DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[elder999]

In your example, the subjective evaluations of 'cold' and 'hot' are void for vagueness. Language is too imprecise to contain the values that make the words 'hot' and 'cold' unique to the individual who utters them.

Language is also too imrpecise to contain the values that make the words "true" and "false" unique to the individual who utters them.

 

[Xinglu]

Bill - Your logic is flawed. Just because something has not been proven does not make it any less true. Before the earth was proven to be "round", it was still "round."

Before DNA was discovered, it still existed, and was still true.

If something is true, it will be true regardless of weather or not is has been empirically proven.

 

[Tez3]

As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "truth," and "facts". In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.

For example, (again!), the 68 degree rule :

I’m in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-that’s a fact.

I say “It’s cold in here,” which, for me, is the truth.

My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, “It’s too hot in here,” which, for him, is the truth.

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

and that's why the rabbi said all were right lol!

 

[arnisador]

......Um to not believe in God...am I right

Not exactly, which is one reason I usually say I'm "not religious" rather than an theist. An atheist doesn't just not believe in your god, he doesn't believe in any of them. The God of Abraham and Thor the god of thunder are of the same epistemological nature (though the latter is much cooler). In my experience, the religious take atheism as a rejection of their image of god. I just am not a superstitious person who believes in supernatural creatures.

I think that you don't really understand what it means to be one of the faithful.

I'm sure that's true. On the other hand, someone with a foot in both worlds may not understand what it's like to be truly a rationalist, viewing the world through reason and science.

i have yet to find an atheist who could prove the non-existance of God and I am unable to provide evidence for the existance of God. STALEMATE

Equipossibility is not equiprobability (well, tehre's some argument about that), but more to the point, this is a Principle of Impotence stating that it's impossible to ever know anything about anything; it's the brains in vats argument. This is not a stalemate, even though I could just be a brain in one of the Martians' vats. A person who makes a claim without providing evidence or argument for it has said nothing, we say in science and philosophy.

Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence. Science is the complete opposite.

Yup.

however the burden of proof is not on the non-believer. [...] if you believed every idea that was presented to you that could not be disproved you would have a very interesting and inconsistent set of beliefs.

Yup.

 

[arnisador]

believing in such things is akin to believing in Leprachauns.

I've never mocked these people for their beliefs, and have never tried to disprove them because I don't know if such things exist or not. What's more, there is no way of knowing.

Is there any way of knowing whether surgery is a better treatment for acute appendicitis than prayer?

Atheists don’t go door to door to try and convert people, they don’t harass you on street corners, they don’t post signs on their property, they don’t wear little Darwin necklaces proclaiming their beliefs, they don’t kill people for not believing the same way they do, they don’t shun you when you decide you want to believe in something else, they don’t disown their own children for loving someone with different beliefs, atheists and agnostics don’t blow each other up over semantics, they don’t use their power to rape little children, they don’t need the fear of some omnipotent being in order to be good.

Has an atheist ever hijacked an airplane? Been a suicide bomber? Certainly not in proportion to their numbers, and not for atheism if they did--but these things are done by the religious and in the name of religion all the time.

I’ve never seen an atheist in public jump all over someone for being religious, but I have seen it, many times when religious people will jump all over an atheist.

Yup. Because the religious "know" they're right, which justifies it. I've said it many times: It's now what you don't know that'll get you, it's what you do know that just ain't so.

 

[Omar B]

Language is to imrpecise to contain the values that make the words "true" and "false" unique to the individual who utters them.

I do believe that language is precise enough to make our intentions quite clear. Some people just don't have the vocabulary to fully express themselves in a cogent manner. Ever watch interviews on TV and hear how many times "you know what I mean," "it's like," "whatever," etc are used. It comes down to effective communication, sadly, most modern kids/teens don't read nearly enough to have a vocabulary wide enough to do that.

Effective communication comes down to the author or speaker being clear as to what they wish to say and choosing the word or series of words to express that. But that's my take on the language thing, I studies English Lit and Journalism so I'm always of the mind that we can always communicate ideas more clearly.

Also the cold Vs. hot thing in a room comes down to individual perception, not a language thing.

 

[yorkshirelad]

And you think Hitler growing up in a Christian dominated society had nothing to do with his anti semitism? Holmes, your deductive powers need a tune up.

I know many atheists who grew up as Christians Cheech.

 

[Omar B]

I think Hitler's an interesting case. After all, he effectively replaced religion with state, with himself being the highest authority, not god, not your own values, but the state. Plus he was very interested in the occult so dismissing religion while embracing something else wholly unfounded does set up a contradiction. Also, wasn't the Nazi swastika (did I spell that right?) a version of the christian crucifix?

 

[elder999]

Also the cold Vs. hot thing in a room comes down to individual perception, not a language thing.

What is "truth?"

 

[yorkshirelad]

Two can play that game Holmes, I don't recall anyone screaming "No God is great" as they flew airplanes into buildings.

I agree Cheech, people have done terrible things in the name of religion. I've said it before and i'll say it again. Good job I'm not religious. The truth is however that the faithless have done terrible things also. Think of how many people took a bullet by the agents of Stalin of Hitler because they put their faith in the deity over the ruling party.

 

[elder999]

Also, wasn't the Nazi swastika (did I spell that right?) a version of the christian crucifix?

No. THe very word comes from sanskrit, and it's a symbol that is almos universal min its use in antiquity. You can find it here in New Mexico among petroglyphs, and its used in Hindu and Buddhist societies.In Tibetan Buddhism it's called a yung drung, and represents eternity. From a martial arts/Buddhist perspective, the manji, as it's called in Japanese, is, AFAIK, still used by Shorinji Kenpo...

 

[Tez3]

The Nazis however turned the swastika around so the 'points' turned the other way.

 

[Omar B]

What is "truth?"

I always separated them by thinking fact is an axiom while truth may change form based on integrating new knowledge, like the earth being flat was the truth for a long time but eventually this was disproved. So I guess you could say that truth is fluid and is verifiable with all knowledge available at the time, while a fact is axiomatic.

So a room may be cold in my perception because that's what I feel. The fact would be the actual temperature on the thermometer which is what it is.

There's my stab at it.

 

[blindsage]

I'm sure that's true. On the other hand, someone with a foot in both worlds may not understand what it's like to be truly a rationalist, viewing the world through reason and science.

So how do you define rationalist?

 

[yorkshirelad]

All these dictators mentioned who were atheists, so what, they saw a good business plan and ran with it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao have pretty much placed themselves at the head requiring full servitude and obedience. The talk about them versus us, they stress brother love among their own while spreading their facisim or whatever "ism" they might be about. They start early making usre the kids are good and indoctrinated, much of those dictators MO follow pretty closely to how a religious organization run, just replacing the god with the leader.

Exactly my point, both the religious and non religious have committed atrocities to further their agenda. It's not a belief in the deity that is the problem. The problem lies in the flaws of man.

 

[elder999]

I'm sure that's true. On the other hand, someone with a foot in both worlds may not understand what it's like to be truly a rationalist, viewing the world through reason and science..

As I've said before, that's one of my names: Walks in both worlds. ...at least, that's what I've been told it means..:lfao:

In any case, the two, for me, are completely separate. My experience of God is individual, subjective, and all the "evidence" I need. I can't prove it scientifically-in some ways, because it's not my field. By that, I mean that there is work being done in that regard, and there are religious "technologies" that produce the same results in different individuals. Of course, these may be a function of the brain......

As far as I can tell, though, it is, for the present , not science's place to prove or disprove "God," given that it can't be, though there are attempts to do so. Nor is it (most) religion's place to try to fit itself into any scientific framework, though there are attempts to do so....

 

[Omar B]

Exactly my point, both the religious and non religious have committed atrocities to further their agenda. It's not a belief in the deity that is the problem. The problem lies in the flaws of man.

Oh, I didn't say the deity was the problem man. But he did use a model pretty close to religion, after all, a good idea is a good idea. Single man as the highest arbiter (rather than your own self interest), indoctrination, turning it into an us versus them, asserting that you and your way is superior to all others (so join or die).

Either way, crazy is crazy, he's just one of the few who didn't do it for god.

 

[yorkshirelad]

If every time I drop a rock I say "It's either gravity or the will of god", how can I do science?

Then Dawkins should take God out of the equation all together, not mention the deity.

Dawkins' ad campaign tells me a few things about him, he's got a great publicist, he's in the business of selling books, one of his primary goals is to convert the believers in the deity to not believe. His lack of belief in the deity is his personal faith, there is nothing scientific about it.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Not exactly, which is one reason I usually say I'm "not religious" rather than an theist. An atheist doesn't just not believe in your god, he doesn't believe in any of them. The God of Abraham and Thor the god of thunder are of the same epistemological nature (though the latter is much cooler). In my experience, the religious take atheism as a rejection of their image of god. I just am not a superstitious person who believes in supernatural creatures.

.

Semantics. the word God could easily be used by nordic pagans to represent Odin or Thor. It could also be used to represnet Zeus. The word's uses are limitless.

 

[elder999]

Semantics. the word God could easily be used by nordic pagans to represent Odin or Thor. It could also be used to represnet Zeus. The word's uses are limitless.

Or atman, and, in a parallel reference, human beings.

Tat tuam varsi, and all that....:lfao: