Religion, what's the point?

Fingeredmouse said:
Of course he's discussed aliens. No-one has ever denied that. Many times, most often around conjecture as to what they might be and whether they would be subject to natural selection.

The problem is not aliens. It's the fact you're claiming he said that it's probable aliens seeded life and therefore he's a polytheistic creationist. Which is nonsense.

And the only emotions I'm feeling are caused by this ridiculous argument with you. I don't follow his tweets. I am pretty familiar with his work, however. I'm not defending my beloved Dickie boy, I'm correcting you falsehoods. Why don't you follow your own proposition, ignore your emotions regarding Dawkins and look at all the vast amounts of evidence showing your wrong in your assertions?
Click to expand...


I'm not claiming it, he said it. He was adamant and venomous on being asked who.

No one pushed him into going into this hypothesis. The questions were standard fair. He came up with the proposition. Has done before, adding bits every time.

Then to claim the whole malicious creationist agenda, please
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
I. Did.
Click to expand...

You kinda didn't. And tbf I didn't answer your question with questions. I attempted to answer them and attempted to set perimeters. Maybe badly but it is what it is.

Would have saved time to simply get to the point imho
 
Roane said:
You kinda didn't. And tbf I didn't answer your question with questions. I attempted to answer them and attempted to set perimeters. Maybe badly but it is what it is.

Would have saved time to simply get to the point imho
Click to expand...
Like you actually linking the video to Dawkins saying what you said him saying rather than referring people to pages 152-156 of the God delusion???
 
Roane said:
Ok I get you. I don't work that way, or haven't in my journey. I first had to be convinced that there was a creator. And then look at the "creators" out there and see which had most evidence or made sense etc.

If I didn't have a view or belief in a creator first the rest wouldn't be of interest.

That kind of answers the second question too. I didn't just arrive at Islam and/or the Qur'an. It was a journey which took on board many "beliefs" books etc.

Where I am at now it would take a lot in one sense and in another it could be simple. As in one challenge in the Qur'an is to produce a verse like it. Surah Asr being the shortest verse. Not a translation but in the Arabic with the same/right prose, rhythm etc. A simple challenge in one sense. Not been done since it's revelation so hard
Click to expand...

You seem to need to persuade yourself that your decision to believe was evidence based. To that end you seem to need to misunderstand people like Dawkins who demand actual evidence. All you have is belief and that is your choice. However, once you start trying to make stuff up to try to equate religious belief with a logical evidence based scientific approach to life you will be called on that, as it is nonsense and obviously so.

Your God gives you meaning or security (or whatever you need/seek) and if you need/want that then that is your choice, that you are of course entitled to. However, it seems odd that you are insecure enough in your belief to need to hard to pretend that it isn't merely belief based. Why do you need this would be my question? It will never end well in that there is no way that presenting mystic nonsense based on ancient books, that are largely based on previous folk stories, can ever be used as proof of anything. For many the road from belief to atheism starts with this sort of questioning, followed by the realisation that there is no logical (or even vaguely plausible) justification for, much less evidence of, there being a god. Followed by becoming an athiest.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
Like you actually linking the video to Dawkins saying what you said him saying rather than referring people to pages 152-156 of the God delusion???
Click to expand...


Different points as explained. In essence it was to point out that if I give a people want the name, if I give a name then they want page numbers, if I give page numbers they want the whole book posting.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
Riiight. So Jinns are stealing my socks. Muhammad has the answer for everything.

Can you point me to the part in the Quran that explains that Jinns steal my socks?
Click to expand...

You posed it was Allah's creations. I asked the question jinns?

Do you believe it was jinns or gremlins or rhino mice?
 
Roane said:
Different points as explained. In essence it was to point out that if I give a people want the name, if I give a name then they want page numbers, if I give page numbers they want the whole book posting.
Click to expand...
The first part of this random conversation about whether Dawkins is a polytheist creationist was you saying he was without ever providing proof. You still haven't.

You also haven't answered my wider question about whether the Quran contains the infinite knowledge of God.
 
Wibble said:
You seem to need to persuade yourself that your decision to believe was evidence based. To that end you seem to need to misunderstand people like Dawkins who demand actual evidence. All you have is belief and that is your choice. However, once you start trying to make stuff up to try to equate religious belief with a logical evidence based scientific approach to life you will be called on that as it is nonsense and obviously so.

Your God gives you mean or security (or whatever you need/seek) and if you need/want that then that is your choice that you are of course entitled to, but it seems off that you are insecure enough in your belief to need to hard to pretend that it isn't merely belief based. Why do you need this would be my question? For many the road from belief to atheisms starts with this sort of questioning, followed by the realisation that there is no logical (or even vaguely plausible) justification for, much less evidence of, there being a god. Followed by becoming an athiest.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

I have had a journey and you have had a journey. That part is fair enough. I went from atheism to Islam. For me there was too much evidence for a creator.

The rest of it, as the Qur'an says "to you your way, to me mine"
 
Roane said:
You posed it was Allah's creations. I asked the question jinns?

Do you believe it was jinns or gremlins or rhino mice?
Click to expand...
I believe in that balance of probabilities if I do not have a difinitive answer, and that is, it's probably me not putting both of my socks in.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
The first part of this random conversation about whether Dawkins is a polytheist creationist was you saying he was without ever providing proof. You still haven't.

You also haven't answered my wider question about whether the Quran contains the infinite knowledge of God.
Click to expand...


Not only me but others have posted the actual quotes and conversations.
 
Roane said:
I'm not claiming it, he said it. He was adamant and venomous on being asked who.

No one pushed him into going into this hypothesis. The questions were standard fair. He came up with the proposition. Has done before, adding bits every time.

Then to claim the whole malicious creationist agenda, please
Click to expand...
Oh for feck sake. Hopeless.
 
Roane said:
Not quite.

I have had a journey and you have had a journey. That part is fair enough. I went from atheism to Islam. For me there was too much evidence for a creator.

The rest of it, as the Qur'an says "to you your way, to me mine"
Click to expand...
But is the Quran the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth???
 
Peter van der Gea said:
I believe in that balance of probabilities if I do not have a difinitive answer, and that is, it's probably me not putting both of my socks in.
Click to expand...

Fantastic. Yet you had to try and mock religion to get to the answer suitable for you.

Balance of probabilities is a fantastic topic. There is a formula for there being no creator that is less plausible than there being one. I'll have to look it up. Or you could if you wanted to. But I read about it a while back.
 
Roane said:
Not only me but others have posted the actual quotes and conversations.
Click to expand...

In which case they are talking bollocks and/or taking him out of context as well.

Falsely representing what Dawkins says just make you look foolish.
 
Roane said:
Fantastic. Yet you had to try and mock religion to get to the answer suitable for you.

Balance of probabilities is a fantastic topic. There is a formula for there being no creator that is less plausible than there being one. I'll have to look it up. Or you could if you wanted to. But I read about it a while back.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm Sikh.

That means "learner", no more, no less. Everyone is a Sikh. Muslim Sikhs, Christian Sikhs, whatever.

But, you can only be a Sikh if you admit "i don't know"
 
Wibble said:
In which case they are talking bollocks and/or taking him out of context as well.

Falsely representing what Dawkins says just make you look foolish.
Click to expand...


Guy maintains a position, poses a hypothesis, is challenged on said hypothesis, gives an explanation that goes against his position. Responds with I don't know. Fair to challenge him I say
 
Can anyone tell me how that fits?

The infinite knowledge of God in a finite number of words???
 
Peter van der Gea said:
Dude, I'm Sikh.

That means "learner", no more, no less. Everyone is a Sikh. Muslim Sikhs, Christian Sikhs, whatever.

But, you can only be a Sikh if you admit "i don't know"
Click to expand...


As a Sikh do you not believe in an all powerful being/entity?

And I'm certainly not a sikh, I am a learner and I am a disciple but not of that discipline.
 
Roane said:
Not quite.

I have had a journey and you have had a journey. That part is fair enough. I went from atheism to Islam. For me there was too much evidence for a creator.
Click to expand...

I haven't had any journey. I merely aged out of childhood and realised that a God, Santa and the Easter Bunny were childish inventions, with zero evidence for any of them.

The rest of it, as the Qur'an says "to you your way, to me mine"
Click to expand...

And if you stopped trying to equate your belief with scientific proof people would leave you alone with your belief.

Apparently 6% of Americans believe in unicorns and amazingly 24% believe that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time. Belief does not necessitate there being plausible evidence.
 
Roane said:
Guy maintains a position, poses a hypothesis, is challenged on said hypothesis, gives an explanation that goes against his position. Responds with I don't know. Fair to challenge him I say
Click to expand...
What is this fantastical narrative you're creating here?
 
Roane said:
As a Sikh do you not believe in an all powerful being/entity?

And I'm certainly not a sikh, I am a learner and I am a disciple but not of that discipline.
Click to expand...
We believe in learning.

Currently, our understanding is there are at least 11 dimensions of time and space, if not an infinite number of dimensions of time and space.

We as humans can, at best, see in 4 dimensions, 3 of space and one of time.

An ant can only see in 2 dimensions, it understand up and down as much as it understands future and past.

I'm not arrogant to think that I am a supreme being and the pinnacle of intelligence. So, yeah, higher beings might exist, but I can't comprehend them like an ant can't comprehend me.

I also know that I will never know if there are an infinite number of dimensions. If there are, there's also always a higher "God".

However, as Descartes may or may not have said, "i think, therefore I am“

Biologically the only interaction I have with the outside world is through my senses, which are interpreted by my mind. But the mind can be fooled, it happens every night in dreams, so how do I know that all of this isn't a dream.

Im just learning, the rest of it is unproven
 
Wibble said:
I haven't had any journey. I merely aged out of childhood and realised that a God, Santa and the Easter Bunny were childish inventions, with zero evidence for any of them.



And if you stopped trying to equate your belief with scientific proof people would leave you alone with your belief.

Apparently 6% of Americans believe in unicorns and amazingly 24% believe that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time. Belief does not necessitate there being plausible evidence.
Click to expand...

And I asked myself how did we get here, what are we doing here and where are we going.

I couldn't accept infinite regress, the universe must be dependent on something, was there an eternal uncaused cause, why is life's existence so fine tuned etc

Was science the answer? What did it say about various things, what was religion, what was the etymology of certain concepts etc

Quite a journey
 
Roane said:
Guy maintains a position, poses a hypothesis, is challenged on said hypothesis, gives an explanation that goes against his position. Responds with I don't know. Fair to challenge him I say
Click to expand...

A hypothesis needs to be testable (and falsifiable). Merely stating something does not a hypothesis make.

Misrepresenting (or an inability to understand) an argument made by someone like Dawkins, is just dishonest and/or embarrassing nonsense, and not even close to be a hypothesis. Just stop - please - it is making you seem foolish.
 
Roane said:
And I asked myself how did we get here, what are we doing here and where are we going.

I couldn't accept infinite regress, the universe must be dependent on something, was there an eternal uncaused cause, why is life's existence so fine tuned etc

Was science the answer? What did it say about various things, what was religion, what was the etymology of certain concepts etc

Quite a journey
Click to expand...
Here you are
 
Peter van der Gea said:
So you don't have all the information?
Click to expand...

That's not what the Qur'an claims. In simple form it's a communication, a way to success and the purpose of life.

It does mention other "books" for example (and only as an example) lawhe mahfooz (sp) which contain things we won't and don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.