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
  #241  
Old 01-10-2010, 08:14 AM
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 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.
You can debate whatever you want and come to whatever conclusion you want to. All I have been saying from the beginning is don't expect me to give Dawkins' view any credence since his methodology is wrong and his logic is flawed. There are 1.1 Billion atheists in the world and nearly 5 Billion people who attest to some kind of religion. Statistically, Dawkins is wrong about God but that is not evidence of God's existence. He is also stating that 4.5 billion people are suffering from some kind of mental illness (I'm taking off 500 million because Buddhists don't believe in God either.) So that means that there are only 1 Billion sane people in the world.
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 01-10-2010, 08:27 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 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.
Well which one is it now horatio because you told me before you can't debate personal belief but now you are telling me you can as long as that belief has an impact on the world? I just want you to clarify because it effects the debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
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.
"The God Delusion" is just the title of the book it's meant to catch your eye, it's a marketing tool not the basis of Dawkins debate. Do you really believe that Dawkins believes all religious folks are lunatics? I'm pretty sure if you read the pages inside the book or watched any of his interviews it is quite clear he doesn't believe that. Like I said before I don't agree with everything the guy says but I find some of his debate interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
You can debate whatever you want and come to whatever conclusion you want to. All I have been saying from the beginning is don't expect me to give Dawkins' view any credence since his methodology is wrong and his logic is flawed. There are 1.1 Billion atheists in the world and nearly 5 Billion people who attest to some kind of religion. Statistically, Dawkins is wrong about God but that is not evidence of God's existence. He is also stating that 4.5 billion people are suffering from some kind of mental illness (I'm taking off 500 million because Buddhists don't believe in God either.) So that means that there are only 1 Billion sane people in the world.
You don't even know what Dawkins's view is because you haven't read the book and you continue to make assumptions about what he believes. Read the book and get back to me until then I'm done discussing this with you. You believe it's ok to basis your beliefs on someone else's beliefs based on assumptions who am I to question your belief.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 01-10-2010, 08:32 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

First of all, it is not my job to tell anyone what can be debated or cannot be and I have never said that religion should not be a matter of debate. I just said that it is not a matter of science because it is the opposite, the complement of science.

At the risk of getting repetitive, what I believe is of little important, what Mr.Dawkins has written is:

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

Now what part of these lines isn't crystal clear and who is now making assumptions about Mr.Dawkins?
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 01-10-2010, 09:08 AM
TheTrekkie's Avatar
TheTrekkie TheTrekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
I thought the New Testament was pretty clear that if you follow Jesus's teachings about how to live your life when the Judgment Day comes and you pass his judgment he will grant you eternal life. If that is not clear and the Bible gives you absolutely no guidelines how to live your life how is any of it relevant? Either way I find interesting that Jesus who apparently loves us all equally will still judge each of us on whether we are worthy of eternal life or not which implies that we aren't all equal. If Revelation is correct then I guess that's good that "some" Jews will be saved to bad they all can't be. I guess the Muslims and atheists are still screwed though.
I am not sure, I don't know the whole Revelation-story very well, but as far as I know in the Book of Revelation Jews from every of the 12 tribes will be sealed (protected from the coming Judgement Day) and people of all nations and races who chose a path agreeable to God, as well.

The question is if you really have to believe in the person Jesus to be rescued
or
if Jesus is just to be seen as the incarnation of the righteous path and everybody who acts with "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is automatically seen as a man of Jesus.
__________________
And if tyrants take me, And throw me in prison, My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry:
Thoughts are free!
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 01-10-2010, 09:11 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

There are "hard" gospels like those of Mark and Matthew, than there is the more story-telling-style Luke gospel, than there is the more interpretative John gospel ... and then there comes the Revelation. If people wanna take it literal, so be it, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 01-10-2010, 09:43 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
There are "hard" gospels like those of Mark and Matthew, than there is the more story-telling-style Luke gospel, than there is the more interpretative John gospel ... and then there comes the Revelation. If people wanna take it literal, so be it, but I wouldn't recommend it.
I've always preferred to think of Revelations not so much as a "doom and gloom Earth go BOOM, and thou shalt burn in hellfire if thou aren't a follower of Christ" prophecy, but more of a "change of the state of things the way they are now" foresight.

Heaven and Hell can be interpreted many different ways, just as the Word of God has been.

A lot of what divides monotheistic religions (Christianity--and all its subsects, Judaism, Islam) is the notion that one believes in a Messiah who will someday return to save his followers, one believes that Christ was a good man, but not the Son of God, and the other believes that Christ existed, but their prophet is Mohammed. For the most part, they all believe in the same God. It's just at the Messianic, prophetical, or "believe it when we see it" level that things fall apart.

If one does interpret Revelations literally, then this is how I'd view it.

As I've always understood it, it is God who passes judgment in Revelations, not Christ. Christ is more like the "advocate" for everyone who stands before God in the end times, pleading their case, but it is in God's hands as to the fate of said defendant.

But, that's my understanding of it. Your actual mileage may vary.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 01-11-2010, 06:06 AM
janeway72's Avatar
janeway72 janeway72 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Federation Starship Voyager
Posts: 4,977
Default

I borrowed the God Delusion from the school library so I can refute Dawkins writing properly. As I was walking out the library, a depute head, who used to be a Chemistry teacher said "Oh you are not reading that. His theology is awful. His theories on Darwin may be right but that does not prove that there is no God." And that's from someone with a phD in a science subject
__________________

"Unless you have something a little bigger in your torpedo tubes, I'm not turning around!"
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 01-11-2010, 06:58 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
First of all, it is not my job to tell anyone what can be debated or cannot be and I have never said that religion should not be a matter of debate. I just said that it is not a matter of science because it is the opposite, the complement of science.

At the risk of getting repetitive, what I believe is of little important, what Mr.Dawkins has written is:

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

Now what part of these lines isn't crystal clear and who is now making assumptions about Mr.Dawkins?
Read the quote again he is not saying religious people are all delusional he is saying God is the delusion. I have to correct what I previously said about the books title being a marketing ploy because the title of the book is spot on to the topic that is being discussed with in it but Dawkins still isn't saying all religious people are delusional. Anyway here is another quote from the book:

Quote:
"We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad,' 'psychotic' or 'delusional' ... Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are." - Sam Harris, neurophilosopher
Those aren't Dawkins words but Dawkins quotes Sam Harris a neurophilosopher an expert on God since only philosophers and theologians are allowed to debate Gods existence and it's pretty clear that Harris is saying religious people aren't delusional but that God is the delusion. Any way not reading the whole book to get the big picture of what is being said is not much different from those people using specific passages from the Bible and misitupreting them to justify doing something even though the majority know it is wrong. Maybe you should do like janeway72 and pick up a copy of the book from the library read it and until then I'm done discussing this with you.

Just to clarify my position here before I go, Dawkins is not my God. I don't take everything the man says as truth. I just find some of his arguments interesting. I can't say God doesn't exist or he does exist I would never claim I can. I don't have a problem with people believing in God either, I have a problem with religion and the way it is run. If I have children there is no way I would baptize/indoctrinate them in to any faith when they can't even think for themselves yet. If they choose later on in life to join a faith it will be their choice and I won't have a problem with it. I want them to see all the options and then pick for themselves what they feel is right for them.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I find it interesting that the majority of society has come to laugh at the Greek Gods of the past yet this other "God" is different. I also find it interesting that the majority of society seems to laugh at Scientologist and their beliefs but the major religions get a different status To clarify so my words don't get twisted I don't think it's right to laugh at someone's beliefs but it's interesting that one religion gets laughed at by the majority and another doesn't. Anyway one last clarification the last two paragraphs are my words if anyone wants to ask or question me about them feel free.

Last edited by Enterprise Captain : 01-11-2010 at 08:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 01-11-2010, 07:17 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Perhaps you might want to read the quote again, the word God doesn't appear in there.

Twist the truth if it suits you, but in trying to disprove or discredit religion, Mr. Dawkins seriously errs ... in the very same way as his intellectual enemies, the Intelligent Design folks.

And no, I don't have to read the whole book. The title suffices, any summary suffices, a few lines out of the book suffice to realize that his approach is wrong.
Let me make an example. I am an economist, I have never read Friedman, but I still am familiar with his key ideas, e.g. that economic freedom automatically leads to political freedom. Obviously this is utterly wrong, just take a look at post-Soviet Russia, and I as well as anyone else can call the idea wrong without having read Friedman.
Same with Dawkins, approaching religion with the prove-disproove tools of science is wrong.

One never has to read the original text to talk about the main argument. Otherwise we'd all have to read day and night through thousands of books before we may use our own brain and make a judgement.

Last edited by horatio : 01-11-2010 at 07:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 01-11-2010, 10:34 AM
Kiko Kea Kiko Kea is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Paradise
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Of course they can coexist, the one doesn't have to do anything with the other. Science is about things we can prove (if not yet than at least in principal; empirical work is often a mess, especially in social scienes) whereas religion and to some degree philosophy are about things we can only speculate about and believe in.
So one could claim that these two areas of human culture are perfect complements. There only arise problems when one side is not aware of the limits of its playground and trespasses into the other playground.

If I look into the sky in a clear night, I see large fusion reactors as well as beautiful, mystical, shining stars.
When I look up and see the universe spread above me, with its beauty and awe-inspiring laws of science, I see the way my Father made the universe.

For me, science is how our Creator made us and the world around us.
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 11:28 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.