It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does Atheist Richard Dawkins sound religious? After all he agrees with most religions on Jesus?

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Are you aware that someone can be both a lunatic and make profound and insightful statements? I know people with bi-polar and schizophrenic disorders and I have heard them make statements that are both crazy and profound. This does not make them divine.



Yes, I am aware...but the point is really irrelevant....


Mental illness has nothing to do with Jesus..


JC said, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I'll rebuild it"

Religious leaders, "sure you can put this building back together, haha!"

in 3 days he arose from the dead, and 100 were killed for believing it




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


JC said, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I'll rebuild it"

Religious leaders, "sure you can put this building back together, haha!"

in 3 days he arose from the dead, and 100 were killed for believing it




So JC killed people for believing or not believing?
It's not very clear...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by OldThinker


JC said, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I'll rebuild it"

Religious leaders, "sure you can put this building back together, haha!"

in 3 days he arose from the dead, and 100 were killed for believing it




So JC killed people for believing or not believing?
It's not very clear...


Sorry bb, I was in a hurry, cooking breakfast for the fam on thx-giving...

my point was many "witnesses" allowed themselves to be killed over what they believed to be the truth (of him raising from the dead) when in fact if they had stolen his body or faked it, certainly a small percentage would have confessed....just to live.

it is unlike any other mass death, i.e. yesterday's Jim Jones or today's militant islamic....those people comitted suicide because they BELIEVED in what they died for...if the early followers of JC "faked" his death, and knew it was a lie, statistically a few would have confessed just to live...none none did....



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Are you aware that someone can be both a lunatic and make profound and insightful statements? I know people with bi-polar and schizophrenic disorders and I have heard them make statements that are both crazy and profound. This does not make them divine.



Yes, I am aware...but the point is really irrelevant....


Mental illness has nothing to do with Jesus..


JC said, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I'll rebuild it"

Religious leaders, "sure you can put this building back together, haha!"

in 3 days he arose from the dead, and 100 were killed for believing it


I guess I thought that was the point of the video you posted. That Jesus could not be both a lunatic and the son of god.(or claim to be).

I guess i missed the point. But to be honest, and i mean no disrespect, but i have a very hard time following what you write. You dont follow a sentence or paragraph structure very well and your posts come across as delusions of grandeur.

Case in point:


OK, pls keep your head in the sand...

IF you think OT is stupid, pls google 'ASQ LSS MBB'

I am in the top .0001% world wide.....

nope, you are just intimated by a religious dude who won't back down

HEY, LET's do an DOE, ok?

You ready?

Let's put 20 yrs on my approach and 20 yrs on yours, have an impartial panel to evaluate the fruit from both? And see who comes out ahead...?

Listen!!!! You need to understand clearly...OT was not born yesterday and my posts may not affect readers TODAY....but let's give it a DECADE or so...and I'm the one they will come to with a U2U when the SH*t hits the fan.....I could give you 25 or so that this has already happened....

Google the EMPIRICAL rule,,,it the CTL at affect!!!!!!


What does all this mean? Is this some kind of prophecy? Are you implying that in a decade your words will be worshiped or seen as some great prophetic knowledge? I'm sorry if this is harsh but I am seriously confused by the majority of your posts. I can barely even understand where you are coming from or what you are even trying to say. I think if you spent a little more time making a more concise argument or statement, you would get a better response from people.

Also, speaking in the 3rd person does not help(and has me worrying for your sanity) and shows your ego dominating your speech.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Of course, having the full quote improves the discussion, and I am sincere in my thanks. I do have a concern, however, about the readiness with which you accuse those with whom you disagree of acting in bad faith. You did it to me, repeatedly. You've done it to Ewok.

Knock it off.


I did not accuse him out of some pathetic attempt at deflecting an argument, he quoted a small section of Einstein because he wanted to miss out the first sentence, that part about a personal god being chldlike. Believers i debate tend to do this an awful lot because they don't want that part of the quote sneaking in. If you find it unfair that people are called out on quote mining then that's up to you. He could have quoted the full thing and specifically chose not to as the first sentnce disagreed with his views.

I will therefore not "knock it off", when someone posts a partial quote then i will put it properly in context. On top of that i think people like Dawkins are so vehement in their views because they are sick and tired of science being retarded by religious people. It's not just evolution which is being challenged, without evidence. Stem cell therapy got set back years by Bush because he considered it against his religion.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

If you find it unfair that people are called out on quote mining then that's up to you.

What I found unfair was your false accusation of Ewok.

Ewok didn't quote Einstein. He described Einstein's views about atheists, in the context of Richard Dawkins, who is the very model of the kind of atheist about whom Einstein wrote.

What Ewok said about Einstein's views on that subject was truthful and fair to Einstein. Einstein's views about other religions besides Dawkins' brand of atheism bear only indirectly on the topic of this thread.

Ewok did not "quote mine." Your false accusation of Ewok continues your pattern of misrepresenting your opponents' arguments. That is unfair, too.

And, since you have introduced Einstein's words, I will comment upon them.

Throughout your posts in this thread, you have claimed a "scientific" foundation for your personal opinion that there is no god:


i approach it from a scientific standpoint


The real problem with Einstein's remarks for atheists like you is what he reveals about the absence of any special relationship between being atheistic and being scientific.

Einstein, according to his letter, adopted what might be called agnosticism, because


I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

So, a practicing elite scientist believed that the question of god wasn't settled by science, "our intellectual understanding of nature of our own being."

Other scientists may or may not share Einstein's humility. But typcially scientists do distinguish between their scientific inferences and their other opinions which they hold on personal and non-scientific grounds.

On questions about which there is no evidence, scientists can say whatever they like, but science has nothing to say. That is what makes it science instead of woo: no evidence, no "scientific" conclusion. But personal opinions? Everybody has those, including scientists.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by eight bits]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits

i approach it from a scientific standpoint


The real problem with Einstein's remarks for atheists like you is what he reveals about the absence of any special relationship between being atheistic and being scientific.

Einstein, according to his letter, adopted what might be called agnosticism, because


I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

So, a practicing elite scientist believed that the question of god wasn't settled by science, "our intellectual understanding of nature of our own being."

Other scientists may or may not share Einstein's humility. But typcially scientists do distinguish between their scientific inferences and their other opinions which they hold on personal and non-scientific grounds.

On questions about which there is no evidence, scientists can say whatever they like, but science has nothing to say. That is what makes it science instead of woo: no evidence, no "scientific" conclusion. But personal opinions? Everybody has those, including scientists.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by eight bits]


I have not used a scientific founding, that would suggest evidence against something, i have said i use the scientific method, that being without proof there is no belief in something. I would say that Einstein basically ignored the scientific method when it came to a belief in god and instead approached it from a philosophical standpoint.

As i stated earlier you can approach it from a philosohpical view or from one based upon the scientific method. No evidence exists to prove it and therefore i don't believe. Having no evidence against is not proof and no theory can be accepted within science just because there is no evidence against it.

They can of course speculate, just like a fiction writer could but it would not be science, it would not be applying the scientific method and therefore the scientific conclusion is unchanged, that being that there is no evidence and so no belief. Don't you find it slightly odd that as education in a scientific discipline increases a belief in god decreases? I would say this is becaus many scientists are used to using evidence for belief.

I see again you didn't quote Einsteins dislike of the idea of a personal god and i find that interesting



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

I have not used a scientific founding, that would suggest evidence against something, i have said i use the scientific method, that being without proof there is no belief in something.

You don't get to redefine words and phrases that already have a consensus meaning. Scientific method refers to the investigative practices of scientists using evidence. Where there is no evidence to use, there is no scientific method.

What you use is a heuristic method of inference. The only uses of anything like your heuristic in science are to identify the frontier within which scientific methods can be applied, the deployment of investigative resources, and other matters not requiring factual findings.

Religious doctrine, metaphysical, philosophical, and subjective value findings fall outside the scope of any field of science.


I would say that Einstein basically ignored the scientific method when it came to a belief in god

Obviously. Scientific methods have nothing to do with the question of god, as Einstein would well know. When he wrote about belief in god, he expressed his personal opinions. If you prefer to say "philosophical" opinions, then fine.


Don't you find it slightly odd that as education in a scientific discipline increases a belief in god decreases?

No. Although my conclusions about any correlation are guarded since there is a nasty confounder (education in many fields has grown, not just sciences) and an even nastier methodological hitch (how to measure the prevalence of belief in god, especially in the past).


I see again you didn't quote Einsteins dislike of the idea of a personal god and i find that interesting

The quote has already been placed in the thread. If you feel that Einstein's views about the idea of a personal god are on-topic here, then please feel free to discuss them.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Yes, that sort of throws out the 'jesus is a myth' theory...many of the historians of the day, and after...recorded the deaths of the followers of Jesus...




Many historians? Links? Proof?

Jesus never existed. Try the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Lie Ever Sold.

Fact is Josephus I think was the only historian to use the name Jesus, and that was proven to have been added after he wrote it.

Other historians only mention a christ or christos. A title, not a name. There were hundreds of christs running around in the supposed time of jesus. All of them claiming miracles and promising to save the people from the romans.

Not to mention that almost everything about Jesus is just an amalgam of other supposed gods and religions.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Pr0t0
This thread contains little in the way of evidence... The Bible is not a suitable source.



What a bold claim!

Proof out there?


In many atheists the opposite is true....their BEHAVIOR dictates their BELIEF...the scriptures call that an 'EXCUSE', sorry


[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]


Talk about bold claims. Any proof out there that most atheists behavior is dictated by their beliefs?

I wont even get into your claim of being smart because youre some black belt. 'ASQ LSS MBB'?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
JC said this JC said that. Blah blah. You christians pick and choose what he said and what you want to believe. I have yet to see a single xtian live like Jesus "said" to.

"If you want to be perfect give away all your possessions and follow me."

Not a single one.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
You don't get to redefine words and phrases that already have a consensus meaning. Scientific method refers to the investigative practices of scientists using evidence. Where there is no evidence to use, there is no scientific method.


You're absolutely right, i don't get to redefine words and phrases, that's why i used scientific method because it made perfect sense. The scientific method starts by observing some form of phenomenon and then determining a cause through some form of data that can be analyzed. There is no data to analyze and so no proof of a god existing. That i would consider to be a use of the scientific method.

I state again clearly that if your argument is that no evidence is proof there being a god then absolutely anything and everything can be believed in as long as someone states that there is no evidence for it.


Originally posted by eight bits
Religious doctrine, metaphysical, philosophical, and subjective value findings fall outside the scope of any field of science.


Religion, if we are referring to a god, gods or unobservable beings or intelligent energies, falls outside of any and all logical thought processes. We must be designed yet evolution is a very fine theory. We were deisgned to evolve, then why need a god at all?


Originally posted by eight bits
Obviously. Scientific methods have nothing to do with the question of god, as Einstein would well know. When he wrote about belief in god, he expressed his personal opinions. If you prefer to say "philosophical" opinions, then fine.


Personal, philosophical it is neither here nor there which it was, it wasn't a scientific viewpoint and therefore can be tossed away in a scientific context. Again i only ask you provide evidence for a positive claim that you are making or at least defending. If you are to defend the existence of god then it is upon you, as the person making the claim to prove it.

It's like if i say i have an chicken under a hat, i have to prove that. If i refuse to remove the hat then any observer can simply ignore me and not believe until i prove what i'm saying.

Yes i know that was a bit of a silly example but this is exactly what religions do, just with a god and less chickens.............unless it's voodoo.



Originally posted by eight bits
No. Although my conclusions about any correlation are guarded since there is a nasty confounder (education in many fields has grown, not just sciences) and an even nastier methodological hitch (how to measure the prevalence of belief in god, especially in the past).


Now that really was skirting the problem but i appreiciate you classify this view as guarded. I specifically referred to science so we would simply look up scientific organisations where everyone has a science degree. These people may have education in many areas but science is their focus and anyway a better understanding of language or geography wouldn't seem to effect your religious views.

The prevalence is neither here nor there. I stated "Don't you find it slightly odd that as education in a scientific discipline increases a belief in god decreases?". I was judging this against the average person who more than likely has far less understanding of science and statistically a lower IQ. That is if you believe IQ to be a good measure of intelligence as we are now understanding there are different types of intelligence, emotional, spatial etc. IQ does seem to scale with the level of education though.

What i'm saying is that it is relative regardless of when the measurment is done as long as you sample it against the general population.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

IQ does seem to scale with the level of education though.


No it doesnt. IQ should and does remain pretty constant throughout ones life regardless of the education received.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73

IQ does seem to scale with the level of education though.


No it doesnt. IQ should and does remain pretty constant throughout ones life regardless of the education received.


Err i think you misunderstood what i meant. I meant that the higher the level of a groups education their IQ's are higher than your average person. I do not mean that their individual IQ's increase but that they always had IQ's that were high and gravitated towards higher levels of education.

Sorry i thought within the context that was clear but obviously it wasn't as clear as i thought so thanks for picking up on it.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

The scientific method starts by observing some form of phenomenon and then determining a cause through some form of data that can be analyzed. There is no data to analyze and so no proof of a god existing. That i would consider to be a use of the scientific method.

We are in complete agreement that any attempt to apply the scientific methods to the question of god never gets off the ground. And by not going anywhere, the attempt doesn't furnish any proof about a god existing.

Therefore, we ought to agree that whatever conclusion you reached was reached by some other means.


I state again clearly that if your argument is that no evidence is proof there being a god

No, that is not my argument. A god is a logical possibility, whether or not there is evidence about the question. My argument is that the question cannot be decided without evidence.

I am an agnostic. It would be odd for me to argue that something is a proof for there being a god.


We were deisgned to evolve, then why need a god at all?

That's a nice illustration of why the scientific method never gets off the ground. The observable world looks the same to us either way, god or no god.

Anyway, up or down, can something exist without you feeling the need for it to exist? I'm thinking yes, but that's just my personal opinion.


Again i only ask you provide evidence for a positive claim that you are making or at least defending.

The only claims I am making or defending is that the existence of a god is a logical possibility and the non-existence of a god is a logical possibility. Since we seem to be in agreement that neither alternative can be proved, my claim would appear to succeed. But there's no evidentiary matter here.


If i refuse to remove the hat then any observer can simply ignore me and not believe until i prove what i'm saying.

Great. So, we're in agreement that someone can dismiss the claim. The only thing remaining is how would someone decide whether or not the claim is true, or perhaps decide whether it is more likely that a chicken is under your hat than not. Dismissal doesn't solve that problem. It solves other problems, such as "Do I really want to talk to this guy about his chicken?"

But I'll bet I can get some relevant evidence without you removing the hat. In the meantime, anybody can believe anything they like about the chicken, so far as I am concerned.


The prevalence is neither here nor there.

I thought you were looking at correlated change over time. OK. "Belief in one or more gods is inversely correlated today with scientific education or some proxy for it."

My answer would be the same as before, though. If your hypothesis were true, then I would not find it odd.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by eight bits]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Oh sorry then. I get it now. You were probably clear enough for everyone else. I'm a retard sometimes.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Eight bits, it's been fun but now i feel we're just going over the same ground.As stated earlier it depends on how you're looking at it. I require evidence to believe and no evidence is provided. Therefore i don't believe and simply arguing that there is no evidence against a god is not evidence of something being there. Again any claim could be declared true by that measure and whilst you may be ok with that i simply am not as science would be severly rstricted if such a thing were considered mainstream within science.

I used to be an agnostic like yourself, at least i thought i was, but after a period of careful examination i just couldn't find evidence for a god. Until that point i had believed myself correct but truthfully it was just wishful thinking. I was hoping for a god and so that made me agnostic without any logical reasoning behind it.

So as stated we seem to be going over the same ground so i'll leave it there unless something new comes up


At least the debate with you was fun, cheers.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
but there IS evidence...but what you really mean is 'my kind of evidence'...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ewokdisco
but there IS evidence...but what you really mean is 'my kind of evidence'...


Evidence is evidence. It is something that is verifable, testable or observable etc. It is not "my kind of evidence" i am simply looking for any fact which can prove the existence of god. There is none and the biggest way that the religious try and justify their claims are with scripture, which is logically flawed as an argument or by stating that the existence of the universe, earth and life are to unlikely to happen. Even though science proves that idea wrong they refuse to accept it.

If you want to believe in god then go for it, but please do not tell me there is evidence for a god, keep your dogma out of science and keep it well away from politics.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

keep your dogma out of science and keep it well away from politics.

I am thankful to live in a free democracy, where a voter may bring to the voting booth any belief or perspective he or she likes.

Science owes much of its origin to scepticism about the fitness of wealthy and powerful people to impose their views about how other people should make their choices, private and collective. It will be interesting to see, as science becomes ever more wealthy and powerful, how much better scientists do than the warrior popes, or the tribal wazoo.

It takes virtue to respect the rights of those for whom you have contempt, than whom you just know you are better. There is nothing about science that would make its devotees morally superior to anybody else, as your easy dismissal of the political freedom of others illustrates only too well.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join