The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

[DogOnPorch]

No biologist will ever be able to explain why man is the only animal for whom defecation is posing a problem.

...and apparently so do you.

[benny]

...and apparently so do you.

One needs psychoanalysis to understand that.

[DogOnPorch]

One needs psychoanalysis to understand that.

I'm sure you'll find the help you need. The cool thing about Diogenes is that they honored him with a statue of a dog.

Arf!

[benny]

I'm sure you'll find the help you need. The cool thing about Diogenes is that they honored him with a statue of a dog.

Arf!

You are an interference. For physicists all life forms are complex wave interferences.

[DogOnPorch]

You are an interference. For physicists all life forms are complex wave interferences.

While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats. Samuel Clemens, I believe. This is getting more and more like sending code to zee French Resistance w/ each post you make.

The window is open while the door is ajar.

Charles has a new drum.

Wedding plans are canceled.

[benny]

I think that atheism is not really a (independent of theism) possibility because as soon as someone expresses her/himself, s/he is manifesting some kind of positivity (i.e. God) that makes a contradiction of all attempts to justify a non-belief in God or a belief in his non-existence.

[DogOnPorch]

I think that atheism is not really a (independent of theism) possibility because as soon as someone expresses her/himself, s/he is manifesting some kind of positivity (i.e. God) that makes a contradiction of all attempts to justify a non-belief in God or a belief in his non-existence.

If I fire an arrow at a target, it covers half the distance...then half again...then half again...then half again. If we use your logic, the arrow never reaches the target.

[GostHacked]

I think that atheism is not really a (independent of theism) possibility because as soon as someone expresses her/himself, s/he is manifesting some kind of positivity (i.e. God) that makes a contradiction of all attempts to justify a non-belief in God or a belief in his non-existence.

That is why I am moving away from complete athiesm to being agnostic. Which all of us are, because not one of us has the answer one way or another to be 100% sure.

[M.Dancer]

Which all of us are, because not one of us has the answer one way or another to be 100% sure.

Ummm not exactly. Some of us don't have the question, there is no question or even a consideration that the question is needed. You don't need an answer to a non existant question.

[DogOnPorch]

Ummm not exactly. Some of us don't have the question, there is no question or even a consideration that the question is needed. You don't need an answer to a non existant question.

Yup.

[DogOnPorch]

To be more specific: when I look out at the Universe, I wonder who is looking back. Not some 'god', I'm sure. But if their technology was a few 100 years ahead of us, I'm sure they'd seem god-like. But, the chances of an advanced exo-civilization existing in the same area AND the same time frame as us would be very remote...so no...I don't believe in UFOs.

Edited May 6, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[benny]

If I fire an arrow at a target, it covers half the distance...then half again...then half again...then half again. If we use your logic, the arrow never reaches the target.

Each (mental or physical) step we make as human beings is a leap of faith.

[DogOnPorch]

Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.

[benny]

That is why I am moving away from complete athiesm to being agnostic. Which all of us are, because not one of us has the answer one way or another to be 100% sure.

Still, agnosticism is self-contradictory because in each leap of faith we make as human beings, we, however faintly, know (gnosis) the positivity is there to help and motivate us.

[DogOnPorch]

Still, agnosticism is self-contradictory because in each leap of faith we make as human beings, we, however faintly, know (gnosis) the positivity is there to help and motivate us.

Open the door on a Boeing 767 at 30,000 ft. The Good Lord should protect at least the rest of the innocent passengers....right?

[GostHacked]

Still, agnosticism is self-contradictory because in each leap of faith we make as human beings, we, however faintly, know (gnosis) the positivity is there to help and motivate us.

You might want to look up the definition of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and it is occasionally argued that the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2]

That does not seem self contraditory at all.

Ingersoll in the same atricle has a quote from the end of a speach he gave.

We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know.

[benny]

That does not seem self contraditory at all.

The self-contradictory part is contained in the (privative) prefix a-. One doesn't need more of a proof or certainly when, however faintly, he knows (gnosis) the positivity is there.

[GostHacked]

The self-contradictory part is contained in the (privative) prefix a-. One doesn't need more of a proof or certainly when, however faintly, he knows (gnosis) the positivity is there.

Something that is not outright proven cannot be knowable. If you know God exists and can prove that outright, then you have something to work with. Untill that time, the answer is "I do not know."

[DogOnPorch]

E=mc²

[benny]

Something that is not outright proven cannot be knowable. If you know God exists and can prove that outright, then you have something to work with. Untill that time, the answer is "I do not know."

Some kind of positivity was needed for us to know for certain, through Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that not everything can be proven.

[M.Dancer]

Something that is not outright proven cannot be knowable. If you know God exists and can prove that outright, then you have something to work with. Untill that time, the answer is "I do not know."

Something that cannot be proven (god, tooth fairies, etc) should not have much time wasted worrying whether the proof is out there...either you believe or you don't.....the spectrum of belief can be very large from "i don't know for sure..." to I think that there may be a god to "god speaks to me daily". On the other hand the spectrum of non belief is narrow. It ranges from "I don't believe" to I don't believe"

[betsy]

I think he should stay closer to biology and the other sciences that he is well versed in and leave philosophy to the philosophers, or at least develop his own ideas better so that he is not so dependent on friends like Daniel Dennett, and can have a more independent perspective. The other thing I find disappointing about Dawkins is that when he did get around to writing a book about atheism and religion (The God Delusion), it went down a well-worn path of deconstructing old theological proofs of God, like St. Anselm's ontological argument. His arguments against God are focused on the Abrahamic variety, and does not address pantheistic beliefs and other supernatural beliefs that have crept in to Western culture over the last hundred years.

I don't accept his premise that he shares with Sam Harris, that everybody can be converted into rationalists and that's why he hopes for an end to religious education that offended the church people so much. Most people don't seem to like the real world very much, and exchange one form of magical beliefs for another -- hopefully for a less controlling and potentially dangerous set of magical thinking. But I don't share their optimism for a new golden age of rationalism. A hundred years ago, the Freethinker Movement thought that the enlightenment would eventually lead to the abandonment of religion and they were heralding a new golden age of rationalism.....and then WWI broke out.....the rest is history! These things go in cycles, and rationalists should hope that the next wave of hysteria doesn't take us two steps backward for every step forward we make.

And just take a look at this:

In 2007, Dawkins founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly.[106] Inspired by the gay rights movement,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Really. It's so cheesy. His focus is on religion! Why would it bother him what religous people think.

If you don't believe, you don't believe! If you're an atheist, then you're an atheist!

Besides, in this current climate why does he think people will care if he's atheist or gay or transexual.

Those are just too common now.

These days, it's the octo-moms and three-breasted mamas that gets eyebrows rising and mouths gaping.

Dawkins is making it like atheists are being persecuted. Yet he rabidly attacks all people with religious beliefs...with insults and ridicule! This is all for show. He loves publicity. Publicity generates more money!

He's too deep in religion. And he's more into writing controversial bestsellers. His credibility as a scientist is terribly compromised. Looks like his obsession with religion and God had made him bonkers. And it is an obsession!

Or

A lucrative money-making scheme.

Edited May 7, 2009 by betsy

[Sir Bandelot]

He's too deep in religion. His credibility is terribly compromised. Looks like his obsession with religion and God had made him bonkers.

Dawkins view of what religion is about, of what function it serves for people is extremely narrow minded. The analogy of a flying spaghetti monster for instance, is about as sophisticated as the religious belief of a two year old. My take on him is that he's in it for the money. What he and any other self righteous types dont get is that they as atheists believe in a dogma, just as any "believer" does, yet they childishly ridicule people who believe in religion.

Having a fixed belief that you are right and know all, is about the most arrogant thing a person can do to themselves. Any real scientist knows, we constantly make false assumptions based on our own perspective, the uniqueness of our environment and the limits of our senses. Considering the bizarre direction that modern cosmology has taken, most people could not even comprehend what they're talking about. The universe is more strange than we are capable of imagining. I would not be surprised that science, if allowed to continue making unbiased explorations will eventually come face to face with a creator.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[benny]

Dawkins view of what religion is about, of what function it serves for people is extremely narrow minded. The analogy of a flying spaghetti monster for instance, is about as sophisticated as the religious belief of a two year old. My take on him is that he's in it for the money.

I think that as soon as adults feel the need to persuade children that Santa Claus exists, they are themselves somehow believing in his existence.

[Sir Bandelot]

I think that as soon as adults feel the need to persuade children that Santa Claus exists, they are themselves somehow believing in his existence.

Well having raised a few of them myself I can tell you that at no time did I actually start to believe in Santa again, at least not literally. More to the point I see belief as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. It does not matter if its actually true, as long as it gets you there.

For many people, this is the point of religion- Belief provides the framework for having the courage to go on despite, great difficulty or even despite inevitable failure. Many great athletes have a system of belief to help them draw on their strength when the situation is desperate. The same goes for suicide bombers. Belief is a tool, in some cases even a weapon.

Belief overcomes fear and self doubt.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sir Bandelot