The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Most Annoying Person of 2009
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:42 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
I personally don't like to get my information from a secondary source especially when that secondary source's view point is on the other side of the spectrum of the original writers. I find things tend to get twisted in the translation to suit the secondary writers point of view. I would read both points of view so I know what each writer is saying, maybe that's just me.
And you have read the whole of the Bible, The Qur'an, The Vedas, The Torah, The Talmud, The Mishnah, The Guru Granth Sahib, The Tripitaka, The Book of Mormon, The Tao Te Ching etc?
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:44 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Ah, the Treaty of Lisbon, a nice example which shows the disadvantages of direct democracy.
I had no idea what the implications of that was. and then all of a sudden there was a President of Europe... and I had never heard of him before

Mind you, I'm glad it wasn't Tony Blair. Now I would nominate him for most annoying person of 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and.....ad infinitum
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:46 PM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
So I go back to my assertion that he either defeats his own argument or he is calling himself delusional. He is also calling Einstein, Newton and Galileo delusional who all believed in God. The only truly logical and scientific view on God can be agnosticism.
For the sake of debate Dawkins needs to take a point of view on if God exists or if he doesn't. How can you debate something if both sides say you maybe right and I maybe right the debate is over right there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
And you have read the whole of the Bible, The Qur'an, The Vedas, The Torah, The Talmud, The Mishnah, The Guru Granth Sahib, The Tripitaka, The Book of Mormon, The Tao Te Ching etc?
I've read the Bible went to church for 16 years and a Christian summer camp where we had Bible hour every day. I never claimed to have read the other books.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:47 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
For the sake of debate Dawkins needs to take a point of view on if God exists or if he doesn't. How can you debate something if both sides say you maybe right and I maybe right the debate is over right there.
God is a matter of faith and religion, it is something personal, not something empiric, not something provable. That's why Dawkins scientific approach to God is flawed, God is not a matter of science.
Is it really so hard to understand what science and religion are about and where the limits of both are?
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:47 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
For the sake of debate Dawkins needs to take a point of view on if God exists or if he doesn't. How can you debate something if both sides say you maybe right and I maybe right the debate is over right there.
And that's his right to do that but he can't then turn round and accuse my position of being illogical if, by his own standards, his position is also illogical.
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:50 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
I've read the Bible went to church for 16 years and a Christian summer camp where we had Bible hour every day. I never claimed to have read the other books.
So how can you pass judgement on other religions? How can you pass judgement on the football players who want to play soccer during Ramadan if you have not read the Qur'an?
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 01-09-2010, 04:56 PM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
God is a matter of faith and religion, it is something personal, not something empiric, not something provable. That's why Dawkins scientific approach to God is flawed, God is not a matter of science.
Is it really so hard to understand what science and religion are about and where the limits of both are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
And that's his right to do that but he can't then turn round and accuse my position of being illogical if, by his own standards, his position is also illogical.
Did I ever say Dawkins is right? I have stated that I find some of his views on religion interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
So how can you pass judgement on other religions? How can you pass judgement on the football players who want to play soccer during Ramadan if you have not read the Qur'an?
I wasn't questioning their faith was I? I was saying it's not reasonable for them to expect to play a 90 minute game of soccer with out hydrating because it is a risk to their heath. If you can find a doctor that will disagree please feel free to post a link.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:01 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
Did I ever say Dawkins is right? I have stated that I find some of his views on religion interesting.
No but you said he had to take a stance on the existence of God. I'm just stating the same argument I have been explaining since the start of this discussion. Richard Dawkins is an annoying person because he accuses people of being illogical when he himself is also illogical. He should stick to growing things in petrie dishes and leave the philosophy and theologising to the philosophers and theologists
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:18 PM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
No but you said he had to take a stance on the existence of God.
In order to have a debate on something you have to take a stance on one side or the other because if both people maybe right or maybe wrong then the debate is over. Does that mean people should not debate anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
I'm just stating the same argument I have been explaining since the start of this discussion. Richard Dawkins is an annoying person because he accuses people of being illogical when he himself is also illogical.
And you are free to believe that just as you are free to believe it's ok to tell nonreligious people they are going to Hell. I have stated my reasoning for why I think both are wrong so this debate seems to have come to it conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
He should stick to growing things in petrie dishes and leave the philosophy and theologising to the philosophers and theologists
By that logic I guess only philosophers and theologists can debate religion, faith and God then.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 01-09-2010, 05:24 PM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
By that logic I guess only philosophers and theologists can debate religion, faith and God then.
Not necessarily. But he shouldn't set himself up as an expert on religion. I don't write books on quantum physics and pass myself off as an expert on that.
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:26 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.