EPT
A book atheists may be interested in
| Blogs > JesusCruxRH |
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
| ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
On November 19 2007 07:58 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Why would an athiest be interested in bull shit? Here we go again... | ||
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
| ||
|
suresh0t
United States295 Posts
I will definitely read it however. Just so I can see what arguments he cooks up and what not though  . | ||
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On November 19 2007 07:58 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Why would an athiest be interested in bull shit? OK let me rephrase, a 'religious' atheist may be interested in it - someone who wants to devote study to religion and atheism. Just as a theologist would be considered stupid not to read books written by those with points of views not agreeing with Christianity, to ignore books like these and only read Dawkins is extremely close-minded considering you're not looking at arguments that rebut his position. Also the fact that you label it bullshit without even knowing the contents of his argument is prejudicial. Would you not find it astounding for a Christian who was introduced to Dawkins' book to instantly label it bullshit without even reading it first? | ||
|
Hittegods
Stockholm4642 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
suresh0t
United States295 Posts
On November 19 2007 08:11 JesusCruxRH wrote: OK let me rephrase, a 'religious' atheist may be interested in it - someone who wants to devote study to religion and atheism. Just as a theologist would be considered stupid not to read books written by those with points of views not agreeing with Christianity, to ignore books like these and only read Dawkins is extremely close-minded considering you're not looking at arguments that rebut his position. Also the fact that you label it bullshit without even knowing the contents of his argument is prejudicial. Would you not find it astounding for a Christian who was introduced to Dawkins' book to instantly label it bullshit without even reading it first? Agreed | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
"I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other...even if God’s existence is never proved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50%." -Dawkins You cannot suggest the existence of god as a scientific hypothesis because it is not proveable or observeable. Nor can you suggest that the non existance of god is a scientific hypothesis. So both authors are essentially engaging in intellectual masterbation. Not science. The Scientific method: 1.Define the question 2.Gather information and resources (observe) 3.Form hypothesis 4.Perform experiment and collect data 5.Analyze data 6.nterpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7.Publish results 8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists) The reason I know his book is bullshit is because the question being discussed only allow for steps 1,3, and 7. It's not science. It's philosophy. And the fact that he tries to make it seem like hes being scientific is BULL SHIT. Same applies to Dawkins. Now as for the part about him trying to show, through evidence, that intelligent design is a stronger theory than evolution, thats just hilarious. | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
Also, what the fuck is a "religious atheist"? It's not what you described, because no such term exists. | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
Perhaps Stalin and hitler and mao killed in the name of atheism oh yeah nice argument. You can say the same for terrorist! all terrorist kill because they wear turbans and have long beards! what the fuck is a "religious atheist"? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I doubt an "investigatory journalist" with such a ridiculous background will provide anything of value. Many people have responded to ID "evidence" and it all has major flaws; the most obvious of which being that the explanatory filter makes the assumption that science is a stagnant practice. 10, 20, 50 years from now the realm of "divine impact" will be exponentially smaller than what they suggest today, as it would be if you made the same assumptions before Newton or Copernicus. There's many other key reasons EF is so bad but I won't get into it if no one else knows what it is. It's a bit disturbing that he converted to Christianity on blind faith alone and he cites a work of fiction ("The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail") as his reason for being skeptical of religion in the first place. He kind of sounds like an idiot and will probably just point out crap like phi ratio any other stuff that's been mentioned before. Why would an athiest be interested in bull shit? That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. A lot of people have blind faith in atheism just like people do for religions. It's not that faith is required to be an atheism, however people are just lazy and stupid and don't actually look for answers to back up their convictions. Instead they see Dawkins on the Colbert Report and instantly buy into what he says instead of reading religious philosophy. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24812 Posts
On November 19 2007 12:45 Jibba wrote: To be fair, he wasn't clear why he thought it was bull shit. The OP said this might interest atheists in particular, but if that guy honestly believes this is BS, then there is no logical reasons why atheists would be interested in this. Of course I doubt he's actually justified in that conclusion though.That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. A lot of people have blind faith in atheism just like people do for religions. It's not that faith is required to be an atheism, however people are just lazy and stupid and don't actually look for answers to back up their convictions. Instead they see Dawkins on the Colbert Report and instantly buy into what he says instead of reading religious philosophy. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2007 13:02 micronesia wrote: True, I guess I just jumped to a conclusion because most atheists I talk to haven't actually thought about it for more than 5 minutes. They just figure a super natural being can't exist and stop thinking.To be fair, he wasn't clear why he thought it was bull shit. The OP said this might interest atheists in particular, but if that guy honestly believes this is BS, then there is no logical reasons why atheists would be interested in this. Of course I doubt he's actually justified in that conclusion though. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24812 Posts
On November 19 2007 13:11 Jibba wrote: Sounds awfully similar to the majority of people of faith. In some ways atheists and believers are different and yet so very the same.True, I guess I just jumped to a conclusion because most atheists I talk to haven't actually thought about it for more than 5 minutes. They just figure a super natural being can't exist and stop thinking. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2007 13:23 micronesia wrote: Just like the Dawkins South Park episode. :x Trey Parker and Matt Stone seem to get a lot of topics right. o.o Then again, it's also somewhat understandable that people don't want to devote their time to philosophy like book geeks like I do. Although if it's supposedly determining your eternal bliss/damnation, you should give it some thought. Sounds awfully similar to the majority of people of faith. In some ways atheists and believers are different and yet so very the same. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Of course, a lot of people will be dismissive about it. Certainly, if you begin with the assumption of pure atheism, you can dismiss anything metaphysical. Also, I can see why an atheist would potentially hold a grudge. If one were to rationally show God exists, or that intelligent design is the most reasonable paradigm, it would be annoying that people who "blindly guessed" would be correct. But the Bible talks about this mentality, and the eventual confounding of men who don't put their faith in God (one of the many great truths of humanity contained in the Bible). | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
@jibba. A-Theism is not a religion, I believe you got the definiton of atheism totally backwards. There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this. There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god. Below are links to a variety of references pages to help understand how atheism is defined and why atheists define it the way they do. From About.com Also if you are a christian you are probably an atheist towards Allah or Thor or Poseidon or Zeus. Just as if you are a muslim you are probably an atheist towards Jesus or Jehova or Thor or Zeus. You don't deny any of these false gods, right? you simply analyze the facts and come to a conclusion that the probability of there being a god in this universe is probably as low as 0.000001% Atheist just go one god further than you, it's as simple as that. There is no religion or faith backing it up. Nobody goes around denying unicorns or leprechauns they just simply don't exist. Once you understand why you don't believe in unicorns then you will understand why an atheist doesn't believe in your god. To expand on why the chance of there being a god. Hundreds of years ago before Darwin, we thought that the only explanation for life in this planet was that a creator was behind it all. Darwin explained it, and scientist tested, researched and expanded on his theory to develop neo-darwinism. Evolution is a fact, tested rigorously by science and proven right every time. Then in the 70's the big bang theory explained how the universe came to be. That also leaves god out of the equation. So you have a all powerful god who has nothing to do with the beginning of life or the origin of the universe and stars and planets and galaxies for that matter. You have a god who is BELIEVED to have started the universe and then left it alone. there is absolutely no evidence for the christian god, just as there is no evidence for unicorns leprechauns, the god of thunder, the moon god, the sun god, the mother earth god, jehova or allah. all these physical phenomenas explained by physics, biology, astronomy, geology and so on. There is no reason for anyone to believe in these false gods whatsoever. gb | ||
| ||
