Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 76 of 301 (441585)
12-18-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by molbiogirl
12-16-2007 6:51 PM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
I fail to see how any honest scientist could possibly believe in such unadulterated horseshit ... oops, I mean religion. But some do. How they manage such cognitive dissonance, I don't know.
At best, if he was a true scientist, he should be agnostic. If he believes in atheism, it is by faith. Nothing in science is ever proven. Plus there is no explanation of how and where the universe came from. Saying your atheist closes the door on possible explanations. I for one, do not believe it for a second, and I think everyone is always keeping an eye out for God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by molbiogirl, posted 12-16-2007 6:51 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 12-18-2007 8:41 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2007 10:39 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 81 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 10:57 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 12-18-2007 11:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 130 of 301 (441929)
12-19-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Chiroptera
12-18-2007 8:41 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
Yeah, a true scientists has no beliefs whatsoever.
That is kind of what being agnostic is. When you are atheist, you are committing to something, a belief, since it is proven there is no God.
No, saying you're an atheist means you've come to a certain conclusion based on what you know about the world, a conclusion that can change if and when new information comes along.
By definistion, an atheist is "one who believes that there is no deity." Doesn't say anything about until better information comes along. And that is how most atheists come across.
I mean, Jesus Christ, Rat! You believe in some things, don't you? And at least some of those beliefs would change if you came across better information, wouldn't they?
Of Course!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 12-18-2007 8:41 AM Chiroptera has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 131 of 301 (441930)
12-19-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Granny Magda
12-18-2007 10:39 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
Dawkins' position is not "There is, without doubt, no God", but rather "There is almost certainly no God". A perfectly sensible opinion I'd say, and hardly an unreasonable one, even if you happen to disagree.
I agree, if that is his stance, but most atheists do not come across that way. That seems agnostic to me anyway, at least the door is open, and that to me is realistic. If an atheists belief's are set in stone, that can lead to so many other bad opinions.
Would you protest so much if a scientist professed a belief in God?
Saying you believe in something, as opposed to "there is no such thing" is different. A belief, is just that, a belief. We are entitled to it, or should be anyway. I can't prove God to anyone, so I just believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2007 10:39 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Granny Magda, posted 12-19-2007 11:19 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 132 of 301 (441931)
12-19-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by bluegenes
12-18-2007 10:57 AM


If a supernatural proposition for which there's no evidence is made, it is belief in it which requires faith, not lack of belief in it.
Faith is driven by evidence.
Try this with the proposition "there are little green wood-elves" and you'll see what I mean.
Atheism is also driven by evidence, or evidence against the evidence, or even the lack there of. Either way it is not proven, and you must take a "leap of faith" to come to a conclusion about such a thing. It is not black and white, but gray.
As for atheists singing carols, we can sing any religious music of any religion freely, if we want to, because it has no magical significance to us.
Sing away, my good man! Merry Christmas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 10:57 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by nator, posted 12-19-2007 11:26 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 140 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 12:31 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 133 of 301 (441933)
12-19-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taz
12-18-2007 11:08 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
I don't understand something, rat. Do you think everyone should be agnostic in regard to Zeus, Apollo, Hades, Poseidon, etc.?
Can you prove to me they didn't exist? Can you prove there wasn't something else going on, a logical explanation that lead those people to that belief?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 12-18-2007 11:08 AM Taz has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 145 of 301 (442097)
12-20-2007 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Granny Magda
12-19-2007 11:19 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
But you are still willing to entertain the possibility that you are wrong aren't you?
Merry Christmas.
As I have stated many times before, yes. Especially since I can't prove God. But that would only be in light of new and overwhelming evidence, to precisely counter everything that has led me to my belief's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Granny Magda, posted 12-19-2007 11:19 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2007 4:15 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 146 of 301 (442098)
12-20-2007 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by bluegenes
12-19-2007 12:31 PM


Simply, no. Religious faith is probably more driven by things like desire.
As Brenna put it, not all evidence is scientific evidence. People wouldn't even know about God at all without evidence. The bible is evidence, love is evidence, subjective things, and objective things are evidence, desire is evidence.
Do you require a leap of faith to lack belief in elves? I find it easy, no leaping required.
Yes, it is required to take a leap of faith to not believe in elves, since I cannot prove it. The only things that do not require a leap of faith, are the things that we haven't heard of yet. Keep in mind that the word leap, is a variable. That is why I said it is "gray".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 12:31 PM bluegenes has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 200 of 301 (442444)
12-21-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Granny Magda
12-20-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
If this level of doubt makes Dawkins an agnostic, rather than an atheist, then you must be an agnostic as well, no?
Technically, yes. There is always doubt, even among the staunchest of believers. I think it is a more realistic view, and if everyone were more like that, then we might get along better. Believing in God, is not just being committed to thinking He exists, it is about following what He says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2007 4:15 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-21-2007 2:12 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 228 by Granny Magda, posted 12-23-2007 1:50 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 243 of 301 (443228)
12-24-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Granny Magda
12-23-2007 1:50 PM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
"Atheist" is simply the best way of describing Dawkins' (and my own) beliefs, in a single word. It instantly gives people the right general idea about where we stand on the issue.
Yea sure, but my main point was that whether a theist or a atheist, your there by a leap of faith, no matter what size the leap is. Being scientific, should make you technically open minded to anything, and therefor agnostic. And that is a good thing for both sides, as Christians can use that view to improve their faith, and question it, whole an atheist still would have a chance at meeting God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Granny Magda, posted 12-23-2007 1:50 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Taz, posted 12-24-2007 10:34 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 249 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2007 11:48 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 277 of 301 (445629)
01-03-2008 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Taz
12-24-2007 10:34 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
This is nonsense. Should we be open minded to Zeus, Apollo, tooth faries, and the Monkey King?
I think I answered this already in this thread, and the answer was yes. The problem with people who have an outlook like you is you are limiting yourself to purely black and white decisions. Can you prove Zeus did/does not exist? If you can't then you are making a leap to a conclusion about his existence. Does not matter the actual size of the leap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Taz, posted 12-24-2007 10:34 AM Taz has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 278 of 301 (445631)
01-03-2008 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Granny Magda
12-24-2007 11:48 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
But you won't allow Dawkins to have any beliefs
You are wrong. I prefer him to have beliefs. I just want them stated as just that, a belief. Somehow you missed that thought.
Having a belief should not mean you are set in stone about it, if you list yourself as having a scientific mind.
Too many atheists say "there is no God, period" but cannot prove that. Then when confronted, say, it is not up to us to prove there is no God, it is up to you to prove there is one. But that is clearly not how God works. Just because something is subjective, does not mean it doesn't exist.
With that line of thinking, then they also should be saying "there is no E.T. life". we can't prove it, so it does not exist. But you probably wouldn't hear that one coming from an atheist. Only when talking about God, will you hear that kind of mindset.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2007 11:48 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2008 10:37 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 282 of 301 (446222)
01-05-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Granny Magda
01-03-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
Clear to you perhaps, but without being able to prove that god even exists, I am at a loss to explain how you might be able to know how he works.
Well the bible is a good start. As we read the bible, and debate about it here in these forums, at least we can say that believing in God is subjective, just like believing in atheism.
riVeRraT writes:
Just because something is subjective, does not mean it doesn't exist.
It pretty much does rat. If you want to claim that god is subjective (i.e. only existing in the imagination) then you'll find no argument here. If you want to claim any objective (i.e. existing independently of the imagination) existence for god, then you need to point out the evidence. Seems fair to me.
It does not mean that it doesn't exist. There are plenty of things in the past, and now in the present, for which we have no objective proof, or evidences for, that do exist. I.E., ET, other planets like earth, etc. I mean at one time there was no evidence, or even a thought of neutrinos, but they existed all along.
The bible is full of stories of how people want proof of God's existence, and even when they got it, they still didn't believe. Jesus. said it is by faith, so then it is possible that the creator of everything, could make it so we could not be able to prove He exist, but only to ourselves, through belief. I understand this is not a scientific view, but it is my current understanding of God has a relationship with us. Still, it doesn't mean He does not exist, just because we can't prove it.
God is not consistent with observed evidence. There is no evidential precedent for God.
People have always believed in some kind of god, and we seem to be able to wonder about these things, and just where we came from. Life in general needs to have some sort of explanation, and where this whole universe came from. Even evolution itself, does not explain why evolution happens. It could very well be God. God is a reason for the unexplainable. The only problem I have is if God made everything in our universe, then who made God? as you can see I believe in God, but I still have plenty of questions, and doubts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2008 10:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2008 7:50 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 286 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 8:40 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 287 of 301 (446860)
01-07-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Granny Magda
01-05-2008 7:50 PM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
Yes, that's because they are objective; they exist whether we believe in them or not. It would be strange to have believed in neutrinos before any evidence of their existence was found. Like it or not, if you want to say that god is real then you are saying that he is an objective reality. If he is subjective, then he is just a figment.
I don't seem to be having any trouble with objectivity/subjectivity. Only those that live in a current state of knowledge do. I believe God is an objective reality, but in our current state of knowledge, we cannot prove Him to each other. But God can prove Himself to each individual. That makes Him subjective by scientific terms only. The only way I currently know of showing God to each other, is by sharing the love with each other, that He shares with us. Love is subjective, yet it exists.
People have always believed that the sun is a living being or that it is vital to sacrifice animals to one's ancestors; do you think that makes it more true?
Well those people, and we can make that leap of faith now, were wrong. But my point was to point out the yearning to know more, and to explain where we came from. It seems all humans have that desire. It matters not how many people believe in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2008 7:50 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 3:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 288 of 301 (446862)
01-07-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by bluegenes
01-05-2008 8:40 PM


I'm perfectly willing to believe in any Gods, Goddesses or other supernatural beings just as soon as there's evidence for one or more of them.
Will you limit the evidence to only the objective?
Atheists are just people who do not make up a magical father figure in their heads, then believe in it.
Or maybe they just haven't met with God yet. See, you cannot prove it either way. So you cannot go and make that statement. That's my whole point. Many atheists say Christians have a chip on their shoulder, just because they believe in God, and they don't. I see it the other way around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 8:40 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Modulous, posted 01-07-2008 12:09 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 290 by bluegenes, posted 01-07-2008 3:40 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 292 of 301 (446968)
01-07-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by bluegenes
01-07-2008 3:40 PM


So, I have no choice but the objective, as it's impossible to walk around considering the possible existence of about 5 billion different Gods in different minds. Try it.
I wasn't asking you to do that. People believing in God, is not proof of God. Only subjective evidence. I asked you about objective evidence, so I have no idea why you brought up the subjective again.
No person but you can meet the riverrat God.
There is no riverrat god.
You seem to live in a world in which any supernatural proposition automatically becomes a fifty/fifty thing once it's been made.
I have made it very clear in this thread, more than once, that it is not a 50/50 thing. The fact that you said that, is evidence of your comprehension, or your prejudice.
There's exactly as much evidence for my belief in the Holy Ninety as there is for any other religion
No there isn't, because it is not a 50/50 thing, or is it black and white. Claiming it is, is just a lie, or pure ignorance of religion, Santa Claus, and God. An educated consumer is our best customer. If you truly believe after studying the bible completely, and Santa Claus completely, that they are identical, then maybe you have no chance. You have closed the door, and only God will open it for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by bluegenes, posted 01-07-2008 3:40 PM bluegenes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024