-
Posts
-
How does that atheist bigot Dawkins justify singling out religious preaching to your child to be equivalent to child abuse??? Why would you agree with him? If possible, please answer without personal attacks and obscenities, as these obscure the main argument.
Hi Scep, this thread is up for deletion soon, so I wont be writing much. I dont do ad hominems, so you’re quite safe with me. You’d have to ask Dawkins really, or put into google, “dawkins religion child abuse” and I’m sure you’ll hear him explain himself, or read it. Please start a new one if you like and we can continue there, this will be deleted soon,. if not I’ll come back tomorrow with answers to your questions,. have a lovely evening x
Yes, it’s going to be deleted as soon as Martin reads some of the revolting comments. The problem is, Mister, that any post on this topic will be deleted because of the tendency to obscenity among the Dawkins followers. It’s easier than argument.
I`m agnostic, but most people who are fanatical about religion seem to be freaks or work in the industry OR believe in supersticon. cba to spell check, Nobody can prove ( or disprove) their choice of god but science can prove things . Its sticky tricky subject and when I were a lad, yeh I loved the concept until I realised that GOD (of your choice) is just a faith.
this is a bit wanky!!! god is a belief so is philosphy. I have said enough!! cross my fingers coz
The Dawkins atheist crowd seem a bit freaky to me.
How can you say science can prove things? It shows a total ignorance of science. Science is about the testing of hypotheses, and the hypotheses are constantly being disproved. Very few scientists (other than Dawkins) believe that science proves things. Even Dawkins, in a moment of self-honesty, admitted that some force may well have created teh cosmos.
Science just can’t prove or disprove the existence of a God. If God created the cosmos, science was created along with everything else. Science is part of the puzzle, not the solution to the puzzle.
If you discuss God(s) – whatever type of God(s), Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu etc etc – you need to use different paths than experimental science.
The Dawkins atheist crowd seem a bit freaky to me.
The non Dawkins crowd seem a bit freaky to me.
Science is about the testing of hypotheses,
And tests can and do lead to results. 2+2=4 is pretty concrete, and no longer an hypotheses.
Very few scientists (other than Dawkins) believe that science proves things.
And you feel qualified to speak for the very diverse world of Science because?
Science just can’t prove or disprove the existence of a God.
Neither can Religion or faith. Yet Science seems to be a much better tool to find that proof we seek than Religion, wouldn’t you agree?
If God created the cosmos, science was created along with everything else.
And if God didn’t then what? We have Science to help us figure things out, right?
If you discuss God(s) – whatever type of God(s), Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu etc etc – you need to use different paths than experimental science.
Such as? Religion? Not all Science is experimental, some is very concrete indeed, like 2+2=4
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by
Psycho Babble.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by Psycho Babble.
The diverse world of science is brought together on this by the philosophy of science. Of course the testing of hypotheses leads to results, but no scientist nowadays thinks that leads to closure. Ever since Popper, scientists have accepted that falsifiability is the fundamental condition of experimentation. If it’s not falsifiable, then it’s not scientific. Nothing can be done with it. That’s why Marxist-Leninism and religious faith aren’t scientific. They’re not falsifiable.
And that is my point. Religious faith deals with questions with which science can’t deal without becoming unscientific. As soon as you look at the traditional proofs for God’s existence set out by Anselm and Aquinas, and the discussion of these proofs by Hume and Kant (they are the milestones, obviously it can get pretty complicated) it becomes clear that science can’t really deal with these. Science is concerned with exploiting the nature of the physical cosmos in all its levels – religion with the force(s) behind the cosmos.
When atheists say God doesn’t exist, Christians were there before them. God doesn’t exist because God created existence – space and time are ways in which we humans understand that existence. Scientific thought has extended our understanding of space and time in some pretty freaky ways, and they are fascinating. The old 19th century materialist science isn’t held by many scientists now. It’s seen as a mystery, a mystery whihc some do hope to solve (like Hawking).
maybe they will. Who knows? not me, not you. Not Dawkins.
What we do know is that we are talking about a mystery, and it’s unscientific to pretend otherwise.
That means that if we’re going to discuss God, then experimental science and the testing of hypotheses (for the moment at least ) doesn’t work.
Other ways have to be used. Discussion of the Gospels as historical works, books written in a particular time, is one starting point for Christianity, and the conclusions are not clearcut in the way broadcast by the Dawkins crowd or by the Biblical literalists.
There are other discussion points where a grown-up dialogue can take place, as opposed tot the schoolyard bragging of the atheists and the scary certainty of the religious fundamentalists during the last few years.
That quotation is something I’m talking about.
It’s a poetic expression of a non-scientific truth.
It may be silly. It may actually be true because as a poetic expression it points to something enchanted about our cosmos.
It’s not the end of discussion, though, but the beginning.
What if it isn’t true? What if the cosmos is a meaningless, empty and indifferent waste of space? A French novelist, Albert Camus, argued this and he wasn’t alone. He had quite interesting things to say about the cosmos being disenchanted and the consequences of that.
Try a dialogue when you see the other side may also have a point.
Otherwise, it becomes bragging and abuse.
but no scientist nowadays thinks that leads to closure.
May I ask what makes you feel qualified to speak for every scientist on the planet?
Religious faith deals with questions with which science can’t deal without becoming unscientific
And Science deals with with questions with which Religion cant deal with
1 member liked this post.
if we’re going to discuss God, then experimental science and the testing of hypotheses (for the moment at least ) doesn’t work.
Well what does work then, Religion?
I think religion is nice, it helps people and families, dying people from thinking of an eternity of nothingness is looming to have hope that when they die something happens, it gives peace. Let’s be realistic for one minute, I believe everything in the bible was man-made, it’s one of the biggest scams in life, in a way though it made humanity flourish, without that fear none of us would be here today, that is a fact. It has done a good job of keeping people in line, you are good you go to heaven, you are bad you go to hell. Who is to say there is no higher being controlling things, of course the whole Adam & Eve thing is bollocks, but let’s not forget we know very little. For all we know there are another hundred billion Universes out their, that is way beyond our thought process, we do not even know much about our own Universe. I hope something else exists out their, I would like to think that when I die that is not the end of life as we know it, so I believe…
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!