Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
I'm not sure what you're talking about, the Bible is the perfectly delivered word of God.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
Well, atheists are easy to hate.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
malice wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
Well, atheists are easy to hate.
I don't hate atheists, or religious people, or anyone in between. i hate the argument itself. srsly. I've never been religious in my life, babe.
Never?! You're missing out.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
Oh snap!
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
If anything, my performance on Hannity suggests that there is a God.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
Because I was bad.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Well I log back on to find this mess. First, equating purpose with desired outcomes demonstrates that Tyson has no idea what he's talking about. Purpose refers to inherent ends, not to wants. Second, the idea of purpose isn't divorced from empirical foundation, it *is* empirical foundation. Otherwise it is impossible to frame abduction or induction as Hume clearly demonstrated. Third, connecting erroneous things like heliocentricism as necessary outcomes of theologies or philosophies that involve knowledge claims that are nonempirical demonstrates an ignorance of those systems; heliocentricity, 6000 year old Earth, etc. were errors that mixed metaphysical foundations with empirical validation and the proper separation of the two came not from the Enlightenment's embrace of the latter but from these very "primitive" systems themselves centuries earlier. One could charge tu quoque on science as well and scientists will in any other context be completely happy to accept that the history of the subject is not just loaded with errors but built on them.
Also, his bit about the 99.whatever % of time until humanity evolved doesn't say anything about whether or not the universe had the "purpose" of generating mankind but more that NDT simply doesn't like that it took so long. It may be the case that the progression needed to be such if God willed the universe to progress from a simple singularity rather than creating everything in place complete with false memories five minutes ago. The whole point is irrelevant anyway since it assumes a creator purposes the universe to spring up man rather than the universe having value in its own right and man being simply a part of it. He goes on about poop bacteria and so forth, but this conflates value with purpose and so has nothing to do with his central thesis. In the video posted later in this thread about his agnosticism, he explicitly states that he doesn't really care about anything beyond his science kit and so he openly broadcasts his own willful ignorance and lack of authority on these issues. Why listen to him and why make these videos in the first place then?
NDGT is a superb scientist but like so many others on this bandwagon he has fallen asleep at the wheel of his studies about these topics. Science has become some ineffable, mystic noun that giveth and taketh away knowledge of the universe (read: God substitute) rather than a verb representing rational epistemology leading to increase of generalized, predictive knowledge about contingent material entities. It's a strange cult that ultimately grew from the rejection of realism and embrace of nominalism.
I do find it frustrating that Dawkins seems to have become the exemplar of atheism/agnosticism. I think we would be better serve with someone who has a softer personality. Even my liberal/moderate Christian friends (generally Episcopal or Presbyterian) bristle at his name. That being said, I would not take away his contributions. The God Delusion has become the entryway for many people looking to "cement" their nonbeliever views and it could not have been written by someone with a "softer personality."
The God Delusion is not a very good place to cement nonbelief unless one simply is open to giving visible, media darling drama queens carte blanch. He and his book are widely reviled even among other academic atheists.
And @ Platy again, it's not just that they happen to be atheist. These "post 9/11, militant" atheists I speak of are cropping up everywhere and attack only the negative aspects that come out of organized religion.
What else would they attack? I'm no fan of organized religion, but why would anyone at all concerned about the human condition come out and condemn much of the charity work that goes on in the name of a particular church or faith?
Excuse my choice of words. They only address the negative aspects of religion, and choose to see nothing good. Or refuse to see anything good. I don't know. I wish I knew what they were thinking.
I don't know a single atheist who would not recognize that some good has come from religion, whether in the past or present. Seriously. And I work on the edges of what you might call the professional atheist movement. What atheists argue, at least in my experience, is that the good that results from religion can and does also result from non-religious efforts, and that, on balance, religion creates more harm than good.
Michael, in what sense or standard are you using the words "good" and "harm"? Also, if it is true that religion creates more harm than good in fact or even in theory, and if all of its good can be shared by nontheists as well, all you've done is explain why you prefer nontheism over theism, not why theism is false and nontheism attains.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
