From 1400 years ago.
So basically, the Quran only tells you what it wants to tell you, acknowledges that there is other information and doesn't command you to seek it out (pun intended)?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
So basically, the Quran only tells you what it wants to tell you, acknowledges that there is other information and doesn't command you to seek it out (pun intended)?
You can't claim to be a vegetarian whilst eating a beer burger. And I think the most vehement person against my posts has accepted (with provisos) Dawkins is really sort of agnostic.
It's obvious from the stein interview that Stein wasn't being malicious. It was Dawkins who was frothing at the who.
Not much else to say really
And you decided that a big invisible bloke in the sky was the answer?
That old chestnut
The universe is "fine tuned" because if it weren't you wouldn't be here to think "why is the universe "fine tuned"". The same reason that humans don't have wings or six legs. We simply didn't evolve that way.
Science doesn't say things or believe things. It forms an understanding based on the current evidence. This is what you do on a daily basis in an intuitive way. Almost everyone does. Why do you not walk off cliffs in the belief that you can float or fly? Simply because the empirical evidence says you will fall and likely die due to rapid deceleration at the end of the fall. Religion/God is an exception for some people for some reason.
Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of a scale to 7.
He isn't arrogant enough to say there is 100% no God
Good pun, mean that
It promises to reveal it not in this life though. It answers the questions, more detail in some than others.
It is 114 Surahs.
So it only tells you the truth after you're dead?
And you decided that a big invisible bloke in the sky was the answer?
That old chestnut
The universe is "fine tuned" because if it weren't you wouldn't be here to think "why is the universe "fine tuned"". The same reason that humans don't have wings or six legs. We simply didn't evolve that way.
Science doesn't say things or believe things. It forms an understanding based on the current evidence. This is what you do on a daily basis in an intuitive way. Almost everyone does. Why do you not walk off cliffs in the belief that you can float or fly? Simply because the empirical evidence says you will fall and likely die due to rapid deceleration at the end of the fall. Religion/God is an exception for some people for some reason.
I never said it was a big invisible bloke. Nor do I believe that.
Aye that old chestnut that even modern atheists struggle with and concede in some cases. It's science and the conditions created to sustain life on earth not being available elsewhere etc are not just something I think about.
Science is a big term. It's not all encompassing. Biologist can offer some things but it's over to physicists for others. (As Dawkins would say). And yes it does form understandings but not all based on evidence. Some it infers for example.
I love how people accept certain things as concrete evidence but nit pick on religion or a creator.
That's arrogance
I think I'm 7 out of 10 in looks. Most would disagree. Some may say 3 some may say 8. The latter maybe wishful thinking but I think it so must be true
FFS. He is not an agnostic in the sense you want. he is an agnostic in the way that the vast majority of atheists are, in that they believe in evidence. So in the incredibly unlikely event that actual solid scientific evidence of the existence of a God finally appeared they would not refuse to accept it. If that is the standard (almost) nobody is an atheist.
I can't believe that you don't know this. Dawkins proposed this 7 point scale and he puts himself as a 6/7 (6.9/7 in an interview) and I'd concur. It is "never" going to happen but if it did a scientist can't ignore actual evidence merely because it isn't convenient. However, for all practical purposes Dawkins is functionally an atheist, and to be an more of an atheist would actually be unscientific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
That's not what I said. What we know is the truth (we believe) but some things we don't need to know. Ao right now I don't know when I will die. The Qur'an only says it's inevitability, which is 100% true/certain.
The day and method will be revealed to me when I die obviously but it's already in a book
So your god (like most) isn't an invisible male? Usually with a big beard.
Struggle with? How?
Incomplete knowledge is an intrinsic part of science.
Dara O'Briain said:
Inference based on evidence. Then used to make testable hypotheses that will be proven or falsified.
No. It is simple logic. The same logic that you yourself apply to almost every other part of everyday life. Which is in no way nitpicking. Simply stating something is not evidence. If belief alone is what you want to live by, then knock yourself out, but don't pretend that it is in any way (real) evidence based or misrepresent what others say on the subject to try to appear as if you have evidence (or people like Dawkins accept your "evidence"). When you do this people will challenge you on it. Like in here now.
So we are going to judge a man with a scale he made for himself?
Is the same scale he uses when tweeting
Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.
Or his tweet on rape?
No. As I have been at a pains to point out people have a false starting base often given to them by the religious.
We have certain "attributes" to God but don't have the whole made in his image concept. Even where that concept exists i would question its origins and truth
Struggle with in as hard to explain away. Many I have heard will say that would be an argument for a creator. Others go into the whole multiverse etc but when looked into in detail it's unsatisfactory at best. Even in the God delusion I can't believe people accept it. I know many agnostic and atheists may not or don't.
Incomplete knowledge is also a part of religion. So what does God look like? Certainly not invisible, certainly not a white bearded bloke. In the Qur'an there is some mentions but the general consensus is he has certain attributes but we don't know or dwell upon it.
Not all inference is based on evidence. Some is filling in the gaps with something else and some of it is based on previous information. To use Dawkins for a second his theory that aliens existing is very probable is based on many factors that are not prove. So for him to say they evolved through Darwinian means is him taking what he believes about life on earth and just basically doing a copy paste. People are to accept it as logical and rational. Yet everything having a cause, for example is thrown out the window because God
I don't live belief alone. Well because faith is a blatant cop out and nonsense (from religious folk) and I acknowledge and argue that.
Why is it hard for people to accept my journey from atheism to belief, using a scientific method but I have to accept their journey from religion to atheism and everything else was childish. Maybe it was the religion you followed. Maybe you didn't look into it the way you did listening to Dawkins (again using him as he was what started this for me). The but science is childish to me. As if science is one entity and there isn't opposition to almost all parts of most of it. Maths sure 2+2=4. But what about cosmological arguments, ontological arguments etc
When I say you, I mean the general you.
I need to get some sleep so this will be my last response for now.
The scale he uses to give himself first a 6 out of 7 and then 6.9 is a scale Dawkins came up with. No reason to accept it.
Have you not seen his tweets? He tweeted that quote and similar about rape.
He is in essence putting the severity on a scale. Mild to bad. Guy's tapped in the head
Ok. I always though your God was described as a physical (male) human in your holy book. Not that I care at all.
Incomplete knowledge doesn't equate in any way to anything being a struggle. Whatever we gradually/eventually find it isn't going to be a god based on the current evidence. So no struggle there at all.
I'm not sure of your point. None of this is based in actually testable evidence. So it is 100% purely belief based. Which is fine if that is what you want to do. Just don't try to pretend it isn't or misrepresent what others say in a failed attempt to show that there is actual evidence.
I'm sorry? A theory that any alien biological life that is discovered will have arisen (or at least developed after abiogenesis of some sort) from natural selection/evolution (incl. epigentics), the only demonstrated method of biological development in the universe to date, is an inference based on no evidence? Really? It can't be proven to any particular standard until we actually find some life out there. But it is a perfectly legitimate theory/hypothesis for examining the potential for alien life.
You also seem confused between belief and understanding. Dawkins doesn't believe in natural selection, for example, but understands it to be the case based on the evidence. No belief is involved.
Yet it is all you have.
People won't accept that an atheist could become a theist based on anything scientific. Because there is no proof whatsoever that would go anywhere near a testable scientific hypothesis. Especially with the lack of a fundamental particle that allows for such a being to exist showing that the opposite is more or less true.
And cosmological and ontological arguments as a proof of god are just utter nonsense. They are just wish fulfilment dressed up in a tuxedo.
Last edited:
In case anyone is wondering what he’s talking about…https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/response-to-a-bizarre-twitter-storm/
FFS. That scale is just a framework for Dawkins to explain what he means by being scientific enough to accept that anything can be changed by actual evidence. What on earth is your problem with that? It is like saying you don't understand a film review because a 3 stars out of 5 rating is just an invented scale.
Dawkins is arrogant (as the incredibly academically bright often are) and he is also often annoying in that he seems to have been so isolated from the religious that he is still utterly stunned that they exist at all. However, apart from slightly overplaying his hand when considering the origin of ancient religious texts, probably because the academic study of ancient religious is not mainly scientific, he is almost always incredibly logical, even when his logic is hard to admit to at times.
I love how Dawkins is constantly stunned that idiots will idiot. I guess that happens when for decades you mainly only interact with academics.
Yes. He’s occasionally putting himself in a position of “what the deuce are the normies up to now!?!?”He could have used anything; common assault vs GBH, for example.
Maybe don't use rape or child abuse to illustrate logical points and you won't get the same kickback. It smacks of being sensationalist for the sake of it.
Speaking of indoctrination...
Bizarre & dangerous that this mental deficiency still exists in society...
Devil isn't part of everything that god created? Or did they just come up with a rival manufacturer to have a scapegoat.
No offense to Christians. But I live in a place where there are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Catholics and Christians.
But only Christians actually bothered to approach in attempt to 'enlighten' me, the rest couldn't give a single feck about my beliefs. There were two people in this year alone, one is my neighbor, the other I met in a photography club. And when they began talking it's like talking to themselves, you just stay there and listen, basically all things about Christians are the truth and other religions have it wrong. Yes, even those Catholics and the other "Christians", I don't even remember how many are there but one thing I remember is, Christians who speak in tongue are worshipping evil. Then I look at a church nearby my house, they always invite kids to come for an Xmas celebration in the morning on the 23th or 24th where they'd give them a lot of candies and chocolates.... once it's over, the next year most of the kids will go to church knowing they'll get sweets again. Oh yeah there's nothing dodgy about that. I can't stand people who think they're 100% right AND they have to convince others of it. At least shut the feck up. And stop brainwashing kids.
But only Christians actually bothered to approach in attempt to 'enlighten' me, the rest couldn't give a single feck about my beliefs. There were two people in this year alone, one is my neighbor, the other I met in a photography club. And when they began talking it's like talking to themselves, you just stay there and listen, basically all things about Christians are the truth and other religions have it wrong. Yes, even those Catholics and the other "Christians", I don't even remember how many are there but one thing I remember is, Christians who speak in tongue are worshipping evil. Then I look at a church nearby my house, they always invite kids to come for an Xmas celebration in the morning on the 23th or 24th where they'd give them a lot of candies and chocolates.... once it's over, the next year most of the kids will go to church knowing they'll get sweets again. Oh yeah there's nothing dodgy about that. I can't stand people who think they're 100% right AND they have to convince others of it. At least shut the feck up. And stop brainwashing kids.
I have the same experience having lived in different countries dominated by different religions. In France, I was living inside a university campus and multiple times had people knock my door and lecture about christ and whatever else. I personally haven't seen other institutions using that salesman method, but they do it in different ways. e.g. in India in Hinduism there are various 'schools' or ashrams as they call it, each one with their own head and ideology, but they spread more through the word of mouth, and making the followers talk their families/friends and ask them to attend their lectures, but they won't knock on the door of a stranger. If I had to guess I'd think newer religions like Christianity or Islam had to practice recruitment more in order to replace the ancient ones and it just goes on till this day.
Universalizing vs. Ethnic faiths.
One actively tries to be global, the other is typically tied to a particular location / ethnic group.
It's not a corporation though is it? why would they want to be global? I feel like there's something in their teaching that makes them feel more entitled to right the wrong. A little bit like SJW. Which means the quickest way to get me uninterested.
Yeah probably.
"God doesn't make mess ups"
Adam & Eve with the forbidden fruit...
I mean, he's on to something there. Either the devil did it, or God just doesn't give a shit. He can't believe that God made the decision to let kids have autism, so it has to be the devil.
Nearly all the worlds largest religions are imperial in nature. In Christianity its spread the good word and all those things including making sure peope belive in jesus before they day so they are forgiven for the sin of being born human. Even though Buddhism discourages it practioners to actively try to convert people many wishes/prayers end off on the note "May the sublime dharma spread in all directions, may all beings be free from suffering may they established in the sublime dharma and attain complete enlightenment swiftly".
They want to be global because their holy book tells them to spread out and convert people.
Example: the Great Commission in the Gospel of Matthew or Muhammad instructing missionaries to go out and convert local tribes.
To a point yeah. In the sense it teaches everyone will go through infinite rebirths characterised by suffering until they attain Nirvana whether they believe in or not, but the etiquette is to make it available so those with interest can find it. There isnt really missionary work so to speak.
To be fair, that would be wayyyyyyyyy far down the list of bad things God is said to have done / allowed in the Bible.
Buddhism has definitely engaged in missionary work. The Buddha himself gave a Great Commission of his own, similar to the one Jesus gave...
"Go forth, O bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world. Let no two of you go in the same direction, teach the Dhamma that is beautiful in the beginning, middle and end, expound both the spirit and the letter of the holy life completely fulfilled, perfectly pure. There are beings with but little dust in their eyes, who not hearing the Dhamma will decline but who, if they do hear it will grow"
After the Buddha, there was also King Ashoka who sent missionaries throughout S/SE/SW Asia, and also Buddhist monks going into China via the Silk Road.
Buddhist missionaries / monks have historically used different techniques than say, Christian missionaries, but it is absolutely a universalizing faith with a commission to spread.
Edit to add: historically speaking, Buddhism is the oldest universalizing religion.
Last edited:
Yeah im familiar with Ashoka and the history in se Asia. Im talking about etiquette in general today.
Correct, and I agree with you. As stated above, the methods used are different.