| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Atheistic fundamentalism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,623 Views) | |
| Klaus | Dec 25 2007, 01:08 PM Post #176 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So, why don't you explain your take on this topic as relevant for this discussion right here in the forum, rather than referring to gigabytes of literature?
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 01:47 PM Post #177 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Merry Christmas, Moonbat. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 25 2007, 04:27 PM Post #178 |
|
Senior Carp
|
klaus: "your take" Lots of stuff to comment on above. (How can something be fundamental if it is arbitrary? Incomplete does not imply arbitrary.) But my take on ethics: my view is that of Aristotle and Mill. Moral facts are facts about human development and flourishing (and perhaps also of beings similar to us). Disagreement in ethics no more implies lack of objectivity, than it does in science (just because some people think the world is flat, does not mean that it isn't a sphere, just because some people deny global warming, does not mean that there is no objective fact of the matter). Disagreement does not logically imply arbitrariness or lack of objectivity to a subject matter. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 25 2007, 05:32 PM Post #179 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Jeffrey......... no one thinks the earth is flat any more. Scientists used to, but the religious people finally won out on that one...... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Dec 25 2007, 05:41 PM Post #180 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I guess it can all be narrowed down to: Some people believe there is a God or a benign intelligence at work in the universe. Some people don't believe there is a God or a benign intelligence at work in the universe. People who believe in God can look at the world and their own lives, and find irrefutable evidence that God exists. People who don't believe in God can look at the world and their own lives, and find irrefutable evidence that God doesn't exist. In the end, it boils down to belief and perspective, and this is what I meant, earlier in the thread, when I said that personal reality is subjective. Objective reality: There is a mountain with two homes on it. Subjective: One man loves the mountain for the view, for nature, for the clean air. The other man hates living on an angle, hates the colder elevation, and is afraid of the wildlife. The two men have very very different realities, and it's based only on their perception and perspective. Many's the time I've taken severely negative circumstances and turned them around so that they are something useful and beneficial, and in the end, have added to my quality of life. Likewise, many peoples' belief in a personal God, adds something quite tangible and real to their quality of life. No matter how great an intellect the naysayers may have, and no matter how they assail the beliefs of others in God, there is no arguing with peoples' perception and perspective on their own personal experience. You can go around trying to kick the stilts out from beneath other peoples' beliefs, but unless you have something that's going to replace this added quality of life that the believers feel and see in their own lives, you aren't going to convince one single person of anything. All mind, no heart = no wisdom and nothing to feed the soul.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 25 2007, 06:20 PM Post #181 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
It's more than that. It's just what the title of this thread says. Jeffrey and Moonbat are atheist fundamentalists. Science is their religion, the human mind is their god, and they spout the teachings of their prophets, such as Dawkins. You see "code phrases" in their arguments that come from their bible, The God Delusion. But there is another man with the same educational background as Dawkins, and just as impressive a resume, who wrote a book taking Dawkins' arguments apart. It's called the Dawkins Delusion, written by Alister McGrath - a biochemist who studied chemistry and molecular biophysics at Oxford, and moved on to study Christian theology, specialising in issues of science and religion. Some quotes from the Wiki on McGrath: He argues that faith is not irrational, suggesting that Dawkins's presentation of the normal as if it were pathological is neither acceptable nor scientific and abandons even the pretence of rigorous evidence-based scholarship: "Anecdote is substituted for evidence; selective internet trawling for quotes displaces rigorous and comprehensive engagement with primary sources."[9] He claims that Dawkins's "Argument from improbability" is a poorly structured expansion of the 'who made God then?' question, and that if these "brash and simplistic" arguments carried weight, the scientific quest for a Grand Unified Theory could be dismissed with "what explains the explainer"? Has science disproved God? McGrath says Darwinism is equally compatible with religious beliefs and with atheism, quoting Gould and Rees in support (pp 30–31) and advocates a view of "“partially overlapping magisteria” (POMA), stating that science and religion offer possibilities of crossfertilization on account of the interpenetration of their subjects and methods."(p 37) He quotes Denis Noble's reformulation of Dawkins' "lumbering robots" trope[11] to show that two statements that "see the world in completely different ways" can be empirically equivalent (p 33) and suggests that "scientific theories do not, and are not intended to, describe and explain "everything about the world" – such as its purpose."[12] McGrath suggests that rather a lot of scientists do believe in God (including 40% of American scientists).[13] He points out that Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins and Paul Davies had produced theistic books in the same year as The God Delusion. (pp 39–40) and claims that "Dawkins clearly has no mandate whatsoever to speak for the scientific community at this point or on this topic. There is a massive observational discrepancy between the number of scientists that Dawkins believes should be atheists, and those who are so in practice....Dawkins is clearly entrenched in his own peculiar version of a fundamentalist dualism". ----- Both Jeffrey and Moonbat rail away against what they describe as "the evil of religion", and talk about all the "harm" religion has done to mankind. They are simply following their prophet, regurgitating his arguments - even though anyone looking at the issue objectively is aware that their argument is silly. McGrath deals with this ridiculous argument quite well. Well known literary critic Terry Eagleton, not exactly one you would expect to defend Christianity had this to say about Dawkins' book: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."[2] Eagleton also made this comment in regard to Dawkins' argument that religion was harmful: "Such is Dawkins's unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false.”[21] and suggest that "Atheism must indeed be in a sorry state if its leading contemporary defender has to depend so heavily – and so obviously – on the improbable and the false to bolster his case."[22] The truth is, Dawkins is ignorant about theology, and his arguments are not scientific. He is, like any other atheist fundamentalist, simply interested in tearing down all other religions other than his own. And so are Jeffrey and Moonbat motivated by the same agenda. Their arguments lack any semblance of a real understanding of God or theology, they use weak science and try to bury that fact under mountains of bloviating and puffery, and, not the least - they enjoy mental masturbation. They enjoy trying to appear highly educated. That's fine, but they show their ignorance of religion as well as science every time they do so. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 06:48 PM Post #182 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 25 2007, 07:15 PM Post #183 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yes Daniel. Really. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 25 2007, 07:30 PM Post #184 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Will address later in a reply to another post. ![]()
True, to the extent that you compare only a finite set of models that explain the same finite set of observations. Yet, when one compares various mythologies and various scientific theories, evidence suggests that scientific theories explain a much larger set of observations than mythologies. (What the heck, Jeffrey has gone on quite a bit about empirical evidence backing up the scientific stuff and such, so I'll leave this one.)
This, I agree. But I don't see how it affects the atheism vs. theism debate one way or another.
And a logician would look at mythologies and say they are illogical (while some others would put it more kindly and say certain mythologies "transcends" logic, which amount to the same thing). So, I don't get see how this affects the atheism vs. theism debate one way or another.
Let us suppose that there is a "why" question, Q, for which no scientific model can give an answer. Let us further suppose that there are other [non-scientific] models that give answers {A1, A2, A3, ...} to this question Q. Now how do you know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)? If you can't answer the question of which answer(s) to accept, would any of these answers do you any good? Or would you argue that it's unnecessary to know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)? ![]()
The fact that you can "build up trust in a theory by making more experiments" makes it fundamentally different from [faith-based] religion, don't you think? How many [faith-based] religions encourage their adherents to test and experiment with whatever it is that the religions preach? The whole notion of testing/experimenting is antithetical to "faith-based" religion, no? |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 07:33 PM Post #185 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Perhaps you shouldn't give lectures about things you know nothing about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 25 2007, 07:41 PM Post #186 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hey, look at the bright side -- at least "science" has built in mechanism to correct itself and "grow" along the way, and the practitioners of "science" widely acknowledge that "science" is incomplete and needs more work (e.g., every scientist acknowledges that there is a big gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity). How many religion you know of can claim the same? How many adherents of religions acknowledge that their religion is "incomplete" and needs more work? There are even verbiages in religious texts that essentially say "thou shalt not add or subtract anything from this set of text," which essentially cap the "growth" of the religions on which such texts are based.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 25 2007, 07:55 PM Post #187 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Perhaps you shouldn't inject yourself into discussions you are too ignorant to involve yourself in. When the only "education" you have is what you can Google, you get into serious trouble: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[2] Even the Wiki article you linked makes it clear that it wasn't the religious who believed in a flat earth. Now I suggest you take your kitty cat and put it in your lap for comfort while you read both of these Wiki articles. Then I suggest you stop interrupting this discussion with rabbit trails on other topics that you are too ignorant to understand. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:23 PM Post #188 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Larry post #1. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:24 PM Post #189 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Larry post #2. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 25 2007, 08:25 PM Post #190 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yes Daniel - and that is just exactly what *both* of those Wiki articles bear out. You're stupid, Daniel. Painfully, utterly stupid. You can't even understand what you read when you Google. Your own link proved what I said, and you're too stupid to understand it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 25 2007, 08:26 PM Post #191 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Frank: "All mind, no heart = no wisdom and nothing to feed the soul." I thought the complaint was that the atheists jumped on the poor theists, and that the theists were big enough and confident enough not to insult the atheists. *sniff* As for the personal reality stuff: the use of language presupposes a common objective reality. Otherwise, your words refer to your-reality, and my words refer to my-reality, and mutual discourse is impossible. I believe this was first pointed out in Plato's Theatetus. Thus your relativist personal reality theory about religion is either false or is meaningless to your audience (you choose). Your point about seeing the positive in negative events is fine, but does not cut either way on theism or atheism. "you aren't going to convince one single person of anything" I agree that irrationality is a powerful force in human existence and in faith-based religious belief. In science, beliefs are changed when new evidence is produced. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 25 2007, 08:29 PM Post #192 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Ax: "Let us suppose that there is a "why" question, Q, for which no scientific model can give an answer. Let us further suppose that there are other [non-scientific] models that give answers {A1, A2, A3, ...} to this question Q. Now how do you know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)? If you can't answer the question of which answer(s) to accept, would any of these answers do you any good? Or would you argue that it's unnecessary to know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)?" This bears repeating. I was unclear how something totally "arbitrary" could be "fundamental" or important. If something is arbitrary, it would seem to be unimportant and easily changeable. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:30 PM Post #193 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical became increasingly important in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[9] Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[10] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.[11] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[12] The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades).[13] Show me where scientists believed that the Earth was flat until the religious people corrected them. You're a moron. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:31 PM Post #194 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Keep talking out your ass. That's what you do best. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 25 2007, 08:33 PM Post #195 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Larry: A (belated) Merry Christmas to you and your family!! |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:35 PM Post #196 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Show that this is true. You're a moron. You are absolutely, 100% talking out of your ass. The religious people finally won out on that one. You're a moron. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:36 PM Post #197 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Prove what you said, sociopath. Oh, that's right. You can't. You're a moron. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:37 PM Post #198 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The religious people won out. Really? No? You're a moron. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 25 2007, 08:39 PM Post #199 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You make this up as you go along, don't you? You're a moron. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 25 2007, 08:42 PM Post #200 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
From your Wiki article: "Even a literal reading of the Bible could, however, be taken to mean that the Earth was seen as being circular or spherical, since the Hebrew word "chuwg" can also mean "circle" or "sphere"." Now - the remark was made as a sarcastic bit of humor aimed at Jeffrey. Jeffrey, as ignorant of theology as he is, is still intelligent enough to understand what I was getting at. Because you are an uneducated moron, you have chosen to fight a battle over it. All you've done is show that your "education" consists of Googling Wiki articles, with no ability to comprehend the complexities of all that is discussed in those articles. The fact is, the notion that people thought the earth was flat is for the most part, a fallacy. You can Google the word "fallacy" if you need to. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |















6:29 AM Jul 11