|
Post by rational on Nov 26, 2014 7:39:22 GMT -5
I never understood the need for an atheist book. The "atheist book" is just the means to an end. The end that I am referring to is that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Dawkins MUST use inflammatory statements in his opinions of God and Jesus in order to keep the debate going and himself and his work at the center of it. It's nothing but marketing and self promotion. His cause requires the continued friction that his rhetoric feeds. On the other hand, his fallback position is teaching.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 26, 2014 7:45:29 GMT -5
Dawkins MUST use inflammatory statements in his opinions of God and Jesus in order to keep the debate going and himself and his work at the center of it. It's nothing but marketing and self promotion. His cause requires the continued friction that his rhetoric feeds. He should take a lesson from theologists and come up with a marketing carrot as interesting as eternal life and a stick as harsh as eternal damnation and use those to market his ideas. Sadly, real rewards and punishments cannot come close to imaginary rewards and punishments!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2014 11:45:07 GMT -5
I never understood the need for an atheist book. The "atheist book" is just the means to an end. The end that I am referring to is that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Dawkins MUST use inflammatory statements in his opinions of God and Jesus in order to keep the debate going and himself and his work at the center of it. It's nothing but marketing and self promotion. His cause requires the continued friction that his rhetoric feeds. I hardly think that Dawkins has any need for "extra" money by using "inflammatory statements" for marketing of his books !
As a scientist & academic he publishes his work, like all academics.
As for "inflammatory statements" he is rather terse in his presentation.
I have heard some of his fellow scientists even wish he would would tone it down a bit. However, I think that he just has a hard time Suffering Fools Gladly.
The time that I heard him, he had a simple "no nonsense" approach.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2014 11:54:45 GMT -5
Dawkins MUST use inflammatory statements in his opinions of God and Jesus in order to keep the debate going and himself and his work at the center of it. It's nothing but marketing and self promotion. His cause requires the continued friction that his rhetoric feeds. He should take a lesson from theologists and come up with a marketing carrot as interesting as eternal life and a stick as harsh as eternal damnation and use those to market his ideas. Sadly, real rewards and punishments cannot come close to imaginary rewards and punishments! Indeed!
Look at Tim LaHaye who has made quite a bundle of "gold" with "marketing a carrot as interesting as eternal life and a stick as harsh as eternal damnation" with his Left Behind series of books & even a movie.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 26, 2014 13:56:30 GMT -5
Hi dmmichgood , I am curious as to how your life became more full and better after your cessation in belief in god. Did you feel you had a relationship with God, or merely a belief in god or? Did you view god as a stern taskmaster type or as a loving being towards you? No problem if u not want to answer. Alvin I have No problem answering, Alvin. Yes, I felt that I had a "relationship " with God, not just a belief in God.
I felt that HE guided me in life's decisions, even those that I might not be the happiest with because HE knew best for me.
No, I did not see HIM as a stern taskmaster, -that HE did what HE did because it was best for me.
. Thanks for reply. Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 18:07:06 GMT -5
Hmmm... I was engrossed in this book I missed my train stop last night.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 26, 2014 19:58:38 GMT -5
Oh oh oh, bert, that Dawkins delusion is affecting you, making you miss the boat.....oops train oops whatever.. alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 20:38:18 GMT -5
I am reading about evolution again... it's a subject I happen to love very much. Dawkins believes it disproves God. What Darwin did, more so than Galileo and Copernicus for instance, is dispel the ideas people had about how God ordered the universe. Doesn't say in the bible that the sun goes around in the earth (only Solomon writing about the sun hastening back to where it started) but when it was shown the earth orbits the sun, people lost faith in God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2014 23:30:30 GMT -5
I am reading about evolution again... it's a subject I happen to love very much. Dawkins believes it disproves God. What Darwin did, more so than Galileo and Copernicus for instance, is dispel the ideas people had about how God ordered the universe. Doesn't say in the bible that the sun goes around in the earth (only Solomon writing about the sun hastening back to where it started) but when it was shown the earth orbits the sun, people lost faith in God. Galileo and Copernicus dispelled the idea that our dwelling place, this planet, was the most important center of the universe. That was hard enough on the ego of mankind.
I believe that Darwin with evolution did hit people even harder, -in the very center of their egotistical being.
It was only lately that the Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution. Even then, they still believe that Mankind had a special "spark" or something like that, from god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 0:44:32 GMT -5
Quote - "Galileo and Copernicus dispelled the idea that our dwelling place, this planet, was the most important center of the universe. That was hard enough on the ego of mankind. I believe that Darwin with evolution did hit people even harder, -in the very center of their egotistical being. It was only lately that the Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution. Even then, they still believe that Mankind had a special "spark" or something like that, from god."
If you are on the Sun you will see the Moon orbit the Earth and the Earth orbit the Sun. If you are on the Earth you will see the Moon and the Sun orbit you. If you are on the Moon you will see the Earth and the Sun orbit you.
Who is correct? The observer. So when you say the "Sun rises in the morning" you are 100% correct.
Whatever this "ego" you talk about - the fact is, with the dethroning of God came the dethroning of Man (think about it, please.) We now live in a world which is becoming increasingly nihilistic, narcissistic and without meaning or sense of the sacred.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 27, 2014 1:19:45 GMT -5
Quote - " Galileo and Copernicus dispelled the idea that our dwelling place, this planet, was the most important center of the universe. That was hard enough on the ego of mankind. I believe that Darwin with evolution did hit people even harder, -in the very center of their egotistical being. It was only lately that the Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution. Even then, they still believe that Mankind had a special "spark" or something like that, from god." If you are on the Sun you will see the Moon orbit the Earth and the Earth orbit the Sun. If you are on the Earth you will see the Moon and the Sun orbit you. If you are on the Moon you will see the Earth and the Sun orbit you.
Who is correct? The observer. So when you say the "Sun rises in the morning" you are 100% correct.
Whatever this "ego" you talk about - the fact is, with the dethroning of God came the dethroning of Man (think about it, please.) We now live in a world which is becoming increasingly nihilistic, narcissistic and without meaning or sense of the sacred.Define sacred please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 1:22:35 GMT -5
It's just like the definition of porn: "You'll know it when you see it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 6:44:57 GMT -5
Page 151 Interlude at Cambridge Dawkins comes across as an arrogant person. This doesn't detract from his argument,of course. But stating that he can argue better than his opponents doesn't make him right. There's also the issue that we only read HIS side of the "interlude." And some classics examples at this point in his book are things like the Drake Equation and the Anthropic Principle. The former has utterly nothing to do with the debate and the latter is an evasion. The Anthropic Principle is about what goes in inside our physical multi-verses, and nothing about where they might have sprung magically from. Dawkins goes on about this "infinite regress" ie H comes from G and G comes from F and F comes from E and.... But if we ask where did the universe come from, and we say "God" we are not engaging in "regress" because the question is about our universe. The question "but where did God come from?" is as hard to pose as it is to answer because we hold that God is outside time and space. We cannot visualize what that even means, or is, let alone where did it come from. Dawkins always argues for a God WITHIN our universe, and begins his argument at that point - hence the "strawman argument" accusation against him. The argument that religion is in our genes outrages lots of religious people, but think about it - would our putative God NOT give us the instinct of religious feelings? If God's purpose is, as the bible states, to call a people to Himself then having a religious impulse is vital - how people chose to respond to that impulse is what matters. And as for odds and statistics, here is one from the bible, if you haven't already read it. Genesis 49:10 Jacob, ca 2000 BC, said this: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."Here was Jacob in Egypt with his sons. No nation, no kingdom, no laws. And he is speaking to his son Judah. Remember Judah is the one who offered himself for his brother - a type of Christ. These sons of Jacob would create a nation. This nation would have a monarchy (despite God not wanting a monarchy) It would be a monarchy of the house of Judah. There would be a law, but not through Judah (in fact it came through Moses, a Levite) And Judah would protect the law. But this law, this monarchy - and by implication, this nation - would end with the coming of the Messiah (sometimes called Shiloh - He to whom all things belong) This Messiah would come (as was presumed) from the house of Judah This Messiah would offer himself for his brothers. And this Messiah would have the trust of the Gentiles. Try and do a Drake style equation to show the probability that Jacob would get this right, just by guessing (and even, WHY he would say this!) And there's lots of this in the bible - and they need to be explained, or explained away.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 27, 2014 10:42:13 GMT -5
What an interesting thread, in my opinion one of the best ever on TMB.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 27, 2014 10:59:14 GMT -5
Bert I love how you so casually and unemotionally answer - the way most people would answer someone asking something simple and benign like "what time is it?". Impressive! You are the most interesting person I've ever read on TMB.
Actually kind of fitting to read through this thread on our Thanksgiving Day. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2014 12:55:22 GMT -5
Quote - " Galileo and Copernicus dispelled the idea that our dwelling place, this planet, was the most important center of the universe. That was hard enough on the ego of mankind. I believe that Darwin with evolution did hit people even harder, -in the very center of their egotistical being. It was only lately that the Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution. Even then, they still believe that Mankind had a special "spark" or something like that, from god." If you are on the Sun you will see the Moon orbit the Earth and the Earth orbit the Sun. If you are on the Earth you will see the Moon and the Sun orbit you. If you are on the Moon you will see the Earth and the Sun orbit you.
Who is correct? The observer. So when you say the "Sun rises in the morning" you are 100% correct.
Whatever this "ego" you talk about - the fact is, with the dethroning of God came the dethroning of Man (think about it, please.) We now live in a world which is becoming increasingly nihilistic, narcissistic and without meaning or sense of the sacred.It doesn't need to be that way. People have been too dependent on a god that punishes and rewards for too long. When they understand there is no God, it takes time to get their equilibrium back and understand that life truly is amazing and that love and compassion are still the most important things and that there is no need for reward or punishment in an afterlife when there is such huge rewards for those characteristics right now. But it takes time. I would bet that as people become more comfortable with a Godless existence they will slowly come back to the center and realize what is important in the here and now. All transitions are rocky. I know it was for me and several other atheists here have said their's was too. But if we can do it, I know humanity can all do it. It just takes time to change such a drastic mindset. It will happen.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 27, 2014 13:19:06 GMT -5
Quote - " Galileo and Copernicus dispelled the idea that our dwelling place, this planet, was the most important center of the universe. That was hard enough on the ego of mankind. I believe that Darwin with evolution did hit people even harder, -in the very center of their egotistical being. It was only lately that the Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution. Even then, they still believe that Mankind had a special "spark" or something like that, from god." If you are on the Sun you will see the Moon orbit the Earth and the Earth orbit the Sun. If you are on the Earth you will see the Moon and the Sun orbit you. If you are on the Moon you will see the Earth and the Sun orbit you.
Who is correct? The observer. So when you say the "Sun rises in the morning" you are 100% correct.
Whatever this "ego" you talk about - the fact is, with the dethroning of God came the dethroning of Man (think about it, please.) We now live in a world which is becoming increasingly nihilistic, narcissistic and without meaning or sense of the sacred. Life can have meaning without being narcissistic (thinking only of ones self)or nihilistic, (Rejection of all distinctions in moral values) In fact, I see religious people often being the most "narcissistic!"
Why else do they spend so much time & effort in the religious belief of wanting to go to some kind of "heaven" after they die?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 27, 2014 13:25:53 GMT -5
See you later. Going to a "thanksgiving" day dinner!
And yes I am thankful for many things & to many people for those things!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 13:41:02 GMT -5
Bert I love how you so casually and unemotionally answer - the way most people would answer someone asking something simple and benign like "what time is it?". Impressive! You are the most interesting person I've ever read on TMB. Actually kind of fitting to read through this thread on our Thanksgiving Day. Thanks! I would like to bring the above highlighted remark to the attention of the Board's Admin and register a complaint! I have to state very clearly that I strongly disagree with the remark. In my view Jesse is doing Bert a huge disservice here, bordering on a grave insult. Bert is worthy of a far higher accolade than Jesse is prepared to give him credit for. This type of derogatory behaviour should be not be tolerated! Don't worry Bert, I will stick up for you!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2014 13:52:21 GMT -5
See you later. Going to a "thanksgiving" day dinner!
And yes I am thankful for many things & to many people for those things!
Enjoy dmg. Happy Thanksgiving!!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2014 13:54:40 GMT -5
Bert I love how you so casually and unemotionally answer - the way most people would answer someone asking something simple and benign like "what time is it?". Impressive! You are the most interesting person I've ever read on TMB. Actually kind of fitting to read through this thread on our Thanksgiving Day. Thanks! I would like to bring the above highlighted remark to the attention of the Board's Admin and register a complaint! I have to state very clearly that I strongly disagree with the remark. In my view Jesse is doing Bert a huge disservice here, bordering on a grave insult. Bert is worthy of a far higher accolade than Jesse is prepared to give him credit for. This type of derogatory behaviour should be not be tolerated! Don't worry Bert, I will stick up for you! Actually in terms of 'interesting' I think Nathan is our resident 'interesting' poster. But I think he needs some new material. I'm tired of all the old stuff and nothing new and/or upcoming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 14:14:27 GMT -5
I would like to bring the above highlighted remark to the attention of the Board's Admin and register a complaint! I have to state very clearly that I strongly disagree with the remark. In my view Jesse is doing Bert a huge disservice here, bordering on a grave insult. Bert is worthy of a far higher accolade than Jesse is prepared to give him credit for. This type of derogatory behaviour should be not be tolerated! Don't worry Bert, I will stick up for you! Actually in terms of 'interesting' I think Nathan is our resident 'interesting' poster. But I think he needs some new material. I'm tired of all the old stuff and nothing new and/or upcoming. Snow, are you taking objection to my complaint about Jesse?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2014 14:39:45 GMT -5
Actually in terms of 'interesting' I think Nathan is our resident 'interesting' poster. But I think he needs some new material. I'm tired of all the old stuff and nothing new and/or upcoming. Snow, are you taking objection to my complaint about Jesse? No. Bert is definitely interesting...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 14:53:54 GMT -5
Snow, are you taking objection to my complaint about Jesse? No. Bert is definitely interesting... No Bert - No TMB!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 15:23:45 GMT -5
Bert I love how you so casually and unemotionally answer - the way most people would answer someone asking something simple and benign like "what time is it?". Impressive! You are the most interesting person I've ever read on TMB. Actually kind of fitting to read through this thread on our Thanksgiving Day. Thanks! Thanks Jesse. But to many here I am just the Archetypal 2x2 Jerk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 17:59:04 GMT -5
Bert I love how you so casually and unemotionally answer - the way most people would answer someone asking something simple and benign like "what time is it?". Impressive! You are the most interesting person I've ever read on TMB. Actually kind of fitting to read through this thread on our Thanksgiving Day. Thanks! Thanks Jesse. But to many here I am just the Archetypal 2x2 Jerk.
Join the club, Bert, but whatever you do, do not attempt to take my crown! I am No. 1 Madman on this board, okay?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 27, 2014 19:13:22 GMT -5
Quote - "Doesn't that statement you quoted of his, "God couldn't create the big bang because time was created during that event, and nothing can operate outside time," confirm that there is NOT any need for a God to exist OUTSIDE of the universe?" In science there are no "miracles." Everything is cause and effect. Only, cosmology defends the notion there was NO CAUSE & EFFECT FOR THE BIG BANG ITSELF. It just happened, like... er... a.... miracle.
"In other words, we don't know!" That's a cop out.
OR cosmologists say the universe was forever. "In other words, we don't know!" That's a cop out, too
ps Hawkings has changed his position on what is time several times. Fact is - we don't know what time is. We don't even know if it is an "emergent property" from other things, or it's a fundamental. Even "distance" is now suspected of not being a fundamental anymore - that's Amazing.
. I have also really appreciated bert sharing his thoughts on this thread. I thought he would be challenged more on this thread though . I guess "science" just accepts miracles, albeit though very reluctantly . Power from an outside force.... Cool. Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 19:22:52 GMT -5
I am not challenged much because most people on this board are not atheists. I have been ferociously challenged on other boards though!!!
|
|