Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 30, 2015, 10:57:04 AM
-
This is from the atheist John Gray:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34054057
-
Sriram already started a thread on this on General Discussion:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10789.0
and it was the usual bilious "Richard Dawkins is a great big poopy head" crap from Gray there too.
-
Sriram already started a thread on this on General Discussion:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10789.0
and it was the usual bilious "Richard Dawkins is a great big poopy head" crap from Gray there too.
No it is an article intended to bring atheist adolescents like Dawkins and yourself into line. Good for him.
-
Thought you'd be a saucer-eyed fanboy.
-
Thought you'd be a saucer-eyed fanboy.
Fanboy? That's rich coming from an atheist adolescent.
I was right about you shower being adolescent since the responses to Gray are restricted to ''Bollocks'' and ''anus''.......thin stuff on your parts.
-
Fanboy?
Yes, that's what I wrote - correctly.
That's rich coming from an atheist adolescent.
While you're right about the atheist bit, I'm long past adolesence.
I was right about you shower being adolescent since the responses to Gray are restricted to ''Bollocks'' and ''anus''.......thin stuff on your parts.
That's because the thorough filleting of the egregious Gray has been done and done beautifully and brilliantly many times before.
-
Fanboy?
Yes, that's what I wrote - correctly.
That's rich coming from an atheist adolescent.
While you're right about the atheist bit, I'm long past adolesence.
I was right about you shower being adolescent since the responses to Gray are restricted to ''Bollocks'' and ''anus''.......thin stuff on your parts.
That's because the thorough filletting of the egregious Gray has been done and done beautifully and brilliantly many times before.
But only for antitheists since antitheism has a low philosophy count and a high science journalist and comedian count.
-
But only for antitheists since antitheism has a low philosophy count and a high science journalist and comedian count.
I can't think of any philosophers or science journalists who would be classed as anti-theists, nor any comedians either.
But of course, we do all realise that you set the bar for anti-theism as low as "Anybody who has ever said anything critical about religion at any time ever," so for you that will mean just about everybody.
-
But only for antitheists since antitheism has a low philosophy count and a high science journalist and comedian count.
I can't think of any philosophers or science journalists who would be classed as anti-theists, nor any comedians either.
No there aren't many antitheists who could be considered as philosophers...........or comedians for that matter. I heard somewhere that Ricky Gervais couldn't make an appearance because he ''felt a little funny''........His manager told him to get on quick before it wore off. Dawkins is a science journalist.
-
No. John Horgan is a science journalist.
Richard Dawkins is a retired scientist.
Those who can, do ...
-
No. John Horgan is a science journalist.
Richard Dawkins is a retired scientist.
Yes.............. long retired.
-
No. John Horgan is a science journalist.
Really?......Which 'Horgan' does he write for?
-
Get nurse to Google it for you, Vlad.
-
Get nurse to Google it for you, Vlad.
Shakes go and stand in the corner for at least ten minutes, go now, get on with it!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D, ippy.
-
Vlad, to respond to the thread title; no, atheism doesn't have to be anti-religious. As I pointed out on Sriuram's thread, early-Christians were deemed to be atheists by the Romans.
-
Atheism is simply not believing in God. It's not anti anything. But you already knew that.
-
Atheism is simply not believing in God.
That may be what modern atheism is all about, but as my point about the early Christians being deemed atheists by the Romans would suggest that, historically, atheism was the lack of belief or trust in a certain deity or set of deities.
-
Atheism is simply not believing in God.
That may be what modern atheism is all about, but as my point about the early Christians being deemed atheists by the Romans would suggest that, historically, atheism was the lack of belief or trust in a certain deity or set of deities.
Was that in the sense that there were 'real' gods, and belief in false gods was tantamount to not believing in the real gods? Just curious.
As to the original, there's a lot of commentary in a lot of places about how 'modern atheism is depicted as a war of science against religion', but when it is it's typically by a religious mindset that feels under threat.
To the majority of the vocal atheists that are typically referred to there is no war between science and religion, there's a war between religion and reason or a war between religion and decency - science is deployed as a weapon against the nonsense claims of religion, not as an alternative.
Even then, the majority of modern atheists aren't anti-theists - Professor Dawkins to an extent is, he sees any accomodation of religious thought as offering a bulwark for all, and I can appreciate that argument. However, like me he doesn't advocate 'banning' religion - largely because the victim mentality of many of the most egregious examples of religious nonsense would simply feed off that - he advocates educating people because the best evidence available to us suggests that when people understand reality better they need ancient fairy tales less.
O.
-
Was that in the sense that there were 'real' gods, and belief in false gods was tantamount to not believing in the real gods? Just curious.
Probably.
As to the original, there's a lot of commentary in a lot of places about how 'modern atheism is depicted as a war of science against religion', but when it is it's typically by a religious mindset that feels under threat.
The times I've ever seen this idea expressed has generally been the other way round, O. I've heard far more religious people state, as I do, that there is no dichotomy or gulf between faith and science, and therefore no 'war'.
To the majority of the vocal atheists that are typically referred to there is no war between science and religion, there's a war between religion and reason or a war between religion and decency - science is deployed as a weapon against the nonsense claims of religion, not as an alternative.
Again, this is not the impression that I have got from the various talks I've heard and books I've read over the decades.
Even then, the majority of modern atheists aren't anti-theists - Professor Dawkins to an extent is, he sees any accomodation of religious thought as offering a bulwark for all, and I can appreciate that argument. However, like me he doesn't advocate 'banning' religion - largely because the victim mentality of many of the most egregious examples of religious nonsense would simply feed off that - he advocates educating people because the best evidence available to us suggests that when people understand reality better they need ancient fairy tales less.
Except that the use of the term 'ancient fairy tales' (a derogatory one if ever there was one) undermines this apparently conciliatory approach. The fact that some highly educated people are both scientists and hold a religious belief indicates that 'educating' people doesn't inevitably result in people having a reduced need for something beyond science.
In fact, it actually reinforces the idea of a war between science and religion, something that, despite your earlier denials, seems to be very much the message of the atheist, rather than the religious.
-
As to the original, there's a lot of commentary in a lot of places about how 'modern atheism is depicted as a war of science against religion', but when it is it's typically by a religious mindset that feels under threat.
The times I've ever seen this idea expressed has generally been the other way round, O. I've heard far more religious people state, as I do, that there is no dichotomy or gulf between faith and science, and therefore no 'war'.
This was, at least in part, the point I was trying to make, that we're talking at crossed-purposes a lot of the time. We aren't depicting science as an alternative to religion, but that (apprently) is how it's coming across. At the same time, we see people putting religious explanations as alternatives to scientific ones - superior alternatives, in some eyes - and we take those few examples as representative.
To the majority of the vocal atheists that are typically referred to there is no war between science and religion, there's a war between religion and reason or a war between religion and decency - science is deployed as a weapon against the nonsense claims of religion, not as an alternative.
Again, this is not the impression that I have got from the various talks I've heard and books I've read over the decades.
I can't see where you can get that from - which is not to say that you don't, it's just not how it comes across to me. I can see where people would look at, say, Ken Ham and deduce that Christians believe the literal truth of the Old and New Testament - it's wrong to deduce that from a small cross-section, but I can see how it happens. What I can't see is where religious people see someone using the findings of science to undermine the precepts of religion to show that it's false as attempting to replace religion with science: science tells us how things (probably) happen, but it doesn't tell us very much at all about what we ought to be doing about it.
Except that the use of the term 'ancient fairy tales' (a derogatory one if ever there was one) undermines this apparently conciliatory approach. The fact that some highly educated people are both scientists and hold a religious belief indicates that 'educating' people doesn't inevitably result in people having a reduced need for something beyond science.
Religion doesn't have any feelings to be upset, and even if it did it would have no right not to take offence. Part of the movement of the vocal atheists is to stop the irrational and unjustified reverence with which religion is viewed - Christianity is no different to Norse mythology in any meaningful way except the number of people who haven't put the story down yet and moved on.
In fact, it actually reinforces the idea of a war between science and religion, something that, despite your earlier denials, seems to be very much the message of the atheist, rather than the religious.
What is there that is 'science' about pointing out the New Testament is a fairy story? If I address the literalist claims of a young Earth with radiological dating, that's science being used as a tool to demonstrate the false precepts of a religious viewpoint. Pointing out that Genesis is on a par with the Silmarillion is not 'a war between science and religion', it's evidence of a war between rationality and primitive superstition.
That I can be both rational and scientific, as the situation warrants, doesn't mean that the two are inseperable - arguably science is a subset of rationality, perhaps.
O.
-
What is there that is 'science' about pointing out the New Testament is a fairy story?
I have no idea, yet many on your side of the debate (as seen by many of the posts on this forum) seem keen to do so, using a so-called scientific rationale to do so; a rationale that is sometimes contradicted by other scientific fields of study.
If I address the literalist claims of a young Earth with radiological dating, that's science being used as a tool to demonstrate the false precepts of a religious viewpoint.
OK, to be devil's advocate, radiological dating has no way to prove that an all-powerful God hasn't designed age into his creation such that when humanity developed the ability to date things in this and other ways they would ultimately come up with an age for the earth at somewhere between 4 and 4.5 billion years. Whose to say that in another 20 or 30 years discoveries won't be made to push that back by another billion years?
Pointing out that Genesis is on a par with the Silmarillion is not 'a war between science and religion', it's evidence of a war between rationality and primitive superstition.
Except that the Silmarillion is not the same literary genre as the Bible as it doesn't seek to provide the answers the later does.
That I can be both rational and scientific, as the situation warrants, doesn't mean that the two are inseperable - arguably science is a subset of rationality, perhaps.
The same can be argued for being both rational and having a faith.
Let's take a mathematical example. Most people, in the West at least, work in the decimal or binary systems. Suggest that they use the dodecahedral or tetradecagonal systems and they will tend to laugh at you. The fact that those systems, which have been used in the past, are increasingly being superseded by the decimal one doesn't mean that they are 'fairy tale' systems. OK, it may be helpful to people to make out that they are, in order to speed the change, but that is a convenience, rather than a truth.
-
I have no idea, yet many on your side of the debate (as seen by many of the posts on this forum) seem keen to do so, using a so-called scientific rationale to do so; a rationale that is sometimes contradicted by other scientific fields of study.
Science isn't all of reason. When we make reasoned arguments against believing the Bible is true we sometimes USE scientific findings, but that doesn't mean that the argument against religion is a scientific one, it's just a rational one.
OK, to be devil's advocate, radiological dating has no way to prove that an all-powerful God hasn't designed age into his creation such that when humanity developed the ability to date things in this and other ways they would ultimately come up with an age for the earth at somewhere between 4 and 4.5 billion years. Whose to say that in another 20 or 30 years discoveries won't be made to push that back by another billion years?
If it were possible to 'prove' a negative, religion would have disappeared a long time ago - the onus isn't on us to 'disprove' the claim, of course.
Except that the Silmarillion is not the same literary genre as the Bible as it doesn't seek to provide the answers the later does.
From your perspective. From my perspective the Silmarillion, the Odyssey and the Old Testament are all in the same genre.
That I can be both rational and scientific, as the situation warrants, doesn't mean that the two are inseperable - arguably science is a subset of rationality, perhaps.
The same can be argued for being both rational and having a faith.
Not quite - nothing in my being scientific at one point contradicts my being rational, as one is a subset of the other. Faith is intrinsically opposed to reason - if you can reason to a conclusion it defies faith, faith is the maintenance of a position in the absence of a reason. They aren't diametrically opposed, necessarily, but they aren't overlapping.
Let's take a mathematical example. Most people, in the West at least, work in the decimal or binary systems. Suggest that they use the dodecahedral or tetradecagonal systems and they will tend to laugh at you. The fact that those systems, which have been used in the past, are increasingly being superseded by the decimal one doesn't mean that they are 'fairy tale' systems.
The analogy doesn't really work. Both duodecimal and decimal are 'right', the arguments are pragmatic (flexibility of duodecimal vs intuitiveness and tradition of decimal), whereas faith is not demonstrably correct. You do not have an argument between two valid systems, you have an argument between a rational and an irrational one.
O.
-
Except that the Silmarillion is not the same literary genre as the Bible as it doesn't seek to provide the answers the later does.
What answers does the Bible seek to provide? How can we tell its answers are right? Is there any reason why works of definite fiction can't give answers to questions? For example, I would claim that the plays of Shakespeare explore the human condition in more depth and with more coherence than the Bible.
-
Except that the Silmarillion is not the same literary genre as the Bible as it doesn't seek to provide the answers the later does.
What answers does the Bible seek to provide? How can we tell its answers are right? Is there any reason why works of definite fiction can't give answers to questions? For example, I would claim that the plays of Shakespeare explore the human condition in more depth and with more coherence than the Bible.
Yes, works of fiction can give answers to questions but judging by the knuckledragger comments frequently appearing on this forum it is the antitheists who are having trouble seeing that and indeed who display a disdain of fiction and myth.
In terms of Shakespeare, how do you deduce that he explores the human condition in more depth?
Firstly he just contrasts being with oblivion rather than eternal life versus eternal condemnation.
Secondly, he only seems to be writing about royalty or aristocracy with anybody lower inevitably cast as grotesque.
I look forward to your justification of Shakespeare as the observer of human nature pas excellence.
-
Except that the Silmarillion is not the same literary genre as the Bible as it doesn't seek to provide the answers the later does.
What answers does the Bible seek to provide? How can we tell its answers are right? Is there any reason why works of definite fiction can't give answers to questions? For example, I would claim that the plays of Shakespeare explore the human condition in more depth and with more coherence than the Bible.
Yes, works of fiction can give answers to questions but judging by the knuckledragger comments frequently appearing on this forum
Yes they are a problem, but we can't stop you posting.
it is the antitheists who are having trouble seeing that and indeed who display a disdain of fiction and myth.
In terms of Shakespeare, how do you deduce that he explores the human condition in more depth?
Firstly he just contrasts being with oblivion rather than eternal life versus eternal condemnation.
Secondly, he only seems to be writing about royalty or aristocracy with anybody lower inevitably cast as grotesque.
I look forward to your justification of Shakespeare as the observer of human nature pas excellence.
I did not say that Shakespeare is the observer of human nature pas[sic] excellence, I just said he did it better than your Bible.
Now, please answer the questions I asked: what answers does the Bible seek to provide? How can we tell its answers are right?
-
Except that the Silmarillion is not the same literary genre as the Bible as it doesn't seek to provide the answers the later does.
What answers does the Bible seek to provide? How can we tell its answers are right? Is there any reason why works of definite fiction can't give answers to questions? For example, I would claim that the plays of Shakespeare explore the human condition in more depth and with more coherence than the Bible.
Yes, works of fiction can give answers to questions but judging by the knuckledragger comments frequently appearing on this forum
Yes they are a problem, but we can't stop you posting.
it is the antitheists who are having trouble seeing that and indeed who display a disdain of fiction and myth.
In terms of Shakespeare, how do you deduce that he explores the human condition in more depth?
Firstly he just contrasts being with oblivion rather than eternal life versus eternal condemnation.
Secondly, he only seems to be writing about royalty or aristocracy with anybody lower inevitably cast as grotesque.
I look forward to your justification of Shakespeare as the observer of human nature pas excellence.
I did not say that Shakespeare is the observer of human nature pas[sic] excellence, I just said he did it better than your Bible.
Now, please answer the questions I asked: what answers does the Bible seek to provide? How can we tell its answers are right?
Yes but then next Jeremy you will be claiming that Nick Hornby is a better observer of human nature than the bible and then you'll doubtless indulge in a bit of reduction ad absurdum and say Topsy and Tim.
You still have to say why Shakespeare is a better observer of Human Nature than the Bible though taking into account my accusation that he writes merely from a royal or well healed point of view.
Isn't Shakespeare morally neutral on a lot of things? How does that square with Human experience?
-
Yes but then next Jeremy you will be claiming that Nick Hornby is a better observer of human nature than the bible and then you'll doubtless indulge in a bit of reduction ad absurdum and say Topsy and Tim.
Please answer my questions.
You still have to say why Shakespeare is a better observer of Human Nature than the Bible though taking into account my accusation that he writes merely from a royal or well healed point of view.
No I don't. Not before somebody has answered my questions.
I asked direct questions about the Bible and here you are doing everything you can to deflect attention away from the fact that you do not know the answers.
-
Yes but then next Jeremy you will be claiming that Nick Hornby is a better observer of human nature than the bible and then you'll doubtless indulge in a bit of reduction ad absurdum and say Topsy and Tim.
Please answer my questions.
You still have to say why Shakespeare is a better observer of Human Nature than the Bible though taking into account my accusation that he writes merely from a royal or well healed point of view.
No I don't. Not before somebody has answered my questions.
I asked direct questions about the Bible and here you are doing everything you can to deflect attention away from the fact that you do not know the answers.
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Shakespeare follows I think the ''good bloke hypothesis'' and therefore has a shallower anthropology always with half an eye on the entertainment factor which must involve inevitably putting the audience in general at ease........
If you think I'm wrong break the habit of a lifetime and respond.
-
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Yes, but what questions does the Bible answer and how do you know the answers are correct?
If you think I'm wrong break the habit of a lifetime and respond.
How can I break the habit of your lifetime?
-
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Yes, but what questions does the Bible answer and how do you know the answers are correct?
Great......Jeremy P.....Life as pub quiz.
-
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Yes, but what questions does the Bible answer and how do you know the answers are correct?
Great......Jeremy P.....Life as pub quiz.
So from that, we deduce that you do not know what questions the Bible answers. I'm not surprised.
-
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Yes, but what questions does the Bible answer and how do you know the answers are correct?
Great......Jeremy P.....Life as pub quiz.
So from that, we deduce that you do not know what questions the Bible answers. I'm not surprised.
The purpose of existence.
-
People make up their own minds about that - or can do if they put the effort in.
-
The purpose of existence.
At last.
OK, so what is the Bible's answer and how can we test if the Bible is correct?
-
The purpose of existence.
That's a question the Bible begs, not one it answers...
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
To Worship God.
Mathew 22:35-40.
The important word is "like".
Gonnagle.
-
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Yes, but what questions does the Bible answer and how do you know the answers are correct?
Great......Jeremy P.....Life as pub quiz.
So from that, we deduce that you do not know what questions the Bible answers. I'm not surprised.
The purpose of existence.
There isn't any purpose in the way you are implying that you think, we're here because of chance happenings that's all there is to it, unfortunately for you there's no evidence to the contrary, disappointing enit.
ippy
-
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Yes, but what questions does the Bible answer and how do you know the answers are correct?
Great......Jeremy P.....Life as pub quiz.
So from that, we deduce that you do not know what questions the Bible answers. I'm not surprised.
The purpose of existence.
There isn't any purpose in the way you are implying that you think, we're here because of chance happenings that's all there is to it, unfortunately for you there's no evidence to the contrary, disappointing enit.
ippy
I thought we were here because of stuff and the rules which govern it.....know what i'm saying?
-
The Bible and the New testament in particular introduce the idea of complexity of people.....that they are more than what they do for religious or other ruling authorities. It postulates internal struggles, self examination and moral responsibility.
Yes, but what questions does the Bible answer and how do you know the answers are correct?
Great......Jeremy P.....Life as pub quiz.
So from that, we deduce that you do not know what questions the Bible answers. I'm not surprised.
The purpose of existence.
There isn't any purpose in the way you are implying that you think, we're here because of chance happenings that's all there is to it, unfortunately for you there's no evidence to the contrary, disappointing enit.
ippy
I thought we were here because of stuff and the rules which govern it.....know what i'm saying?
Unfortunately for you there isn't any particular reason why, sorry and the because is that there is no credible evidence that indicates otherwise.
ippy