http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/04/q-a-pell-vs-dawkins.html

Let's see if we can't get a few of these agnostics to get a firmer backbone by the end of the evening.

Quote:

Let's see if we can't get a few of these agnostics to get a firmer backbone by the end of the evening.

I doubt they will be represented,
Even tho Dawkins admitted he is one he is still perceived as an atheist and will be treated as such.

Why do you think agnostics have no backbone?

Dawkins is an Atheist, he self describes as an atheist. As a scientist he admits that he cannot be 100% certain there's no god. In fact as a scientist he cannot admit 100% certainty of anything. Science deals in probability not certainty.

All possible explanations for 'first cause' are equal. A rainbow serpent creator is just as likely as Almighty God. About as likely as a jelly snake turning into a Tyranosaurus rex.  Offer me $50 against my life that you can turn a jelly snake into a living dinosaur and i'll take your money. That's what I mean by saying agnosticism is gutless idiocy.

Grey wrote on Apr 9^th, 2012 at 9:55pm:

Dawkins is an Atheist, he self describes as an atheist. As a scientist he admits that he cannot be 100% certain there's no god. In fact as a scientist he cannot admit 100% certainty of anything. Science deals in probability not certainty. All possible explanations for 'first cause' are equal. A rainbow serpent creator is just as likely as Almighty God. About as likely as a jelly snake turning into a Tyranosaurus rex.  Offer me $50 against my life that you can turn a jelly snake into a living dinosaur and i'll take your money. That's what I mean by saying agnosticism is gutless idiocy.

Well yeah but in a technical sense he is agnostic.
The science of the creation of the universe at this present time deals with probability but majority of science is about observable knowledge and repeatable behaviours.

Coming to a conclusion on the origins of the universe is insanity, which is why agnosticism makes sense. I will not make a decision until there is something to make a decision about not just hypothetical ideas.

Quote:

Well yeah but in a technical sense he is agnostic.

If you believe that an ingot that's 99.99999999999% gold with an almost infinitely small possibility of being 0.000000000001% tin is tin.




Quote:

The science of the creation of the universe at this present time deals with probability but majority of science is about observable knowledge and repeatable behaviours.

That lead to conclusions about some things being proved useful to believe, on the balance of probabilities.


[edit]Coming to a conclusion on the origins of the universe is insanity, which is why agnosticism makes sense. I will not make a decision until there is something to make a decision about not just hypothetical ideas.[/edit]

Atheism hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the Universe. It's just reached a conclusion that one of the many hypothesis is wrong, in all probability. If I told you you were going to die tomorrow unless you gave me $10, would you give me $10 to be on the safe side?  ;D

Grey wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 1:17am:

[quote]Atheism hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the Universe. It's just reached a conclusion that one of the many hypothesis is wrong, in all probability. If I told you you were going to die tomorrow unless you gave me $10, would you give me $10 to be on the safe side?  ;D

Wrong Grey, It is Science that hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the universe. Just because many atheists have strong connections with science and science is often used by atheists to support their position does not make them the same or connected.

Atheism is to not believe in a mythical being. This does not require immediate change to a new crutch. Dawkins does not do Atheists any service by turning it into a cause to be rallied to by the disaffected, ignorant and insecure. Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion or something to rally around. Such things are for the weak minded and religious.

nairbe wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

Grey wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 1:17am: [quote]Atheism hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the Universe. It's just reached a conclusion that one of the many hypothesis is wrong, in all probability. If I told you you were going to die tomorrow unless you gave me $10, would you give me $10 to be on the safe side?  ;D Wrong Grey, It is Science that hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the universe. Just because many atheists have strong connections with science and science is often used by atheists to support their position does not make them the same or connected. Atheism is to not believe in a mythical being. This does not require immediate change to a new crutch. Dawkins does not do Atheists any service by turning it into a cause to be rallied to by the disaffected, ignorant and insecure. Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion or something to rally around. Such things are for the weak minded and religious.

True. The association of science with atheism is not a necessary precondition for either. However they do, I believe, share something fundamental in common which has its roots largely in 20th century American culture.

American religiosity transformed atheism into a form of "Satanism" largely as a result of the American hysterical fear of communism.

Science (prior to WW2) was perceived almost exclusively as a force for good... Post WW2, science (with its engine firmly planted within American culture and crystallised by the development of nuclear weapons) was perceived as a potential evil... I think it was and is still only a small step for those infected with American hyper-religiosity to associate atheist scientists with evil incarnate.

I'm pretty sure most atheists would not also be scientists.

nairbe wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

Grey wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 1:17am: [quote]Atheism hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the Universe. It's just reached a conclusion that one of the many hypothesis is wrong, in all probability. If I told you you were going to die tomorrow unless you gave me $10, would you give me $10 to be on the safe side?  ;D Wrong Grey, It is Science that hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the universe. Just because many atheists have strong connections with science and science is often used by atheists to support their position does not make them the same or connected. Atheism is to not believe in a mythical being. This does not require immediate change to a new crutch. Dawkins does not do Atheists any service by turning it into a cause to be rallied to by the disaffected, ignorant and insecure. Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion or something to rally around. Such things are for the weak minded and religious.

I don't see your point nairbe, did I say Atheists have reached a different conclusion? No! Neither do you have to be disaffected, ignorant or insecure to want to defend an intellectual position. I don't believe in superman the creator of all things; I do happen to believe that nothing good ever comes out of spreading such falsehoods. And Atheists have good reason to defend their position, because it's a position that's been a constant focus of very aggressive and negative comment by the churches. And science and Atheism are connected very strongly by logic.

Of course most atheists are probably not scientists, but most scientists are atheists. 

Why the heck are there so many trheads for this 1 topic?

Check the other ones for what I think I am not typing it all out again.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 7:56am:

nairbe wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 7:40am: Grey wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 1:17am: [quote]Atheism hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the Universe. It's just reached a conclusion that one of the many hypothesis is wrong, in all probability. If I told you you were going to die tomorrow unless you gave me $10, would you give me $10 to be on the safe side?  ;D Wrong Grey, It is Science that hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the universe. Just because many atheists have strong connections with science and science is often used by atheists to support their position does not make them the same or connected. Atheism is to not believe in a mythical being. This does not require immediate change to a new crutch. Dawkins does not do Atheists any service by turning it into a cause to be rallied to by the disaffected, ignorant and insecure. Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion or something to rally around. Such things are for the weak minded and religious. True. The association of science with atheism is not a necessary precondition for either. However they do, I believe, share something fundamental in common which has its roots largely in 20th century American culture. American religiosity transformed atheism into a form of "Satanism" largely as a result of the American hysterical fear of communism. Science (prior to WW2) was perceived almost exclusively as a force for good... Post WW2, science (with its engine firmly planted within American culture and crystallised by the development of nuclear weapons) was perceived as a potential evil... I think it was and is still only a small step for those infected with American hyper-religiosity to associate atheist scientists with evil incarnate. I'm pretty sure most atheists would not also be scientists.

'....science was perceived as a potential evil.'

What is 'evil' ?

For me, evil is that 'place', 'those places', where the the presence of God is absent.

Evil can be 'defined', imo, as the absence of the spirit of God.

In the spirit realm, no demon [or 'evil'] can remain, where God is.



But isn't God an omnipresent being ?

I can't comprehend or explain the apparent contradiction, except to say that God can project his presence anywhere, instantly.




In my own limited perception of what God is, i know [from my own experience] that the essence of what God is, has a purity which must absolutely exclude the presence of evil.

And yet, in this [our] 'reality', here in this physical world, it is clear that both good and evil are able, to exist together, and, to exist in close proximity to each other.

And, in this 'reality', both good and evil seem to be [easily] able to find 'expression', in us [being 'expressed' in our choices, and then, being 'expressed' in the all too apparent consequences of our choices].

Is that last point significant ???



But can light and darkness exist together ?

I believe that in the spirit realm, that good and evil cannot exist together.




Interestingly enough, mans science is able to quantify light, but science does not quantify 'darkness'.

1 John 1:5
...God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

In our world, light and darkness cannot co-exist [in one place].

Where there is light, there is no darkness.

And, where God is, there is no evil.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 9^th, 2012 at 11:21pm:

Coming to a conclusion on the origins of the universe is insanity, which is why agnosticism makes sense. I will not make a decision until there is something to make a decision about not just hypothetical ideas.

Not all gods are designated as "Creator gods" . Therefore agnosticism in its broadest sense takes no position on the origins of the universe.  Can you follow the logic?


Quote:

And, in this 'reality', both good and evil seem to be [easily] able to find 'expression', in us [being 'expressed' in our choices, and then, being 'expressed' in the all too apparent consequences of our choices].

What if you were wrongly accused of something and as a result, sentenced to death - or imprisonment? Let's say that random chance put you in a position where a reasonable person would find you guily, but the causation of that evidence was a result of a series of random events? Let's say you were caught with a heavy object in your hand just as it ploughed through somebody's skull (You were framed by a series of random events)

Would you believe that to be be evil? 

As a trivial example, I was at a shopping centre on the weekend and an empty trolley came flying past me (I'm not sure where it came from) . I grabbed on to that trolley and caught it just before it came into contact with a passing car, causing a dent. If I hadn't caught it, the damage would have been worse.

The driver got out of the car irately, and what do you think she said?

- Look what you've done to my car! 

It got me thinking  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1r4x1Rafc

Grey wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 9:57am:

nairbe wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 7:40am: Grey wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 1:17am: [quote]Atheism hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the Universe. It's just reached a conclusion that one of the many hypothesis is wrong, in all probability. If I told you you were going to die tomorrow unless you gave me $10, would you give me $10 to be on the safe side?  ;D Wrong Grey, It is Science that hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the universe. Just because many atheists have strong connections with science and science is often used by atheists to support their position does not make them the same or connected. Atheism is to not believe in a mythical being. This does not require immediate change to a new crutch. Dawkins does not do Atheists any service by turning it into a cause to be rallied to by the disaffected, ignorant and insecure. Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion or something to rally around. Such things are for the weak minded and religious. I don't see your point nairbe, did I say Atheists have reached a different conclusion? No! Neither do you have to be disaffected, ignorant or insecure to want to defend an intellectual position. I don't believe in superman the creator of all things; I do happen to believe that nothing good ever comes out of spreading such falsehoods. And Atheists have good reason to defend their position, because it's a position that's been a constant focus of very aggressive and negative comment by the churches. And science and Atheism are connected very strongly by logic. Of course most atheists are probably not scientists, but most scientists are atheists.

apologies if i have not been clear. I don't have an issue with science, i follow and enjoy science very much and i see that Dawkins is in a fight between science and religion. The logical path in science is that we can achieve answers to the myth that religion has built. Atheists need not be involved in this argument, i don't give a toss what the church does until it impinges on the rights and freedoms of others. The church is not any different to a dictatorship that tells us what to think and do. A personality cult if you like.

Atheism allows me to be free of the dogma of religion, not simply become another faction in the fight for religious domination. My mind is free of the restrictions and oppressions of religious thinking. Science is the tool to object to some of the ridicules rubbish the church argues but Atheism is not. As an Atheist i don't need a union of brothers to make it a club, it is my understanding and clarity of thinking and needs no support of a church to be free.

muso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

Quote: And, in this 'reality', both good and evil seem to be [easily] able to find 'expression', in us [being 'expressed' in our choices, and then, being 'expressed' in the all too apparent consequences of our choices]. What if you were wrongly accused of something and as a result, sentenced to death - or imprisonment? Let's say that random chance put you in a position where a reasonable person would find you guily, but the causation of that evidence was a result of a series of random events? Let's say you were caught with a heavy object in your hand just as it ploughed through somebody's skull (You were framed by a series of random events) Would you believe that to be be evil?  As a trivial example, I was at a shopping centre on the weekend and an empty trolley came flying past me (I'm not sure where it came from) . I grabbed on to that trolley and caught it just before it came into contact with a passing car, causing a dent. If I hadn't caught it, the damage would have been worse. The driver got out of the car irately, and what do you think she said? - Look what you've done to my car!  It got me thinking  ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1r4x1Rafc

muso,

What is that saying ?

"Sh!t happens."

And my other favourite....

"Life is a b!tch,  ....and then ya die!"





Is it evil, if i got blamed, and punished, for something [particularly some crime] that i didn't do [...or was innocent of] ?

For me that would depend upon who 'judged' the charges against me, and how the evidence against me was presented.

If the evidence against me was true and fair, and was presented fairly,    ....then if i was convicted, then ['intellectually'] i would find no fault with the judge [....even though i knew absolutely, that i was innocent].

[But i suspect that in the 'real world', if this happened to me, yes, i would be upset and depressed about it all.]




But muso,

Saying that, above, i don't 'believe in' this world, in the same way as people like you, do.

For me [and for people like me], this life is just a journey to God.

For me, this life [for each of us], is the 'wilderness journey', of God's people [...which is spoken of throughout the bible].
'Can you follow that logic?'

And, i understand that i will be put through trials.  [....to see how i will respond to those trials]

....as per my verses below;




[unable to watch the YT ]






Daniel 12:10
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Quote:

Atheism allows me to be free of the dogma of religion, not simply become another faction in the fight for religious domination. My mind is free of the restrictions and oppressions of religious thinking. Science is the tool to object to some of the ridicules rubbish the church argues but Atheism is not. As an Atheist i don't need a union of brothers to make it a club, it is my understanding and clarity of thinking and needs no support of a church to be free.

Atheism is to not accept the existence of god. That's right and it's your right not to take part in any debate stemming from that; though I cannot help noticing that you are. For some of us though, basking in a quiet self righteousness from being so wise isn't enough. When religion raises itself to oppose science by denying 'evolution', we deem it necessary and in the public interest to counter argue such nonsense. Good god man (sic ;D ) should we wait until the blighters start to burn witches and cats again?

Grey wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 7:26pm:

Quote: Atheism allows me to be free of the dogma of religion, not simply become another faction in the fight for religious domination. My mind is free of the restrictions and oppressions of religious thinking. Science is the tool to object to some of the ridicules rubbish the church argues but Atheism is not. As an Atheist i don't need a union of brothers to make it a club, it is my understanding and clarity of thinking and needs no support of a church to be free. Atheism is to not accept the existence of god. That's right and it's your right not to take part in any debate stemming from that; though I cannot help noticing that you are. For some of us though, basking in a quiet self righteousness from being so wise isn't enough. When religion raises itself to oppose science by denying 'evolution', we deem it necessary and in the public interest to counter argue such nonsense. Good god man (sic ;D ) should we wait until the blighters start to burn witches and cats again?

ease up on the cats Grey.  ;) I thought the thread was about Dawkins V Pell not Atheists V the universe. My point is that Dawkins uses Atheism to support his scientific argument with religion. This is not required and draws Atheists into an argument they don't need to be in, this is a scientific argument that Dawkins is having. Atheists don't need to tell believers their god is a fantasy, this can only be discovered by the individual who is prepared to question and will not happen if they are having it rammed down their throat. Or do you suggest that Atheists prey on the disadvantaged and vulnerable like religions do.

Quote:

Or do you suggest that Atheists prey on the disadvantaged and vulnerable like religions do.

Our governments continue to give visas to mormon missionaries. That they might go door to door teaching the religion dreamed up by a conman and paedophile. A very successful business it is too. Certainly I think it's socially responsible to present the counter argument. It's not as though active Atheists fleece them, build palaces or corrupt their children.

Grey wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Quote: Or do you suggest that Atheists prey on the disadvantaged and vulnerable like religions do. Our governments continue to give visas to mormon missionaries. That they might go door to door teaching the religion dreamed up by a conman and paedophile. A very successful business it is too. Certainly I think it's socially responsible to present the counter argument. It's not as though active Atheists fleece them, build palaces or corrupt their children.

Still no argument, i just don't buy into the argument between science and religion, it is not an Atheist argument.

Quote:

Nairbe, you said,  Dawkins does not do Atheists any service by turning it into a cause to be rallied to by the disaffected, ignorant and insecure. Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion or something to rally around. Such things are for the weak minded and religious.

Now Atheism is not my 'cause'. I'll argue the point when it arises, but it's not a 'core issue'. If anybody wants to make it their cause I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it adds to my credibility or is in anyway useful to sneer at them as, disaffected, ignorant, weak minded or insecure.

While it's true to say you, 'don't have to be a scientist' to see that claiming truth for a hypothesis conjured out of the ether with no corroborating evidence is ridiculous; surely it doesn no harm to bring scientific evidence to support your own position.

Religion is not a statement 'there is a god creator'. There's a whole body of mumbo jumbo that's been built up, a lot of it flying in the face of the known. For a scientist like Dawkins to react to the gall with which people like Pell dismiss their lifes work is right and natural.

Grey wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 9:17pm:

[quote]While it's true to say you, 'don't have to be a scientist' to see that claiming truth for a hypothesis conjured out of the ether with no corroborating evidence is ridiculous; surely it doesn no harm to bring scientific evidence to support your own position.

I see the point and you are right. Why not use the tools available when taking a position. I am an Atheist and have arrived there after years of having religion shoved down my throat as a child and then the time as an adult to clear my mind of the indoctrinated default position.

I will argue anytime over the social disfunction and psychological damage done by religion and its organisations and will use science where required but understand as well as any that when addressing faith it does not matter what you say, do or present as evidence it will not move the faithful. They must be seeking knowledge and understanding before they can see the evidence. Remember Pell has as much to defend as anyone, it is the basis of his whole existence, his life's commitment. Dawkins is sitting there telling him he has wasted everything on a fairy tale. For Pell and all those faithful this is not  some idiot but a vicious terrorist trying to destroy their whole existence.

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.