Athiests : How did you loose you're faith?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "aggressively" ... did he hit them? Did he hold them down and shout at them?


Well because you seem to think book tours and college debate are aggressive, I was wondering how you would categorise religious war

Time to raise the subject of Uncle Josef?

Zombrex

905 wrote: »

How about you stop obsessing about the word aggressive and address the main assertion, which was that Dawkins was promoting his beliefs?

Er, how about you stop saying silly things you can't back up, and I won't have to "obsess" over them.

As has already been pointed out I'm pretty sure Richard Dawkins has never turned up at your door wishing to speak to you about his beliefs, he has never left a copy of his book in every hotel room in the country, he has never bought bill board time stick quotes from his book up on buses and DART stations ..

I could go on ....

As with most authors Dawkins expresses his beliefs in the books he writes. And like most authors he promotes his books.

Dawkins does not promote his beliefs in the same way a religion may do, as your posts implied.

I appreciate that it would be easier for you to make your rather strained assertion that atheism and science are just like religions. it he did.

But the simple fact of the matter is that he doesn't.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Time to raise the subject of Uncle Josef?

Not really

though I would be interested in what context you could insert your trusty example. What did you think I was saying?

905

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you understand what a scientific theory actually is? Are you one of these people who likes to say silly things like "its only a theory, not a fact"?

My profuse apologies, continental drift is a hypothesis, not a theory. My question remains though: are some of them assuming continental drift to be true and using it as a base for other studies such as vulcanology?

Dades

905 wrote: »

I did the thread in question (well, most of it). My point was that there was a thread on converting atheists so I'm not the only one.

I'm confused. Anyone can create a thread on a related topic. You're not the only what now?

PDN wrote:

Time to raise the subject of Uncle Josef?

Touché.

905

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, how about you stop saying silly things you can't back up, and I won't have to "obsess" over them.

As has already been pointed out I'm pretty sure Richard Dawkins has never turned up at your door wishing to speak to you about his beliefs, he has never left a copy of his book in every hotel room in the country, he has never bought bill board time stick quotes from his book up on buses and DART stations ..

I could go on ....

As with most authors Dawkins expresses his beliefs in the books he writes. And like most authors he promotes his books.

Dawkins does not promote his beliefs in the same way a religion may do, as your posts implied.

I appreciate that it would be easier for you to make your rather strained assertion that atheism and science are just like religions. it he did.

But the simple fact of the matter is that he doesn't.

And why does he write these books? What was the purpose of 'The God Delusion' and others? Are you telling me that Dawkins has no aspirations to spread his beliefs?

pH

905 wrote: »

My profuse apologies, continental drift is a hypothesis, not a theory. My question remains though: are some of them assuming continental drift to be true and using it as a base for other studies such as vulcanology?

What's your problem with continental drift and plate tectonics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

905

Dades wrote: »

I'm confused. Anyone can create a thread on a related topic. You're not the only what now?

Touché.

Well I'm confused about this uncle Josef remark.
I'm not the only one who thinks of atheists as converters.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really

though I would be interested in what context you could insert your trusty example. What did you think I was saying?

You appear to be saying that an atheist speaker/author should not be classed as "aggressive" because 600 years ago some guys waged a religious war.

What if the same logic were applied to your posts (eg when you characterise Christians as 'intolerant' or 'nasty')?

905

pH wrote: »

What's your problem with continental drift and plate tectonics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

I don't have a problem with it. I have a question about it relating to scepticism.

I have a problem with the phrase plate tectonics though. Apparantly it's frowned upon by scientists because the continents aren't like plates at all. Think about it.

Dades

905 wrote: »

Well I'm confused about this uncle Josef remark.

Tis a bit of an in-joke here kind of like Godwins Law. In every thread someone will inevitably bring up the Crusades or mention that Stalin was an atheist.

905 wrote: »

I'm not the only one who thinks of atheists as converters.

Ah I see. All of them or just some of them?

pH

905 wrote: »

Well I'm confused about this uncle Josef remark.
I'm not the only one who thinks of atheists as converters.

It's PDN trolling again.

PDN wrote:

I agree. It is tedious. I keep Mao and Stalin up my sleeve and tend only to employ these strawmen in response to the Inquisition and Crusades strawmen.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54496704&postcount=536

Who mentioned the Inquisition and the Crusades this time?

Zombrex

905 wrote: »

My profuse apologies, continental drift is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Continental drift is a theory, a rather out of date one. It is a theory that has been superseded by the more accurate theory of plate tectonics.

TBH I still don't think you quite understand what a theory is in relation to science.

It is a model, a theoretical model that attempts to model and predict natural systems in the world around us.

There is nothing higher in the science than a theory. You simply get more accurate theories.

A theory that perfectly models and predicts a natural phenomena is still just a theory.

905 wrote: »

are some of them assuming continental drift to be true and using it as a base for other studies such as vulcanology?

Well if by "continental drift" you actually mean plate tectonics, then yes (up to a point, your question doesn't really map to how science works. For example what do you mean by "base for other studies"?).

They "assume" the model is accurate because there is a large body of evidence and prediction to support that it is accurate.

If it wasn't accurate you couldn't use it to base other theories on in the first place, because doing so wouldn't match experiment, observation or prediction. It would be pointless to base a theory on an inaccuate theory because that would make your theory inaccurate. And an inaccurate theory is largely useless.

It would be like saying "I'm going to assume that there is a big foam stunt box outside my window, and based on that theory I'm going to form a new theory that if I throw myself out of the window I will be ok"

Now if I throw myself out of the window I will quickly be able to test this prediction based on my two models/theories against what actually happens.

And if they aren't accurate I will (very quickly) know about it.

Simon.d

905 wrote: »

My question remains though: are some of them assuming continental drift to be true and using it as a base for other studies such as vulcanology?

All science is rooted in assumption.. It's a vital component of the practice...

905

Dades wrote: »

Tis a bit of an in-joke here kind of like Godwins Law. In every thread someone will inevitably bring up the Crusades or mention that Stalin was an atheist.

Ah I see. All of them or just some of them?

But Stalin was an atheist.

Not all atheists try to convert just as not all religion-heads try to convert. But sadly there seems to be a vocal minority on both sides who do try. I've given a hypothesis as to why this might be on the other thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055245829&page=3
I found it in a book on religion by a Fiona Bowie, in a chapter on witchcraft and the evil eye of all places!

PDN

pH wrote: »

It's PDN trolling again.


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54496704&postcount=536

Who mentioned the Inquisition and the Crusades this time?

Wicknight mentioned the Crusades in Post 84, as you would know if you read the previous posts in the thread. :rolleyes:



Maybe you need to learn what trolling is?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You appear to be saying that an atheist speaker/author should not be classed as "aggressive" because 600 years ago some guys waged a religious war.

No, I am wondering what scale of "aggressive" 905 is using where someone like Richard Dawkins is considered aggressive in promoting his beliefs.

I could have just as easily said "what do you think about the Leninist marching into Russia, throwing out democratic rule and replacing it with the iron fist of Communism if you think Dawkins writing a book is aggressive"

But then since Dawkins was being compared to Christians, not to Communists, so it probably would have seen rather out of context.

If it makes you feel happier by all means use the example above.

PDN wrote: »

What if the same logic were applied to your posts (eg when you characterise Christians as 'intolerant' or 'nasty')?

What .. ?

x keo21

to op, how can you lose something if there is nothing too lose? think about it

905

Simon.d wrote: »

All science is rooted in assumption.. It's a vital component of the practice...

All righty, now you're going to have to explain to me how assumption differs from belief.

Dades

905 wrote: »

But Stalin was an atheist.

Hence his arrival in a thread is invariably at the behest of believers!

905

Dades wrote: »

Hence his arrival in a thread is invariably at the behest of believers!

I prefer Dawkins me. I'm not the only one who thinks he's aggressive am I? He's not a shrinking violet, he has heated debates, he has a winner-takes-all mentality, surely? Or am I just that meek?

Dades

Actually you'll find that although his work here is much respected, and his books are compulsory reading - a lot people here don't have much time for his public persona.

I think he's got somewhat carried away on the tide of his own publicity.

905

Dades wrote: »

Actually you'll find that although his work here is much respected, and his books are compulsory reading - a lot people here don't have much time for his public persona.

I think he's got somewhat carried away on the tide of his own publicity.

Ah God love him though, he entitled to a bit of publicity. I've been meaning to read more of his books; I've only had time for The God Delusion, which I thought was pretty bad. It was the Da Vinci Code for atheists. Preachng to the converted. I assume his other works are better.
My main fault with him is his inability to acknowledge other malign factors in society. I know the book was about religion but he ignores or doesn't realise that a lot of the faults with religion apply to other things.

There was one example in the book that really annoyed me. Seeing as it's compulsory reading you'll be familiar with it. He detailed a study done by an Israeli scholar where Israeli children are shown a passage of the bible endorsing genocide and then asked if they thought it was right. Most of the kids said 'yeah, it's okay to kill innocents because God says so'. Fair enough. The control for the experiment wasn't the best though. Another bunch of kids were shown the same passage but with Jewish references replaced by Chinese ones. Now the genocide was deplored. Thus, Dawkins tells us, genocide is allowed when Judaism is the factor, remove the religion and it is condemned. Unfortunately for Dawkins, it wasn't only Judaism that was removed, all Jewish indices were removed. It could as easily be argued that Jewish ethnic identity was the cause for genocide endorsement. A scientist would acknowledge this possibility but Dawkins ignores it. Maybe I'm missing something but I'd dearly love to know what. Can you tell me?

Lockstep

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolution is one of the most "backed up" scientific models ever developed.

People don't simply believe it is true (why do religious people always think that is what science is about?) They work and develop in a manner that if it weren't true they would produce nothing. The fact that they instead produce modern medicine strongly suggests it is true. Unless you think it is all wrong and they some how managed to do this anyway.

I disagree.



I am a firm believer in evolution but I find it unscientific.
I'm a fan of Karl Popper's philosophy of science whereby in order for something to be qualified as scientific, it must be capable of being falsifiable.
Marxism,religion evolution and such are unable to tested for falsifiablity and are therefore unscientific.


Also, there are some gaps in evolution. In school we were taught evolution but there was some problems with the gaps between evolutionary species with no transitional species being observed.

The fact evolution supposedly takes place over such a long period of time as a reason for it being unable to be observed is a bit suspect.

Granted it makes more sense for species to adapt based on naturual selection (hence wisdom teeth and appendixes) but there is no real proof for this. It is not far above saying God did it all for a laugh.





For the record, I have met many agressive atheists. Upon meeting a theist they immediately attempt to point out why the other person is deluded or whatever. This is all done uninvited and without any attempt by the theist to proseletyse.
Not that different from many rabid theists to be honest.

Atheists do attempt to "convert" other people, although rather than blindly following the bible, most of the ones I've seen have blindly followed Zeitgeist.




I don;t attempt to force my belief on others and appreciate when they don't force their beliefs on me.

Dades

905 wrote: »

AIt could as easily be argued that Jewish ethnic identity was the cause for genocide endorsement. A scientist would acknowledge this possibility but Dawkins ignores it.

I seem to recall thinking the same thing when he wrote about Northern Ireland. I think the bigotry up there has feck all to do with religion.

There are elements of the book that I'd differ on, but tbh so much of it is inarguably true. I was in the choir already though.

Lockstep

Dades wrote: »

I think the bigotry up there has feck all to do with religion.

+1

TBH I think religion is used more as an excuse for bigotry than as a cause for one.

Wreck

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I am a firm believer in evolution but I find it unscientific.
I'm a fan of Karl Popper's philosophy of science whereby in order for something to be qualified as scientific, it must be capable of being falsifiable.
Marxism,religion evolution and such are unable to tested for falsifiablity and are therefore unscientific.

I don't know why you think the theory of evolution by natural selection is unfalsifiable. The most famous example of hypothetical evidence that would contradict the theory would be the discovery of rabbit fossils dating to the Precambrian era, but there are many other examples. Popper himself concluded that the theory was scientific by his definition.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Granted it makes more sense for species to adapt based on naturual selection (hence wisdom teeth and appendixes) but there is no real proof for this. It is not far above saying God did it all for a laugh.

There is plenty of evidence for the theory, from the fossil record to DNA. It does not constitute proof beyond all doubt, but it millions of miles away from saying god did it for a laugh.

36Degrees

When I was 12 and I asked myself the question, if god created the world, who created god?
Then I figured it was all bull anyway

36Degrees

905 wrote: »

All righty, now you're going to have to explain to me how assumption differs from belief.

Assumption: something taken for granted; a supposition. It is also the mother of all feckups.

Belief is belief. Its basically your opinion, ie. what you personally believe to be true/untrue.

Buy a damn dictionary.

Zombrex

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I am a firm believer in evolution but I find it unscientific.
I'm a fan of Karl Popper's philosophy of science whereby in order for something to be qualified as scientific, it must be capable of being falsifiable.
Marxism,religion evolution and such are unable to tested for falsifiablity and are therefore unscientific.

I have no idea what you mean by "religion evolution", but the theories of neo-Darwinian biological evolution is falsifiable, as is all scientific theory.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Also, there are some gaps in evolution. In school we were taught evolution but there was some problems with the gaps between evolutionary species with no transitional species being observed.

There are loads of gaps in evolution. Only a tiny percentage of dead animals turn to fossils. It is doubtful that one of every species that has existed on Earth turned into a fossil and more doubtful that we will find everyone one that did.

As for no transitional species being observed that is just Creationist nonsense, their "favourite lie" as Donald Prothero puts it (not calling you a creationist, but where ever you got your information they were lying to you).

There have been thousands of transitional species found in the fossil record. An example is the evolution of the whale, which can be clearly charted in the fossil record.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The fact evolution supposedly takes place over such a long period of time as a reason for it being unable to be observed is a bit suspect.

It is possible to observe evolution, biologists do it all the time.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Granted it makes more sense for species to adapt based on naturual selection (hence wisdom teeth and appendixes) but there is no real proof for this.

There is no "real proof" of anything in science, if you read Popper you would know this. All there are are theories (models) that are tested through observation and prediction to see how accurate they are. You can never prove anything in science because you never know your model is 100% accurate (since you have nothing external to the universe to measure this against)

Neo-Darwinian biological evolution has been tested and tested over and over again countless times. It has been found to match prediction and observation.

It has of course been altered and tweaked countless times since Darwins time to be more and more accurate a model of observation and prediction, hence the "neo" bit at the start.

To claim the neo-Darwinian evolution is unsupported is to simply demonstrate an ignorance of neo-Darwinian evolution. What annoyes me is when people wrap this up in the guise of healthy scepticism ... when in fact all they are doing is demonstrating ignorance of the subject and swallowing hook line and sinker the nonsense propagated by non-scientific Creationist sources. I couldn't think of a worse example of being non-sceptical.