The God Dellusion

[Fire]

Fire



Science is constant?

Where did I say science was constant?

I think you are confusing the word "revealed" with "theorized"

I guess this is why the religious mind is completely incompatible with science.

probably why empricism is never advocated as a methodology to approach god in scripture

And for good reason, god is not there.

possessing the ability to give an explanation is hardly unique in this world

But when it comes to explanations to the big questions, between religion and science, there is no contest.

"the results of the scientific search in which during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born (one of the founders of quantum physics)

Maybe you aren't studying critically enough

Which means that there is no answer, no explanation for certain things. Critical study doesn't come into it.

Actually it makes their writings more pertinent because they were not bewildered by the illusory false prestige inherent with technological industrialism and could concentrate more on the fundamental issues of atheism rather than thinking life is really going places because they can fly in a space shuttle

I'm talking about knowledge. Knowledge of how life got here, how the Earth goes round the sun, what we are made of, how the Earth came into existence etcetera, etcetera... In those days, without information regarding these things, you could possible understand why atheism was barely a dot on the landscape. Perhaps in some ways it would be more interesting to live in a world without explanations, but a world with explanations, could be more embraced by future generations. Most people today take it for granted and persue oddities like religion and astrology...

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

Science is constant? ”

Where did I say science was constant?

the arguments for atheism are constant? Why do the premsies that determine our (apparent ) origins from matter constantly fluctuate?

“ I think you are confusing the word "revealed" with "theorized" ”

I guess this is why the religious mind is completely incompatible with science.

There are many honest scientists who can determine between the words "revealed" and "theorized" - belonging to both atheistic and theistic classes - my point was that your misuse of terminology was a fault of your person not your ideology

“ probably why empricism is never advocated as a methodology to approach god in scripture ”

And for good reason, god is not there.

Not even Dawkins made such foolish statements - here's why ...

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, for you to be certain of your claim you would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

“ possessing the ability to give an explanation is hardly unique in this world ”

But when it comes to explanations to the big questions, between religion and science, there is no contest.

Why do I have to die is not a big question?

“ "the results of the scientific search in which during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born (one of the founders of quantum physics)

Maybe you aren't studying critically enough ”

Which means that there is no answer, no explanation for certain things. Critical study doesn't come into it.

Henry David Thoreau

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita, in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed uf the same questions which exercise us."



“ Actually it makes their writings more pertinent because they were not bewildered by the illusory false prestige inherent with technological industrialism and could concentrate more on the fundamental issues of atheism rather than thinking life is really going places because they can fly in a space shuttle ”

I'm talking about knowledge. Knowledge of how life got here, how the Earth goes round the sun, what we are made of, how the Earth came into existence etcetera, etcetera...

Is it knowledge?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

 

[Fire]

Fire

the arguments for atheism are constant? Why do the premsies that determine our (apparent ) origins from matter constantly fluctuate?

Not necessarily the arguments, but the way in which nothing reveals god besides blind belief, which does is no way indicate the existence of god either. We should all the non-believers on things that can't be shown to exist, this is why atheism will always be constant with regards to the sentient creator.

There are many honest scientists who can determine between the words "revealed" and "theorized" - belonging to both atheistic and theistic classes - my point was that your misuse of terminology was a fault of your person not your ideology

Yes, but theists continually misuse the word 'theory', which is why it can't be used in a religious vs science debate, because it always ends up in "well, evolution is just a theory". Imagine how rediculous it sounds when someone says atoms are just a theory because you can study 'atomic theory' in universites.

From wiki:
Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Not even Dawkins made such foolish statements - here's why ...

I stand by my statement. God is not there, not to be perceived in any way, but simply imagined. I am an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any god, but I am verging on saying that god doesn't exist at all. I think this is mostly due to the arguments that theists put forward - they are entirely based on wishful thinking, and I can't see something so extravagant existing purely because we want it to.

Why do I have to die is not a big question?

Why does there always have to be a 'why'? There may not be any planned reason for anything. The question could most likely be void. If you ask 'how', it may always be possible to find an answer.

Is it knowledge?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Using creationist sources again? I could recommend you thousands of other sources where you might actually learn something.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

the arguments for atheism are constant? Why do the premsies that determine our (apparent ) origins from matter constantly fluctuate? ”

Not necessarily the arguments, but the way in which nothing reveals god besides blind belief, which does is no way indicate the existence of god either. We should all the non-believers on things that can't be shown to exist, this is why atheism will always be constant with regards to the sentient creator.

so if theism is blind belief wouldn't atheism be blind disbelief?

“ There are many honest scientists who can determine between the words "revealed" and "theorized" - belonging to both atheistic and theistic classes - my point was that your misuse of terminology was a fault of your person not your ideology ”

Yes, but theists continually misuse the word 'theory', which is why it can't be used in a religious vs science debate, because it always ends up in "well, evolution is just a theory". Imagine how rediculous it sounds when someone says atoms are just a theory because you can study 'atomic theory' in universites.

I never said that atoms was a theory - I said evolution is (particularly macro evolution)

From wiki:
Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Gould deserves a nobel prize for word jugglery - in a court case do they look for facts or theories? Why?

“ Not even Dawkins made such foolish statements - here's why ... ”

I stand by my statement. God is not there, not to be perceived in any way, but simply imagined. I am an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any god, but I am verging on saying that god doesn't exist at all. I think this is mostly due to the arguments that theists put forward - they are entirely based on wishful thinking, and I can't see something so extravagant existing purely because we want it to.

then you have just admitted to having an illogical premise for your atheism - (which makes you distinct from an atheist who has a logical premise, like dawkins) - you advocate a negative absolute - negative absolutes tend to negate everything except their own premise, and simultaneously it becomes very difficult to determine what gives them a privledged status

“ Why do I have to die is not a big question? ”

Why does there always have to be a 'why'? There may not be any planned reason for anything. The question could most likely be void. If you ask 'how', it may always be possible to find an answer.

Thats why what we have as science actually deals with the small answers and declares with some degree of bravado that the little questions are th ebig questions and the big questions are th elittle questions - like for instance I can conceive as the universe as a series of balls spinning this way or that way, but the real question is what are all those balls doing ou t ther e in the first place

“ Is it knowledge?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...fTheFakest.pdf ”

Using creationist sources again? I could recommend you thousands of other sources where you might actually learn something.

Seems you have some dogmatic biases you have to address.

 

[wsionynw]

Really... then why does 95% of the American public still beileve in God, and why are we still talking about Jesus some 2,000 years later?

Maybe the the USA is not a rational society?

 

[superluminal]

Fire


so if theism is blind belief wouldn't atheism be blind disbelief?

Brilliantly argued.

I never said that atoms was a theory - I said evolution is (particularly macro evolution)

Even more brilliant.

Gould deserves a nobel prize for word jugglery - in a court case do they look for facts or theories? Why?

I dunno? Why?

then you have just admitted to having an illogical premise for your atheism - (which makes you distinct from an atheist who has a logical premise, like dawkins) - you advocate a negative absolute - negative absolutes tend to negate everything except their own premise, and simultaneously it becomes very difficult to determine what gives them a privledged status

Fucking brilliant.

Thats why what we have as science actually deals with the small answers and declares with some degree of bravado that the little questions are th ebig questions and the big questions are th elittle questions - like for instance I can conceive as the universe as a series of balls spinning this way or that way, but the real question is what are all those balls doing ou t ther e in the first place

Amazingly fucking brilliant.

Seems you have some dogmatic biases you have to address.

What do dogs have to do with this? Oh. Right. Dog is God spelled backwards.

 

[wsionynw]

the arguments for atheism are constant? Why do the premsies that determine our (apparent ) origins from matter constantly fluctuate?

Light, what other areas of science do you disagree with, or is it just evolution?
Religion is nothing more than superstition, if you can't see that then you are wasting your time on this forum.
As I've said before, your choice is to believe either life from matter, or life from nothing. Which is it??

 

[superluminal]

Religion is nothing more than superstition, if you can't see that then you are wasting your time on this forum.
As I've said before, your choice is to believe either life from matter, or life from nothing. Which is it??

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Religion and god exist as surely as the sun will rise. You, my logically inclined friend, have failed to adopt the correct epistemology for percieving god. Ask lg for help with that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Brilliantly argued.


Even more brilliant.


I dunno? Why?


Fucking brilliant.


Amazingly fucking brilliant.




What do dogs have to do with this? Oh. Right. Dog is God spelled backwards.

Whats the matter supe?

At the end of your leash?

 

[superluminal]

Whats the matter supe?

At the end of your leash?

Heck no. Im free from the leash entirely. Guard your daughters and your crops.

 

[lightgigantic]

wsionynw

Light, what other areas of science do you disagree with, or is it just evolution?

Not sure what your point is - science even disagrees with science, or is it just that there is something severely wrong with this when a theist points this out?

Religion is nothing more than superstition, if you can't see that then you are wasting your time on this forum.

Thats just a tentative claim - I could change a word or two from your above sentence and re submit it to declare the exact opposite and it would be just as authoratative

As I've said before, your choice is to believe either life from matter, or life from nothing. Which is it??

According to such reductionist paradigms you are advocating the mind is also comprised of nothing, so you just formed a question with nothing - impressive huh?

 

[wsionynw]

According to such reductionist paradigms you are advocating the mind is also comprised of nothing, so you just formed a question with nothing - impressive huh?

Well done light, you've avoided the question once again. Care to answer it, or will you just write more rhetorical crap about the lack of proof for the human mind?
Life from matter, or life from nothing? I'm waiting.....

 

[superluminal]

Well done light, you've avoided the question once again. Care to answer it, or will you just write more rhetorical crap about the lack of proof for the human mind?
Life from matter, or life from nothing? I'm waiting.....

Me too. Pony up there old LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well done light, you've avoided the question once again. Care to answer it, or will you just write more rhetorical crap about the lack of proof for the human mind?
Life from matter, or life from nothing? I'm waiting.....

I did answer it.

The point is that what you call nothing could very easily be something that is beyond your current powers of perception (unless you want to advocate that you don't have a mind ......)

 

[superluminal]

I did answer it.

The point is that what you call nothing could very easily be something that is beyond your current powers of perception (unless you want to advocate that you don't have a mind ......)

And yours.

 

[superluminal]

LG, how much do you normally invest in things that "might be"?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, how much do you normally invest in things that "might be"?

All the time - like when I catch a plane, it might take me to where I want to go - I make plans for tomorrow because the sun might rise tomorrow etc etc - How about you?

 

[superluminal]

All the time - like when I catch a plane, it might take me to where I want to go - I make plans for tomorrow because the sun might rise tomorrow etc etc - How about you?

That's funny! And I thought you were clever enough to get the actual thrust of a question without being led by the hand like a two year old. My mistake. I'll use single syllable, short words from now on.

 

[wsionynw]

I did answer it.

The point is that what you call nothing could very easily be something that is beyond your current powers of perception (unless you want to advocate that you don't have a mind ......)

No, you did not.
Something?!?!?!? What's that then, God juice? Man stuff? Life jizz? I'd love to read your peer reviewed scientific theory on the origin of life. Or maybe I'll just read Harry Potter and ask my local government to add it to the science curriculum under Witchcraft and Wizardry.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's funny! And I thought you were clever enough to get the actual thrust of a question without being led by the hand like a two year old. My mistake. I'll use single syllable, short words from now on.

Sounds good - does that mean you will also refrain from abusive terminology as well?