Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Richard Dawkins

Recommended Posts

I've heard it argued that if atheism is a religion then baldness is a hair colour and off is a TV channel.

70049[/snapback]

Hmmmm, another false analogy, but I’ve heard atheists attempting to use this argument before as well. It is nothing more than a “red herring†that leads to a “non sequitur†due to it not only “Not being analogous†, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises as well.

 

But I add the further caveats that refutes your assertion:

 

Do you know of any “baldness†that dogmatically defends its right to be a hair color?

 

Further, do you know of any “baldness†that fit the following criteria?

 

1- Dogmatic about their beliefs (even “extensively dogmaticâ€ÂÂ).

 

2- Have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

 

3- Do something they believe in and follow devotedly (i.e. points or matters of ethics or conscience).

 

No… That sounds ridiculous, does it not? And yet you can fit many (if not all) atheists into the above definitions of "Religion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Do you know of any “baldness†that dogmatically defends its right to be a hair color?...

70059[/snapback]

No, but I know of bald people here that deny that their baldness is a condition of their hair - Sorry, but I had to throw that in (I may respond to the other things later).

 

As for the analogy I'd rather compare religion to hair style then to (natural) hair color for obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is indeed scientific and a fact, rather than faith, then the believers/supporters/teachers should be able to come up the evidence, which would and should easily silence all arguments to the contrary.  Yet what we do find is, it always leaves more questions than answers....

70056[/snapback]

No amount of evidence is ever enough for those opposed to evolution because it's not about whether the theory is correct or not; it's about what you believe to be true despite evidence to the contrary. And that is the definition of faith.

 

I also believe that most of you here have a gross misunderstanding of what Atheism actually means. Atheism is NOT an absolute profession that there is no god. It is simply the lack of belief in the existence of a god. It's a personal (dis)belief based on a lack of evidence. I know that that is probably hard for most of you to grasp but there is a difference between saying that "I do not believe there is a god" and claiming that "There is no god". One is a statement of absolute truth while the other is a personal interpretation of available evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if the people involved actually believed what they said, they would not waste their time debating it, or putting up websites and forums against it.

70050[/snapback]

The same could be said for those who do not believe in evolution. If you don't believe it exists why bother putting up a forum against it?

70054[/snapback]

Just as the same claims can be made as such: “Oh it’s not that we say there is no evolution, we simply have a lack of belief in the existence of an evolutionâ€ÂÂ… “It's a personal (dis)belief based on a lack of evidence.â€ÂÂ

 

But, in all actuality, the atheist cannot admit the folly in such an attempt at argumentation; as the argument actually runs from the initial argument in the form of a cop-out, due to a lack of real rebuttal or refutation. In fact, the atheistic philosophy is more faith laden than any other theistic philosophy this world has to offer. So, the atheist has no other recourse than to make such absurd arguments.

 

Further, I would point out that you came here (a Christian site), to argue for your faith based philosophy, because you find Christianity a threat to your materialistic evolution. You are showing yourself to be dogmatic in your philosophical beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Which, of course, are all parts of the definition of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins would probably say that the crimes of Stalin and Mao were prompted by their dogmatic faith in an ideology.

70049[/snapback]

And he would do so to keep from accepting the inevitable... And that would be his (Dawkins) admitting his own dogmatic defense of his philosophical beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and that he follows it devotedly (i.e. points or matters of ethics or conscience).

 

P.S. You may want to look up the word “ideology†and compare it with the word “religionâ€ÂÂ, then add the dogmatic zeal of a “Stalinâ€ÂÂ, “Maoâ€ÂÂ, “Pol Potâ€ÂÂ, “Dawkinsâ€ÂÂ, or “Saganâ€ÂÂ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

P.S. You may want to look up the word “ideology†and compare it with the word “religionâ€ÂÂ, then add the dogmatic zeal of a “Stalinâ€ÂÂ, “Maoâ€ÂÂ, “Pol Potâ€ÂÂ, “Dawkinsâ€ÂÂ, or “Saganâ€ÂÂ.

70216[/snapback]

Just that one Marxist kill then their belief in doing so, is soundly added up with their Materialism/Atheism, it is a logical consequence of their belief system.

http://www.schwarzreport.org/resources/ess...communism-kills

If humans are just the product of chemistry, the result of matter in motion and if there is no supreme being to be accountable to, why would there be anything wrong with killing people to advance the goals of the revolution?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

P.S. You may want to look up the word “ideology†and compare it with the word “religionâ€ÂÂ, then add the dogmatic zeal of a “Stalinâ€ÂÂ, “Maoâ€ÂÂ, “Pol Potâ€ÂÂ, “Dawkinsâ€ÂÂ, or “Saganâ€ÂÂ.

70216[/snapback]

Just that one Marxist kill then their belief in doing so, is soundly added up with their Materialism/Atheism, it is a logical consequence of their belief system.

http://www.schwarzreport.org/resources/ess...communism-kills

If humans are just the product of chemistry, the result of matter in motion and if there is no supreme being to be accountable to, why would there be anything wrong with killing people to advance the goals of the revolution?!

70218[/snapback]

Atheism is rife with religiosity, faith like statements, baseless beliefs and dogmatic zeal. And yet they attempt to hide this at every turn; pretending it doesn't exist, and then turning around and attacking the religions of others.

 

A prime example of this are the very statements by Richard Dawkins in the beginning of the video. He makes the accusations straight faced, then backs them up with absolutely NO facts or evidence (other than his opinions) and places his entire faith behind the dogmatic assertions. He makes these kind of assertions all the time, so it came as no surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No amount of evidence is ever enough for those opposed to evolution because it's not about whether the theory is correct or not; it's about what you believe to be true despite evidence to the contrary. And that is the definition of faith.

Do you realize that you just made a perfect example of conformism by:

 

1) Making any opposition to evolution faith.

2) Saying that whether or not evolution is correct, not accepting the claimed evidence equals faith.

3) Basically implying that opposition to evolution is wrong whether proven or not. You basically, without realizing it, also defined what taking a militant stance is about.

 

I also believe that most of you here have a gross misunderstanding of what Atheism actually means. Atheism is NOT an absolute profession that there is no god. It is simply the lack of belief in the existence of a god. It's a personal (dis)belief based on a lack of evidence. I know that that is probably hard for most of you to grasp but there is a difference between saying that "I do not believe there is a god" and claiming that "There is no god". One is a statement of absolute truth while the other is a personal interpretation of available evidence.

70069[/snapback]

The "A" in front of "theist" means you are "against" the theist and what ever he believes (God). Your definition falls more along the lines of being agnostic. And a true agnostic does not take sides in a debate he has not made up his mind on. Yet I see so many here join and do just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Making things like theft and murder crimes came long before Christianity and most other current religions.

68928[/snapback]

THe Bible, as you might know, is an historical and progressive revelation of God's workings toward man. Systematic theology divides the time between the fall of Adam, and the time before the law of Moses as an age of conscience.

 

But if you look you see Adam lived 930 years and could have written. His descendant Enoch was a prophet, he could have written. Or it could have been an oral tradition--or both.

 

Christianity is just a response to the Lord Jesus Christ--who fulfilled many of the messianic prophecies in the OT.

 

The point is that conscience is given by God, to give a sense of right and wrong. But the conscience can be resisted and ruined--hence the written law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is indeed scientific and a fact, rather than faith, then the believers/supporters/teachers should be able to come up the evidence, which would and should easily silence all arguments to the contrary.  Yet what we do find is, it always leaves more questions than answers....

70056[/snapback]

No amount of evidence is ever enough for those opposed to evolution because it's not about whether the theory is correct or not; it's about what you believe to be true despite evidence to the contrary. And that is the definition of faith.

70069[/snapback]

The exact same statement can be made about the religiosity laden faith built into those who adhere to the doctrine of Macro-evolution and abiogenesis: “No amount of evidence is ever enough for those in favor of macro-evolution, because it's not about whether the theory is correct or not; it's about what you believe to be true despite evidence to the contrary. And that is the definition of faith!â€ÂÂ

 

But, you are incorrect on part of your assertion (which is built into part of mine, because I was simply mimicking what you said to prove a point). And that is this… It is NOT the definition of “faithâ€ÂÂ, it is but ONE of the definitions of faith. And that would be “belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proofâ€ÂÂ…

 

Faith is also:

 

1- A system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it.

2- Belief in and devotion to God.

3- A strongly held set of beliefs or principles.

4- Allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something.

 

Therefore your statement is incorrect on many points.

 

I also believe that most of you here have a gross misunderstanding of what Atheism actually means.

70069[/snapback]

Then your “belief†would be misplaced, and more of a term of “faithâ€ÂÂ, because you are incorrect. If you were honest with your-self, and do a little deeper hermeneutical study into “atheismâ€ÂÂ, you’d soon find that YOUR interpretation of “atheism†is incorrect. Atheism is most directly translated (from the Greek) a + theos "not god"; and refers in its broadest sense to a denial of theism (the belief in the existence of a single deity or deities). It “DOES NOT†matter how you come to that conclusion, or how you attempt to twist the definition in order to run for it’s implications, Atheism is a direct statement that there is “NO GODâ€ÂÂ!

 

 

a•the•ism

Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

Origin:

1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

 

â€â€ÂRelated forms an•ti•a•the•ism, adjective, noun pro•a•the•ism, noun

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

 

 

Atheism is NOT an absolute profession that there is no god. It is simply the lack of belief in the existence of a god.

70069[/snapback]

No, that is agnosticism! Your misunderstanding is the direct application of Charles Bradlaugh’s attempts to dilute the definition of atheism (back in 1876), and it was nothing more than a bold-faced attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theism side because atheists have no answers to the hard questions. Atheism by definition is to assert that "there is no God"!

 

Agnostics, on the other hand say “I don’t knowâ€ÂÂ!

 

It's a personal (dis)belief based on a lack of evidence.

70069[/snapback]

Disbelief is someone or something is the “belief in the oppositeâ€ÂÂ! Or in your case, it’s the “Belief†that there is not enough evidence to prove God exists.

 

I know that that is probably hard for most of you to grasp but there is a difference between saying that "I do not believe there is a god" and claiming that "There is no god".

70069[/snapback]

No, there is no difference at all. In fact (no matter how you attempt to twist it), you are saying the exact same thing in both statements!

 

In statement one you are saying “I do not believe there is a god, therefore there is no godâ€ÂÂ.

In statement two you are just cutting out the fluff and saying “there is no godâ€ÂÂ.

 

The problem here is that you are deluding yourself, by diluting the definition of atheisim!

 

One is a statement of absolute truth while the other is a personal interpretation of available evidence.

70069[/snapback]

BOTH are statements of faith! Both are relativistic! Neither is based in truth, but opinion. Just because you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No amount of evidence is ever enough for those opposed to evolution because it's not about whether the theory is correct or not; it's about what you believe to be true despite evidence to the contrary. And that is the definition of faith.

70069[/snapback]

No amount of evidence is enough for those opposed to creation because its not about whether it's correct or not' it's about what you believe to be true despite evidence to the contrary. And that is the definiton of faith.

 

Yep Ron, that fits quite nicely when its tweaked a little, it sure does work both ways.

 

I'd like to add the evidence presented for evolution is the same for creation. The difference is the interpretation and the interpretation of evolution has not yet been backed up sufficiently, or even NEARLY sufficiently, given what we do find when we actually look at the fossils. Surprising statis showing little to no change, despite the millions of years they've had put upon them.

 

The fossils (the ones that are complete), show full formation, rather than anything on its way to becoming someting or in a clear state of transition in the stages we would expect (ie. dinosaur to bird). Just because an animal becomes extinct and we've not had the opportunity to observe it in our time or history, does not automatically make it an early transitional form of something else. There are plenty of fossils dated millions of years old that show time and time again that the same animals existing today have barely (if at all) undergone any significant or even minimal changes, despite the length of time.

 

It is not enough to use nebulous examples of fossils, put them together and claim one evolved into the other. We need CLEAR unmistakable examples (ie limb to wing, scale to feather etc) to show that such a feat had indeed taken place, as this is a dramatic claim and something we have not observed, nor tested to show that it is even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms