|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Whether to leave this forum or not | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
If I had a penny for every time you posted just to say that you were not going to post, I'd have 5.63. Why not just post when you are ready to post?
That way, you would not leave behind a string of promises/threats to post later that you never actually manage to execute.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Even if that was the case, what has this to do with my refutation of your claim? Ok. You have convinced me. Dawkins is not an atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
shadow71 writes: Ok. You have convinced me. Dawkins is not an atheist. Anthony Kenny: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?"Richard Dawkins: "I do." Anthony Kenny: "But you are described as the world's most famous atheist!" Richard Dawkins: "Well, not by me." http://richarddawkins.net/...lliams-archbishop-of-canterburyTradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dawkins is not an atheist. See post 138.
Anthony Flew would be thrilled. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
Dawkins is not an atheist. See post 138. Anthony Flew would be thrilled. Dawkins is not an atheist. See post 138.Anthony Flew would be thrilled. Dawkins is (by his own admission in 'The God Delusion') a level 6 on the theistic/atheistic scale - where level 1 is absolute certainty in one's mind that God exists and level 7 is absolute certainty that it doesn't. It seems that the very religious can have this certainty without evidence (that's what 'faith' is all about) and category 1 is well populated by strong theists. Atheists tend to need more in the way of evidence for their beliefs and very few atheists would normally admit to being a level 7 - for that is certainty without absolute proof which is not possible - a level 7 person would be hard-line atheist and relying on a form of faith for that position - i.e "I don't believe in a God even though I cannot positively prove it" In reality most 'atheists' are category 6 - which states that the chances of there being a god is extremely low - approaching zero percent probability but not actually zero. Technically if you are in this category - which all rational thinking atheists would have to admit to then you are technically agnostic to some degree. Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Ok. You have convinced me. Dawkins is not an atheist. At what point did I advance the argument that Dawkins is not an atheist? I didn't did I? I argued that Dawkins does not absolutely rule out the possibility of the supernatural by showing examples of him explicitly not absolutely ruling out the possibility of the supernatural. This stands in contrast with your position that
shadow71 writes: Dawkins... rule{s} out the possibility of supernatural, Are you being deliberately disingenuous? This seems quite pertinent right now: quote: Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Without a literal bible, christianity is absolutely worthless. Bullshit. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" still retains its value in spite of the fact that the Bible has some errors. And frankly, its just terrible theology that the Bible is either totally and literally accurate or it has no value whatsoever. Its a false dichotomy and a detriment to christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
This made a lot of sense. One thing I have to make clear though is this. I have a lot of confidence in what I believe, not based on science, but my faith in God. I don't have much faith in science. As others have stated, you don't need any faith in science because you are never asked to accept anything as true without evidence. No faith required. Your whole statement seems to be a tacit admission that you already know that the evidence is against you. Otherwise, what would you have to fear from science? Why would you have to downplay the evidence before it is even presented?
I am here merely to discuss my ideas. I am not going to wait for an enormous time, while I thoroughly research an issue or write a research paper of my own documented with references before I dare utter an opinion on this board. Many of us here prefer not to put forward bad ideas. We think it is a hallmark of good debate to at least understand the basics of what is being discussed before throwing out ideas that are contrary to the current scientific consensus. For example, our earlier discussion on genomes. You alluded to the idea that phenotypic variation could somehow mask a genetic bottleneck. If you understood the basics of genetics and development you would not have made such an error.
What is it you people want from me? The evidence you followed to the conclusions you are presenting. For example, I was curious as to the evidence you had that lead you to the conclusion that past life had supergenomes, and what these supergenomes looked like. Surely this is not too much to ask?
To say that I don't believe anything until I have solid scientific evidence to back up what I believe? What is wrong with that?
If my list of beliefs were restricted to what had solid scientific evidence for it, I would not believe anything. So you don't believe that the nucleus of an atom is made of netrons and protons? You don't believe that infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms? You don't believe that rain is caused by water vapor precipitating out of solution? Really? Rather, it appears that there are some things that you don't want to believe, so you cast doubt on any and all evidence right off the bat so you don't have to consider it.
The reason for that is that I don't think any evidence is completely solid and I am suspicious of any evidence that comes from somebody who is an strong atheist as most scientists are.
So if an atheist told you that malaria was caused by parasites found in mosquitoes you would not believe them, no matter how much evidence they presented? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
I have never known any christianity that was not based on the idea that the whole bible was absolutely true. Are Aesop's Fables absolutely true? If I were to tell you that animals do not talk would that take away from the truths that are found in Aesop's Fables? Do you have to believe that animals talk in order to find truth in Aesop's Fables?
If genesis is just a collection of myths stolen from other sources and full of supernatural fantasies that the authors knew were false, Do you think that Aesop already knew that animals do not talk when he wrote those fables? What I think you are seriously missing is what myths really are. They are not unimportant. In fact, they are very important, especially to the cultures that produce them. The truth of a myth is not bound in whether the events described in the myth actually happened any more than Aesop's Fables were supposed to be first hand accounts of animals talking to each other. Think of the Parables that Jesus told. If I argued that the Prodigal Son never existed wouldn't you scratch your head at why I would be arguing over such a thing? On top of everything else, the one thing that binds every christian together, the Nicene Creed, makes no mention of a literal Genesis. It is not a foundation of christianity. Never has been.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CS writes: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" still retains its value in spite of the fact that the Bible has some errors. But it wasn't invented by Christianity - or even Judaism. Or rather, it's not unique to them, it was invented many times across most if not all cultures.
Statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in Ancient Egypt in the story of The Eloquent Peasant.[8][clarification needed] Rushworth Kidder discusses the early contributions of Confucius (551—479 B.C.) (See a version in Confucianism below). Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions".[9] According to Greg M. Epstein, " 'do unto others'... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely."[10] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition". Golden Rule - WikipediaLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This made a lot of sense. One thing I have to make clear though is this. I have a lot of confidence in what I believe, not based on science, but my faith in God. I don't have much faith in science. I am not trying to be arrogant. I am here merely to discuss my ideas. I am not going to wait for an enormous time, while I thoroughly research an issue or write a research paper of my own documented with references before I dare utter an opinion on this board. I am thinking out loud for Christ's sake. I am not saying I know I am right from a scientific point of view. If I didn't feel confident in my beliefs I would not have any beliefs. What is it you people want from me? ... To say that I don't believe anything until I have solid scientific evidence to back up what I believe? If my list of beliefs were restricted to what had solid scientific evidence for it, I would not believe anything. Well, you can take that attitude if you like, but in that case, when you "discuss your ideas", the people with whom you're discussing them are going to say that the big problem with your ideas is that there's no evidence for them. The fact that you know that this is the case will neither obviate the criticism nor make it irrelevant.
Bob: Here's a computer for sale. Do you want to buy it?
Alice: That is in fact an empty cardboard box with the word COMPUTER written on it. There is no computer in it. It is empty. Bob: It's unnecessary for you to tell me that. I know that! Of course I know that. I am merely here to sell the idea of computers. If I waited until I had a computer before selling the idea, I'd never sell anything. Sheesh. What is it you people want from me? Alice: Er ... a computer? Your ideas are boxes with nothing in them. The fact that you know that yourself won't stop people from noticing this, and commenting on it, and explaining that that's why they're not buying them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
But it wasn't invented by Christianity - or even Judaism. Or rather, it's not unique to them, it was invented many times across most if not all cultures.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" still retains its value in spite of the fact that the Bible has some errors. I know, but that's beside the point. It still retains its value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
foreveryoung writes: I have a lot of confidence in what I believe, not based on science, but my faith in God. I know that you understand your faith as being faith in God but I don't see it that way. Your faith is in a book or more accurately a collection of books. Even more explicitly your faith is in a literal reading of that book. I agree that God is able to inform us through the use of that book, and that book chronicles the history of how God has over time revealed Himself to us. The narrative runs from a mythological understanding of creation which represents truth but not literal truth, then on through the story of Israel which reaches its fulfilment in Jesus. It advises us that there is a bigger picture than just what we observe and that at the end of time as we know it, all things in heaven and earth will be brought together in either the final act of creation or an act of recreation depending on how you want to look at it. The faith is called Christianity, but as I've said before your version of Christianity would be more accurately called Bibleianity. The Bible itself says that it is God as fully revealed in Jesus that we worship. God as revealed in Jesus is wonderfully recorded in the OT but at the same time if you take the OT literally you can turn a God that is totally unrecognisable when looking at Jesus. I suggest that Christianity is faith in God as revealed in Jesus and not faith in your specific understanding of the Bible. The two just are not compatible. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CS writes: I know, but that's beside the point. It still retains its value. It retains its value, but as well as it not mattering that whether the Christian bible is literally true, it means that it doesn't even matter if you don't use the bible at all - more or less any religious book will do. In fact it doesn't even need to be religious, try the European declaration on Human Rights or even this one: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal etc"Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
Hi CS,
To be honest, I agree with Tangle here; I think that it's your point that is beside the point. Foreveryoung was talking about the dogmatic content of the Bible, not its doctrinal content. Specifically, he was arguing that if we are willing to doubt the veracity of dogma in Genesis, then there is no reason not to place the Gospels under the same levels of soubt. Since this includes events like the resurrection of Jesus, which is fairly central to Christianity, this could be considered a major problem. Personally, I think that this argument is not without its merits. There is a grain of truth in it. Once we realise the foolishness of an Argument from Authority in the case of Genesis, it's hard not to notice the same problem with the rest of the Bible. Of course where foreveryoung goes wrong is in his solution to this conundrum; he blindly and uncritically embraces the fallacious argument for the entire Bible, clearly a big mistake. But still, the doctrinal content of the Bible doesn't really have anything to do with it. I agree with you that a fallible Bible does not diminish the worth of doctrines like love thy neighbour, but I really don't think that this directly addresses foreveryoung's point. Mutate and Survive
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024