let me some it up for you in lieu of the ping-pong and lofty pretense!
The argument against religion has been to some extent attempted through the use of science, well this poses quite a problem on two levels really
1- It is not an area of expertise for Mr. CZ where he can annihilate some religio-myth with some solid scientific dexterity, and it amazes me he should in fact mention Popper amongst others in assumption that he is better read, which I can accept-- but popper does propose that theories can never be proved to be true, but are tested by attempts to falsify them, which is in fact what I ask most atheists here to do when it comes to the existence of God or religion .. problem is they can't...
so they take the philosophy route which brings us to point 2- as philosophy can be considered a subclass of religion and actually stands with it on equal and my personal opinion lesser grounds as you are left to the surmises and conjectures of various people undoubtedly influenced by the geo-political and economic conditions of their time as well a strong dislike to the main religion of their region being 'Christianity' and who can blame them really, when for centuries people lived at the mercy of the church which dictated some unreasonable things from where to keep their circumcised regions so God can put them back together; to not wearing pointy shoes, to things that caused the death of thousands (I call you attention for instance to how potatoes were forbidden as they were considered the devil's food growing from the earth) and in times of famine in lieu of eating what was provided them naturally ended up needlessly starved or worst dead! I would be dismayed with the church too, and philosophize until the cows come home! .. early philosophers have proposed life to have emerged from things as silly as the basic four elements, or by forms of reincarnation etc
If I am left to 'may the best philosophy wins', I'll say I have found my niche in Islam...
Mr. CZ can't wrap his head around that idea, not so much that he is an atheist, but how can others be willingly consciously and freely accepting of that which he detests... and he in fact has some pre-formed prejudices about Muslims, and women in general though he may not admit them freely, subconsciously with presumptions and condescension they seep through...
I find myself at a loss most of the time really.. i browse the web, and find that westerners (men especially) feel sorry for us, oppressed Muslim women, and by the same token want us to shut up on our own forums under the guise of not being literate enough? learned enough? politic enough?...
I had to drop my two cents, even though I have a deadline to meet and professed so on first page, I can't engage in any deep philosophical discussion. Further put this under education with the heading of 'for general knowledge' sake' rather than refutation purposes for exactly that reason-- I'll use my time off wisely to read some sound philosophy to expose the doubt in me that never believed in God all along...
all the best!
Last edited by جوري; 10-28-2008 at 04:27 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
It is not an area of expertise for Mr. CZ where he can annihilate some religio-myth with some solid scientific dexterity,
True. I'm not a scientist. Does every atheist need to have specialised knowledge about science? I think there are also many compelling reasons outside science for not believing in god.
but popper does propose that theories can never be proved to be true, but are tested by attempts to falsify them, which is in fact what I ask most atheists here to do when it comes to the existence of God or religion .. problem is they can't...
Hopefully you realise (I'm sure it's been mentioned many times) that atheism is a belief and not a fact. I'm not aware of any atheists who think that they have some kind of proof that atheism is true, or who are aiming to come up with one.
as philosophy can be considered a subclass of religion
Philosophy in general has very little to do with religion, although religion may provide an object of study for philosophers. Philosophy itself can be seen as a testing ground for new ideas. It essentially gave us all the sciences, for example.
Mr. CZ can't wrap his head around that idea, not so much that he is an atheist, but how can others be willingly consciously and freely accepting of that which he detests... and he in fact has some pre-formed prejudices about Muslims, and women in general though he may not admit them freely, subconsciously with presumptions and condescension they seep through...
Could you spell out my prejudices for me? I'm curious to know what you think I believe.
I'll use my time off wisely to read some sound philosophy to expose the doubt in me that never believed in God all along...
I'm glad you're going to read some philosophy, and I hope you are able to see some value in it.
In one of your points, you're right about me: I simply cannot understand how someone could believe as you do.
We disagree, and it's obviously something that you don't like talking about. I'm sorry that my questioning upsets you.
True. I'm not a scientist. Does every atheist need to have specialised knowledge about science? I think there are also many compelling reasons outside science for not believing in god.
The majority of most vocal atheists (do browse the web) have yielded a huge persuasion of the synonymy of Atheism and science -- vs the widely popular religion 'incompatible' with science!
Hopefully you realise (I'm sure it's been mentioned many times) that atheism is a belief and not a fact. I'm not aware of any atheists who think that they have some kind of proof that atheism is true, or who are aiming to come up with one.
I am glad you feel that way.. and have actually professed it!
Philosophy in general has very little to do with religion, although religion may provide an object of study for philosophers. Philosophy itself can be seen as a testing ground for new ideas. It essentially gave us all the sciences, for example.
Philosophy in the context you peddle is basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group as defined to us by meriam webster!
Could you spell out my prejudices for me? I'm curious to know what you think I believe.
What you believe is what you share on the pages, I am not a mind reader!
I'm glad you're going to read some philosophy, and I hope you are able to see some value in it.
That was sarcasm Mr. CZ.. It behooves you to reflect on that!
In one of your points, you're right about me: I simply cannot understand how someone could believe as you do.
I feel the same way about atheists... I can't understand how a small percentage believes as you do....
We disagree, and it's obviously something that you don't like talking about. I'm sorry that my questioning upsets you.
Peace
I am not sure how you've upset me?
all the best!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
One of Dawkins books could have been called the “Evolution Delusion” I say this because of the magic he uses to try and illustrate his point.
He starts of specifically by trying to discredit Genesis with the possible way the eye evolved. He based his argument on a computer programme that could only show success and his computer eye had a bump start. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Nilsson and Pelger began with a flat retina atop a flat pigment layer and surmounted by a flat, protective transparent layer. The transparent layer was allowed to undergo localised random mutations of its refractive index. They then let the model deform itself at random, constrained only by the requirement that any change must be small and must be an improvement on what went before.
I fail to see how Dawkins could truthfully call this science, If Dawkins bases all his BELIEFS on evolution on this kind of rigged research, how can we take him seriously.
The beauty of simulating an eye, as distinct from, say, the leg of a running cheetah, is that its efficiency can be easily mea-optics
I think what Dawkins really means is that you would need to give the computer programme a lot of help to show how a Cheetah leg could evolve.
I fail to see how Dawkins could truthfully call this science, If Dawkins bases all his BELIEFS on evolution on this kind of rigged research, how can we take him seriously.
It was not 'rigged' at all. It is precisely the restriction you highlight that makes it an experiment about evolution by natural selection as that is how the effects of that process are simulated.
Please look again at the purpose of the experiment. It was to establish whether a 'smooth gradient of change' existed from primitive pigmented eye spot to an eye with lens and cornea, and how long such an evolution might concievably take. It was not to 'prove' evolution (which it assumes) let alone 'discredit' Genesis (which has no scientific credibility to discredit), but to examine (assuming evolution by natural selection) whether the eye could evolve, and within an acceptable timescale.
The experiment certainly doesn't prove anything, any more than computer simulations of anything ever can (think economics, or global warming). It merely provides evidence. A simulation is a simulation not reality; a rather more fruitful line of attack for creationists, I would have thought?
That was sarcasm Mr. CZ.. It behooves you to reflect on that!
Wow.
I have not heard that word, behoove, saince my mother in like grade school.
"And let me tell you something young man, it would behoove you to...."
Being an English Major before grad school she integrated more obscure vocabulary words when she was annoyed, I don't think she ever noted that her 8 and 5 year old sons did not share her knoledge of vocabulary and often did not know what on earth she was talking about
Sorry, just very strange. I have not heard that word in years
The correct simaler would be, Apples? Are they a Fruit or a thing of grace and splendour?
Perhaps. But that's a false dichotomy. Can an apple not be both a fruit and a thing of grace and splendour?
But maybe that's the thing. I personally don't think science and religion should be at odds. Science, religion and politics are three of the key ingredients of this soup of humanity. You can't remove them. Rather than having them clash, you can make them work together constructively - or at least accept them all.
What I also find rather puzzling is that so many so-called anti-religious people seem not to realise that they are not anti-religion at all, but rather anti-God. Or at least anti-God's Rules.
Theology is a "Field" which is simply a collective interpretation of others ideas, which rests on its substance as provable by itself. You start with nothing you may debate nothing for 4000 years and end up with....?
That's philosophy for ya. Completely different to empericism.
But seriously, that's a bit reductive, considering subjects like this help people to clarify the way in which they lead their lives.
I Dispute both. The ubermenche is an effect. Theism is the cause.
How do you figure? Considering that the ubermensch's originator Nietchse was an athiest.
Wonderful, yet by mans law you cant now get burned as a witch. By Gods law, you must for now and ever
At any rate, my intent is not to continue this tit-for-tat. My point was that people need rules, and disputing where those rules come from is a fruitless exercise provided the rules themselves are agreed upon. For instance, there are those who would take issue with the Ten Commandments as a load of poppycock, but would not disagree with the rules themselves. We can all agree, religious or not, that murder is wrong, for example.
Would you advocate abrogating something from the Quran?
No.
Thats impossible, the only person with that power was Mohammed.
It's not impossible to physically change or remove sentences from a book. It would be a vast sin to do so to this particular book, but to say it's (physically) impossible is a bit silly. Especially considering some people already tried to make a '21st century-friendly' Quran with what they deemed offending verses removed. I'd provide a link if I could find it.
Well they werent following an Atheistic template. There isnt one.
They did, however, abuse science for their disgusting eugenics experiments. That doesn't mean science is to blame for the Nazis' brain rot.
Also, as you have agreed, the methods they used were identical to.....?
I agree that they have abused human control mechanism popularised by religion. They perverted certain mechanisms for their own ends. Just as a terrorist who calls himself Muslim perverts certain mechanisms for his own ends. Just as a child abuser who calls himself a Catholic perverts these mechanisms for his own ends.
Another reason I don't like the 'Let's blame religion for all the world's ills' is that sooner or later you start blaming the victims. The Holocaust for instance. If you take the road that religion is the cause of it all, you're a never far from saying, 'well, if all those people weren't Jewish, this wouldn't have been an issue'.
Force to include strength
Heh.
I think his force sometimes exceeds his strength when it comes to this particular issue. It's off-putting, to put it mildly.
Dawkins argues against an overlording intelligence debunking it simply by the truth that the complex needs the supercomplex to create. Perhaps I'm getting your meaning wrong? Dawkins definatly dosnt argue that!
"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."
Its a poor arguement. People can get very very worked up by beleifs. Perhaps its natural that he draws such fire. Even if he wrote a series of books saying the world was made from a fine french cheese, he would be hated by theists.
Only if that vision of the world left no room for a deity.
Plus, I for one don't hate the man. I disagree with his philosophical beliefs and I think he gets far too aggressive (intellectually speaking) at times, but he's not the sort of person I can hate without meeting him. Though that might change if he ever decided to go into politics.
He is an excellent scientist.
Nice debate BTW, and apologies for not multiquoting...its so blinking time consuming!
Eric.Im picking up that you dont actually know what evolution is really about.
Heres a 1991 lecture by dawkins that will explain how the eye evolved amongst other stuff. Its a long watch so a cup of cocoa one evening is in order. You will need to watch the whole series.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
I haven't read dawkin's book nor this new one.
Just ... haven't had the time and I'm not really interested in reading about someone degrading God or any possibility of a deity.
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
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks