelligence behind it's creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 10:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 10:48 PM randman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 167 (383727)
02-08-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by randman
02-08-2007 10:42 PM


Re: telling in itself
but there is no real disagreement among religious people that the world was created
But there is. Among Hindus, for instance, their religion stipulates that the world is eternal and uncreated; the karmic circle symbolizes this.
I'm sorry, Randman, but until you either defend or retract your erroneous statements, discussion cannot continue with you. If you insist on repeating yourself without responding to rebuttals a third time, I'm going to ask for moderator attention. In my opinion you've enjoyed a leash much longer than your behavior deserves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 10:42 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 11:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 104 of 167 (383736)
02-08-2007 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by randman
02-08-2007 7:58 PM


Re: Is Buddhism a religion then?
Randman writes:
Is Buddhism a religion if it does not have a God or Creator?
I think it is. I think there is a lot of misinformation on what constitutes religion and that evo advocates are often actually teaching religion in the classrooms.
So you accept the fact that Buddhism is a religion. Good.
I assume you also accept the fact that Buddhism does not postulate a creator God. Good.
Your claim of global unanimity among world religions on the existence of a Creator god has been refuted several times now.
Your second remark about evos teaching religion in the classroom (aside from being an irrelevant distraction) clearly = inability to support.
Say, that is fun. Thanks, Ray.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 7:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 11:23 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 167 (383738)
02-08-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Omnivorous
02-08-2007 11:18 PM


Re: Is Buddhism a religion then?
Are you suggesting that Buddhists are atheists, crash?
The fact that Buddhism deals with spiritual practices more than doctrinal worship of God, and even there this is not exactly true as most practiced Buddhism does deal with God or gods, but regardless, Buddhists are not claiming there is no God or Creator as you erroneously suggest.
Your claim of global unanimity among world religions on the existence of a Creator god has been refuted several times now.
Prove this. First, you ignored what I said, which is there is widespread and overwhelming consensus among the religious that the world was created. That is true. The fact that some religious tenets avoid the issue is irrevalent, as well as it is patently obvious that I am ignoring the religion of atheistic evolutionism in that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2007 11:18 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024