Your over-zealousness for your anti-religious stance is a little ironic

I'm irrational because I accept that the universe was brought into existence by an external force.

Whilst you are rational because you believe it just popped out of thin air all by itself.

This reminds me of the great debate between the illustrious Islamic Scholar Imam Abu Hanifa and the atheists of his time. When he arrived late to meet them, they noted how his poor punctuality was unbefitting for a Muslim, so he told them it was a miracle he even made it at all. As the bridge between his house and the meeting place had been destroyed, but luckily several trees had just chopped themselves down, carved themselves into the shape of platforms and pillars and then amazingly self-assembled into the shape of a bridge between his side of the bank of the river and the other. Needless to say the debate was short, and it was Islam 1-0.

But I'm sure you'll now rant and rave about how Imam Abu Hanifa must've placed a sword to their necks and forced them to accept his viewpoints...

I'm irrational because I accept that the universe was brought into existence by an external force.

Whilst you are rational because you believe it just popped out of thin air all by itself.

Sorry, I skipped this because it is so basic, but for your benefit, I will expand.

Do not say I believe it popped out of thin air, because that is not what I say.
I say I do not know how the universe began.
I say that science is making some interesting discoveries, but whether it will ever be a question with a totally comprehensible answer, is something I do not know, and have never claimed to.

Your totally illogical belief is that "SOMETHING" aka Allah, had to create it, because something cannot come from nothing.

The obvious next question is where did Allah come from?
Unless Allah is the nothing needed to create something, which means you believe in nothing.
And if you want simplify it, who creates the nothing?

The simple answer is you don't know, you have been taught a fairy tale that allows you to contextualise the universe from the perspective of an imaginary construct, you are free to do that if you wish, but never try and pretend that it is not illogical.

Mozz, religion is not irrational. Theism and atheism are no more or less rational than each other. You could argue that agnosticism is more rational, but I don't think even that would stand up to rigourous philsophical scrutiny. Your fallacy is linking rationality with limiting belief to some arbitrary standard of evidence based support. Saying that your line in the sand is inherently more rational than someone else's is just childish. I believe it reflects modern ignorance regarding basic philosophical groundwork underpinning other fields of knowledge. It has been replaced with propaganda equating it with some kind of absolute truth. If you do not know where your own knowledge stands from a philosophical standpoint, you have no anchor to put someone else's knowledge in perspective.

Young children are not considered to be religious. Most religions have a right of passage around the time of puberty that reflects the child's personal, informed choice to join the flock, rather than their parent's choice on their behalf. Their belief is not that different from yours. If a child's parents are vegetarians or gypsies then the child will be too. This is not child abuse. To suggest that it is the case with religion merely reflect your intolerance, and that of Dawkins.

As I said, Dawkins is rational, and relies on logical argument

No he doesn't. He falls for the same basic logical fallacies that other hyped up media tarts fall for. He sacrificed rigour for publicity and income, just like a dodgy Sunday morning televangelist. Here is one example:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1195014419

Your totally illogical belief is that "SOMETHING" aka Allah, had to create it, because something cannot come from nothing.

This is a fallacy of basic logic that seems unusually common with atheist proselytisers. They assume that other people must base their belief on the same fundamental assumtions that they base their beliefs upon. They cannot comprehend an alternative philosphy or an alternative set of assumptions. They cannot comprehend faith, so assume it must be some kind of extension of reason. They try to make quality subject to truth because they cannot see value in quality alone.

So the argument is: "I believe the flying spaggetti monster pooped the universe out of its holy bottom. You do not pretend to know how the universe came into being. So as I have an explaination, no matter how convoluted and idiotic, as I BELIEVE it to be true therefore I must be right."

Same basic flaw in logic there.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 7:57pm:


Not at all, my argument is that belief in a theory carries no more validity  than an inability to prove a theory, if the belief itself has no proof other than "I believe it to be so".

An agnostic says "I have no proof of how the universe was made"

A religious person states "I believe the Oopah Loopah created the universe."

Both are equal in validity, and neither trumps the other, as the basic proof does not exist.

However, the agnostic admits he has no proof, the believer believes that belief itself carries some virtue.

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 11:40am:


It has virtue to the believer. To the non-believer though it may seem nothing more or less than the believer carries a delusion.

And when debating on a specific topic, the value of an unproven "belief" carries no weight.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 2:35pm:


It's about belief being nothing more than an ephemeral choice, rather than a reasoned and logically proven empirical fact.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 3:39pm:


No it isn't. A fact is a fact. Scientific proof can be replicated and proven.

Quote:


Quote:


The difference between scientific proof, and religious belief is a totally accpted concept. The two terms have no commonality. One is a supersticion, the other is empircal evidence.

Quote:


I agree, religious belief is propaganda, nothing more.

Quote:


No, I believe in the proof of science.

What I do not believe is a persons choice to believe in ghosts, gods, little green men from Mars, golbins , ghoolies, and things that go bump in the night, carry any validity, nor should they give anyone any influence.

Really FD, to try and say that the lack of absolute unequivocal proof, is equal to absolutely no evidential support at all is ludicrous.
That is your stance, you are just attempting to couch it in quasi-philosophical language to confuse an issue, where there need be no confusion.

to try and say that the lack of absolute unequivocal proof, is equal to absolutely no evidential support at all

Strawman. That's nothing like what I am saying.

Well it sure as heck looks like that is what you are trying to say, I must admit your lack of clarity, and conviction on the issue may be causing you to poorly convey what you are trying to say.

For instance, when you wrote;
"There is no such thing as scientific proof. It is absurd to even suggest there is, given that scientific hypotheses, theories and laws are continually disproven, and no scientist would be arrogant enough to claim that current laws are beyond this fate. This is what I mean about a complete absence of philosophical understanding of knowledge. It leads people to put things like science on a pedestal where it doesn't belong."
Here you are pretty clearly indicating that because scientific knowledge is not absolute, or finite, that we need to treat all theories or concepts with equal skepticism, that is clearly incorrect.

We must not ignore reason, and probability as meaningless in some perverse attempt at garnering respect for ludicrous religious concepts which are patent, and obvious folly.

You are not allowed to open the matchbox, but I have faith that inside the matchbox lives a purple elephant who controls the universe, I truly believe it because I have felt his presence in my heart.
I cannot open the matchbox, so I cannot show him that there is no purple elephant in there, but I also cannot give respect to a person who chooses to believe the ridiculous because they have a feeling about it.

How about trying to clearly, and unequivocally, state what you are saying

Your assertion that Atheism, and Theism are equally illogical, deserves to be expanded upon with reason, argument, and evidence, care to try?

Are you an existentialist FD?

I've never really looked into it.

I think you are getting mixed up with my replies to FD.

Your points and mine were very similiar pom.

I understand what FD is saying when he disputes the use of the term scientific proof. There is no such thing as scientific proof, there are scientific theories that are supported by scientific evidence. Scientific ideas are by necessity in a constant state of flux. The religious set often try to attack this as a point of weakness, but that's because they don't usually have a clue how it all works. Many of the religious love the cul-de-sac security of ideas only going so far, the higher levels of reasoning going blissfully unexercised.

Personally I put my faith (notice the word I am using) in science. I like continuity, consistancy and the excitment of discovery. I am a reluctant materialist. By materialist I mean I do not believe in mind or soul IF they are supernatural. By reluctant I mean I would love to believe in something that gave me life after death, reincarnation etc etc but cannot. I consider myself a spiritual person in that I give myself  meaning and purpose to this life even though I do not believe in a soul. My baby son is my chance at life after death and I can give him soul by the quality of the message he recieves from me.

My wife is a practicing catholic, that while she believes that god created the universe initially, she also believes in evolution and the suggested scientific timeframe for evolution.

The bottom line is that she believes in a personal god, the power of prayer and miracles. On these issues I respect her right to be mistaken.  

I am not insensitive to the poetry of certain passages and sections of religious works, Genisis is a very beautifully written piece of scripture, but it is just fantasy invented by a bunch of goat herders that marvelled (understandably) at the world around them. But no more beautifully written however than the final passages of Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. One of the greatest scientists in all human history who saw no irony in believing in god and his theory of evolution.

It must be the human need to feel special against the enormity of the cold dark universe that allows religion to thrive. It can't be due to the money and power grubbing administrators (clergy) of religion as skilled at mass manipulation as they are, or the juvinile tantrum throwing mass murdering gods - particularly the one of Abraham. I think it mostly comes from the idea and the reality of losing loved ones that are so much a part of the people we are. At least the religious have the fantasy that they will meet their loved one again.

I have no such relief available to me. When I lost my father 2 years ago that was the hardest thing to come to terms with. I can hope that I am wrong but I cannot believe it. As wonderful Bill Shakespeare said and I paraphrase
" it surfice that the day will end and then the end be known. If we meet again we will smile, and if not then this parting was well made".

Sorry, slightly back to topic. I enjoyed Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' and it was generally well written. Although he is quite the zealot for non belief. As for the T.V program, he needs to work on his manners.

It is academic, and totally unhelpful to get pedantic about scientific facts.
Are known basic elements facts, or theories?

Sure we must accept that all theories are just hypotheses with varying degrees of evidence supporting them, but in so many cases the preponderance of evidence is so great, that to challenge, or diminish the reliability of these theories is actually just mischievous promotion of misinformation.

Unfortunately what is an obvious and fair point, gets misused by the religious lobby, to try and elevate absolutely ridiculous beliefs, with absolutely no evidence to support them, to the same status as well established, and well documented, and repeatedly testable scientific theories, and they do not deserve to be allowed to claim that status.

It is only religion which claims to have all the answers, and claims to know absolute truth, science is never foolish enough to make such claims.

I guess it comes down to trust FD.

If we have a religion telling people that god will protect them from bullets, should they accept that, or would they err on the side of the repeated evidence that people hit with bullets usually get hurt?

That is the basic question, do we give a baseless claim credence, because it claims religious divination, or do we go with the best evidence we have?

It is a tough question, for many, but glaringly obvious to others.

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 2:04pm:


Nice one FD !

All religions promise 'Jam tomorrow", none deliver.

Quote:


Agonising pain is up there for me.

I had a very prolonged and very painful experience as a young man, and I would always have rather died, than go through it again, until the responsibility of parenthood made me reconsider.

But if it was just me to consider, no worries, give me death any day.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2008 at 8:31pm:


How do we know that the ones who succeeded changed their minds?

As a specialist in the treatment of schizophrenia, I don't care much for the term "nuthouses."

And I don't find your argument for cctv images very persuasive..

mozzaok wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 12:23pm:


http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/c-s-lewis-on-scientific-fact-versus-scientific-theory

In our age I think it would be fair to say that the ease with which a scientific theory assumes the dignity and rigidity of fact varies inversely with the individual's scientific education. In discussion with wholly uneducated audiences I have sometimes found matter which real scientists would regard as highly speculative more firmly believed than many things within our real knowledge. The _imago_ of the Cave Man ranked as hard fact, and the life of Caesar or Napoleon as doubtful rumour. We must not, however, hastily assume that the situation was quite the same in the Middle Ages. The mass media which have in our time created a popular scientism, a caricature of the true sciences, did not then exist. The ignorant were more aware of their ignorance then than now.

---

Some interesting quotes from Dawkins:

http://www.lewissociety.org/scientism.php

Let me attempt to give just a flavor of Dawkins' worldview. For example, he describes love as "a product of highly complicated... nervous equipment or computing equipment of some sort."  Free advice to young people: this is not likely to be an effective way to win the heart of that person with whom you are infatuated.  If you do feel that way about your sweetheart, it may be better to keep the conviction to yourself.  When asked if such a worldview is depressing, Dawkins responds "I don't feel depressed about it.  But if somebody does, that's their problem.  Maybe the logic is deeply pessimistic, the universe is bleak, cold and empty.  But so what?"

---

Scientism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of an actual or perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
The term is also used to pejoratively refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[2] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8]