You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Richard Dawkins Hero
November 24 2024 1.49am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Richard Dawkins Hero

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 15 of 22 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

  

SirPeanut Flag Keston 17 Jun 15 10.30am Send a Private Message to SirPeanut Add SirPeanut as a friend

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

 


There are two kinds of person in this world:
1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 17 Jun 15 10.44am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

Or that they all tie into a greater cosmic reality, that people of ages, including this one, are attempting to relay. One should always accept the very strong likelihood that people thousands of years ago might have been very much 'filling in the gaps' and relying on their knowledge of the times and existent knowledge's / experiences.

The Catholic church struggled a long time with many of these arguments, and came to a number of interesting to absurd conclusions, based on their faith, some of which were quite surprising (they saw the pagan faiths as evidence of the age of the Nephilim in genesis, for example) and the idea or purgatory and the harrowing of hell etc.

We're always limited by what our 'situated knowledge's', and we will likely as not look as limited in our capacity to people in several hundred years.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Shifty97 Flag Croydon 17 Jun 15 10.53am Send a Private Message to Shifty97 Add Shifty97 as a friend

I find this funny because although the vast majority of people on this site are very inteligent, people would not expect football fans to be discussing philosophers or philosophy on a fan site.

Just so you know, I am not trying to insult the inteligence of anyone on this site

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 17 Jun 15 10.55am

Quote Shifty97 at 17 Jun 2015 10.53am

I find this funny because although the vast majority of people on this site are very inteligent, people would not expect football fans to be discussing philosophers or philosophy on a fan site.

Just so you know, I am not trying to insult the inteligence of anyone on this site

We are Nigels after all, we have a reputation to maintain


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 17 Jun 15 11.05am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 17 Jun 15 11.19am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 9.27am

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 8.49am

Quote reborn at 17 Jun 2015 8.36am

LOL sadly for you I live it, I spend all my days when I am not working trying to help other people and significant amounts of my money. You see its not a club, its a way of life.

I think the thing that irritates you the most is I don't fit into your close minded and prejudiced view of what a Christian is.

I will pray for you, not least for a sense of humour. Lighten up man, you seem so angry at everything.


I fail to see how god has anything to do with being charitable. Anyone can be charitable.
I have always thought that people who are always helping strangers are really doing it for themselves anyway.
Is there really such thing as a selfless act ? Not according to Dawkins. I 100% agree with him.

Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 8.51am)

Dawkins would be incorrect, except on a genetic level (however we cannot presume that genetics defines all behavior and genes are sentient), as such degrees of altruism exist and what is more the case is that people who don't believe resort to rhetoric and abstraction of the individual, in order to demonstrate this.

Its a move the goal posts argument, similar to that used in religion, by saying god creates evolution or the big bang, its hiding in the semantic limitations of proof (ie that you can neither truly prove or disprove something).

Granted no act is truly selfless, as existence is experienced existentially, so it must tie back to the individual making the action, but that doesn't distract from the fact that its more selfless than selfish (and we shouldn't mistake selfish for egocentric either, a selfish act is not immoral, unless it is committed egocentrically).


Wow. Where to begin.

Firstly, genes determine behavior for their own survival using the animal as a vehicle. Not very romantic I concede. Human behavior is complex but we must not let that cloud the reality of existence.

As for proof of anything. You must realise that just because you cannot disprove something does not make it more or less likely. This is the kind of absurd argument that followers of religion use. The fact that you cannot disprove god is irrelevant. As Dawkins would say: You cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
SirPeanut Flag Keston 17 Jun 15 11.25am Send a Private Message to SirPeanut Add SirPeanut as a friend

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity!

Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me".

Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument.

 


There are two kinds of person in this world:
1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 17 Jun 15 11.29am

Quote reborn at 17 Jun 2015 9.27am

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 8.49am

Quote reborn at 17 Jun 2015 8.36am

LOL sadly for you I live it, I spend all my days when I am not working trying to help other people and significant amounts of my money. You see its not a club, its a way of life.

I think the thing that irritates you the most is I don't fit into your close minded and prejudiced view of what a Christian is.

I will pray for you, not least for a sense of humour. Lighten up man, you seem so angry at everything.


I fail to see how god has anything to do with being charitable. Anyone can be charitable.
I have always thought that people who are always helping strangers are really doing it for themselves anyway.
Is there really such thing as a selfless act ? Not according to Dawkins. I 100% agree with him.

Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 8.51am)

Anyone can, but very few are. I personally know 00s of people who live their life in this way. Why?

Because they believe that its what they are called to do as Christians.

What do you do Judge? You seem to be on a moral mountain top most of the time, I am intrigued what got you there?


Morals are nothing to do with my attitude.
This is about living with reality v living in a religious delusion for you own purposes.
There is only one reality. It irritates me when people like yourself distance themselves from religion and god when it suits them in order to appear more credible.
Having many facets as a human being is not unusual for anyone and the fact that you apparently do charitable work does not have to involve believing in fairy tales. If the Bible inspired you to be the way you are then great, we all get, or should get, our mortal guidance from many sources. But recognise that your inspiration comes from men, not from an invisible god being or at least have the courage to admit that you believe in mythology.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 17 Jun 15 11.41am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity!

Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me".

Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument.


When you think about all the things that humans have believed and how absurd they are it makes you realise that the current major religions just won the PR battle in many cases. Often it was just that those who had a belief also happened to have better armies. Rome is mostly responsible for the rise of Christianity. If things had gone another way, many could be still believing in any number of daft things and the rest of us would feel obliged to respect that belief.

Hold on... We are oblige to respect daft beliefs.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Brentmiester_General Flag Front line in the battle against t... 17 Jun 15 11.54am

Religion, as Dawkins has stated, is in the death throes.

 


"We love you Palace, we f@cking hate Man U, We love you Palace, we hate the brighton too, We love you Palace we play in red 'n' blue, so f@ck you, and you ...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 17 Jun 15 12.07pm

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 11.25am

Quote derben at 17 Jun 2015 11.05am

Quote SirPeanut at 17 Jun 2015 10.30am

One of the strong arguments (there are many!) against religion and belief in God come from locality.

Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Surely any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place.

The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, tells us that they are the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

What is the fate of those who never heard about the supposed one and true God? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

Well if God is omnipotent, God could easily look into the minds of these past generations and know whether they would have believed in him and Jesus if given the opportunity!

Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation. And your point seems to overlook one of the Ten Commandments "You shall have no other Gods before me".

Just another example of completely contradictory and confused religious argument.

Don't see how you can possibly know the intentions of a omnipotent God. Also, if God chose, being omnipotent, he could change the past so that there were no other gods. Again, if God chose, being omnipotent, God could make everyone who ever lived believe in him.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 17 Jun 15 12.32pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 11.19am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Jun 2015 9.27am

Quote TheJudge at 17 Jun 2015 8.49am

Quote reborn at 17 Jun 2015 8.36am

LOL sadly for you I live it, I spend all my days when I am not working trying to help other people and significant amounts of my money. You see its not a club, its a way of life.

I think the thing that irritates you the most is I don't fit into your close minded and prejudiced view of what a Christian is.

I will pray for you, not least for a sense of humour. Lighten up man, you seem so angry at everything.


I fail to see how god has anything to do with being charitable. Anyone can be charitable.
I have always thought that people who are always helping strangers are really doing it for themselves anyway.
Is there really such thing as a selfless act ? Not according to Dawkins. I 100% agree with him.

Edited by TheJudge (17 Jun 2015 8.51am)

Dawkins would be incorrect, except on a genetic level (however we cannot presume that genetics defines all behavior and genes are sentient), as such degrees of altruism exist and what is more the case is that people who don't believe resort to rhetoric and abstraction of the individual, in order to demonstrate this.

Its a move the goal posts argument, similar to that used in religion, by saying god creates evolution or the big bang, its hiding in the semantic limitations of proof (ie that you can neither truly prove or disprove something).

Granted no act is truly selfless, as existence is experienced existentially, so it must tie back to the individual making the action, but that doesn't distract from the fact that its more selfless than selfish (and we shouldn't mistake selfish for egocentric either, a selfish act is not immoral, unless it is committed egocentrically).


Wow. Where to begin.

Firstly, genes determine behavior for their own survival using the animal as a vehicle. Not very romantic I concede. Human behavior is complex but we must not let that cloud the reality of existence.

As for proof of anything. You must realise that just because you cannot disprove something does not make it more or less likely. This is the kind of absurd argument that followers of religion use. The fact that you cannot disprove god is irrelevant. As Dawkins would say: You cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either.

Only if you discount evidence from psychological sciences, that demonstrate quite adequately that genes at best have a influence on behavior and in no what categories it. The paradigm limitations of Biology, which has limited capacity to study behavior, relates to species not individual behavior. Its convenient when dealing with species and generations, but ultimately its reductionist and unsupported from outside of biology.

There is a relationship between genetics and behaviors, but in no way is it definitive, and evidence suggests that experience plays a far more important role in determining how we react than genetics. Even neurology suggests that the role of genes in behavior is limited to structural influence, rather than determinism.

Whilst humans do not possess free will, its equally absurd to suggest that they lack agency.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 15 of 22 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Richard Dawkins Hero