Originally posted by AllianceSee, you idiot, if you could understand what I write you would realize that I did not deny either of those...but you can't.
Because athiesm really hadn't started until after Darwin? Don't make such outrageous statements. Darwin cared nothign about athiesm, even addressed the reconciliation between Christianity and Evolution 9most notably in Descent of Man but did far less than other scientists like Wallace.Newton thought his Theory of Gravity proved God. Yes, THAT Newton.
Einstein was incredibly spiritual...he just wasn't spiritual in the traditional Jewish way. This is obvious, despite the distortion, to read it his work.
Originally posted by Alliance
its pretty innacurate imo.Yeah, I thought you couldn't respond. Too bad you don't have a sense of class.
Besides, I really don't like debating with morons anyway.
I did bury it. Bardock insulted you imo and I called him on it. What I wrote was my interpretation of his words as he was to close minded to imagine that you can interpret anything more than one way.
Oh, you can interpret it alright, but for the sake of having a debate (which is impossible with you, exactly for the reason that you can't do it) lets assume that I literally meant what I wrote down. Because, I did. I did not insult DigiMark, you just didn't understand (again) what I said, despite it being in perfectly accurate and misunderstandable English.
Dawkins brought up points that I use frequently, but he too frequently jumps to conclusions. I like that debate because it illustrates why I dislike him.Dawkins is sitting down with a peer and can't even address his point. Granted, I don't think Collins' answers are much better either, but he stuck to topic and didn't over-reach. He confined his answers the the limity of human knowledge.
Dawkins clearly didn't. Even worse, he invokes science to force credibility into his argument, tarnisihing its name in the process. SCIENCE does not study the supernatural. Dawkins seems to think it does.
And lastly, as you already said, Dawkins is just an ass about his points, refusing to give any room for plurality on issues that are clearly not-factual. He just rants, picking off minor statements by Collins instead of actually addressing the big issues. Even worse, Dawkins totally doesn't understand the very public fight between religion and science he's in. He makes stupid statements in the process and is often ignorant imo about how is actions play out in that public debate.
Also, hes fairly ignorant of the whole religious side of the debate, which doesn't really give one a strong abiltiy to debate. I think that becomes obvious. Dawkins sticks to his one track, without realizing he's in a railyard
Okay, I will reply to Alliance post, but just to address it at the few thinking people that visit these forums...I mean, I am sure you already realized what horseshit he spew, but just to explain it a bit more in detail. Also, for the idiots reading it, just because I don't reply to stupid posts that misinterpret my posts doesn't mean I don't have arguments anymore. Alliance, if you feel the need to reply to this again, knock yourself out, I probably won't though.
Originally posted by Alliance
The only thing that is odd is your lack of thinking. You don't have to see it as a book of metaphors, but I have never suggested such a claim. I suggest that it CAN be seen as a book of metaphors.
Here is what I actually said:"It's a story book, you don't have to see it as big metaphors (many fundamentalist Christians don't). You didn't know that? Odd."
As you can clearly see I acknowledge that it can be seen as metaphors, I also say that many people take it literally, which was my point. A point Alliance took out of context and misinterpreted.
Originally posted by Alliance
You on the other hand, suggest that it must be seen as a book of "literal" fact, as if FACT is clearly apparent from a sentance and totally unrelated to connotation or personal interpretation of readign a document as large as a book.
As I have shown I clearly didn't do that. Alliance is lying (not the first time).
Originally posted by Alliance
Lets start a bit more recently...I always like up to date facts. "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."
Here is what Alliance claimed "He damages the credibility of science by claiming that science actually disproves religion. This is a blatant fallacy." ... as is clear from the quote he gave as well as from the video this thread is about, he doesn't say that all scientists agree with him. He says that he believes it to be the case and he does give the reasons why he thinks it does. If those reasons are wrong they can be scientifically challenged. Again Alliance just shows his own bias.
He's not hurting the credibility of science by using it.
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats right...Dawkins really isn't an athiest. TRY LEARNING. Might be good for a uninformed know-it-all.
Have you watched the video? He clearly says he calls himself an atheist though strictly speaking he has to be considered agnostic. I get the impression you did not even watch what we are talking about and just throw in your more or less accurate "knowledge" about him. It's odd, because the programme you quoted from earlier supports what I said. You just have an unjustified hate for Dawkins and can't apply reason to what we are talking about.
Originally posted by Alliance
"The God DELUSION"
Here's what Alliance claimed: "2. He is rabid and ruthless in his attacks, constantly failing to account for nuances and diversity. He paints all those who are religious as though they are Christian fundamentalists."
Here was my reply to that: "Not true, didn't with the Archbishop of Canterbury for one. I am sure there are more Christians he also respects. But...well, that one is really enough to disprove your stupid claim"
I do not understand how a title of his book relates to that. Alliance said clearly "He paints all those who are religious as though they are Christian fundamentalists."
I gave an example of where that is not the case, I don't see how it can go further than that. Alliance makes a stupid claim, it is disproven, end of story really.
Originally posted by Alliance
"Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility.""The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."
Here again what Alliance claimed: "3. He ignores flaws in his own argument, globalizing it to the point where it is no longer supported by the "facts" he provides, making him as guilty of religous zealotry as other fundamentalists who claim that they have a monopoly on "truth.""
The quotes he provided have nothing to do with this claim. They don't apply to it at all.
Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe when I get home an I can sift through his books again, I'll provide quotes. He claims, falsely, that science can take a position on God. He is wrong. The question in itself is unscientific.
Some people think that science should take a position on God, others don't. Just because you think it shouldn't, doesn't make it unscientific. In my opinion, on the other hand, Science should try to consider and explain all facts of life. The existence or non-existence of a God is certainly one of those.
Originally posted by Alliance
Do you speak anything but?
Alliance said "No, it simply compunds the fact that he's a menace to civilized society." and gave no proof of that at all."
I would say a "bullshit" was in place.
I wonder if he could elaborate on it, but I guess since he just made it up out of blind hate and prejudice it will not be the case.
Originally posted by Alliance
Anyone? I said everyone. He hates religion, thinks religous people are deluded...yet he doesn't hate them? And people say that you can hate homosexuality and not hate homosexuals...
What a stupid argument. Just because you think someone is deluded doesn't mean you hate them.
And I meant "everyone". My bad.
The matter of the fact though is that you did not actually address my point but said something completely else. Here my post again, you can judge for yourself:
"Well, we saw that he isn't against anyone religious. That doesn't mean that need for religion is not a flaw in the human brain. And not only did you use myopic wrong, I also have no idea in what way you think he is it. Yeah he wants all Religion gone....and? If you think about it it kinda makes sense to not want religion..."
Originally posted by Alliance
Yes, I do consider myself a rebel athiest because I don't think I'm an idiot. I like to resort to a little things called reason and rationality.
But you are one (idiot). And you do not use reason and rationality. As I have shown you lie and deceive instead.
Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah...come on...even DigiMark can figure it out.Its called interpretation...do you know what it is?
Lets go over what you and I said and see if it was a reasonable interpretation or whether you just tried to dodge the argument again (very dishonest)
You said: "Collins was the clear winner in that debate."
Notice how you said that he was the clear winner, now I replied to that with saying: "So clear even that Digimark thinks Dawkins was the winner."
That certainly implies that it was not clear, because DigiMark did not think that Collins was the winner, but Dawkins. It was not clear at all.
Now you misinterpreted that to say "Even DigiMark can figure it out", which a) in that context makes absolutely no sense and b) if I had wanted to say that I would have said it.
So, I would say the choice on that one is between "Alliance is a liar" and "Alliance is too stupid to read" ... I made up my mind about the answer, really.
Originally posted by Alliance
And you show that you don't know the nuances of when to properly use the word. Please, go cry in the corner about how people are different than you. Whine about how people who think they're the only ones with a monopoly on "truth" (except for you) are evil and destroying the world. Then realize you're a part of it.
Lets also go over this again:
I said that "Then again, one would say that living in a democracy is not just about accepting whatever happens but also advocate what one wants themselves....****ing radical democracists."
Pretty clear I think, if you live in a Democracy it is not just about shutting up, but also about convincing people of your opinion, etc. That's what for example, our party systems are about.
Now, Alliance replied to that: "Actually, thats anarchy."
Well, folks, is it really? Is the US an anarchist society? Because it has to be if Alliance is right. Is it? No, of course not.
Once more, Alliance, lie or stupidity?
Well, I guess most people understand why I don't want to continue to argue with him about it. He lies about and distorts my posts, it is very irritating and dishonest and when I also see that the people reading about it don't even realize what he is doing it annoys me even more. Either way, I have proven he is full of shit, should be enough for now.
Originally posted by Alliance
Because athiesm really hadn't started until after Darwin?
I've heard very respectable people who consider themselves "historians of atheism" say things along that line.
Personally I think the Marquis de Sade gets the shaft (pun certainly intended) when it comes to the origins of atheism. He was a radical long before the theory of evolution. But even that would be to discredit earlier philosophers who had to bite their tongue in fear of persecution or death for being outright atheists.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind."
Dawkins doesn't deserve to be in the shadows of Sade.
I just realized I made the greatest post ever and no one will read it. Frustrating.
Originally posted by inimalist
I've heard very respectable people who consider themselves "historians of atheism" say things along that line.Personally I think the Marquis de Sade gets the shaft (pun certainly intended) when it comes to the origins of atheism. He was a radical long before the theory of evolution. But even that would be to discredit earlier philosophers who had to bite their tongue in fear of persecution or death for being outright atheists.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind."
Dawkins doesn't deserve to be in the shadows of Sade.
And, though I agree with that, it wasn't what I meant. I meant that even if earlier scientists might have disagreed with the view of God they wouldn't have been allowed to speak out.
I also don't see how it actually relates to anything.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And, though I agree with that, it wasn't what I meant. I meant that even if earlier scientists might have disagreed with the view of God they wouldn't have been allowed to speak out.I also don't see how it actually relates to anything.
lol, not trying to argue any points, just trying to contribute
😄 😎
Originally posted by Bardock42
I just realized I made the greatest post ever and no one will read it. Frustrating.And, though I agree with that, it wasn't what I meant. I meant that even if earlier scientists might have disagreed with the view of God they wouldn't have been allowed to speak out.
I also don't see how it actually relates to anything.
They were allowed to speak out, and often did...however they usually ended up being barbecued for heresy but that doesn't mean they weren't allowed to open their mouths 😄
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
They were allowed to speak out, and often did...however they usually ended up being barbecued for heresy but that doesn't mean they weren't allowed to open their mouths 😄
I dont think atheism was persecuted in the Norse society. Theres a guy who implies that he had atheist beliefs but nothing happened to him. The Norse were very open minded when it came to religion.
This of course does not negate the fact that people in the past were persecuted for being atheist. Hell people were persecuted in the past for being Protestant.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Hell people were persecuted in the past for being Protestant.
And Catholic and Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist and Pagan and Sikh and Hindu oh,and people were persecuted in the past for being white, black, Asian, Arab, Persian, Man, Woman, African, European, American, this that and the next thing...I suppose we live in a world were people are discriminated against.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
And Catholic and Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist and Pagan and Sikh and Hindu oh,and people were persecuted in the past for being white, black, Asian, Arab, Persian, Man, Woman, African, European, American, this that and the next thing...I suppose we live in a world were people are discriminated against.
You can say that again. People just use relgion as an excuse.
The real problem though is religion is often used to justify outrages, of course anything can be, say eugenics by Hitler or basic fear mongering used by say, the KKK.
My real fear, is say we were to take politics from the politicians and give it to the scientists how long before a convincing scientists comes along and say, our world would be far more productive and better to live in if we killed off all people with glasses or AIDS or Downs Syndrome or something...
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The real problem though is religion is often used to justify outrages, of course anything can be, say eugenics by Hitler or basic fear mongering used by say, the KKK.My real fear, is say we were to take politics from the politicians and give it to the scientists how long before a convincing scientists comes along and say, our world would be far more productive and better to live in if we killed off all people with glasses or AIDS or Downs Syndrome or something...
People can use science as well to opress people. For example ive heard some scientists who dont believe that global warming is due to industrial gases have been harrassed.
Cant remember exactly what the guy said but it was something like people screaming in his face and throwing stuff at him.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The real problem though is religion is often used to justify outrages, of course anything can be, say eugenics by Hitler or basic fear mongering used by say, the KKK.My real fear, is say we were to take politics from the politicians and give it to the scientists how long before a convincing scientists comes along and say, our world would be far more productive and better to live in if we killed off all people with glasses or AIDS or Downs Syndrome or something...
"better" is not a scientific term unless in relation to something else
it would be economists who would make this argument if you want to be really technical