No I'm saying only one of the many deities of religions has actually outright claimed total creation of the universe. It would be logical to therefore use that deity as a starting point
I can't follow this logic. Is it logical to use the idea that pots of gold are at the ends of rainbows as a starting point for meteorology studies? You only put more credit to the Allah thing because of your faith not because of this logic I think.
And there have been lots of Gods whose believers claimed to create the universe. You believe yours. Others believe theirs. The only reason my comment on this is useless (as you put it) is because you've already made up your mind through faith before logic comes in the door.
Last edited by Uthman; 10-27-2009 at 07:25 AM.
Reason: Trying to fix it...
As I've shown, that is not true, as plenty of other gods have been described as doing the same thing. How are the details you mention relevant to this?
Despite your claim, you actually haven't shown us any deity who claim that they created the universe.
I know that you are not that dense.
Show us something comparable to Allah unambiguous direct claim in the Qur'an, and not just "xyz tribe believe Thor created the universe"
And show us that claim in writing, and only then we can analyze and discuss if those claims are legit.
well done.. you are right he isn't trained in philosophy.. What I find particularly awkward is how disjointed and disconnected his arguments are and the huge leap of faith on his part to think that he can espouse biology and theology in a fluid fashion without ultimately having it come down to unicorns and tooth fairies.. Makes me believe that atheists aren't able to argue on a level to explain or defend their own faith without resorting to puerile dialogue.. why it is they hold on to a universal negative and burden the rest of us with their woes of their complete lack of understanding of the world around them.. I wouldn't mind so much if he and his followers weren't so militant and fundamentalistic in their approach-- as it happens I think the man is the brunt of jokes as he only serves to discredit himself and his self made religion with his lowly derisive approach!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
It's clear that Adam Deen has also not studied philosophy, and that he is trying to argue for a point that was already granted in the book he's criticizing. What is someone to make of that?
He's on full display beginning at 40:15, where he grants that god is not knowable, and not testable, and that every refutation of every argument advanced in favour of god would not refute the idea of god. So at this point shouldn't the audience ask themselves what exactly he was talking about for the first 15 minutes of that speech.
Just a quick note on the above. The comparisons of God to unicorns and pixies is not mere purile dialogue. It is a serious comparison made in earnest. Atheists who use this comparison genuinely do see God as on par with unicorns in terms of likelihood of existing.
The comparison is primarily made to note that absent evidence of the non-existence of something it doesn't follow that the said something is as likely as not to exist.
The point is often missed by believers because they are understandably offended by having their God (on whom they have based their world view) seen by others as a delusion. There is really no kind way for an atheist to express to a theist that he thinks their God is a myth though. No matter how they express it, it'll be seen by many as "purile dialogue".
Perhaps if atheists were a bit more intellectually honest, they'd have realized that it is impossible to prove a universal negative and that they themselves are subjects to relying on very strong faith which they can't elucidate without indeed being puerile and throwing a tantrum..They focus is on FSM and tea pots when the approach would be far better crystallized leaving all that aside, and focus on illuminating their own beliefs as correct, Statements that are contraries can't be true together... You can't have a God and No God at the same time..
In science, you don't have 100% in anything, that is why we have type I and Type II errors, we have confidence intervals, we have P values to relative risks, we never accept the Null hypothesis, but we can fail to reject it.
One would think such principles would be carried over to theology if the two subjects are to be espoused in a fluid manner and since they are just so 'scientifically inclined' and not puerile at all.
I think any theist can be game with the no God shbeal if atheists would merely take their focus and elucidate it to the rest of us. Pink unicorns and celestial tea pots haven't left us with polka dotted elephants and chamomile tea for us to ponder their existence or whatever the generate of either 'magical beings' is to yield-- However, God has given us every last morsel in the Universe and taken credit for it in his books.
If atheists know better then perhaps they can show us how it all began and where it is going?
all the best of course
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
What I really do not understand is that atheists have complete faith in the evolution of human being from amino molecules in a billion years ago which they can never prove nor observe, while flatly reject the idea of a creator for the universe which proof and evidence are observable all around them
What I really do not understand is that atheists have complete faith in the evolution of human being from amino molecules in a billion years ago which they can never prove nor observe, while flatly reject the idea of a creator for the universe which proof and evidence are observable all around them
Even if evolution were the way, it still doesn't explain the origins of life-- and life as we know it didn't always exist, so they are yet to account for that, for the drive forth, sentience and do it for every species in existence ... Without relying on faith, but using the very tools they like to impose on theists..
if they can't and they won't for surely they couldn't put the wing of a fly together, they should shut up and buzz off. And be happy in their own void without sucking everyone along with them back into their cesspool!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
well done.. you are right he isn't trained in philosophy.. What I find particularly awkward is how disjointed and disconnected his arguments are and the huge leap of faith on his part to think that he can espouse biology and theology in a fluid fashion without ultimately having it come down to unicorns and tooth fairies.. Makes me believe that atheists aren't able to argue on a level to explain or defend their own faith without resorting to puerile dialogue.. why it is they hold on to a universal negative and burden the rest of us with their woes of their complete lack of understanding of the world around them.. I wouldn't mind so much if he and his followers weren't so militant and fundamentalistic in their approach-- as it happens I think the man is the brunt of jokes as he only serves to discredit himself and his self made religion with his lowly derisive approach!
Greetings sister,
in my encounters with atheists they claim that atheism is not a belief, they say that is merely is the absence of belief, I always thought atheism was a belief that god does not exist, while they argue this is not so, what to answer to this?
it is indeed a belief system no different than any other, has its gaps and its fanatics..
to quote their leader and lesser god dawkin'
Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine.” Why not call it God? “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.” OK, but what would “it” be like?
“I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”
in my encounters with atheists they claim that atheism is not a belief, they say that is merely is the absence of belief, I always thought atheism was a belief that god does not exist, while they argue this is not so, what to answer to this?
You are right, I think. It's possible to imagine circumstances in which you do not believe in God and yet do not have a the positive belief of the atheist that there is no God. Perhaps the thought there might be one just never occured. I've seen the word defined both ways, though.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
it is indeed a belief system no different than any other, has its gaps and its fanatics..
to quote their leader and lesser god dawkin'
Dawkins is no more the 'leader' of atheists than Harun Yahya is the 'leader' of muslims.
it is indeed a belief system no different than any other, has its gaps and its fanatics..
to quote their leader and lesser god dawkin'
Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine.” Why not call it God? “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.” OK, but what would “it” be like?
“I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”
What can I say? adding anything to that will detract from its hilarity!
all the best!
I actually have never read any work by Dawkins, and have not even seen his youtube clips because I believe that would be a waste of my time, and the above statement from Dawkins is enough to confirm that I made good decision.
format_quote Originally Posted by and paraphrased by Gossamer skye, edited by me
Interviewer: Do you think there is a tiny, even a smidgen [of a chance] that physicists will discover god?
Dawkins: Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine. I don't know what that would be like, I'll wait for them to decide of that.
Interviewer: Why not call it God?
Dawkins: “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.”
Interviewer: OK, but what would “it” be like?
Dawkins: “I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” We can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”
Someone will have to explain to me what was funny about that response to the interviewer.
To the quote above, keep in mind that Dawkins is stating that whatever is found could not be called "god". Not because of any malice or belief in atheism, but simply because it is not useful in any way to science advancement.
Science must be agnostic when it comes to the question of god, some religions emphasize that god is something beyond the scope of science. That's fine, however, it's due to the fact that religion often tresspasses on the territory of science with testable claims that we run into this dialogue of science versus religion.
@Naidamar,
If you always get your information second hand, especially considering the man is alive and capable of explaining himself, then you are likely to get a lot of misinformation.
If you always get your information second hand, especially considering the man is alive and capable of explaining himself, then you are likely to get a lot of misinformation.
For your benefit, I don't always get information second hand (frankly, it is strange for atheists who normally demand absolute proof/evidence for anything to have so readily jumped into conclusion about the habit of another person they don't know at all).
In any case, I do not find atheism interesting or important or beneficial, so that's why any information about Dawkins is of no use for me, either way.
Interviewer: Do you think there is a tiny, even a smidgen [of a chance] that physicists will discover god?
Dawkins: Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine. I don't know what that would be like, I'll wait for them to decide of that.
Interviewer: Why not call it God?
Dawkins: “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.”
Interviewer: OK, but what would “it” be like?
Dawkins: “I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” We can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”
This still elicits big chuckles from yours truly.
The whole verbal acrobat just to avoid having to acknowledge the creator (although his logic seems to demand so) is pretty sad actually.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks