DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[yorkshirelad]

Uh-huh...

And I know you didn't read the article based on that post. It's about a lot more than that...

So much for my attempt to get the thread back on track. :shrug:

Anyway...I did find this Dawkins quote interesting...



I find that is more in line with my way of thinking.

I simply don't think "man" has what it takes to comprehend such a thing. I don't oppose the idea of a "GOD" so much as I oppose those that are absolutely certain that theirs is the one and only.

Fair comment!!

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'm starting to feel like Ben Stein from "Ferris Buehller"...

Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Ramirez]

It's debatable just how much of Christian he actually was, given his involvement (dare I say, obsession?) with the occult. In any case, the real horror was not Hitler, but what so many did in his name-and they were mostly, unquestionably calling themselves "Christians."

Exactly, I doubt all of Germany during the 40s and 50s were atheists. Indoctrinated to follow one leader mindlessly the follow another just as easily.

And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.

 

[Tez3]

Exactly, I doubt all of Germany during the 40s and 50s were atheists. Indoctrinated to follow one leader mindlessly the follow another just as easily.

And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.

Are you sure you mean the 40s and 50s? 1920's, 30s and 40s would be correct.

CC I hear you! the damn thread has a life of it's own!

 

[celtic_crippler]

Are you sure you mean the 40s and 50s? 1920's, 30s and 40s would be correct.

CC I hear you! the damn thread has a life of it's own!

I promise, the article is worth reading and most likely would add to the original discussion...I swear! LOL

 

[yorkshirelad]

Exactly, I doubt all of Germany during the 40s and 50s were atheists. Indoctrinated to follow one leader mindlessly the follow another just as easily.

And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.

40s and 50s? I think that your historical reference is a little off kilter Cheech.

 

[Ramirez]

Are you sure you mean the 40s and 50s? 1920's, 30s and 40s would be correct.

CC I hear you! the damn thread has a life of it's own!

Yep, meant 20s, 30s, and 40s.

 

[Ramirez]

40s and 50s? I think that herb you're smoking has skewed your historical reference Cheech.

Bring your Kool-Aid Holmes and we can have a real party.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Bring your Kool-Aid Holmes and we can have a real party.

As long as you drink up first:rofl:....I promise to drink mine right after you.

 

[Tez3]

I promise, the article is worth reading and most likely would add to the original discussion...I swear! LOL

I'm printing it off (have trouble reading more than a few lines on the screen) and will take it up to bed with me to read, it's nearly 2330h here.


Guys read it and get back to the subject? For the squabbling I'd stick to the kids black belt threads lol!


Just glanced at first page before closing down, 'caged death match" cool, us MMAers get everywhere!!
Religion v Science v MMA.

there now you have to read it!!

 

[yorkshirelad]

Guys read it and get back to the subject? For the squabbling I'd stick to the kids black belt threads lol!

I would, but I always get told off for picking on a particular one of the less able kids.

 

[arnisador]

What do you base that logic and deduction on?

Fair point. At some point one must choose a method of comprehending the world. There's a method that has put men on the moon, smallpox out of existence, and a TiVo here in my den. I elect to use the method of reasoned inquiry and evaluation of evidence, based on the concrete and measurable results it brings me. As a being that evolution has selected to want to survive, things that increase my lifespan and comfort rank high by the most natural of criteria--the will to live.

And in any case you bring up a good point, it is the religious who seem most prone to falling for occultism.

You say potato, I say irrational...

 

[Xinglu]

If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

I like it. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature. Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God. By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.

So yes, this quote holds wisdom.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I like it. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature. Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God. By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.

So yes, this quote holds wisdom.

Seconded

 

[blindsage]

Fair point. At some point one must choose a method of comprehending the world. There's a method that has put men on the moon, smallpox out of existence, and a TiVo here in my den. I elect to use the method of reasoned inquiry and evaluation of evidence, based on the concrete and measurable results it brings me. As a being that evolution has selected to want to survive, things that increase my lifespan and comfort rank high by the most natural of criteria--the will to live.

I'm all for that, but you haven't really answered the question. What do you base your reasoned inquiry on and what evidence are you using?

 

[Sukerkin]

I think you might need to refine your question, Sage, if you are seeking a meaningful response. Or at least take on board what logic and deduction mean in the balance in comparison to doctrine and faith.

Unrelated to that comment, I really should stop reading this thread. Next weekend, when I attend my parents wedding anniversary celebration, I'm going to have to put up with, yet again, , from my father, untold hours of religious brick-bats and the wilful refusal to perceive that the very concept of a creator deity is merely an early attempt to make the universe less scary; absorbing more of the same afore time counts as masochism I fear :lol:.

 

[blindsage]

I like it. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature. Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God. By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.

So yes, this quote holds wisdom.

I think many people who are religious claim something like this, but very few of the actual teachings of religions claim this. They generally claim that God is unknowable (except for some Christians who claim a 'personal' relationship with God, and Mormons who claim God was once like us and we can be like him eventually). What they do claim is that God, in His eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent wisdom has decided to give us some guidance for understanding the world around us and the spiritual realities of our existence. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent God, there is no reason to assume he wouldn't try to give us guidance (or that he would). But claiming that he does, in and of itself, does not mean God is being put in a box. Now there are those who then take that to mean an exclusive knowledge of God, that's on them.

 

[arnisador]

What do you base your reasoned inquiry on and what evidence are you using?

History of Western Philosophy

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'm printing it off (have trouble reading more than a few lines on the screen) and will take it up to bed with me to read, it's nearly 2330h here.


Guys read it and get back to the subject? For the squabbling I'd stick to the kids black belt threads lol!


Just glanced at first page before closing down, 'caged death match" cool, us MMAers get everywhere!!
Religion v Science v MMA.

there now you have to read it!!

The acadmics wouldn't stand a chance...they spend their time in the library and not the gym. LOL

Fair point. At some point one must choose a method of comprehending the world. There's a method that has put men on the moon, smallpox out of existence, and a TiVo here in my den. I elect to use the method of reasoned inquiry and evaluation of evidence, based on the concrete and measurable results it brings me. As a being that evolution has selected to want to survive, things that increase my lifespan and comfort rank high by the most natural of criteria--the will to live.



You say potato, I say irrational...

I like it. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent then the accept a God that is infinite in nature. Religion by nature attempts to place God in a box (something finite) claiming exclusivity to knowledge relating to God. By nature an infinite being that would also be the ground of all being (if we accept the scriptures account) could not known exclusively by one group.

So yes, this quote holds wisdom.

Collins (you know...in the TIME article I posted a link to...lol) holds that "God" exists outside of the realm of nature and therefore is not subject to the same laws... that's part of his argument for "his" existance.

 

[Xinglu]

I think many people who are religious claim something like this, but very few of the actual teachings of religions claim this. They generally claim that God is unknowable (except for some Christians who claim a 'personal' relationship with God, and Mormons who claim God was once like us and we can be like him eventually). What they do claim is that God, in His eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent wisdom has decided to give us some guidance for understanding the world around us and the spiritual realities of our existence. If we accept an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent God, there is no reason to assume he wouldn't try to give us guidance (or that he would). But claiming that he does, in and of itself, does not mean God is being put in a box. Now there are those who then take that to mean an exclusive knowledge of God, that's on them.

Ah, but something infinite and all inclusive cannot be all good as say Christianity claims. Said God must be both good AND evil or else the reasoning doesn't hold. To limit God in such a way is to put him/her/it in a box.