Author
|
Topic: The war of atheism
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
|
Message 70 of 526 (511750)
06-11-2009 3:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Modulous 06-11-2009 6:46 AM
|
|
Re: Atheist def
You said, "Any definition of atheism that means that Richard Dawkins is not an atheist." I can read that clearly, but I haven't the foggiest idea of who Richard Dawkins is or most specifically, what he believes, or what set of his beliefs you were refering to. I just asked you to explain, so I could respond intelligently.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 61 by Modulous, posted 06-11-2009 6:46 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
|
Message 72 of 526 (511761)
06-11-2009 5:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Rahvin 06-11-2009 11:33 AM
|
|
Re: Hi!
I can agree with you that there is no organized set of behaviors and admit I was wrong to call it a religion.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 11:33 AM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
|
Message 76 of 526 (511787)
06-11-2009 9:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric 06-11-2009 1:10 PM
|
|
Re: Def of Religion
No, I don't call everyone who believes in the Big Bang an atheist. I even accept the Big Bang, though I wonder about the parts of the theory that seem to indicate an early expansion far faster than the speed of light. That makes me wonder which answer scientists will find, rather than doubting the theory as a whole. So for me to say that would make me an atheist. That is why I added the other two parts of my statement, to eliminate the religious believers who accepted the big bang. I have always tried to be thoughtful, respectful toward everyone, and admit when I am wrong. Please don't treat me like a simpleton.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 06-11-2009 1:10 PM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
|
Message 77 of 526 (511788)
06-11-2009 9:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by Rahvin 06-11-2009 1:36 PM
|
|
Re: Def of Religion
Again thanks for your thoughtful detailed answers. You have answered my questions and I accept your reasoning
This message is a reply to: | | Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 1:36 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
Re: Atheist def
If I wrote that Benjamin Franklin supports my point, where would you read in all his writings to find the quote I was thinking of. It could be a looooong search. That is why scientists give quotes so others can quickly look up the quote and decide for themselves. It is only common courtesy to give the quote. I noticed that you condemned me for not knowing about the Hebrew methods of studying the Bible, then talked to another who had studied Hebrew more than me who also hadn't heard of those methods. Please don't be so quick to condemn.
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
|
Message 79 of 526 (511806)
06-12-2009 1:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Rahvin 06-11-2009 1:09 PM
|
|
Re: Taoism
I differentiated between what other people seriously believe in, and what other people write for fun. If people seriously believe it now, or in the past, such as believing in Ganesh now or Zeus 2,000 years ago, I have one response. Fantasy ideas such as Sauron or Lord Voldemort get a different response. Some ideas are in the middle ground. Which group should Santa Claus be in?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 67 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 1:09 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
|
Message 80 of 526 (511810)
06-12-2009 2:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous 06-11-2009 6:45 PM
|
|
Re: The topic of this debate
Thanks. I am looking at the quotes. I had skimmed the quotes and saw the focus on getting rid of religion in some of the positions. Since the science behind evolution doesn't in any way prove atheism, I wondered about that part of the quotes, and focused in on that aspect of the discussion. I need to read more to understand the war within Atheism. Thanks again
This message is a reply to: | | Message 74 by Modulous, posted 06-11-2009 6:45 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 81 by Huntard, posted 06-12-2009 5:00 AM | | greentwiga has not replied |
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
|
Message 85 of 526 (511879)
06-12-2009 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous 06-11-2009 6:45 PM
|
|
Re: The topic of this debate
In some ways, I found the Wikipedia article on methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism a better, more coherent starting point. Then I read through these more polemic articles and understand what they were saying. I fully accept methodological naturalism. as the way to teach science. In the Wikipedia article, I saw, "Currently, proponents of intelligent design argue that the naturalist conception of reality is not needed in order to do science. Their general criticism is that insisting that the natural world is a closed system of inviolable laws independent of theism or supernatural intervention will cause science to come to incorrect conclusions and inappropriately exclude research that claims to include such ideas.[12]" I don't have a problem with them doing the research that includes the ideas of theism. I disagree with the ID idea that treating the natural world as a closed system will cause science to conclude that there is no God. This gets back to the point I originally made. Science can't prove atheism. I see your point that Atheism is not an organized religion, but whether you say the idea that there is no god is a philosophical idea or an individual belief, it has nothing to do with science. Thus I disagree with those who wikipedia labels more metaphysical naturalists. I would go to the "ends of the earth" to defend your right to believe in metaphysical naturalism, and to even teach it. I would oppose just as vigorously those who would insist on imposing metaphysical naturalism on everyone. That is why I originally challenged you by calling Atheism a religion (which I was wrong to do) and a belief (and I agree, it is not an organized set of beliefs but more of a philosophy.) It just is not scientifically provable.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 74 by Modulous, posted 06-11-2009 6:45 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 06-12-2009 1:07 PM | | greentwiga has not replied | | Message 87 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 1:40 PM | | greentwiga has not replied |
|
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: 06-05-2009
|
Re: Agnosticism?
you have two definitions for agnostic deist. Did you mean that or was one supposed to be something else?
|