Westboro Baptist Church -Virginia Tech Message
- Thread starter fLIP
- Start date
And this is different to following religion how?
It has not categorically been proven. A guess is a guess.
Dawkins saying there is no god is as credible as mata saying there is one.
Nobody has the answer yet.
[/quote]
Because Religion is not an "Educated Guess" not even close. It is not based on fact, it is not based on anything but complete and utter theory. It isnt tested it has nothing but an unfounded idea.
Religion argues itself as a default. it says "If it isnt this it must be that" which is so so so so dangerous and stunting. If you apply the same logic to religion then it also falls apart but much much much much much more than any other theory.
It differs massively and it is terribly naive for you to suggest that they are the same.
Dawkins saying there is no god, in particular if you read and understand why he says it is massively founded and believable. Whilst sure it might not have been proven the weight of the evidence says there isnt one, religion being accepted as a default will never let us know the answer
fLIP
UFO Hunter
I don't buy the whole fishing garbage.
I want Dan to admit that when Dawkins says there is no 'God' (in the loosest term) he is only making a guess, however educated it may be.
The fact is, it is a guess because it has not been proven.
If you do not know you do not know. Theres no way 'Educated' can butter it up any more.
I won't dispute that this is a very intelligent man who knows a hell of a lot about his fields but he has written a book that he knows will sell millions of copies because of the topic.
And then to hear him say they are still working on what he claims so strongly to be true. He seems as credible as I on the subject.
Not only his field flip but most fields of science. A great deal than you.
Educated guess may be a guess but more oft than not an educated guess is correct!
It largely depends on what you are guessing at sure, but in this case there is a whole host of evidence that can help you make an educated guess.
I don't know for sure, but I can make an educated guess that you watch Manly games every weekend during the season or at least everytime you are able.
I dont know but yes it is an EDUCATED guess and most likely correct with the evidence at hand.
So not buttering it up at all tiger!
Educated guess may be a guess but more oft than not an educated guess is correct!
It largely depends on what you are guessing at sure, but in this case there is a whole host of evidence that can help you make an educated guess.
I don't know for sure, but I can make an educated guess that you watch Manly games every weekend during the season or at least everytime you are able.
I dont know but yes it is an EDUCATED guess and most likely correct with the evidence at hand.
So not buttering it up at all tiger!
fLIP
UFO Hunter
You know for a fact that I post every single day on this website. Its not hard for 'you' to put two and two together.
However, for Dawkins to make an educated guess on a god he needs to know something about it. Otherwise he is only proving evolution and his other points. Not actually debunking the possibility of a creator. So Dawkins has to refer to those gods created by humans, which coincidentally I agree are a load of BS.
What you keep glossing over in your reply is when I say, perhaps the god is like none mentioned by human. We don't know what it is.
Fair enough this is just pure speculation on my part.
But when you think of all the possibilities of what a god could be, I can make a pretty educated guess that if their is one there is more chance of it being something other than what humans have invented.
You know for a fact that I post every single day on this website. Its not hard for 'you' to put two and two together.
However, for Dawkins to make an educated guess on a god he needs to know something about it. Otherwise he is only proving evolution and his other points. Not actually debunking the possibility of a creator. So Dawkins has to refer to those gods created by humans, which coincidentally I agree are a load of BS.
What you keep glossing over in your reply is when I say, perhaps the god is like none mentioned by human. We don't know what it is.
Fair enough this is just pure speculation on my part.
But when you think of all the possibilities of what a god could be, I can make a pretty educated guess that if their is one there is more chance of it being something other than what humans have invented.
[/quote]
Seriously did you even think before you typed that?
I see the point you are trying to make, i have seen it all along, but you arent quite grasping the concepts correctly.
Any creative entity first has to be some form of deity..any form of God or creator no matter how you word it, imagine it or put it, is a completely human thing!
Dogs don't wonder at their creation and a god. Neither do our nearest relatives, apes. It is a human concept.
Scientifically speaking Dawkins is definitely well equipped enough to make an educated guess.
Your first line when paraphrased to Dawkins pretty much proves his point!
Matabele
Journey Man
I don't buy the whole fishing garbage.
I want Dan to admit that when Dawkins says there is no 'God' (in the loosest term) he is only making a guess, however educated it may be.
The fact is, it is a guess because it has not been proven.
If you do not know you do not know. Theres no way 'Educated' can butter it up any more.
I won't dispute that this is a very intelligent man who knows a hell of a lot about his fields but he has written a book that he knows will sell millions of copies because of the topic.
And then to hear him say they are still working on what he claims so strongly to be true. He seems as credible as I on the subject.
[/quote]
What Dan is trying to goad me into saying is that the deity has chosen to reveal itself. 😉
Canteen Worker
First Grader
It's great that Dan has more insight into this matter than the 2 billion Christians in the world today, some who are imprisoned for their views and testify daily to the work of some higher power in their lives.
Daswkins is an angry physicist who has taken the worst of the world's religions and made a case in persuasive but flawed logic.
His comments about the Bible fall so outside accepted scholarship that it is not funny - he would be better not to discuss what he knows so little about. (or maybe he is basing his views on the Da Vinci code.)
Daswkins is an angry physicist who has taken the worst of the world's religions and made a case in persuasive but flawed logic.
His comments about the Bible fall so outside accepted scholarship that it is not funny - he would be better not to discuss what he knows so little about. (or maybe he is basing his views on the Da Vinci code.)
Matabele
Journey Man
CW, this statement is fairly redundant if you ask me and plays into the hands of Dawkins and his apostles.
Populism is no indicator of truth and I'm sure you'd be well aware that the vast majority of these 2 billion adherants are exactly what Dawkins (and Dan) describe - blind institutionalists or purveyors of convenience.
Let's face it, the church has and still does harbour some heinous ratbags (as does any organisation or movement) so pointing to the broad "church" of a movement merely provides grist for the mill to a fellow like Dawkins who will inevitably separate the goats from the herd and finger them as "indicative".
I'm more interested in truth than I am in the deluded proclomations of the masses - especially those who don't live according to their expressed creed. Unfortunately, when it comes to Western Christianity (or should that be mediocrity) this is the vast majority.
The church these days is of Laodicea.
fLIP
UFO Hunter
Its not actually flawed at all. Dawkin's bases his arguments around evolution. His thought process is that the Bible says 'God created the earth and all things in it'.
In essence this is incorrect. If you look at it from a certain perspective. That being that god waved a magic wand a created the lyons, tigers, bears, trees, oceans and continents ect.
Science and the theory of evolution have proven that the above cannot be correct. Nothing was created as it is today. It is in a constant state of change. Everything is different now than it was 1 million years ago. This is FACT.
Dawkins stumbling block comes when trying to find how everything came to be. Not just as it is now but how was the universe created. How did the building blocks for everything we know come to be.
He admits they are working on finding that out. At this point there is no evidence to suggest we are even close to finding an answer.
What Dawkins has done is disprove the God Dislusion, a Dillusion being something human, a false belief or opinion, however, based on man's depiction of what a god might be.
What he cannot prove is whether there is still a creator of all things. He trys to sway clear of getting to nitty gritty because he has no answer but in general he is correct. The bibles creation theory is wrong.
This is not to say there is no god, for we are constantly reminded by Dan himself that the Bible was written by men, for men.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
CW, this statement is fairly redundant if you ask me and plays into the hands of Dawkins and his apostles.
Populism is no indicator of truth and I'm sure you'd be well aware that the vast majority of these 2 billion adherants are exactly what Dawkins (and Dan) describe - blind institutionalists or purveyors of convenience.
Let's face it, the church has and still does harbour some heinous ratbags (as does any organisation or movement) so pointing to the broad "church" of a movement merely provides grist for the mill to a fellow like Dawkins who will inevitably separate the goats from the herd and finger them as "indicative".
I'm more interested in truth than I am in the deluded proclomations of the masses - especially those who don't live according to their expressed creed. Unfortunately, when it comes to Western Christianity (or should that be mediocrity) this is the vast majority.
The church these days is of Laodicea.
[/quote]I concur with you on what I have read of the God Delusion. Dawkins points out the faults and the extremism/failures of the institutionalised church - but then makes the broad sweep that because of this, there is no God. One could make a similar sweep about atheists, just targetting the ratbags. My point however is that Christianity has faced up to many who have ridiculed it, sought to counter it and rigorously challenged the basic assumptions. Despite this, it continues to flourish, though not necessarily in the Western World. Dwakins and co would suggest that reason and knowldege is a factor behind this.
Regarding Flip's post, what Dawkins is in part addressing are those who term themselves as 'Creation Scientists' and pin their credibility on a Six Day account as based on a literal view of Genesis 1 to 3. To put all Christians into this camp is erroneous however. Christianity is a broad 'church' (excuse the pun) and there is great academic rigour and insight within it. It is not just a case of the masses mindlessly swallowing a pack of fairy tales peddaled by corrupt and persuasive manipulators.
Don't be silly CW: Daniel's already told us in another thread that if we don't believe in Creationism, we aren't real Christians. In fact, he said it in the thread about the Church reiterating the statement that creationism as told in Genesis is a story. That's right: The Church told us it was a story but Daniel told us that if we don't believe it, then we're not Christians... apparently Daniel has a better insight into our faith than the Church itself.
I loved when Daniel said:
"Educated guess may be a guess but more oft than not an educated guess is correct!"
Shouldn't you put in the 'disclaimer' that this is only true when we actually KNOW enough about the situation (not THINK WE KNOW enough). I don't know if we do know enough or not (like I said elsewhere, we still don't know where mass comes from) but I would hazard a guess and say that, in fact, most educated guesses turned out to be wrong, You would just need to think logically about it for a second or two to realise this, otherwise we would still be agreeing with the educated guesses from hundreds of years ago. I think my point is that we have been making educated guesses for hundreds (thousands, really) of years, yet most (if not all) of those that have not been proposed in say the last hundred years have been shown to be incorrect. So Daniel: unless you are saying that there have been more educated guesses made in the last 100 years than educated guesses made in the 1000s of years made before that, then I think it's pretty obvious that you're statement (as it stands) is totally incorrect.
The God Delusion is still in my pile of reading but seeing as you never answered the two questions I asked in the last thread, I'll ask you one more that you can answer by only having read the book (the other two I asked required knowledge from elsewhere): does the book address the possibility of our existence being purely a simulation by any chance?
I loved when Daniel said:
"Educated guess may be a guess but more oft than not an educated guess is correct!"
Shouldn't you put in the 'disclaimer' that this is only true when we actually KNOW enough about the situation (not THINK WE KNOW enough). I don't know if we do know enough or not (like I said elsewhere, we still don't know where mass comes from) but I would hazard a guess and say that, in fact, most educated guesses turned out to be wrong, You would just need to think logically about it for a second or two to realise this, otherwise we would still be agreeing with the educated guesses from hundreds of years ago. I think my point is that we have been making educated guesses for hundreds (thousands, really) of years, yet most (if not all) of those that have not been proposed in say the last hundred years have been shown to be incorrect. So Daniel: unless you are saying that there have been more educated guesses made in the last 100 years than educated guesses made in the 1000s of years made before that, then I think it's pretty obvious that you're statement (as it stands) is totally incorrect.
The God Delusion is still in my pile of reading but seeing as you never answered the two questions I asked in the last thread, I'll ask you one more that you can answer by only having read the book (the other two I asked required knowledge from elsewhere): does the book address the possibility of our existence being purely a simulation by any chance?
Canteen Worker
First Grader
Are you saying I have to go back and read that other thread and find you post?
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
lszFirst Grader
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
