Richard Dawkins

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

A state of being doesn't drive people to murder those you don't agree with.

It can, but it doesn't teach them to. There is no atheism rule book.

There is a Communism rule book, which teaches among other things that religion is damaging to society and that individuals are not as important as the whole.

prinz wrote: »

You do that because you want to impose your "state of being" onto others.

Again yes, if you believe your state of being is better and you have been taught that it is important for you and society to that everyone be like this, and if you have been taught that force is an acceptable way to impose this.

IE Stalinist Communism.

Given I'm not a communist I imagine people are thinking Oh Wicknight is only taking examples that don't include him so he can be all high and mighty

So, lets pick Humanism, something I lean towards.

Humanism arrogantly promotes man to being the supreme being on Earth (said by a Muslim)

This is an accurate descriptions of Humanism, but it obviously is not something Christians or Muslim agrees with (and most would consider a bad thing). It does do that, and obviously if God exists that is a pretty bad thing to do. I've no issue with Christians or Muslims saying that, if they are right then it is true. There is no point taking great offense at this.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

It can, but it doesn't teach them to. There is no atheism rule book.

Where is the religion rule book?

Zulu

prinz wrote: »

No howler, but tea if you're making one

A man after my own heart.

Sorry I missed your point tbh.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Where is the religion rule book?

Normally in the draw of the bed side table in your hotel room ...

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Normally in the draw of the bed side table in your hotel room ...

So, go to the Bible, and find me where it says if I want to be Christian I must be satisfied with not understanding something, that I must quash the desire to understand, to know, to explore it.

DLohan

prinz wrote: »

Where is the religion rule book?

I think it is called "The Bible". Maybe you've heard of it. Doesn't come in bullet point format.

DLohan

prinz wrote: »

Such as? I haven't seen anything that said to be Christian one must be satisfied not to understand things about the religion itself or about the world in general.

Have you seen anything that has said that a Christian is supposed to know everything about the faith and everything about the world?

prinz wrote: »

A state of being doesn't drive people to murder those you don't agree with. You do that because you want to impose your "state of being" onto others.

You're right a "state of being" does not compell anyone to kill. Human Nature unfortunately has this tendency in abundance.

prinz

DLohan wrote: »

I think it is called "The Bible". Maybe you've heard of it. Doesn't come in bullet point format.

Bible applies to all religions now does it?

DLohan wrote: »

Have you seen anything that has said that a Christian is supposed to know everything about the faith and everything about the world.

No, but I fail to see your point.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding things about the world around them.

Religion (the Christian religion at least) teaches people about the person of God. Going out the gate is assumes that A) God exists and that He wants to be known, it never debates these facts, it assumes them to be true from the get go. It doesn't start out teaching people about the world around them, in fact it teaches people not to put their trust in the things that they see as these things will pass away in due time, it teaches people to put their trust in God's Word because His Word is Eternal. There seems to be some kind of mental block in atheists and anti-theists which shows that they are incapable of seeing religious people in any light other than the light that want they see them in, i.e. these people need to be delivered from their religion in order to see the world the way I know they need to see it, my way.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which it does, Christianity teaches that trust and faith in divine revelation is paramount.

Of course it does. Like I said above, it assumes God exists and so to teach faith in His revelation as paramount is logically consistent with being sane. It would be different if they knew that God didn't exist but still practiced this teaching, admittedly there would be a problem if that were the case.

Wicknight wrote: »

I've had countless discussions on this forum with Christians where they have said that they don't need to know the details of something because they trust God and his revelation (a good example is Adam and Eve, or the Flood, or the resurrection)

Believing in Adam and Eve and the flood is not a requirement for salvation, however the resurrection is central to the Christian faith. Without it all the other stuff means nothing anyway. It is an historical fact that the first people to proclaim this message were eye witnesses to the works of Jesus and witness to His postmortem appearances. Few if any historians believe that these disciples were liars about what they reported and that they truly believed that God raised Jesus from the dead bodily, because they went to their deaths proclaiming that they were eye witness to these events.

So if they were not lying about it then that means that they were either deluded or hallucinating. But if they were simply deluded or hallucinating then they did not steal His body from the tomb which means that it could have been produced and displayed publicly at any time in order to put a stop to their preaching that He rose. There is no way on earth that the Christian movement could have gotten the foothold that it did if Jesus' corpse had been produced and displayed publicly through the streets of Jerusalem in those very early days, and yet ever since and even today Christianity continues to grow and everyday people from all walks of life claim to have a personal connection to God trough their knowledge and faith in Jesus. My point is that Christians don't just believe in these stories because someone tells them to, they study the evidence and draw their conclusions and just run with that as best they can in their lives. Never are we told it will be a cake walk.

There is no better explanation of the facts than what was the original explanation given by the disciples themselves, that He rose. The reason you don't accept it is because you start out with the a-priori assumption that resurrections cannot happen, so therefore they did not happen, and anyone who says that they did happen are either liars or bad reporters, why? because resurrections cannot happen and on you go. You simply cannot see the bubble that you yourself are trapped in, you refuse to see it, you're right and everyone else who contradicts you is wrong. The New Testament never claims that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, in ever instance where the resurrection is talked about it specifically states that he came forth according to the promise of the Father, i.e. God raised Him up. So to start out with the assumption that resurrections cannot happen is to be biased toward a position of atheism which holds that there is no God. If God exist then resurrections should not be a big deal to Him. The reason naturalists (those who hold that only nature exists and nothing else) don’t accept any supernatural explanation of the facts is because the are already predisposed to the position that there is no God and that too is not a scientific basis rather is a philosophical basis for not accepting supernatural happenings in history.

The Christian claims can be objectively studied and you need only to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion, He rose. That you can't even give the study of it the time of day has nothing to do with it's own merits but rather has everything to do with your own world view which will not allow you to study it objectively and conclude logically what the evidence points squarely to.

People who we believe are not lying, deluded or hallucinating claiming that they witnessed something supernatural and who suffered inhumanly for that testimony unto death most likely witnessed something supernatural and it would not be irrational on our part to take them at their word.

Comrade C

Just because the author is arrogant or even not a great writer, doesnt mean that his points arnt valid. I beleive the arrogance comes from the the rational approach to the issue, it tends to work on probablitys and evidence not so much opinion.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

So, go to the Bible, and find me where it says if I want to be Christian I must be satisfied with not understanding something

That is pretty easy consider how many Christian web site have been set up to do just that

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
...
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
...
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.


Faith, accept what you are told not what you see or evaluate yourself. This is a virtue. Trust God, not what you see yourself.

And then a whole lot of passages describing why faith is a virtue, such as

Matthew 21
21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

I imagine Hebrews 11 is what Dawkins had in mind when he said that quote. Being certain of what we don't see (ie what we can't test or evaluate), and being satisfied with this (viewing it as virtue) pretty much sums it.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

That is pretty easy consider how many Christian web site have been set up to do just that
Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.[/i].

Yes faith, but faith does not preclude the desire to understand, to invesitgate, to get more knowledge and insight, just because I believe something to be true does not mean I can just sit back on my heels and not bother/not be interested in trying to find out if it is indeed true or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine Hebrews 11 is what Dawkins had in mind when he said that quote. Being certain of what we don't see (ie what we can't test or evaluate), pretty much sums it.

In that case theoretical physics teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

DLohan

prinz wrote: »

Bible applies to all religions now does it?

No, but it covers quite a few.

prinz wrote: »

No, but I fail to see your point.

I am saying that the Bible makes no claim either way that faith instills a full comprehension of either the nature of the world or the even the entire matter of religion.

Zulu

Comrade C wrote: »

Just because the author is arrogant or even not a great writer, doesnt mean that his points arnt valid. I beleive the arrogance comes from the the rational approach to the issue, it tends to work on probablitys and evidence not so much opinion.

...but you agree he comes across as arrogant.

Which is exactly what I was saying.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That is pretty easy consider how many Christian web site have been set up to do just that

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
...
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
...
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.


Faith, accept what you are told not what you see or evaluate yourself. This is a virtue. Trust God, not what you see yourself.

And then a whole lot of passages describing why faith is a virtue, such as

Matthew 21
21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

I imagine Hebrews 11 is what Dawkins had in mind when he said that quote. Being certain of what we don't see (ie what we can't test or evaluate), and being satisfied with this (viewing it as virtue) pretty much sums it.

OK then please give us the scientific explanation for how the Big Bang happened, how inflation happens, what dark matter, dark energy and dark flow is. Then explain how life actually got started on this planet of ours and how it could have possible resulted in creatures like us who have built into us it seems the curiosity to find out how and why it all happened. The Bible at least keeps things simple. We cannot see atoms and yet everything is made up of them and that is what the bible says in Hebrews 11 verse 3. Science found out that the universe had a beginning only in the last hundred years but the Bible has been telling us this for centuries. How do you explain that? You belittle faith and yet every single scientific theory we have is acted on as though it is true until it is proven otherwise, that is faith my friend and without it would couldn't do science.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is pretty easy consider how many Christian web site have been set up to do just that

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
...
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
...
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.


Faith, accept what you are told not what you see or evaluate yourself. This is a virtue. Trust God, not what you see yourself.

And then a whole lot of passages describing why faith is a virtue, such as

Matthew 21
21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

I imagine Hebrews 11 is what Dawkins had in mind when he said that quote. Being certain of what we don't see (ie what we can't test or evaluate), and being satisfied with this (viewing it as virtue) pretty much sums it.

I feel like I've stepped into some strange parallel universe.

So now being encouraged to trust God and have faith in him = being satisfed with not understanding the world?

Comrade C

Zulu wrote: »

...but you agree he comes across as arrogant.

Which is exactly what I was saying.

Yep, but jst saying that his points arnt incorrect

prinz

PDN wrote: »

I feel like I've stepped into some strange parallel universe.

Must be one of those parallel universes which physicists etc must assume to be true/have faith in their existence in order to construct the next theory etc.

Silly me, they are men of science, they are allowed believe things that aren't capable of being tested or evaluated. Of course that doesn't draw the conclusion that they are satisfied with not understanding the world, far from it.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Yes faith, but faith does not preclude the desire to understand

Yeah but that is irrelevant to what Dawkins said

Dawkins said that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world. It does. Faith is not understanding. Yet you still accept and believe

It teaches you to believe before you understand, and that this is a virtue.

The Bible does not say you must see and understand to be satisfied to believe.

In fact it says the opposite, you should believe what you don't understand, and have faith in God and gives examples of Biblical figures who did just that, who had faith in what God told them without understanding why he asked them to do what they did.

You may investigate further, you may not, it doesn't matter. You are told to believe what you do at the point of faith, and be satisfied to do believe.

Which is why you get some Christians investigating every aspect of everything and others who say they don't care.

All have faith. All are satisfied to believe what they believe. They don't have to investigate further in order to believe. They may or may not but all of them already believe.

prinz wrote: »

I believe something to be true does not mean I can just sit back on my heels and not bother/not be interested in trying to find out if it is indeed true or not.

That is irrelevant. There is no requirement from Christianity to do this. As far as Christianity is concerned if you have faith that is enough to be satisfied to believe.

Imagine if Dawkins has said I don't like religion because it teaches people to make their mind up about a movie after watching only 5 minutes of it

If you watched 5 minutes or the whole movie the point stands if you made your mind up about it 5 minutes in. If you stay to watch the whole movie that doesn't matter to the point.

If you investigate further than faith that is irrelevant to Dawkins point if you believe at the point of faith, because you have done what Dawkins is complaining about.

prinz wrote: »

In that case theoretical physics teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

No it doesn't because no one in theoretical physics is saying believe because you trust us even if you don't understand us.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I feel like I've stepped into some strange parallel universe.

So now being encouraged to trust God and have faith in him = being satisfed with not understanding the world?

Yes

If you understood you wouldn't need to trust, would you.

You hear on TV and movies people say all the time "I don't have time to explain. You have to just trust me!!!" (normally before a building explodes)

When was the last time you heard someone say "I'm going to go through everything, present all my evidence, allow you to test my evidence and conduct your own test so you fully understand everything that is happening. You just have to trust me!" :rolleyes:

Not sure about a parallel universe, but I certainly feel I've stepped into some where where people don't understand basic English.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Silly me, they are men of science, they are allowed believe things that aren't capable of being tested or evaluated. Of course that doesn't draw the conclusion that they are satisfied with not understanding the world, far from it.

What? Believe things that they haven't tested or evaluated?

You just presented the exact opposite of science as if it was science.

Maybe I have fallen into a parrellel universe ....

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

What? Believe things that they haven't tested or evaluated? You just presented the exact opposite of science as if it was science.
Maybe I have fallen into a parrellel universe ....

Is the Big Bang science? Is M-Theory Science?

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Is the Big Bang science?

Depends on what you mean by the Big Bang. If you mean (as I'm guessing you do) theories as to what happened at the very start of the big bang, then no they aren't

prinz wrote: »

Is M-Theory Science?

No. Or to be more specific, it is a non-experimental hypothesis (cannot be tested), and as such is not considered in science to have any weight in terms of accuracy.

No one is science has ever told anyone to have believe M-Theory is accurate and certainly no one is satisfied with M-theory (or the Big Bang for that matter)

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Religion (the Christian religion at least) teaches people about the person of God. Going out the gate is assumes that A) God exists and that He wants to be known, it never debates these facts, it assumes them to be true from the get go. It doesn't start out teaching people about the world around them, in fact it teaches people not to put their trust in the things that they see as these things will pass away in due time, it teaches people to put their trust in God's Word because His Word is Eternal.

Thats exactly our point.

It teaches people to be happy with not understanding how the world works. Where we came from, how did life come about, what started the universe etc.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes

If you understood you wouldn't need to trust, would you.

You hear on TV and movies people say all the time "I don't have time to explain. You have to just trust me!!!" (normally before a building explodes)

When was the last time you heard someone say "I'm going to go through everything, present all my evidence, allow you to test my evidence and conduct your own test so you fully understand everything that is happening. You just have to trust me!" :rolleyes:

Not sure about a parallel universe, but I certainly feel I've stepped into some where where people don't understand basic English.

Stuff and nonsense.

All of us live in a world where we have limited information about gazillions of things.

As for the information we do have, we get it by different means. Some of it is gathered by personal experience whereas other information is imparted to us by others (revelation).

In order to understand the world around us we have to decide who we trust and don't trust.

I can't go back in time to see whether Brutus really stabbed Julius Caesar. I need to decide whether I will trust those alive at that time who, by recording their experiences, have given us the revelation.

I have no way of testing for myself to see whether the moon landings really took place or whether they were an elaborate mock-up in a studio. I need to decide whether I can trust the revelations of those who were part of the Apollo missions.

We learn to trust certain sources of information as being more trustworthy than others. That is why a link to New Scientist carries more weight on these boards than one to the Daily Star.

However, the different levels of trust we place in different sources of revelation in no way amount to being satisfied with "not understanding the world". To be honest, I think this thread demonstrates how fundamentalist atheists are prepared to abuse language, logic and reason in order to pursue their vendetta against religion.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

No one is science has ever told anyone to have believe M-Theory is accurate and certainly no one is satisfied with M-theory (or the Big Bang for that matter)

No, but in order for M-Theory to work, you need to assume that string theory is correct, in order for 11 dimensions to exist you must assume that 10 do... and so on and so on.

monosharp wrote: »

It teaches people to be happy with not understanding how the world works. Where we came from, how did life come about, what started the universe etc.

Interesting to note here that the originator of the Big Bang Theory was a Roman Catholic priest. At the time Einstein though his idea was nonsense. Either he wasn't happy or he wasn't religious.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Stuff and nonsense.

You don't agree with me? Shocking :eek:

PDN wrote: »

In order to understand the world around us we have to decide who we trust and don't trust.

And ... ?

How does that contradict Dawkins point?

You are admitting you believe things you don't understand because you have faith in the source. You are now just arguing there is nothing wrong with that.

Which means you disagree with why Dawkins dislikes religion, not that his point was inaccurate about religion. Only took 20 pages .. :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

I can't go back in time to see whether Brutus really stabbed Julius Caesar. I need to decide whether I will trust those alive at that time who, by recording their experiences, have given us the revelation.

Exactly, and if you do you are satisfied not understanding because you trust the sources.

By Dawkins beard! That is the whole freaking point.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

No, but in order for M-Theory to work, you need to assume that string theory is correct, in order for 11 dimensions to exist you must assume that 10 do... and so on and so on.

Yes but no one assumes M-Theory "works", or that string theory is correct for that matter, or that there are 11 dimensions. We haven't been able to experimentally test any of this stuff.

prinz wrote: »

At the time Einstein though his idea was nonsense.

Good thing then that we don't teach people to have faith in what Einstein thinks, isn't it. :eek:

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Thats exactly our point.

It teaches people to be happy with not understanding how the world works. Where we came from, how did life come about, what started the universe etc.

That's your point and that's fine, our point is that the Bible doesn't start out trying to explain how the world works in the first place, it is a record of how people stay in right relationship with God not the world. The Bible does not claim to be a scientific explanation about the universe and the world, it simply gives God the glory for creating it all in the first place and it tells us how he did it, by simply speaking it into existence. Can something on this magnitude be understood scientifically by our limited brain capacity if it's true? No. So the Bible describes things in terms that we can understand. What is the big deal about understanding the world or the universe anyway when it is where our eternal soul ends up which is most important to the God that is revealed in the Bible?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You are admitting you believe things you don't understand because you have faith in the source. You are now just arguing there is nothing wrong with that.

Which means you disagree with why Dawkins dislikes religion, not that his point was inaccurate about religion. Only took 20 pages .. :rolleyes:

Why do you and Sam keep making the same leap of logic? It must be wishful thinking.

We all believe in things that we don't fully understand. That does not equate to being satisfied with not understanding things.

In fact, using your logic, education teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Exactly, and if you do you are satisfied not understanding because you trust the sources.

By Dawkins beard! That is the whole freaking point.

Dawkins' beard, like your argument, is imaginary.

Trusting a source of information does not mean that someone is satisfied with not understanding the world.