gwendes
-
Posts
1,669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
News
20th
EduGeek EDIT Conference
Blogs
Everything posted by gwendes
-
I just think that it's not scientific. Science sets out to disprove a theory. Things like this set out to prove a theory. I think it may even devalue science - where should we draw the line? It's like the Church investing money to find God. What if those scientists had a strong inner conviction that the sky is a carpet painted by God. Every peice of evidence we have suggests that it isn't but surely it is equally deserving of time, energy and funding. Afterall - all ideas are equally worthy in your opinion? I don't think so but perhaps. "In an infinite universe anything, even the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, is possible." Come on. You love science. Investigation of every insane theory is a waste of time. The difference between science in the Middle Ages is that now we have a peer-reviewed system and agreed standards. Modern science isn't about a personal hunch or saying what you think the government or king would like to hear. You JUST said He didn't. Then everything is based on faith. I don't agree that the two are the same. I know, based on empirical evidence, that my partner exists and I think that's a major factor in deciding whether I have faith in her! Cheeky sod. Atheism isn't some emo-teenage-rebellion type of thing! Sometimes I wear t-shirts that support a cause I believe in... My DNA says that I'm an individual but only a tiny, tiny bit individual. What makes a religion genuine? Although Dawkins does not agree with the religious he tries hard not distance the intentions of liberals and atheists in speaking out against the thing which is an active danger - fundamentalism. The first person to question the burning of witches probably didn't get an easy ride either...
-
He's saying it's bad to stop asking the questions of the mysterious. He is not saying we should believe that there are people genuinely communicating with dead relatives on prime-time TV - Einstein, I'm sure, would be in favour of Randi. I would also guess that he didn't support the idea of believing things were mysterious because they are not currently understood. If you want genuinely confusing stuff take a look at the quantum world not the 'paranormal' and it's multi-billion dollar industry.
-
There are no double-blind, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that goes anyway towards supporting telepathy. Do enough experiments and reject the evidence against what you believe and occasionally, as with anything random, you'll find supporting evidence. If you think that telepathy is a reality then you'd make yourself very rich to demonstrate it with Mr James Randi... Challenge Info $1M is still available and I'm sure a positive result would have the attention of scientists and media worldwide overnight. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant." To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests. I'd grow tired of disproving claim after claim too. Science must be open-minded but there's surely a limit. After the first hundred studies come back with evidence against the paranormal the hundred-and-first is, although no less likely to succeed than those preceeding, a little pointless. If the paranormal worked under testable conditions and could be repeated it wouldn't be called paranormal, it would be called science. We should be open-minded but not so open-minded that our brains spill out. I think you would need to pigeon-hole the ideas seperately in your mind. I reject the idea that both are essential. If the paranormal is proven and becomes science then I'm interested - anything else is hearsay, coincidence or natural.
-
This is why I feel that religion deserves to be actively challenged. How can that be possible when compared to the examples I gave? Dawkins hates the things that attack his field. He's passionate about expanding the knowledge of biology that religion attacks. We clearly saw a different programme. Would it still be called arrogance if he was challenging something like the fact that fairies are responsible for holding down everything on the planet? Why is it ok for religion to attack biology because it goes against an ancient text and not okay for religion to attack physics or chemistry? If the two are ultimately incompatible does 'spirituality' have a place?
-
RDF 'A'?
-
Close to the edge of 100% either way. Any Christian that doubts God is technically agnostic. Some don't and their interpretations become things like Westboro. Most Christians are probably not 100% certain that God exists but think that He probably exists and life their lives on the assumption that He does. That's not the way that I see it. Religious leaders and texts do not support this idea. I've been in churches and never heard the words 'very likely' or 'probably' with reference to God - if it's important to doubt then why? This is the Judao-Christian God. Even if Genesis is metaphorical you still have a God that, by definition, is all loving and all-knowing - if he isn't 'weeping' He either doesn't know or He doesn't care. A god that simply made the Big Bang happen and hasn't intervened since is not the J-C God. No. I'm just not a worse person and I think that's important. However, I do think that religion has made some perfectly reasonable people become very dangerous. No. Disregard religious claims to have certainty (same can be said for things like advertising). I'm not really sure that art and music appreciation are taught... I pinched* my brothers CDs and educated myself! *Yeah, yeah. I'm totally going to Hell. Faith to a deity and being faithful to a partner are very different. One is belief without evidence and the other is based on trust in another human. Faith in a deity cannot fail due to evidence since the non-existent don't leave proof of their non-existence! Being faithful of a partner can fail, you both have the potential to damage or break the relationship. Spot on. Is the solution 'loving God' or similar in all cases? I cannot see one solution or answer there. Particularly if you come from the position of doubt being important - perhaps the 'answers' are not correct... I would never pretend that there were answers or that I had them but this doesn't leave me feeling vunerable. What made you change your mind? Can you point me towards the 'damage' done in the name of Atheism that supports your claim that Dawkins is as bad as, for example, Rev. Falwell or Ted Haggard. Please read a little about these guys before replying - Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett etc are intellictuals, educated and informed about their subject areas, science and that of those that they hope to put an end to. Falwell was an aggressive business-man that offered salvation in exchange for cash, nothing short of a con-man. You cannot declare that God is on your side to preach hate - this is what the Four Horseman* would stop from happening. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell]Jerry Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard]Ted Haggard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] These are not typical of religion but religion enables them. I'd like to know what Atheism has done in it's name that you think is comparable. *"The Four Horsemen" (2008) is the first episode of a series of videos entitled Discussions with Richard Dawkins; Discussants are prominent atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. The quartet themselves are occasionally referred to as "The Four Horsemen", as well. - wiki
-
You did say you weren't certain - I then asked the question if you agreed that you were technically agnostic but in real terms you describe yourself as Christian. I'm not certain there isn't, you're not certain there is. We've independently reached conclusions of probability on opposite ends of the spectrum. Asking the question presupposes an answer. We shouldn't assume that there always is. Sometimes there is an answer but we shouldn't treat the questions unscientifically. I can see beauty in nature, maths, physics etc but I also see pain and suffering. The natural world is a violent, dangerous and extreme environment - I think this contradicts the idea of a creator with an intention for mankind. Our first ancestors could have so easily been destroyed when they numbered only a few. Was there a God watching out for them? I don't imagine you believe there was. What of God if they hadn't survived? For me questions like this refute the argument that God exists. Probably very similar. You mug, rape, murder and steal too, right? Doesn't my rejection of religion support the idea that it doesn't make you a better person. Perhaps. I may very think about the subject more. Perhaps that's a predisposition. I think it's very dangerous for people to think and teach that faith is a virtue... you can't start off assuming that there is no God, you MIGHT go to heaven! I think you'd support religious texts carrying an (18) sticker, wouldn't you? Young minds need to learn to think and doubt before certainties about the universe are forced upon them. No. He challenges dangerous thinking where it conflicts with what we know about the universe. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He's a scientist that released a book, 'The Selfish Gene' and found himself in the firing line of religion. He is not challenging liberal religion but he is incensed by what religion does and the power it maintains based on unsubstantiated ideas and outright lies. Dawkins would not have a problem with your beliefs for example - the fact that you are prepared to discuss what and why you believe is well beyond what he would ask people to do! Name one thing that God has given a solution to? In every case we need premises like 'If God exists and God is all-good.' which you would agree with and I wouldn't. Doubt answers questions by providing a model. Assuming there is a God distorts both any given question and the answer.
-
Much like your ignorance to almost every deity mankind has worshipped? Dawkins was rasied CoE and I think that makes his opinion on the religion that was forced upon him very important. He already knows what religion did to him and can observe the rest of the humanity and the effects of religion worldwide. If the Bible had mentioned evolution I'm sure an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins would never have felt the need to mention the problems. How would you feel if alternative-IT was invading our subject area? I think it wouldn't be long before a few of us stood up and talked against crystal healing for computers? Do you? To discuss God you need to define God. God is a poor explanation since, by definition, God needs to be immensely complicated (much like the universe) but without a creator - and therefore nothing has been solved! Religion goes further and makes us the subjects of God's concern - God cares. Science says that we are not special, but we are complicated, the Sun doesn't revolve around us but we are capable of that knowledge. God doesn't actually succeed in giving any solutions or answers - only doubt does.
-
Thanks mark. I think I understand a little better. You don't know there is a God either and so technically speaking you are also agnostic. Due to the way the word is generally used to describe fence-sitting 50/50 probability types you would rather, in real terms, be Christian. I think there probably isn't a God and live my life on the assumption that there isn't. You think there probably is a God and live your life on the asssumption that there is. I think the interesting thing to find out would be why this is the case. Was there for you, at any point, empirical evidence that God exists? I don't think you need to come up with an idea independently for it to be a construct of your mind. Of course it isn't easy but I don't think that it's meant to be easy because I don't think there is, or ever was an intention that the question would or should be asked. I don't think it's very useful to look at the universe and ask 'why?'. I don't think that the universe is for anything. I don't think we are either. Let's assume that you're correct and there is a God. Now, to you He doesn't just exist He actually has intentions for you personally - God wants good things for you and doesn't want bad things. This is what you think without basing it on knowledge - you look at the world and think it is the creation of a good and just God. Now it's easy to ask questions about the nature of God and just answer with 'mysterious ways' but do you really look at the world and see perfection? God has had nearly 14 billion years to manipulate the universe as an all powerful force for good... doesn't every example of imperfection, suffering, extinction point to a God that doesn't have the qualities of imminence, omnibenevolence and omnipotence? At least not all three? In what terms? I'm sure we like different things, have different tastes in music etc but my guess is that we share things that all humans do. We like doing some things, dislike others. We experience pain and pleasure, happiness and sadness. The fascinating thing is based on very similar experiences you choose to have a God and I don't have a God (I don't think mine is a decision because I don't think I could believe if I just tried really hard!) I see science as a force for good - improving our understanding of the universe, making life easier, safer and actually having an effect in real terms (improving health, quantity of leisure time, life expectancy etc). With empirical evidence like this and science also being prepared to accept anything that has repeatable results into the realm of science I remain suspicious of religion and those that control it. Afterall, who is God hiding from?
-
God is the singular Judao-Christian God. God has a fixed list of attributes - anything other than that is not God, it is a god or gods. 'Gods' cannot ever be correctly used. These are not the definitions of atheists. I am an atheist and do not describe God as non-existent. I don't think that God exists and I live my life on the assumption that He doesn't. To understand my position consider the following: we are all atheist (in real terms) to almost ever God that has ever been created (however, strictly speaking, we are agnostic).
-
@ mark Just a quicky... I really want to understand something. You say that you know that God exists. You live your life on that assumption but with no empirical proof. Since empirical proof includes evidence from experience are you saying that you having experienced God in any way? It sometimes sounds like you are hopeful that there is a God and live you life on that assumption but you're not sure. If you're sure - why? If not, how do you deal with the part of your brain that asks "What if God is a creation of my mind?" Do you understand what I'm asking... not sure the question has come out exactly as I wanted!
-
Equally Atheism is not responsible for Dawkins actions! Don't think I am. I just see Christianity as a reflection of some parts of society but a part that must be closed to certain ideas - for example, multiple gods. The rest of us are free to use and information from any source without a bias towards the Bible. I disagree. And there is evidence of that not being the case. There is also evidence that it was. I don't believe Christianity was a soley negative influence on science and knowledge - it had many positive influences infact. I just don't think Christianity deserves the credit anymore that Atheism deserves the credit if an atheist makes a discovery. In every case it is the people we should thank. Personally 'knowing' God isn't empirical? I think it is. You experience God - don't you? Also, isn't that a little closed-minded? What if the Bible got it wrong at there is a visible, all powerful creator and he pops back to Earth to see how we're getting on? I'm not being facetious! Quick clarification of definitions. God is the one true God. The Judao-Christian trinity. All-everything. Timeless. Personal. Creator. Here and now. god(s) is any deity. Can be a personal god if you don't agree that it fits the definition of Him, the one true God. NO! I don't think it's thinely defined, I think God's attributes are very well defined but that definition isn't helpful. Every desirable human quality was simply made perfect or infinite and it has made them all meaningless. Does God have freewill? Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind? - Karen Ownens No. I think that your personal god is a very different creature than God - I think that makes it much greater than the God of Genesis since it was defined and created (in my opinion) by you for you. I wouldn't agree. I can certainly give examples where it is doing good and negative things. That's evidence enough for me that it isn't special. If I do something good do we credit atheism? Religion should have no claim over the good works of followers. It is responsible for things like discouraging the use of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa - because it could change it's stance (I blame the C Church btw). Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. - Steven Weinberg Nope. In practical terms I am without-god (a-theist) as well as being unable to prove either way that He exists. Interestingly God would find himself having the same problem. In 'Old Harry's Game' (Radio 4 comedy) 'The Professor' asks God, "How can a god be certain He is the one true God, it's a fascinating question" (which it is) I'm not comparing myself or anything... Philosophy of language is very interesting. I will cite Russell and Dawkins to answer this. "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand Russell "Nobody but a lunatic would say "Well, I'm prepared to believe in the teapot because I cannot disprove it" Maybe we have to be technically and strictly agnostic but in practice we are all teapot-atheists" - Richard Dawkins Belgian? Do I have to put hot tea in it? Dawkins first book explicitly about religion is "The God Delusion" - shock title but very calm and considered writing. I think if you flick through it you'd actually enjoy it and find that you agree with him about most things. He thinks that religion is a product of belief based on faith and that this is dangerous. Personal gods do not give people the conviction to do evil things in the name of religion - Dawkins, like me, is frustrated when he looks around the world by the damage that can be done when large numbers believe, 100%, that they have all the truth. I don't need to give examples.
-
Or Sweden It's very difficult to be anti-fundamentalist without being attacked for being annti-religious. I agree with you Andrew - personal gods are not threat to me and I hope that people are being honest when they say it brings them joy.
-
No it didn't. Christianity happened to be around when science was being done - it may have facilitated science but it did not give rise to science. Islam contributed to science too - the money and power was in the hands of the religious leaders - in most parts of the world religion and 'government' were inseparable. Christianity didn't contribute - people that were Christian did. Christianity enabled, in some cases, people to do science (as long as it fitted the knowledge that Christianity wanted to find) Again, no. Freethinking was not viewed as being in contradiction to religion - when it was that was actively fought - however much science was achieved it remains an unscientific method. I'm not doing that - people make mistakes - fine. You can't claim that religion is the positive and people are the negative. But if the evidence was available you think it wouldn't be accepted? Revelation is the current method for proof isn't it? Your personal god is untouchable - I think it exists soley in your mind - for better or worse. We can't really discuss that god. The God we can make unlikely is the all-everything super-being that fuels most religion. We can look at the 'proof' in texts. We can combine attributes. We can define God out of existence. Not god. That one is yours.
-
I agree. Religion is not scientific though. The intention was to understand God's creation not do silly things like showing that Genesis had things all wrong. It's only metaphorical after science. Of course they were.
-
Thanks I couldn't resist. But you've been proven wrong. I can say 'Christians believe in God' and it is 100% true - you cannot, by definition, be a Christian without accepting that. You cannot say that atheists know something is true based on faith because they don't - I know that because even if the majority did (and I don't believe they do) I don't and I am one. I think it's quite simple. I don't know that there is no God. (agnostic) I don't think that it's likely. I live my life as if there is no God. (atheist in real terms) Not really because it's not a useful similarity and we can't learn anything from it. You might as well be saying that both are concepts that humans partake in. I was just trying to get you on-side. I don't agree with everything that Dawkins says either. I do think that the important thing that he stands for is not anti-religion but anti-irrationality. Liberal religion is not a problem - I understand he is good friends with the Bishop Of Oxford.
-
I was THIS close to writing exactly that!
-
Well put. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair]Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] It's causes like this, that remain, that I am passionately anti-religion about. People like mark that agree with the science and choose to have a creator God instead of my 'Big Bang' are not a problem - we are equally uncertain and can never know the answer. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You've tried this one before and it's rubbish. Religion actively attacked Science - look at poor Galileo. Religion gave people power, money and time. Religion had the resources to study science in pursuit of knowledge about God - they just didn't find it. Certainty that the truth is already known is the thing that is dangerous. Why is it such a big problem for religion to just admit that it doesn't know for sure?
-
Mark, you know that you and I can't coexist on this forum without occasionally having 1000 post threads! Nope. Atheists don't exist as a group that you can make statements like that about. I can instantly prove you are wrong since I am an atheist and I have never asserted something that I don't know. I make a judgement on how probable something is. Atheism is not a 'faith stance'. Religion is a faith stance because it claims to know for certain the 'truth'. If you don't do this then you are not religious. If you think God is likely but ultimately you cannot know then you are technically agnostic - like me. To clarify, I am agnostic (I cannot know either way) and atheist (without one or many gods) Come on. That would give politics 'qualifying characteristics' of religion. You might as well say that anything that people are a fan of is somewhat religious - you're redefining religion there... This is due to the way we choose to use language. Agnosticism would have been very dangerous not so long Not even Dawkins dismisses religion. He describes himself as a 'cultural Christian' and appreciates the art and architecture, music, festivals - loves Christmas. He dismisses the idea of being certain of the unknowable and fights against causes which you share - like the teaching of Genesis in Science classrooms...
- 224 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- anti religion
- atheism
- (and 10 more)
-
Atheism will eat itself? Really mark? Really?
-
Well done! You've just made yourself designated driver for the evening!
-
LMAO!
-
I do hope that's on different sides of the ring and you don't drive 1000 yards!
-
My friend once push-started his car leaning in through the window (don't ask) and locked himself out! The car took down a neighbour's wall!
-
Remember to lock up the brakes on downhill stretches and slide on the ice too... saves fuel!
