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
  #231  
Old 01-10-2010, 06:33 AM
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
Dawkins doesn't claim to be a theologian or a philosopher. Dawkins book "The God Delusion" states why Dawkins believes God most likely doesn't exist. Can a theologian or philosopher prove or disprove Dawkins claim? Because no one can prove if God exists or not anyone can debate whether he/she/it exists and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe.
He doesn't err because he is an atheist, that is perfectly fine, he errs because he claims to know, to have evidence/indications that God doesn't exist.

Let me start from scratch and Janeway, please correct me if I write something wrong, you are the expert on religion and philosophy. There are two ways to knowledge, ratio and empirics, introspection and observation. You can sit in your dark chamber and ponder about the world or get out and take at look at things. In science the two ways to knowledge are usually labeled theoretical and empirical work.

Now back to science and religion/philosophy.
Science is inherently about empirical stuff, about things we can prove or disprove. Of course science also needs the human ratio to first postulate a hypothesis which can then be checked.
Religion is inherently about stuff that merely exists in our heads. I can have a different idea than you and both ideas are perfectly valid. It's kinda like a scientific theory that cannot be proven (yet) like string theory in physics or the eternal battle between Keynesians and Classics in economics, every perspective is valid.

Back to the start, it is perfectly OK to be a theist, an agnostic or an atheist. It is not OK to be a creationist because your very personal idea of God, faith and religion has nothing to do with evolution and the Big Bang and it is neither OK to be a "mirror-creationist" like Dawkins because the great tools of science end at the part of the human brain which deals with questions like where do we come from, where do we go to, what shall I do, what is God to me.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-10-2010, 06:42 AM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

Sounds fine to me
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:07 AM
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
He doesn't err because he is an atheist, that is perfectly fine, he errs because he claims to know, to have evidence/indications that God doesn't exist.

Let me start from scratch and Janeway, please correct me if I write something wrong, you are the expert on religion and philosophy. There are two ways to knowledge, ratio and empirics, introspection and observation. You can sit in your dark chamber and ponder about the world or get out and take at look at things. In science the two ways to knowledge are usually labeled theoretical and empirical work.

Now back to science and religion/philosophy.
Science is inherently about empirical stuff, about things we can prove or disprove. Of course science also needs the human ratio to first postulate a hypothesis which can then be checked.
Religion is inherently about stuff that merely exists in our heads. I can have a different idea than you and both ideas are perfectly valid. It's kinda like a scientific theory that cannot be proven (yet) like string theory in physics or the eternal battle between Keynesians and Classics in economics, every perspective is valid.

Back to the start, it is perfectly OK to be a theist, an agnostic or an atheist. It is not OK to be a creationist because your very personal idea of God, faith and religion has nothing to do with evolution and the Big Bang and it is neither OK to be a "mirror-creationist" like Dawkins because the great tools of science end at the part of the human brain which deals with questions like where do we come from, where do we go to, what shall I do, what is God to me.
Ok horatio please show me where Dawkins says in "The God Delusion" or anywhere else that he knows 100% that God doesn't exist and here is the evidence. Where does Dawkins make this claim? It's funny because Ben Stein tries to get Dawkins to say exactly what you are arguing Dawkins has said in this interview but Dawkins knows like any good scientist that you can't claim anything is 100% truth all you can do is show how much evidence their is to support one thing or another. Like I said before Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" states why Dawkins believes God most likely doesn't exist and how he came to that conclusion the reader is free to believe him or not.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:10 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I have merely read the wiki entry and as you have just said it yourself, Dawkins seems to claim that God most likely doesn't exist. God is not a matter of probabilities and proof, it is a personal matter of faith. What's so hard to understand about it?

He is pissed off by creationists? So am I, but I don't make the case against them by using the same methods as they do. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight it with water.

But if you wanna play this proof-game, here ya go:

The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as ‘a persistent false belief held in the face of strong
contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder’. The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, ‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’


http://www.randomhouse.com.au/Downlo...ct_revised.pdf

This statement is wrong, arrogant and foolish. You will excuse that I have no desire to read any more of this crap.

Last edited by horatio : 01-10-2010 at 07:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:24 AM
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
I have merely read the wiki entry
There is the first problem. You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
He doesn't err because he is an atheist, that is perfectly fine, he errs because he claims to know, to have evidence/indications that God doesn't exist.
I ask you again show me anywhere that Dawkins makes the claim that you stated he has made. Until you can show me that you are making assumptions on what Dawkins claims just as janeway72 is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
you have just said it yourself, Dawkins seems to claim that God most likely doesn't exist. God is not a matter of probabilities and proof, it is a personal matter of faith. What's so hard to understand about it?
So we can't debate whether God exists or not because it's a matter of faith? So if someone believes it is ok to kill in the name of God we can't debate that either because that is that persons personal matter of faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
He is pissed off by creationists? So am I, but I don't make the case against them by using the same methods as they do. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight it with water.
I am also not a fan of creationists because they try to change well established scientific facts to fit their theories. Dawkins is stating his view point on God just as anyone else is allowed too.

Last edited by Enterprise Captain : 01-10-2010 at 07:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:30 AM
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
So we can't debate whether God exists or not because it's a matter of faith? So if someone believes it is ok to kill in the name of God we can't debate that either because that persons personal matter of faith?
He or she is a murderer, that the crime, not his or her faith. Period. There is nothing wrong with religion per se just because there are crusaders, West Bank settlers and suicide bombers. A crime is a crime, no matter what someone believes in or not.

With all due respect, I have just copied an excerpt from the book which speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself, any summary speaks for itself. What more proof do you need to realize that Dawkins treats religious issues with the method of science? You cannot prove or disprove God and you can neither attribute likelihoods to the existence of something which exists in that part of our brain which deals with existential questions!

Who does he thinks he is to claim that religious people are deluded? Who is he to claim that large parts of humanity are deluded? I only see one deluded fella, one who doesn't know where the realm of science ends.

Last edited by horatio : 01-10-2010 at 07:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:38 AM
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
He or she is a murderer, that the crime, not his or her faith. Period. There is nothing wrong with religion per se just because there are crusaders, West Bank settlers and suicide bombers. A crime is a crime, no matter what someone believes in or not.
I never said the person killed anyone did I? Again you are making assumptions. I said is it or is it not ok to debate that persons personal belief that killing someone in the name of God is ok? You claim you can't debate someones personal beliefs. So then I guess we should just continue to let that person share his belief with others with out challenge until someone accepts that belief and carries it out in reality.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:43 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Of course any belief that it is OK to kill someone because of XYZ is not OK, be it a religious or non-religious belief. Interestingly Christianity has little to do with crusades, Islam has little to do with suicide bombings and Judaism has little to do with land-robbing and mistreating another people. In all three examples, the real motives are pretty mundane and have little to do with faith, rather with resources, power ... the usual ugly human sh*t.

Sorry, but I am not playing the picking-out-the-foul-apples game again. There is not necessarily a causation just because there is a correlation. Violent computer games don't cause amok runs just because many amok runners have played these games and celibacy doesn't cause pedophilia just because some priests have abused children.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:50 AM
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
Of course any belief that it is OK to kill someone because of XYZ is not OK, be it a religious or non-religious belief. Interestingly Christianity has little to do with crusades, Islam has little to do with suicide bombings and Judaism has little to do with land-robbing and mistreating another people. In all three examples, the real motives are pretty mundane and have little to do with faith, rather with resources, power ... the usual ugly human sh*t.

Sorry, but I am not playing the picking-out-the-foul-apples game again. There is not necessarily a causation just because there is a correlation. Violent computer games don't cause amok runs just because many amok runners have played these games and celibacy doesn't cause pedophilia just because some priests have abused children.
And I'm going to take your stance that we can't debate personal beliefs therefore this debate is over because it's all based on personal beliefs but anyone that believes for whatever reason it is OK to kill someone based on that belief it is NOT Ok. But I thought you can't debate someones personal belief?

Last edited by Enterprise Captain : 01-10-2010 at 07:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-10-2010, 07:55 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Of course we can debate personal believes which have an impact upon the world and of course we can debate in what way ego shooters and amok runs or celibacy and pedophilia might be related. I am certainly the last fan of all the sexually repressed rules from of the Catholic Church or any rules in general which has little to do with the 21st century.

But something like the Dawkins approach, claiming that all religious folks are lunatics, is not the start of a reasonable debate, it is senseless bashing.
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 03:43 AM.


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.