Will Obamites please stop trying to brainwash and abuse our children?

[Black Cloud]

Dawkins is the Anthony Robbins of atheism. All he's really selling is "buy more Richard Dawkins."

 

[McLovin]

No. I already went through this once. My original statement was that there must be a better representative than Dawkins for the atheist point of view. I explained why. It's very simple. There is a difference between being religious and believing in something that could be called "God", so arguments against religion are not arguments for atheism.

I've stated this at least twice. That is my point.

Your point fails because its underlying reasons are worthless. It really is as simple as that. No matter how many times you repeat it like they do with the cry of "death panels", it won't make it true.

In sum, you think Dawkins contends those things, but he doesn't. He clearly states that, at this point in time, it cannot be proven that there does not exist a "god" or any incarnation thereof. And along that line, while he is clearly critical of religion, he never attacks religion to prove that god or any incarnation thereof does not exist.

You're wrong, Dave. Plain and simple.

I also think it's funny how you never address the charge that you haven't read Dawkins. It's a pretty serious charge in this particular instance. I mean, how do you purport to adjudge whether there is a better representative for the atheist point of view than Dawkins if you don't really know what he's saying? Your silence is quite deafening.

Your point, where I hung myself with my own words, as you say, was your opinion, but it's actually very common to see the words messianic and Obama together. It's not as if I made this up or was the first person to say it, so it's not a huge overstatement made for effect. It is how Obama was marketed.

That's your defense? Well if that's the case, then Theo could easily refute your own bloviating mess by saying that his own criticism that it's "child abuse" is also his own opinion, and that you should leave well enough alone.

I am not interested in starting again with a new set of what if's and "what do you think about this". I've been patient, but if you can't answer my question, don't bother.

Translation: "I don't want to admit that I'm a hypocrite when it comes to the indoctrination of the pledge of allegiance so I'm going to muddy the waters by playing dumb games...yet again."

And besides, your question hangs on your misinterpretation of Dawkins, which I've already discussed previously.

Take care, Dave. God bless.

 

[Dave]

Your point fails because its underlying reasons are worthless. It really is as simple as that. No matter how many times you repeat it like they do with the cry of "death panels", it won't make it true.

In sum, you think Dawkins contends those things, but he doesn't. He clearly states that, at this point in time, it cannot be proven that there does not exist a "god" or any incarnation thereof. And along that line, while he is clearly critical of religion, he never attacks religion to prove that god or any incarnation thereof does not exist.

You're wrong, Dave. Plain and simple.

I also think it's funny how you never address the charge that you haven't read Dawkins. It's a pretty serious charge in this particular instance. I mean, how do you purport to adjudge whether there is a better representative for the atheist point of view than Dawkins if you don't really know what he's saying? Your silence is quite deafening.



That's your defense? Well if that's the case, then Theo could easily refute your own bloviating mess by saying that his own criticism that it's "child abuse" is also his own opinion, and that you should leave well enough alone.



Translation: "I don't want to admit that I'm a hypocrite when it comes to the indoctrination of the pledge of allegiance so I'm going to muddy the waters by playing dumb games...yet again."

And besides, your question hangs on your misinterpretation of Dawkins, which I've already discussed previously.

Take care, Dave. God bless.

You've asked a question and answered it for me, and now I'm a hypocrite, in addition to having the attention span of a chihuahua and everything else. You don't know what I think about your pledge of allegiance question, and yet it makes me a hypocrite?

If I'm wrong then it would be quite easy to state that, and to say that until I have become indoctrinated to the cult of Dawkins, watched every video and read every book, then my initial statement that there must be a better proponent of atheism, is wrong, and move on.

Flax posted one example, the suicide bomber, and that fit my contention, and the idea was never addressed again, as I'm simply too stupid to understand it.

It's not necessary for me to have read everything he ever wrote. If you have, and can tell me where I am wrong, it should be quite simple to do so. Instead, you try to start at square one.

Let me give you some advice. If you're going to set up a clever trap like this pledge of allegiance question, you have to wait for me to walk into it before you declare that you trapped me.

Do you know about the pledge of allegiance, that "under God" was not in the original version? Would it matter to your argument? I'm not sure because I don't know exactly what it is you'd like to have me saying. I feel that I'm being forced to confess but I have to guess what the crime it.

If Dawkins contention is that God can't be proven to exist, and so he is critical of religion, well, it seems to me that the criticism of religion IS being used to prove his point, or else why are we discussing (or refusing to discuss, in your case) Islamic suicide bombers?

Can you deny that many atheists make remarks about "a man in a robe living in the sky" and things like that? They attack religion, and then they use these examples from Dawkins as some sort of proof.

You say I've got it backwards, that the statements about the futility of and violence caused by religion come after the statement that there is no God. That makes it sort of a sidebar point, but again and again, this is what is emphasized. The god that people reject is a mythology, or a symbolic representation.

Proof that there is a prime mover lies in reasoning, and it's more philosophical that scientific, and the same goes for "proof" of atheist beliefs, or lack thereof.

To return to an earlier argument, do you believe in gravity? Can you prove it exists?

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

To return to an earlier argument, do you believe in gravity? Can you prove it exists?

Yeah. (Short answer.)

First off, drop something. Gravity is essentially beyond question. We can predict how it works, how it affects falling objects, satellites, planets, and galaxies. We know that it depends on the mass of an object. There are gravity wave detectors, and we know gravity waves exist, like LIGO, or the upcoming LISA satellite which I think I mentioned before. There are a few minor discrepancies in the expansion of space, or the speed of stars in other galaxies, which provide some of the best evidence of Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, or the Pioneer anomaly, but, at the worst, all this means is gravity functions slightly differently than we thought, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The word "believe" doesn't really apply to gravity, because "belief" is subjective, gravity, like electromagnetism, or radiation, or matter, etc., simply exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them or not. I mean you can go out into metaphysics and say there is no such thing as truth, but thats' sort of a dead end.

BTW: Dawkins rules.

 

[Dave]

Yeah. (Short answer.)

First off, drop something. Gravity is essentially beyond question. We can predict how it works, how it affects falling objects, satellites, planets, and galaxies. We know that it depends on the mass of an object. There are gravity wave detectors, and we know gravity waves exist, like LIGO, or the upcoming LISA satellite which I think I mentioned before. There are a few minor discrepancies in the expansion of space, or the speed of stars in other galaxies, which provide some of the best evidence of Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, or the Pioneer anomaly, but, at the worst, all this means is gravity functions slightly differently than we thought, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The word "believe" doesn't really apply to gravity, because "belief" is subjective, gravity, like electromagnetism, or radiation, or matter, etc., simply exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them or not. I mean you can go out into metaphysics and say there is no such thing as truth, but thats' sort of a dead end.

BTW: Dawkins rules.

We don't know gravity waves exist. We know that we can detect them, that we have instruments which seem to indicate that they exist, and that we can use our knowledge of them to predict things like rate of fall, and it's quite useful to have this knowledge, but we witness them as an effect, and not as a thing. We can see the effects of gravity, but not gravity itself.

Do you believe in wind? You see the trees move and the leaves fall, but you don't see the wind do you? It's really just pressure in the air, and that can be measured and predicted also, but again, it's not a material thing. It does exist though, as far as I can tell.

Sometimes I am surprised that your perspective on things is narrower than I would imagine it to be. I think that we really need to go down some of these dead ends on occasion. You must be familiar with David Hume. Would he consider "drop something" and watch it fall to be proof?

Does Truth exist? Why is this a dead end? Most of us have faith that Truth does exist, but it's an Ideal, isn't it? And why do we have that Ideal? Why are we able to talk about things like Truth, when we've never in our lives encountered it?

"Dawkins rules"? I'm sorry but so far no one has made a case for that. I really believe that a case could be made for atheism that would be powerful enough to make people question their beliefs, but I haven't seen that. Dawkins basically exists to tell people what they already believe, and to do so in a way that appears to be intelligent, so that they have a book to point to as proof. Kind of like a religion in that way. His fans seem to be part of a cult.

 

[McLovin]

You've asked a question and answered it for me, and now I'm a hypocrite, in addition to having the attention span of a chihuahua and everything else. You don't know what I think about your pledge of allegiance question, and yet it makes me a hypocrite?

Let me give you some advice. If you're going to set up a clever trap like this pledge of allegiance question, you have to wait for me to walk into it before you declare that you trapped me.

Do you know about the pledge of allegiance, that "under God" was not in the original version? Would it matter to your argument? I'm not sure because I don't know exactly what it is you'd like to have me saying. I feel that I'm being forced to confess but I have to guess what the crime it.

Wow. You're really going to pretend that you don't support the pledge of allegiance? Really? No, really? Then what was your previous signature all about? Yes, the one where you basically declared your support for the pledge of allegiance especially regarding the "under God" part of the pledge. That, of course, is antithetical to your statements in this thread about the evils of indoctrinating children. Contrary to your contention, my conclusion is based on your own words.

Let's face it. You've expressed hypocritical views. You just don't want to own up to it.

Also, it speaks volumes that you don't respond to the charge of hypocrisy at all. Instead, you try to deflect yet again by focusing on me somehow that my reasoning somehow lacks foundation when in actuality it does.

If I'm wrong, here's your chance to correct me, Dave. You're already on record that it's an abuse of the school system to permit indoctrination of children and so forth. So tell me that you agree that the pledge of allegiance has no place in the classroom, and I will say mea maxima culpa. But you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath for such a response out of you.

If I'm wrong then it would be quite easy to state that, and to say that until I have become indoctrinated to the cult of Dawkins, watched every video and read every book, then my initial statement that there must be a better proponent of atheism, is wrong, and move on.

Wait. What? Dude, are you serious? I would've loved to have walked away after correcting you, but you kept repeating your erroneous paraphrasing of Dawkins, which is why I again explained why you were wrong. Capiche?

Also, with respect to your passive aggressive suggestion that I might be indoctrinated into the cult of Dawkins, I find that rather laughable because I disagree with Dawkins in several major respects, and to be honest, I find his books rather boring. I'd also volunteer that I think Sam Harris is a douchebag. So, your fishing expedition was for naught.

I also find your "cult" accusation laughable given that one of the main engines of atheism is freethinking, i.e., opposition to dogma...think for yourself. So pardon me if I find your oblique criticism to be rather ill-fitting.

And what's more, do you see the...oddity of having supposedly lectured me about making assumptions, and all the while making assumptions of your own? You probably don't.

But as to the more pointed response to your suggestion, it doesn't take some Dawkins devotee to answer your question regarding his position about "god". If you simply would've read his chapter titles alone in The God Delusion, you would've seen that one of them read "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". That statement clearly reflects that Dawkins does not contend that he has proven teh non-existence of "god". Also, if you would've used simple your reading comprehension, you would've seen that he is clear that he doesn't agree that the existence of "god" has been disproven.

But let's get back to the heart of our disagreement: You spoke about Dawkins as if you were well acquainted with his brand of atheism. It is now clear that you are not. In fact, you don't even know the basics of his brand of atheism. Let's face it: You got caught talking out of your ass. And the fact that you keep digging a deeper whole makes it all the more unimpressive. Quite frankly, you're behaving like those religious nutters who protest all sorts of things before they ever see/read the material that they're protesting. It's laughable.

It's not necessary for me to have read everything he ever wrote. If you have, and can tell me where I am wrong, it should be quite simple to do so. Instead, you try to start at square one.

Who said you had to read everything Dawkins wrote? You're persistent straw man arguments are tedious.

Of course it's not necessary for you to have read everything he ever wrote. But it would've been nice if you had read something that would have given you some ideas of what he actually said, not what you think you believe he's said.

And as I said before, I did correct you, but you didn't listen so your suggestion sounds rather absurd.

If Dawkins contention is that God can't be proven to exist, and so he is critical of religion, well, it seems to me that the criticism of religion IS being used to prove his point, or else why are we discussing (or refusing to discuss, in your case) Islamic suicide bombers?

Again, your misunderstanding of Dawkins is betraying you yet again. He never says that "god" can't be proven to exist either. If you're going to criticize him, it would behoove you to at least know what he stands for, don't you think? You're really grasping at straws.

Furthermore, it is you, not Dawkins and other atheists for that matter, who is conflating the question of religion with the existence of "god".

Let me ask you this, Dave. I assume that you do not approve of the Islamic suicide bombers, correct? Is that the reason why you disbelieve in Islam? Or is it other reasons? Focus, Dave, focus. Don't make me do all the heavy lifting.

Can you deny that many atheists make remarks about "a man in a robe living in the sky" and things like that? They attack religion, and then they use these examples from Dawkins as some sort of proof.

See previous response.

Also, Dawkins is one atheist. I think it would be stupid to cite him as "proof" according to the way that you're suggesting. And yet another straw-man argument.

You say I've got it backwards, that the statements about the futility of and violence caused by religion come after the statement that there is no God. That makes it sort of a sidebar point, but again and again, this is what is emphasized. The god that people reject is a mythology, or a symbolic representation.

I never said those things. Again, your straw man arguments are tedious.

 

[McLovin]

Proof that there is a prime mover lies in reasoning, and it's more philosophical that scientific, and the same goes for "proof" of atheist beliefs, or lack thereof.

Do you believe Scientology? Or that Gaea was born out of chaos? Or any of the numerous other religions that profess knowing who "god" really is? And what if they claim that, on philosophical grounds, that their views cannot be disproven. And yet, you're a christian, right? No false idols before you, right? Tell me how you refute their beliefs. I bet they're not too dissimilar to mine.

To return to an earlier argument, do you believe in gravity? Can you prove it exists?

If you don't understand the distinction between a scientific theory and a religious belief, then you need a lot of catching up to do.

Gravity is a scientific theory. The word "theory" in science is not used the same way that it is used in everyday life. In everyday life, the word "theory" is a supposition, a hunch. In science, it is completely different. It is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.

When we look at the sun and its eight planets orbiting, we call that the heliocentric theory. When we look at that system involving the nucleus, proton and electron, we call that the atomic theory. The same holds true for the theory of evolution, theory of gravity and so forth. In each of these instances, they are explanations based on observations, experimentation and reasoning. They are testable.

It's not a matter of "believing" in gravity. It is a matter of practicality. When a spoon teeters on the edge of a table, I move it because otherwise it might fall because of gravity. When rocket scientists send a probe to, say, Jupiter, they rely on mathematical computations based on gravity, and on and on. I rely on it. You rely on it. We all basically rely on it.

But I don't believe in gravity as if it's some final end product. That is because our understanding of gravity may (and probably will) change. When Newton introduced his ideas on gravity, that concept of gravity existed for many years. Then, Einstein came along, and introduced a brand new perspective of gravity, i.e., it's not two matters attracting one another, but rather a curvature of space-time based on the mass of a given object. That is the leading scientific theory on gravity today. But perhaps sometime in the future, our ideas of gravity may change. Perhaps someone will come up with a better description of gravity. Perhaps someone will discover the "theory of everything" that may give us better insight into things like gravity compared to what he know it to be. As such, I don't think this notion that I have to "believe" in gravity is of much use or necessary at this point.

And my beliefs on religion are somewhat similar. Based on what we know today, there is nothing that I have seen that leads me to believe that the existence of "god" has or has not been proven. I think the gods that mankind has worshiped over the years are rather silly, but I don't discount that there may be another incarnation of "god" that may be the "source". Maybe someday there will be an "answer". Maybe not. Maybe a "god" exists. Maybe not. Although I freely admit that I'm skeptical.

In stark contrast, a religious belief has no valid observations. It is not subject to experimentation. How can you test whether jesus is the son of god? How can you test whether he rose to heaven after three days? How can you test whether god created man in his image and on and on? How can you test the existence of a prime mover? Because they cannot be tested, they're meaningless to me.

But as I suggested before, do you believe in any of the 1,000+ gods that mankind has believed in through the years? You can't prove that they aren't real, and yet you are a christian, and believe in your one god. Nevertheless, you've already have passed judgment on them all that they're all false. Do you now see the absurdity of your supposed logic? I'm sure you don't.

 

[McLovin]

"Dawkins rules"? I'm sorry but so far no one has made a case for that. I really believe that a case could be made for atheism that would be powerful enough to make people question their beliefs, but I haven't seen that. Dawkins basically exists to tell people what they already believe, and to do so in a way that appears to be intelligent, so that they have a book to point to as proof. Kind of like a religion in that way. His fans seem to be part of a cult.

Among the numerous absurd generalizations that you make in that post, I think it's been well documented in this thread that you really don't know what Dawkins' brand of atheism is, and as such, you're basically talking out of your ass.

 

[Dave]

Wow. You're really going to pretend that you don't support the pledge of allegiance? Really? No, really? Then what was your previous signature all about? Yes, the one where you basically declared your support for the pledge of allegiance especially regarding the "under God" part of the pledge. That, of course, is antithetical to your statements in this thread about the evils of indoctrinating children. Contrary to your contention, my conclusion is based on your own words.

Let's face it. You've expressed hypocritical views. You just don't want to own up to it.

Also, it speaks volumes that you don't respond to the charge of hypocrisy at all. Instead, you try to deflect yet again by focusing on me somehow that my reasoning somehow lacks foundation when in actuality it does.

If I'm wrong, here's your chance to correct me, Dave. You're already on record that it's an abuse of the school system to permit indoctrination of children and so forth. So tell me that you agree that the pledge of allegiance has no place in the classroom, and I will say mea maxima culpa. But you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath for such a response out of you.



Wait. What? Dude, are you serious? I would've loved to have walked away after correcting you, but you kept repeating your erroneous paraphrasing of Dawkins, which is why I again explained why you were wrong. Capiche?

Also, with respect to your passive aggressive suggestion that I might be indoctrinated into the cult of Dawkins, I find that rather laughable because I disagree with Dawkins in several major respects, and to be honest, I find his books rather boring. I'd also volunteer that I think Sam Harris is a douchebag. So, your fishing expedition was for naught.

I also find your "cult" accusation laughable given that one of the main engines of atheism is freethinking, i.e., opposition to dogma...think for yourself. So pardon me if I find your oblique criticism to be rather ill-fitting.

And what's more, do you see the...oddity of having supposedly lectured me about making assumptions, and all the while making assumptions of your own? You probably don't.

But as to the more pointed response to your suggestion, it doesn't take some Dawkins devotee to answer your question regarding his position about "god". If you simply would've read his chapter titles alone in The God Delusion, you would've seen that one of them read "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". That statement clearly reflects that Dawkins does not contend that he has proven teh non-existence of "god". Also, if you would've used simple your reading comprehension, you would've seen that he is clear that he doesn't agree that the existence of "god" has been disproven.

But let's get back to the heart of our disagreement: You spoke about Dawkins as if you were well acquainted with his brand of atheism. It is now clear that you are not. In fact, you don't even know the basics of his brand of atheism. Let's face it: You got caught talking out of your ass. And the fact that you keep digging a deeper whole makes it all the more unimpressive. Quite frankly, you're behaving like those religious nutters who protest all sorts of things before they ever see/read the material that they're protesting. It's laughable.



Who said you had to read everything Dawkins wrote? You're persistent straw man arguments are tedious.

Of course it's not necessary for you to have read everything he ever wrote. But it would've been nice if you had read something that would have given you some ideas of what he actually said, not what you think you believe he's said.

And as I said before, I did correct you, but you didn't listen so your suggestion sounds rather absurd.



Again, your misunderstanding of Dawkins is betraying you yet again. He never says that "god" can't be proven to exist either. If you're going to criticize him, it would behoove you to at least know what he stands for, don't you think? You're really grasping at straws.

Furthermore, it is you, not Dawkins and other atheists for that matter, who is conflating the question of religion with the existence of "god".

Let me ask you this, Dave. I assume that you do not approve of the Islamic suicide bombers, correct? Is that the reason why you disbelieve in Islam? Or is it other reasons? Focus, Dave, focus. Don't make me do all the heavy lifting.



See previous response.

Also, Dawkins is one atheist. I think it would be stupid to cite him as "proof" according to the way that you're suggesting. And yet another straw-man argument.



I never said those things. Again, your straw man arguments are tedious.

LOL!!!! My signature came from here. "The Pledge of Allegiance does not end with Hail Satan" was one of the things that Bart Simpson wrote on the blackboard at the start of a Simpsons episode.

I think that answers all of your charges about making assumptions nicely. I happened to use that quote because I thought it was funny given all the recent arguments about Obama. I don't really have a strong position on the pledge of allegiance, but thanks for diagramming your logic for me. It's hilarious!

And yes, Dawkins is one atheist. VERY GOOD! That's excellent. Now maybe you can see why I made the remark that there might be better proponents of atheism? That was the statement I made that started all this.

 

[Theo]

I don't know what all is being said in this thread, but I have to update it.

Here we have yet another video of schoolchildren being programmed into Obama-worshipping robots in our schools:

[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMkEJ0qi1yM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMkEJ0qi1yM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

The Obamites are clearly out of control in trying to turn our children into programmed robots. There is video after video revealing this shit. It is SICK and it is CHILD ABUSE in our schools!

I think this is unprecedented in America. We have adults literally praying to a president as a deity, and school teachers forcing children to chant to the president as a bunch of automatons. All of this is completely foreign to America as I know it and the America I grew up in; it is shit I associate with totalitarian regimes.

If you don't believe me that Obamite adults literally pray to Obama as their God, here's a video showing just that:


[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aMJgwPenhpY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aMJgwPenhpY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

 

[Dave]

Do you believe Scientology? Or that Gaea was born out of chaos? Or any of the numerous other religions that profess knowing who "god" really is? And what if they claim that, on philosophical grounds, that their views cannot be disproven. And yet, you're a christian, right? No false idols before you, right? Tell me how you refute their beliefs. I bet they're not too dissimilar to mine.



If you don't understand the distinction between a scientific theory and a religious belief, then you need a lot of catching up to do.

Gravity is a scientific theory. The word "theory" in science is not used the same way that it is used in everyday life. In everyday life, the word "theory" is a supposition, a hunch. In science, it is completely different. It is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.

When we look at the sun and its eight planets orbiting, we call that the heliocentric theory. When we look at that system involving the nucleus, proton and electron, we call that the atomic theory. The same holds true for the theory of evolution, theory of gravity and so forth. In each of these instances, they are explanations based on observations, experimentation and reasoning. They are testable.

It's not a matter of "believing" in gravity. It is a matter of practicality. When a spoon teeters on the edge of a table, I move it because otherwise it might fall because of gravity. When rocket scientists send a probe to, say, Jupiter, they rely on mathematical computations based on gravity, and on and on. I rely on it. You rely on it. We all basically rely on it.

But I don't believe in gravity as if it's some final end product. That is because our understanding of gravity may (and probably will) change. When Newton introduced his ideas on gravity, that concept of gravity existed for many years. Then, Einstein came along, and introduced a brand new perspective of gravity, i.e., it's not two matters attracting one another, but rather a curvature of space-time based on the mass of a given object. That is the leading scientific theory on gravity today. But perhaps sometime in the future, our ideas of gravity may change. Perhaps someone will come up with a better description of gravity. Perhaps someone will discover the "theory of everything" that may give us better insight into things like gravity compared to what he know it to be. As such, I don't think this notion that I have to "believe" in gravity is of much use or necessary at this point.

And my beliefs on religion are somewhat similar. Based on what we know today, there is nothing that I have seen that leads me to believe that the existence of "god" has or has not been proven. I think the gods that mankind has worshiped over the years are rather silly, but I don't discount that there may be another incarnation of "god" that may be the "source". Maybe someday there will be an "answer". Maybe not. Maybe a "god" exists. Maybe not. Although I freely admit that I'm skeptical.

In stark contrast, a religious belief has no valid observations. It is not subject to experimentation. How can you test whether jesus is the son of god? How can you test whether he rose to heaven after three days? How can you test whether god created man in his image and on and on? How can you test the existence of a prime mover? Because they cannot be tested, they're meaningless to me.

But as I suggested before, do you believe in any of the 1,000+ gods that mankind has believed in through the years? You can't prove that they aren't real, and yet you are a christian, and believe in your one god. Nevertheless, you've already have passed judgment on them all that they're all false. Do you now see the absurdity of your supposed logic? I'm sure you don't.

I'm a Christian? Where did I ever give you that idea? That proves my point again although you are never ever going to get it. Now you can search and find me quoting a Catholic prayer, but that does not make me a Christian or a Catholic. "Do you now see the absurdity of your supposed logic? I'm sure you don't."

Now I agree with you about gravity. It works in mathematical equations and helps us pilot spacecraft. But, yes, we may find a better model someday of what it is and how it works. That's how science works. We use the best model we have at the time, but we don't claim it's "beyond belief, it just is" as NoGodsNoMasters wrote. You realize that you're making my point for me, right?

But the other point is that there may be other things that we have not discovered that may lead to a better understanding of this Prime Mover, and so I don't find it a dead end or meaningless, and that was the point I was trying to make to NoGodsNoMasters, so thank you.

 

[Dave]

Among the numerous absurd generalizations that you make in that post, I think it's been well documented in this thread that you really don't know what Dawkins' brand of atheism is, and as such, you're basically talking out of your ass.

Aren't we back to the point that I have not read enough Dawkins? The only thing that's been well documented is that you are patronizing and make assumptions that have no basis in fact. What you think I believe or believe in should not even be an issue, and I'm getting a little annoyed at being "insulted" by half-wits. At first I thought you were an improvement on Flax, whose big argument seems to be "Oh yeah!" but your technique of being condescending while making stupid assumptions doesn't really come off as an improvement.

 

[Dave]

I don't know what all is being said in this thread, but I have to update it.

Here we have yet another video of schoolchildren being programmed into Obama-worshipping robots in our schools:

[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMkEJ0qi1yM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMkEJ0qi1yM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

The Obamites are clearly out of control in trying to turn our children into programmed robots. There is video after video revealing this shit. It is SICK and it is CHILD ABUSE in our schools!

I think this is unprecedented in America. We have adults literally praying to a president as a deity, and school teachers forcing children to chant to the president as a bunch of automatons. All of this is completely foreign to America as I know it and the America I grew up in; it is shit I associate with totalitarian regimes.

If you don't believe me that Obamite adults literally pray to Obama as their God, here's a video showing just that:


[YouTube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aMJgwPenhpY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aMJgwPenhpY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YouTube]

Dude, that trombone just about killed me and then there's a lot of speaking that I can't understand. Where is the part where they pray to Obama? I couldn't watch it.

 

[Theo]

Wait a minute, Theo. I don't mind shilling for you and I'll even throw the NEA under the bus, but you're going too far with this Richard Dawkins thing. Surely there must be a better example of atheist thought?

Also, I was taught that Santa Claus is fact. Was that child abuse? Why or why not?

I mentioned Dawkins because he has commented extensively about religious schools and pushing religion on young minds. I agree with him. Let people decide their religious views when they have fully formed brains.

 

[Dave]

I mentioned Dawkins because he has commented extensively about religious schools and pushing religion on young minds. I agree with him. Let people decide their religious views when they have fully formed brains.

yeah, but based on this thread that might never happen.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

We don't know gravity waves exist. We know that we can detect them, that we have instruments which seem to indicate that they exist, and that we can use our knowledge of them to predict things like rate of fall, and it's quite useful to have this knowledge,

Not entirely accurate, the '93 Nobel physics prize was awarded for the discovery of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, the observed decay of the pulsar's orbit is occuring like clockwork due to energy loss via gravitational waves precisely as predicted by the theory of relativity.It's like positrons, they were theoretically predicted, but nobody had seen them, now we can create beams of them. You could also cite the germ theory of disease which was controversial at the time.

...but we witness them as an effect, and not as a thing. We can see the effects of gravity, but not gravity itself.

Do you believe in wind? You see the trees move and the leaves fall, but you don't see the wind do you? It's really just pressure in the air, and that can be measured and predicted also, but again, it's not a material thing. It does exist though, as far as I can tell.

"As far as I can tell"? I wonder what your point is. Democracy, and obsessive compulsive disorder are intangible, yet they exist. I don't see why tangibility makes any difference. We can only see a fraction of the radiation spectrum, that does not mean the rest does not exist, or that we cannot definitively know it exists. Again, this has nothing to do with belief. I cannot see obsessive compulsive disorder or democracy or gamma radiation, but I know they exist, and they would exist if I did not know they existed. Getting back to the origin of this thing you cannot seriously compare gravity to god, one is a force exerted by objects with a certain amount of mass, the other is a fictional character or an emotional security blanket.

Sometimes I am surprised that your perspective on things is narrower than I would imagine it to be. I think that we really need to go down some of these dead ends on occasion. You must be familiar with David Hume. Would he consider "drop something" and watch it fall to be proof?

I am vaguely aware of Hume. I was also partly joking. I see it as an absurd question which merits an answer in kind. It was also to highlight the absurdity of the question, itself, it's like the Flat Earth Society or something.

Does Truth exist? Why is this a dead end? Most of us have faith that Truth does exist, but it's an Ideal, isn't it? And why do we have that Ideal? Why are we able to talk about things like Truth, when we've never in our lives encountered it?

Part of why this is a dead end is because it goes nowhere and is totally paralyzing. I can't know you exist. If you exist you can't know that I exist. Therefore, there is no point in having this conversation. Because there is no truth niether of us is right. How is this productive? It ends in a stalemate, a masturbatory exercise. I understand the problems of truth and knowledge, we need to accept and overcome them as best we can and deal with the real universe, which does exist, irrespective of our knowledge of it.

"Dawkins rules"?

An oversimplification in the form of colloquialism. There doesn't seem to be any misinterpretation.

I'm sorry but so far no one has made a case for that. I really believe that a case could be made for atheism that would be powerful enough to make people question their beliefs, but I haven't seen that.

I think some can be swayed, but only those who already have doubts. Religion is not based in logic, in fact it exists in spite of logic, therefore it is not susceptible to it. That is what "faith" means: total certitude despite no evidence whatsoever. Disregarding the rest of his acheivements for the moment, Dawkins' book is essentially an athiest manifesto, as well as a scientific and philosophical deconstruction of religion. Really, a momentus acheivement. If you have any specific greivances, I have my copy at hand, we could do that.

Dawkins basically exists to tell people what they already believe, and to do so in a way that appears to be intelligent, so that they have a book to point to as proof.

That is part of the problem, the futility. As I've said religion is not susceptible to logic so ultimately the book can only acheive so much. However, I think it can have a very positive effect, at least on atheists. Atheists are the largest unrepresented minority in this country, there are more of us than homosexuals but we are invisible. We demur and submit to fanatics spouting bronze-age bullshit as a matter of daily life, it's time we "came out of the closet" so to speak, and started representing ourselves.

Kind of like a religion in that way. His fans seem to be part of a cult.

No, Dawkins is a man, I won't say "merely" or "just" because that invokes some bogus religious concept. He is a man, and about as great as one can be. He is brilliant and accomplished, he has an impressive body of work. I look up to him. Not as much as Chomsky, but I do. He is one of many great minds I admire, like Noam Chomsky, like Howard Zinn, and recently, Nick Bostrom, among others. However, as great as they may be, they are as mortal as myself. This is totally different from the obsessive deification in religious groups.

 

[Dave]

Not entirely accurate, the '93 Nobel physics prize was awarded for the discovery of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, the observed decay of the pulsar's orbit is occuring like clockwork due to energy loss via gravitational waves precisely as predicted by the theory of relativity.It's like positrons, they were theoretically predicted, but nobody had seen them, now we can create beams of them. You could also cite the germ theory of disease which was controversial at the time.

Yes, these things function and have predictable qualities.

"As far as I can tell"? I wonder what your point is. Democracy, and obsessive compulsive disorder are intangible, yet they exist. I don't see why tangibility makes any difference. We can only see a fraction of the radiation spectrum, that does not mean the rest does not exist, or that we cannot definitively know it exists. Again, this has nothing to do with belief. I cannot see obsessive compulsive disorder or democracy or gamma radiation, but I know they exist, and they would exist if I did not know they existed. Getting back to the origin of this thing you cannot seriously compare gravity to god, one is a force exerted by objects with a certain amount of mass, the other is a fictional character or an emotional security blanket.

Sorry, but you are stuck on your preconceptions of the word "god". How are you going to write an equation where you start with 0 and wind up with (potentially) infinity?

I am vaguely aware of Hume. I was also partly joking. I see it as an absurd question which merits an answer in kind. It was also to highlight the absurdity of the question, itself, it's like the Flat Earth Society or something.

We can't prove anything. Yes, it's like science fiction, but it helps to be aware of this in some part of your mind. Doesn't mean I'm going to walk in front of a bus to see if it will pass through me. I'll go with what has worked so far.

Part of why this is a dead end is because it goes nowhere and is totally paralyzing. I can't know you exist. If you exist you can't know that I exist. Therefore, there is no point in having this conversation. Because there is no truth niether of us is right. How is this productive? It ends in a stalemate, a masturbatory exercise. I understand the problems of truth and knowledge, we need to accept and overcome them as best we can and deal with the real universe, which does exist, irrespective of our knowledge of it.

We don't overcome them. We compartmentalize our minds so that we do what is practical, but have a possibility for what is currently impractical, like teleportation. Doesn't mean I am going to be "beamed up" anytime soon, but these people are working on something out of Star Trek.

I think some can be swayed, but only those who already have doubts. Religion is not based in logic, in fact it exists in spite of logic, therefore it is not susceptible to it. That is what "faith" means: total certitude despite no evidence whatsoever. Disregarding the rest of his acheivements for the moment, Dawkins' book is essentially an athiest manifesto, as well as a scientific and philosophical deconstruction of religion. Really, a momentus acheivement. If you have any specific greivances, I have my copy at hand, we could do that.

Why are you talking about religion? That is my whole point. Atheism has nothing to do with religion, if it is truly scientific, but it rarely is. That's why the spokesperson for atheism in a perfect world would not need to make comments about Islamic suicide bombers. Totally beside the point here, but that's the argument is a con anyway. It's statistically insignificant and plays on people's fears.

That is part of the problem, the futility. As I've said religion is not susceptible to logic so ultimately the book can only acheive so much. However, I think it can have a very positive effect, at least on atheists. Atheists are the largest unrepresented minority in this country, there are more of us than homosexuals but we are invisible. We demur and submit to fanatics spouting bronze-age bullshit as a matter of daily life, it's time we "came out of the closet" so to speak, and started representing ourselves.

That's really horrible, and I will wear a ribbon to show my support.

No, Dawkins is a man, I won't say "merely" or "just" because that invokes some bogus religious concept. He is a man, and about as great as one can be. He is brilliant and accomplished, he has an impressive body of work. I look up to him. Not as much as Chomsky, but I do. He is one of many great minds I admire, like Noam Chomsky, like Howard Zinn, and recently, Nick Bostrom, among others. However, as great as they may be, they are as mortal as myself. This is totally different from the obsessive deification in religious groups.

A man, "as great as one can be"? You're proving my point about calling the Dawkins people a cult.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

Yes, these things function and have predictable qualities.

Positrons exist, germs exist, and gravity exists.

Sorry, but you are stuck on your preconceptions of the word "god". How are you going to write an equation where you start with 0 and wind up with (potentially) infinity?

No, you are using it incorrectly, or disingenuously. Einstein and Hawking have made reference to "god", but what they mean is not the common understanding of the word. They were talking about the grandeur of the cosmos or something, just a metaphor. The common understanding of "god" is an omnipotent magical parent figure in the sky. Hawking and Einstein were/are atheists the same as I. If in fact you are using it in that sense there is no argument.

Unlike religious prophets I don't claim to understand the origin of the universe. I have no idea, beyond what I know about the big bang and so forth. That is the logical perspective that is the atheist perspective. Furthermore, the question may be fundamentally bogus, like asking the marital status of the number seven. Tachyons move back and forth through time, antimatter, as I've read, is matter going backwards in time, according to quantum physics it's very likely time does not behave in a linear fashion, like radiation, this is simply what we can see of it. Therefore the universe might not have a "beginning." But my approach is the opposite of the religious approach I base it on evidence, not the other way around, and I will revise my perspective accordingly if sufficient data presents itself. Religious people don't care about the facts.

We can't prove anything. Yes, it's like science fiction, but it helps to be aware of this in some part of your mind. Doesn't mean I'm going to walk in front of a bus to see if it will pass through me. I'll go with what has worked so far.

This is also a little disingenous, gravity or the germ theory of disease, etc., have not simply "worked so far." That is an understatement.

We don't overcome them. We compartmentalize our minds so that we do what is practical, but have a possibility for what is currently impractical, like teleportation. Doesn't mean I am going to be "beamed up" anytime soon, but these people are working on something out of Star Trek.

I have read about the expiriment, I have no disagreement, here.

Why are you talking about religion? That is my whole point. Atheism has nothing to do with religion, if it is truly scientific, but it rarely is.

Atheism is a form of rationalism, or applied logic. It is specifically that part which deals with what used to be strictly under the jurisdiction of religion. When religion ceases to exist so will atheism. you are too vague. I have Dawkins' book right here, what is unscientific?, what do you disagree with? This sounds too nebulous.

That's why the spokesperson for atheism in a perfect world would not need to make comments about Islamic suicide bombers. Totally beside the point here, but that's the argument is a con anyway. It's statistically insignificant and plays on people's fears.

As long as religion exists we will have suicide bombers. Religion provides justification. Religion is like nationality, an illusory fictional barrier arbitrarily deviding us. In an ideal world, niether would exist. Religion is the reason why evolution isn't taught in most of our schools, why homosexuals are denied equal rights, and a woman's right over her own body is in constant jeopardy.
Religion provides very little that cannot be better obtained from other sources, nothing real, anyhow.

That's really horrible, and I will wear a ribbon to show my support.

It's serious. What other group that large has absolutely no political representation? No-one running for public office can admit to being an atheist, it's political suicide. If you replace atheist with homosexual, jew, muslim, or african american, etc., it would be considered abhorrent. It's taken for granted atheists have no rights, at least in the public arena. I am daily assaulted by bronze-age insanity. However, this is partly false because it implies the ideas are comperable, as if the rapture and the laws of thermodynamics were somehow equal, which is bullshit.

A man, "as great as one can be"? You're proving my point about calling the Dawkins people a cult.

You missed the "about", thats' essential. There is nothing greater than humanity so far, (More on this on the "Death" thread.) disregarding nephilim, Santa's elves, etc. What makes a human great? The accumulation of wealth is meaningless, most who devote themselves singularly to this pursuit are pathetic human beings. War is a useless contest between cowardly politicians that results in needless death. The pursuit of knowledge is, in my mind, one of the highest causes one can follow. Dawkins has a distinguished career of learning, discovery, and contributing to the whole of human knowledge. He doesn't have any special powers, beyond being really f***ing smart, he is not a superman.He posesses the aspect of greatness, having exceptional qualities above and beyond the average man. That is hardly fanatical. I also ask leniency as beyond my previous health issues I have come down with a terrible cold and I can hardly function, so I'm not at my best.

 

[nugz]

I'm pretty sure I would totally love this thread if I didn't have some reading ADD disorder, b/c i just look at every post and think "TL;DR"

 

[Flax]

I'm pretty sure I would totally love this thread if I didn't have some reading ADD disorder, b/c i just look at every post and think "TL;DR"

Ironically, Mr. nogodsnomaster has the patience of a saint, because this debate has been brutal.

It's like talking to a chihuahua who thinks there is no gravity.