What if you just "believe" he said that?Nick wrote:Let's set up a bet - If you can show me proof that Dawkins has ever said categorically that God absolutely does not exist I will never again post on this forum. If you can't, then you can never post again either.Hammerstalkerx wrote:I love the part where the interviewer calls him out on his statement that God does not exist. Squirm isn't a strong enough word.
Deal?
Edit: Ready guys? The incoming backtrack is going to be amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvGYbv_aBJwHammerstalkerx wrote:Well goodbye Nick. Take a look at "Can we live by reason alone? part 3 around the 10:20 min mark in the video. Now let's see if you really are a man of your word or a poser.
You would do well to understand the concept of context Hammerstalkerx. This is hardly categorical."Ok, you know what I mean, God is in the same status as fairy's"
Read the above then tell me again about Irony and honor and standing by your word.Nick wrote: Hammerstalkerx wrote:I love the part where the interviewer calls him out on his statement that God does not exist. Squirm isn't a strong enough word.
Let's set up a bet - If you can show me proof that Dawkins has ever said categorically that God absolutely does not exist I will never again post on this forum. If you can't, then you can never post again either.
Deal?
Edit: Ready guys? The incoming backtrack is going to be amazing.Image
God blesses the humble.Somali wrote:
I don't count many people as smarter than myself, (Yes I am an egomaniac. Thank you very much)
No, because assuming a creationist thinks oil is from plants/animals (and not "God's gift"), they would have to think the process of oil creation takes a matter of years not millions of years. In their minds the billions of barrels of oil that is present was created in an extremely short time (5,000 years). The kinetics of the reaction would have to be greatly increased in order to fit their theological thinking. However, they could argue that we are consuming oil too fast even with a greatly catalyzed oil formation.Actually. I thought about that a bit more. Assuming the Earth is 6000 years old, wouldn't we have to worry more about the impending oil problem. Less time for plants and animals to decompose and contribute to the overall supply and whatnot?
Drinsic Darkwood wrote:God placed the millions-of-years-old oil there to test us.
haha
If the universe was a year old, sure... but instead it's more like 13,700,000,000 years old. The incredible complexity of the human genome makes me believe in millions of years of evolution.Gzette wrote:The remarkable beauty of the universe always made me believe in god. Taking astronomy courses strengthened my belief or faith. The incredible complexity of the human genome makes me believe in god. It led me to ask, how can these patterns come together to create life, solar systems galaxies? There is no other explanation but god.
But hey believe what you want.
It's a circular argument that quickly defeats itself: if you can't have something as complex as "the universe" without a creator, which by definition must be more complex than the universe itself; what could possibly be complex enough to create the creator, and it's creator, and it's creator, and so on and so forth.Drinsic Darkwood wrote:I do not write out the existence of God or some higher power. To be perfectly honest, I find it infinitely more probable for the universe to be the result of some sort of creator than the result of... nothing? What I do not believe is that this Earth and the universe that holds it are both only several thousand years old.
Cute. I assume you have only ever spoken to people who have a concept of creation that is as rigid as your own. There can only be a single answer and now middle ground. No grey area. I'm dumbfounded with how this can be your only experience. Most people I have spoken to neither feel that creationism excludes evolution, nor do they feel that the Earth is ~6k years old. They do however generally disagree with Abiogenesis.Markulas wrote:No, because assuming a creationist thinks oil is from plants/animals (and not "God's gift"), they would have to think the process of oil creation takes a matter of years not millions of years. In their minds the billions of barrels of oil that is present was created in an extremely short time (5,000 years). The kinetics of the reaction would have to be greatly increased in order to fit their theological thinking. However, they could argue that we are consuming oil too fast even with a greatly catalyzed oil formation.Actually. I thought about that a bit more. Assuming the Earth is 6000 years old, wouldn't we have to worry more about the impending oil problem. Less time for plants and animals to decompose and contribute to the overall supply and whatnot?
Lets pretend the missing link that takes us from "ape" to human is out there for a sec. It's odd that we can't find it since we "think" we've found data "close enough" on either side. Instead, show me how we go from single celled organism to ape. Lets also try to avoid saying things like vestigial tail. Things that maybe mighta coulda been are shite when it comes to evidence.Fash wrote: If the universe was a year old, sure... but instead it's more like 13,700,000,000 years old. The incredible complexity of the human genome makes me believe in millions of years of evolution.
She's a pretty lame looking rogue.. I assume that is rogue.. isn't it?Winnow wrote:be good parents and teach your kids about mutants, not monsters!
This kid's going to grow up healthy. Rogue's powers = no touchy, so the kid now isn't going to touch people or let them touch her. Priests = lost childhood
I'm still waiting for us to argue this.Somali wrote: Lets instead look at the difference between a faith in god and the lack thereof.
Let's assume you are correct. Let's assume faith smaith, everything is just about making money.
Let's argue that faith is the reason for Wars.
Let's argue that religious organizations offer no benefit to the masses.
Let's argue that faith will be the downfall of society as we know it.
Let's argue that faith restricts a persons ability to learn.
Let's argue that EVERYONE within a faith is a mindless idiot and that if it wasn't for faith they would have 100 more IQ points.
It'll be more fun and we won't have to talk to the math of it. (If someone would like to talk to the math I'm still open to that as well.)
However, I can hypothesise that all religious texts are 100% fiction, and I have as much reason (perhaps more) to believe that hypothesis as you do to believe the reverse. In fact, even theologians tell us that much of the Bible is allegorical (they have to in order to make up for the blatant contradiction rife in the text), yet every Bible reading I've heard in a church ended with the congregation saying, "this is the word of the Lord".Somali wrote: Myself, I tend to have a relatively open mind in both regards. Science has been proven wrong before, and most scientists would admit that they do not have full comprehension of the rules we play with. We create models for what we feel is true, test it to the best of our ability and assuming that it remains relatively constant throughout the tests we assume the model works. unfortunately, when it comes to many things, we simply do not have enough sample points to be absolutely certain. We discover new things about science all the time that can cause us to modify previous ideas. At the same time, I would not be able to say that every word of any "religious text" was 100% dead on. What percentage is 100% dead on? Who the hell knows...
Umm, yeah, I do. It's the verb of hypothesis: to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds. I say hypothesise because I don't have any solid proof that any given story in the bible is more than a fairy tale, *but* I do have good reason to doubt any and all of them. There's so many contradictions and plot holes in the bible if it was a movie it would be Plan 9 from Outer Space.Somali wrote:Hypothesise... To quote a famous Spaniard. "I do not believe that word means what you think it means"
Well, as long as you recognise it's a story (def: a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events), then we're good.They don't have to tell us that it is allegorical for us to understand it. What do you think happens to any story when it is passed down via word of mouth? Much less translated a bazillion times.
Fiction is not gibberish, again, as most fundy retards, you reach too far in order to try and make some fallacy seem true. i.e. restate my position as something so ludicrous the opposite must be the case, well sorry Jimbo, this is not Sunday school and no one here will buy it. And again, because it's just a hypothesis, it's stated as a possibility, not a certainty. There may be some truth in the bible; I'm in favour of taking mouthy kids to the edge of town and stoning them to death, so let's hope that bit of Leviticus is the bit we find is definitely true.Now lets look at our statements.
I do not believe that any religious text is 100% accurate. What does that mean? I wonder... Perhaps it means that some portion is misquoted, or made up to deliver a better story. "Its not all real."
You believe religious texts are all 100% fiction. Every single word is a bunch of gibberish. Nothing is true.
Given that we are comparing my statement of saying they are not 100% fact, vs your statement that they are 100% fiction. I would say that I win. You sir, are attempting to deal in absolutes. There are no absolutes when we refer to history (religious text or not) aside from perhaps death, but that has also been exaggerated on many occasions to fit the authors need.
This is an example of the absolutes that so many people here keep flinging around. While every Bible reading you have heard ended that way, I have never heard one that ended that way. When I have had the Bible read from, it is read as a way to teach something. Something like a better way to think about the world around us and the people that inhabit it. The churches that I have attended do things differently, and I know that not all of them are the same. That seems to be the primary point so many of you cannot seem to grasp. People assume that every church/religion does the same thing, but they know nothing about each individual church or the members. That is why I have said before that atheists tend to be more prone to attempt conversion that any religion* I have had any exposure to. I compare many, not all, to the radicals of almost all religions. Very few of the people at the church I have most recently attended would ever foam at the mouth as much as some of you claim.Zaelath wrote:...yet every Bible reading I've heard in a church ended with the congregation saying, "this is the word of the Lord".
Fair point.Boogahz wrote:This is an example of the absolutes that so many people here keep flinging around. While every Bible reading you have heard ended that way, I have never heard one that ended that way. When I have had the Bible read from, it is read as a way to teach something. Something like a better way to think about the world around us and the people that inhabit it. The churches that I have attended do things differently, and I know that not all of them are the same. That seems to be the primary point so many of you cannot seem to grasp. People assume that every church/religion does the same thing, but they know nothing about each individual church or the members. That is why I have said before that atheists tend to be more prone to attempt conversion that any religion* I have had any exposure to. I compare many, not all, to the radicals of almost all religions. Very few of the people at the church I have most recently attended would ever foam at the mouth as much as some of you claimZaelath wrote:...yet every Bible reading I've heard in a church ended with the congregation saying, "this is the word of the Lord".
I recognize there is a good probability that much of any religious text has been muddled through the years. I believe I was fairly clear about that on multiple occasions.Zaelath wrote: Well, as long as you recognise it's a story (def: a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events), then we're good.
First: Are you ignoring my point or was that an attempt to backpedal. You stated you believed [hypothesized] that all religious texts were "100 fiction." My point was that YOU were being the narrow minded one betwixt the two of us.Zaelath wrote:Fiction is not gibberish, again, as most fundy retards, you reach too far in order to try and make some fallacy seem true. i.e. restate my position as something so ludicrous the opposite must be the case, well sorry Jimbo, this is not Sunday school and no one here will buy it. And again, because it's just a hypothesis, it's stated as a possibility, not a certainty. There may be some truth in the bible; I'm in favour of taking mouthy kids to the edge of town and stoning them to death, so let's hope that bit of Leviticus is the bit we find is definitely true.Somali wrote:
Now lets look at our statements.
I do not believe that any religious text is 100% accurate. What does that mean? I wonder... Perhaps it means that some portion is misquoted, or made up to deliver a better story. "Its not all real."
You believe religious texts are all 100% fiction. Every single word is a bunch of gibberish. Nothing is true.
Given that we are comparing my statement of saying they are not 100% fact, vs your statement that they are 100% fiction. I would say that I win. You sir, are attempting to deal in absolutes. There are no absolutes when we refer to history (religious text or not) aside from perhaps death, but that has also been exaggerated on many occasions to fit the authors need.
OK, so to restate your position "everything in the bible may or may not be true"; ergo, I submit the entire text is unreliable, and should not be used as a manual for anything, let alone how to live your life. If you picked up an old medical textbook that was translated from aramaic, to greek, to hebrew, to english after being passed by word of mouth for a thousand years first, who would even attempt to treat an ingrown toenail with the information in the text? Only a yoghurt.
It may be somewhat of a generalization but its undeniable that faith has definately stood as an impediment to advancement and progress when you look at it in the historical context of the last thousand years or so. The litany can include the Christian Church's support of views that the world was flat, the sun moon and stars revolved around the world as opposed to vice versa and even to today's conflict of evolution vs creationism. Great minds like Galileo were tolerated because of their artistic ability but they were chastised for their thoughts when they applied them to science. Christianity's various sects have been about stamping out non-conformism for centuries, lest non-conformist thought upset the existing power structure, and tools such as the inquisition, the Crusades and even the witch trials throughout Europe and the colonies in the New World enforced this doctine with torture and executions. Now in stricly philosophical terms, I agree this was more a betrayal of the idealistic tennets of the religion(s), as the actions of the clergy were more about furthering their own personal powers (beautiful examples revolve around the schismed papacy and the machinations of the church, with regard to re-establishing its fiefdoms in the 14 &15th centuries),as well as that of their organization, but it doesn't nullify the basic fact: the religion, through its offices and infrastructure stood as a roadblock to human development.Somali wrote:I'd also like to say that the original argument was about how faith has made everyone complete morons and hindered the advancement of mankind. While I think that is a gross generalization, I would still prefer arguing that over the whole "You believe in a God so you're a twit" argument.
Fash wrote:No one is arguing that religion is 100% garbage absolutely...
I think thats what he just said. Perhaps I am putting some words into his mouth. Perhaps he would agree that it can offer some moral guidelines.Zaeleth wrote: I submit the entire text is unreliable, and should not be used as a manual for anything, let alone how to live your life.
Religion would be a laughing matter if it didn't cause 99% of the death and destruction on the planet that's not caused by nature. The tools that think their particular organized religion is somehow different are the problem.Somali wrote:Fash wrote:No one is arguing that religion is 100% garbage absolutely...
Perhaps you're arguing semantics and avoiding the topic. Care to respond to anything after the first line of my post?Somali wrote:Fash wrote:No one is arguing that religion is 100% garbage absolutely...I think thats what he just said. Perhaps I am putting some words into his mouth. Perhaps he would agree that it can offer some moral guidelines.Zaeleth wrote: I submit the entire text is unreliable, and should not be used as a manual for anything, let alone how to live your life.
Good angle Wulfran. I like it. Not where I expected the argument to start either. I was assuming we'd go for the Holy Wars first. (I realize you hit that, but it seemed more to augment the initial point.) I also agree that most of the actions you pointed out were against the tenet of the text as it was written with some exception. I would ask for a consideration based on the argument because I cannot refute many of your points. Where do you believe we would be without the church (I'd actually prefer not to constrain this to the Christian church, but we can do that since its the context). Do you believe that the Church (Most notably the Roman Catholic Church) had any impact on the ability of nations to explore and conquer other nations? If you do, do you believe the increase in "civilized" cultures has had an affect on the scientific discoveries of people as a whole?Wulfran wrote: It may be somewhat of a generalization but its undeniable that faith has definately stood as an impediment to advancement and progress when you look at it in the historical context of the last thousand years or so. The litany can include the Christian Church's support of views that the world was flat, the sun moon and stars revolved around the world as opposed to vice versa and even to today's conflict of evolution vs creationism. Great minds like Galileo were tolerated... Now in stricly philosophical terms, I agree this was more a betrayal of the idealistic tennets of the religion(s), as the actions of the clergy were more about furthering their own personal powers (beautiful examples revolve around the schismed papacy and the machinations of the church, with regard to re-establishing its fiefdoms in the 14 &15th centuries),as well as that of their organization, but it doesn't nullify the basic fact: the religion, through its offices and infrastructure stood as a roadblock to human development.
Uneducated people are just that. Uneducated. As for the evolutionary debate. I believe the most popular reason for the church to "interfere" in that regard has to do with creation, and less to do with evolution itself. The issue they have is with establishing that creation take place in a primordial goo, which while often theorized has not been proven (doubtful it ever will be based on the time it theoretically took place and the likelihood of evidence to directly support it). The issue "the church" has is that they feel Abiogenesis is being presented as fact, which adversely affects their belief system. To be honest, when I was in school I learned about all sorts of religions and their view of how the world started, bar one. I believe that they would leave the debate alone if Abiogenesis wasn't sold as fact, and was instead represented as a popular theory. Perhaps that is the way it is taught in schools now. When I went it was very "matter o fact" that we all came from goo that made us into single celled organisms.Wulfran wrote: The fact that even today, modern churches try to assert their opinions on the evolutionary "debate" supports the general claim. It may not include all churches, and definately not all Christians but it does include a sizeable fraction, especially in the U.S. and other locales where fundamentalism is gaining more support. And its not that I am decrying skepticism either, provided there is a logical, scientific basis for it. The bible, for all the claims of its allegorical and moral tales, provides no such thing. I will say I hold the bible in about the same esteem as I hold Aesop's fables, or Homer's version of the Trojan War as recounted in the Illiad. They have lessons and places in classical literature but their place as historical texts is nebulous and minimal at best.
That? I don't see much point. Where do you believe the founding principles of most legal systems were taken from?Law and Society now trump religion in terms of control and morality, and that is why people argue against religion... It's unnecessary, obsolete, and regressive. Religion used to uplift and galvanize entire civilizations for progress, now it helps only to stagnate or destroy them.
Now THIS is where I was thinking this argument would go to. Kudos Winn.Winnow wrote:Religion would be a laughing matter if it didn't cause 99% of the death and destruction on the planet that's not caused by nature. The tools that think their particular organized religion is somehow different are the problem.Somali wrote:Fash wrote:No one is arguing that religion is 100% garbage absolutely...
Unfortunately not everyone in the world is like you. Luckily, you are open minded to both science and faith, but there are plenty of people who are not. I do have friends that believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, strongly deny evolution, but disagree with Abiogenesis. What do they say when they are presented with extreme contradictions to science? Why they say that science is the one that is flawed; the same possibility you give. But yet I would like to find the number of intellectuals who feel that our fundamental laws of nature could change. I know I'm biased as all fuck, but as a scientist I don't think so. Are all religious people this fundamental? Hell no and Thank god, but 25% of americans believe jesus is going to be coming back this year. It's important to note that I am attacking specific things stated in the Bible, not religion in general or religious people.Cute. I assume you have only ever spoken to people who have a concept of creation that is as rigid as your own. There can only be a single answer and now middle ground. No grey area. I'm dumbfounded with how this can be your only experience. Most people I have spoken to neither feel that creationism excludes evolution, nor do they feel that the Earth is ~6k years old. They do however generally disagree with Abiogenesis.
Myself, I tend to have a relatively open mind in both regards. Science has been proven wrong before, and most scientists would admit that they do not have full comprehension of the rules we play with. We create models for what we feel is true, test it to the best of our ability and assuming that it remains relatively constant throughout the tests we assume the model works. unfortunately, when it comes to many things, we simply do not have enough sample points to be absolutely certain. We discover new things about science all the time that can cause us to modify previous ideas. At the same time, I would not be able to say that every word of any "religious text" was 100% dead on. What percentage is 100% dead on? Who the hell knows...
The evolution of the Mormon religion is a great documented example of this.The tools that think their particular organized religion is somehow different are the problem.
To someone like Fash the Bible or any other religious text is written by man. Therefore when the constitution or legal systems use these texts as a basis for law they are merely transfering ideas of man (whether it's in a religious text is irrelevant).Where do you believe the founding principles of most legal systems were taken from?
See the word Canberra under his name? He's an Aussie. New topic for you to become all knowledgeable about, Geography.Somali wrote:
By the way, are you a Brit or do you simply enjoy old English spellings in an attempt to make yourself feel more intelligent?
