Richard Dawkins Hero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 ChuFukka  12 Jun 15 10.55pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.52pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.45pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
It is a theory, there is no evidence.
Why is it commonly known as 'The Big Bang Theory' then?
Edited by ChuFukka (12 Jun 2015 10.55pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| derben 12 Jun 15 10.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.55pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.52pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.45pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
It is a theory, there is no evidence.
Why is it commonly known as 'The Big Bang Theory' then?
Edited by ChuFukka (12 Jun 2015 10.55pm) Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 12 Jun 15 11.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.59pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.55pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.52pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.48pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.45pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.44pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.28pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.23pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 10.16pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 10.05pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.45pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 9.31pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 9.02pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 8.06pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 6.10pm
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion.
Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously? There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth. Just a bit. But it seems just as likely that some omnipotent being created it than it suddenly springing into existence of its own accord (ie: both very hard to believe).
As I said "both very hard to believe". But can you seriously believe that the universe spontaneously burst into being? Yes, as that is what the evidence suggests. Equating the two possible explanations is disingenuous. Also, technically, 'spontaneous' isn't really the correct term, as linear time did not exist prior to the big bang. What is the correct term then? It just happened? There was nothing at all and then a universe? Doesn't sound very scientific or likely. What evidence?
So the 'event' just happened.
Have to say such a blind belief is very similar to religious faith.
It is a theory, there is no evidence.
Why is it commonly known as 'The Big Bang Theory' then?
Edited by ChuFukka (12 Jun 2015 10.55pm) Well established principle! Basically what they are saying is, "we don't understand how the universe came into being, so we will just say it happened".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| reborn 12 Jun 15 11.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The Big Bang is the most convincing argument for a creator I have ever read. Infinite matter explodes out of nothing? Sounds like Creationism to me.
My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 12 Jun 15 11.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote reborn at 12 Jun 2015 11.13pm
The Big Bang is the most convincing argument for a creator I have ever read. Infinite matter explodes out of nothing? Sounds like Creationism to me.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr Palaceman 12 Jun 15 11.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 11.20pm
Quote reborn at 12 Jun 2015 11.13pm
The Big Bang is the most convincing argument for a creator I have ever read. Infinite matter explodes out of nothing? Sounds like Creationism to me.
What I find funny is that I have heard one genius, Stephen Hawking say "Anything that happened before the big bang could not affect what happened after. So we can neglect events before the big bang and say that time began at the big bang". Also, everything has a cause and that sooner or later we must land on something that has no cause, ie, something Eternal.
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr Palaceman 13 Jun 15 3.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 12 Jun 2015 11.20pm
Quote reborn at 12 Jun 2015 11.13pm
The Big Bang is the most convincing argument for a creator I have ever read. Infinite matter explodes out of nothing? Sounds like Creationism to me.
You say that these men of genius, understand to a far higher level and you trust their conclusions, based on the fact that there are many of them, or "hordes", without a full understanding yourself. Is that not the same as people of another time trusting theologians and scholars of old who knew more and trusting their conclusions. The difference between then and now is that, now we have more knowledge but less wisdom and knowledge without the wisdom to use it is actually a bane not a blessing. So has the increased trust in science as the new religion made our lives any happier and if it has not, can how we live our lives now, been seen as progress. Darwin himself was never an athiest, he was a Christian and if you look up at the night sky, many of the objects you find were named by muslim scholars. In fact the very basis of science and experimentation has it's roots in their need for a greater understanding of not only creation but the creator in particular. The foundation for their thirst for greater understanding was a firm understanding in the concept of the eternal and what the eternal actually means. From you previous comments I don't think you have really thought about this and base your comments on the rather narrow parameters of science with a little history, to the exclusion of other tools of contemplation which are available to you and may aid your enlightenment. Tools such as the science of Philosophy, Logic and Theology, all of which have have an important role to play in our understanding of our enviroment and existance. Experimental Science can only help in the understanding of what can be tested or proven and a belief in this type of science alone leads mankind to attitudes such as.. "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." Issues of morality and ethics cannot be dealt with by experimental science and yet Dawkins speaks of morality. Funny.
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bright&wright 13 Jun 15 5.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
What I love about religion is things like blasphemy - it's brilliant, it's like they know they are full of sh*t and they do everything they possibly can to stop free thought. Christopher Hitchins writings on religion are the best.
'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Oliver Bodega Bay 13 Jun 15 7.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
As a fellow atheist I find Dawkins rather like a religious fundamentalist of any faith. He is tedious, annoying and probably a little dangerous.
I have prepared one of my own time capsules. I have placed some rather large samples of dynamite, gunpowder and nitroglycerin. My time capsule is set to go off in the year 3000. It will show them what we are really like. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 15 9.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sa_eagle at 12 Jun 2015 6.05pm
Quote derben at 12 Jun 2015 2.15pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 Jun 2015 1.53pm
In my opinion, he deserves hero status. The God Delusion is a must read. This headline is typical Guardian nonsense. I read most of the God Delusion (gave up before the finish though). I thought his ideas were poorly argued, almost made me take religion more seriously. He's a great advert for religion as many look at him and his ilk and realise that religion is far more attractive than he is. His big failing in his arguments is that he promotes a school of neo-atheism which tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. Traditional atheism is a far more intelligent option in which rather than query clear documented historical events such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they would question the meaning of his resurrection. Dawkins et al will simply argue it didn't happen and some even go so far as to argue that Jesus never existed, despite the wealth of evidence to prove that he did. The other big problem with neo-atheism is that they've rarely read any theological books and as such don't actually understand the arguments they rail against. It's all to easy to dismiss God and religion as a whole if you don't understand the theological underpinnings of the concept of God and religion. Dawkins would argue that the onis is to prove that it happened, and that faith in something is not proof. A common misconception is that Dawkins is anti-religious, he isn't, Dawkins issue has always been with the degree of influence over people in general (ie the non-religious and different religeons) that dominant religions are granted. And he's right, Christianity in, say Ireland, wields its power of influence over non-catholics and is used to dominate them politically. Indeed, Religion holds as much, if not more, influence over social policy and issues as scientific theory on that specific phenomena.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 15 9.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote reborn at 12 Jun 2015 11.13pm
The Big Bang is the most convincing argument for a creator I have ever read. Infinite matter explodes out of nothing? Sounds like Creationism to me. Which would be fine if that was what the Big Bang was. Firstly there wasn't nothing, there was an absence of the dimension of time and space. Everything that exists in the universe, existed prior to big bang (ie the subatomic particles that construct everything). The big bang is a transition by which spacetime occurs, resulting in an entropic change in states of matter, as subatomic particles expand into that spacetime.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 15 9.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Palaceman at 13 Jun 2015 3.40am
Issues of morality and ethics cannot be dealt with by experimental science and yet Dawkins speaks of morality. Funny. Experimental science is basis in empirical philosophy. Most, if not all students, studying any science will learn about ethics. Also, you can't really study sciences such as psychology and sociology do study ethics, on a very regular basis, quantitatively and qualitatively. Arguably some of the worlds most famous psychology experiments (the Standford Prison and Milgram's obedience studies are studies of ethics and morality). Philosophically speaking Morality is a false concept, as existence is experienced subjectively, morality is not determined universally, but consentually through social interaction, as such it isn't really a consistent truth (and thus is really only a form of ethics).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.