|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 12, 2009 09:03 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
I seem to read different lecture than you or maybe I put a different emphasis on things. I don't have the impression that everyone agrees and only details are to be found; the last time everything was clear they only had to experimentally prove the ether. 
But that seems to be slightly off-topic here - or is it?
Anyway, it's more or less speculation anyway - too little info.
@ Death
If I ASSUME that god exists and DID create the universe, all problems are solved because we kust have to FIND him. It's like the holy grail - without god we turn every stone, look round each corner, follow every path. WITH god - we just look for him, and it's even right, why would we look for more? God was everything there is in that case.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 09:28 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
I seem to read different lecture than you or maybe I put a different emphasis on things. I don't have the impression that everyone agrees and only details are to be found; the last time everything was clear they only had to experimentally prove the ether.
Well, I mean that there is general consensus among scientists that the universe is expanding and all the major things that go with that - element formation, galaxy formation, etc. These are the core ideas of the Big Bang and are well understood and generally agreed to because of the scientific evidence for them. However there are a lot of details (and by details I don't necessarily mean minor things) that are quite contentious and unexplained, particularly with respect to the early moments of the Universe's existence. So I don't think any scientist would come even close to saying the Big Bang theory is dead. I think most scientists would acknowledge that it is a model which is in agreement with a number of major known facts about the universe, but which will need to be heavily modified in its details as our knowledge of fundamental physics increses.
Quote:
But that seems to be slightly off-topic here - or is it?
I suppose it is. But I far prefer it as a topic compared to what has been "discussed" (and I use the term loosely) here in the last few pages.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 10:35 PM |
|
|
Well, an expanding universe with galaxy formation and stuff isn't big bang characteristic because you can "have" that without a big bang, for example with ongoing small bangs in an evolutionary universe - the universe is just constantly "fed" from somewhere.
Big Bang means first and foremost the "birth" of the universe, space and time, out of a giant black hole, right?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 12:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Corribus
If I ASSUME that god exists and DID create the universe, all problems are solved because we kust have to FIND him. It's like the holy grail - without god we turn every stone, look round each corner, follow every path. WITH god - we just look for him, and it's even right, why would we look for more? God was everything there is in that case.
As I said before, you won't be finding God with material instruments because he is not material. Even if a material instrument could somehow detect him, he is present at all points in space and time so you would not know you had detected him as all the "background readings" would be the same.
There is nothing wrong in trying to determine how God caused things to happen. Modern science came from Christianity. But eventually if you are able to follow things far enough it will come down to the "God caused it" explaination because there had to be a first cause.
Quote:
Well, an expanding universe with galaxy formation and stuff isn't big bang characteristic because you can "have" that without a big bang, for example with ongoing small bangs in an evolutionary universe - the universe is just constantly "fed" from somewhere.
How can there be "somewhere" or "food" before anything existed? I heard Hitchens in a debate propose that a suitcase sized ball of matter existed at the time of the big bang but he could not explain where that matter came from. And Dawkins has proposed that aliens created us but he can't explain where aliens came from. Those are two of the so called four horsemen of the "new atheism" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennis, and Harris) and that is the best they could come up with.
You have a problem with entropy with that eternal bang-bang theory. And without eternal stuff there has to be that darned first eternal self existent cause.
I think a lot of gymnastics has to be gone through to try to deny the existence of God. I have no problem with people saying they don't believe in God. Anyone is perfectly free to believe there is no God. But don't claim that somehow the belief in the existence of God in inferior to the position of atheism or proven by science because it isn't.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 04:09 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Big Bang means first and foremost the "birth" of the universe, space and time, out of a giant black hole, right?
Big Bang refers directly to the hot and rapid inflationary period immediately after the "birth", as you put it, but the name is mostly a remnant of early incarnations of the theory, and in fact was applied somewhat as a sarcastic joke by one of the early astronomers who disagreed with it. However, just about everything we learn about cosmology today is incorporated into the "Big Bang Theory", most of which has nothing to do with that hot inflationary period at all. In fact, that's the part we know least about and which is subject to most of the speculation, and a lot of earlier favored ideas about those early moments have, as you indicated, been discarded or are now at least not so popular. So I don't think it's so much dead as it is just completely fluid. As I said before, the main details - universe is expanding, how galaxies formed, etc. - are pretty much unanimously agreed upon.
Well anyway - JJ didn't you have a Big Bang thread around here somewhere? That might be a better place to go if you want to continue. Unless you'd like to sit here with Elodin and discuss the advanced cosmological theories of Richard Dawkins who is, to my knowledge, not an astrophysicist. Yet for some reason some people use Dawkins' alleged ideas about the origin of the universe as a litmus test for the state of scientific cosmological theories and - by a leap - a way to impugn a hypergeneralized caricature of atheism. Strange. In any case, this really has nothing to do with religion or atheism at all, as much as some people would like to make you think it does, so it's really off topic here.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 09:37 AM |
|
|
Agreed.
The Big Bang thread is a bit too specific, though, I would rather like a "Cosmogenesis" thread here, but the thing is - as you say -, it's more conclusion and deduction than actual evidence in that field than everything else, and for me it's speculation: interesting speculation, but speculation nonentheless, since we have no clue about the "limitations" of the system or the limits of what is scientifically (correct) perceivable. It's like a series of numbers, and you have to find the right "pattern" to continue. If you have no clue about the general nature of the pattern, no series is ever unambigous.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 11:48 AM |
|
|
Dawkins <<<< Hawking anyway.
Hawking is a better mind and not a zealot at all. Dawkins seems fanatical at times and not convincing at all.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 11:57 AM |
|
|
Doom, that's comparing Newton with Darwin.
Dawkins's field of expertise is BIOLOGY, and specifically biology of evolution. Hawking's field of expertise is physics. There's nothing to compare there.
What would be fanatical about Dawkins?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 12:02 PM |
|
|
Some people use him as some kind of highest atheistic authority. I don't like authorities at all because, it's like, "I need majority/famous people/wise people to agree with me or I feel insecure" which sucks by default. Especially a bit zealous, like Dawkins.
Hawking also gave hypothesizes on the origins of world, but he never actually tried to convince people that there is no God. And he's a genious.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 12:25 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
Doom, isn't god the highest authority for all who believe? Does that mean you don't like him as well?
In any case, isn't it true that FIRST we have the millennia-old efforts to convince people that there IS a god or that there ARE gods? On what grounds did that happen?
What is wrong with reasonably showing how little to nothing there actually is that would justify those efforts?
I've read Dawkins, but not much, so I don't know whether he may or may not have written a book about the origins of the universe, but with regard to his agenda he would concentrate on showing that there is no necessity to introduce god into the equation, and with regard to his field of expertise he concentrates on theories with an evolutionary aspect.
Neither Hawking nor Dawkins are claiming to KNOW, how things were - they just try to introduce alternatives and possible options.
You see, it's the believer who has a problem with the sceptic, because the believer is prone to forget that the foundation for his believe is an idea or an assumption. Not only that, true belief MUST forget that, because the enemy of belief is DOUBT, but doubt is the foundation for scepticism. There can be no sceptical believer.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 12:44 PM |
|
|
I don't see God or gods running around making assumptions and convincing people they know the truth.
As for human authorities though, they do - a lot.
When someone "proves" it is completely unnecessary to believe in any sort of God - like Dawkins tries, it's stupid because it's biased. Most of humanity's greates minds were agnostics anyway.
Same for people giving "ultimate truths" about a God.
It's something deeply personal.
And no, you don't have to be either a blind follower or an atheist to remain true to yourself... I understand what point are you trying to make here (that real faith is without doubt, thus, you pretty much HAVE to be 100% sure, thus biased, to be a real believer), but I think this only applies to our belief or disbelief concerning God. You don't need to blindly believe in different teachings or so because you can't even check who wrote them and when were they "added". Thus, a bit of skepticism is more then necessary to be a healthy, unbiased religious person, I believe.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 01:03 PM |
|
|
That's not what Dawkins is doing.
Dawkins is neither attacking religion in general nor gods in general. Nor is he attacking spiritualism, defined as belief in "a higher order" or Buddhism/Hinduism and so on. He only attacks the big 3 monotheistic gods and the belief in THEM (and in that I couldn't agree more with him).
You shouldn't judge things you obviously know only by 3rd parties from. In fact, you have more in common with Dawkins than you realize, because you reject the old testament (god) as well, if I interpret your postings over time right, concentrating on part of the Christian religion, which means that you transform the dogmatic Christian belief into a more general concept of universal love or something like that.
This is not what Dawkins is attacking.
If you want a simple idea of what Dawkins is all about, (sorry Elodin), than it's the kind of belief Elodin or the Taliban and so on stands for, and it's no coincidence that Elodin is mentioning his name so often.
Don't let yourself fool here. While it is true that Dawkins includes the new testament as well, that is true for Elodin and exponents of his way of believe as well. People like you, Doom, on the other hand cling more to the IDEA of Jesus Christ as savor and preacher of love and so on and tend to simply ignore everything that doesn't fit or interpret things rather differently than people like Elodin.
In practise, Doom, there is no difference in believing that a lot of things written in the Bible are wrong and believing therefore in a god that is the Bible god only in name, or stating that the Bible god is not existing.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 03:05 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:10, 13 Aug 2009.
|
@JJ
Ooooooo. You have stepped things up into equating me with a terrorist now, eh?
@JJ
Quote:
If you want a simple idea of what Dawkins is all about, (sorry Elodin), than it's the kind of belief Elodin or the Taliban and so on stands for, and it's no coincidence that Elodin is mentioning his name so often.
Ah well sir you have told a lie in equating my belief with that of the Taliban. My beliefs are in no way similar toradical Islamic terrorists. In fact, your beliefs are more similar to theirs than mine because you favor the State imposing your religion on children rather than letting each parent teach their child their own religion. And you want to limit the speech of religion, to say what they can and can't say; is sin. Yes, you are for oppressive government, not me..
Show me one place where I advocate violence. I have stated many times that Christians are to love everyone, pray for them, and seek their good. And unlike you, I am not for imposing my religion on other people's children through the power of the State.
Quote:
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Quote:
Dawkins is neither attacking religion in general nor gods in general. Nor is he attacking spiritualism, defined as belief in "a higher order" or Buddhism/Hinduism and so on. He only attacks the big 3 monotheistic gods and the belief in THEM (and in that I couldn't agree more with him
Actually, you are wrong.
Dawkins:
Quote:
Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler," calls religion a "virus" and faith-based education "child abuse" in a two-part series he wrote and appears in that begins airing on the UK's Channel 4, beginning tomorrow evening.
....
In part two, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins attacks the teaching of religion to children, calling it child abuse.
"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"
You have expressed both of those views, eh? And said the State should not allow people to teach their kids their religion and that people who divide into groups like Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, ect are the same as white supremacist racists.
Quote:
What is wrong with reasonably showing how little to nothing there actually is that would justify those efforts?
Actually there is nothing at all to justify saying God does not exist. Nothing. But there are indications that he does. You teach your children your religious beliefs and let everyone else teach their children theirs.
Quote:
You see, it's the believer who has a problem with the sceptic, because the believer is prone to forget that the foundation for his believe is an idea or an assumption
I don't have a problem with skeptics. I have a problem with people saying that their belief that God does not exist is superior to belief in God and backed by science. Belief that God does not exist is only an assumption with nothing to back it up. I have the universe, the Spirit, his Word, and other things to tell me he does exist.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 03:47 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
No, Elodin, YOU, are wrong.
Instead of quoting thrilling newspaper articles ABOUT something, you should just do one thing: READ the introduction and the first chapter of The God Delusion yourself, instead the hype papers are making about it. You might actually learn a tad or two.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 04:35 PM |
|
|
|
You people can have this thread. As long as nobody is advocating violence that's fine.
|
|
Kraken
Famous Hero
I just love being elemental
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 04:45 PM |
|
|
Elodin, you're SUCH a HYPOCRITE.
____________
Vini Vidi Vici
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 05:07 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:09, 13 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
@ Elodin
No, Elodin, YOU, are wrong.
Instead of quoting thrilling newspaper articles ABOUT something, you should just do one thing: READ the introduction and the first chapter of The God Delusion yourself, instead the hype papers are making about it. You might actually learn a tad or two.
I am sorry, but the sites I quoted QUOTED DAWKINS. Dawkins is very well known as being anti-relion. I'm not sure how many quotes I'll have to provide. Here is Dawkins saying he hopes intellectuals in America have no respect for religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyqvy52Kerg
@kraken
Thank you for your insult.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 05:24 PM |
|
|
I don't know why I bother, Elodin, but if you quote someone, you have to quote that someone himself, not the interpretation of someone else.
Sentences like, Dawkins calls religion a "virus", have the quote abuse written on them. I happen to own God Delusion and know what he writes there, so whether you quote newspaper articles or not is irrelevant. The real thing is relevant.
So go and read your enemy, if that's not corrupting your eternal soul, at least the introduction and the first part of Chapter One of the God Delusion, and then come back again.
Edit:
[url]http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,101
Here's the first chapter to read. I'll see whether I find the introduction somehwere because in the introduction he's explicitely adressing the things you quoted.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 07:17 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:21, 13 Aug 2009.
|
In the God Delusion he may concentrated on Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, but he has contempt for all religion. As I said, I've seen him in many debates.
I already presented one you-tube vidoe of Dawkins speaking. Do you claim someone was dressing up like him and pretending to be him? Here is another with some quotes from it.
Clicky
"I am hostile to organized religion."
"I resent the indoctrination of children." (teaching a child a religious belief.)
"There is a logical progression that leads from being religious to doing very bad things."
"I am alarmed [that religion is not dying out]..."
"In the Bush years we have had a terrible resurgence of religious political activism " (an objection to religious people being involved in politics.
"On those moral questions such as abortion, stem cell research they bring their bigoted views and they influence parliament they lobby parliament, they influence public opinion."
"...an alternative world view which has no basis in fact....detracts...subtracts from the beauty of science."
"I disown the phrase evangelical atheist.....we have no holy book." (saying he is not evangelizing when he presents his views but religious people are when they present theirs)
"There is no good evidence for any kind of religious belief."
Clicky
"An elephant called religion [is the threat to the world]." Here he tries to tie radical Islam with Judaism and Christianity.
"There is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief."
"I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe."
"that dangerous thing...the process of non-thinking called faith."
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough." Evidently religious people are not people of reason.
"Religious faith discourages independent thought, is devisive, and its dangerous."
I'll stop here in my quotations because I have already shown your claim that Dawkins is only against "the Abrahamic faiths" is unfounded and not representative of the views of Dawkins at all.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2009 07:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the God Delusion he may concentrated on Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, but he has contempt for all religion. As I said, I've seen him in many debates.
Well, I can speak only for the God Delusion, and - surprise - I agree with most of what he writes there.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
