[Closed] blind faith - creationists

I can't even remember what my previous comment was, to be honest.

Though if you can't be bothered to justify your position when challenged, then that makes your comments even more worthless, and I don't know why you even bother posting on here at all when you could be out riding your bike. Or do you just not want to admit you might be wrong?

I am neither a theologian nor religious, but I am not sure that religiously motivated charity is any different (for most people) from any other sort. You do it because it's the right thing to do, the religious chap simply has an easier pat explanation for why it's the right thing to do.

There are, I am sure, people who are more calculating about it. Just as you find the odd callous CV-hunter doing charity work.

I agree that religious organisations are a problem, but I'm unconvinced that a belief in a god is necessarily problematic as a personal choice that some people make about the nature of their world-view.

🙂

but I'm unconvinced that a belief in a god is necessarily problematic as a personal choice that some people make about the nature of their world-view

I'm with Voltaire:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"

I think surfer and many other people confuse religion with evangelism or indoctrination. These things are often seen together but not NECCESSARILY mutually dependent.

What if the second person that volunteered was an atheist and helped simply to releive suffering. Would that show the first person up as a "brown nose" who is motivated by the mistaken belief that he is currying favour for the "next life"? Only the atheist is acting morally.

So how many Atheist ran soup kitchens have you seen compared to say one's ran by religious organizations?

aracer, I don't particularly closely follow any columnists. However, a quick Google tells me that:

Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker)

I'm all for playing the ball and not the man, but...

Religious evangelism and indoctrination are dependent on religion are they not? Can they exist without a core religious belief?

Well, a lot of people (most western christians certainly) have a worldview that is not radically different from mine, it just has a god in it. If Rowan Williams declared that muslims should be hauled from their houses and burnt alive he would not get an enthusiastic following anymore than David Cameron would if he suggested the same thing. He'd just experience an abrupt loss of support from a large part of his following, counterbalanced by a sudden increase in interest from horrid racists.

🙂

So how many Atheist ran soup kitchens have you seen compared to say one's ran by religious organizations

There are countless non religious soup kitchens, refuges and homeless hostels all doing similar works.

There are also international aid agencies who offer help in war torn countries (often countries at conflict over religious beliefs) such as doctors without frontiers who do heroic work without spreading misinformation about condom use!

Well I did say in the first place that he wrote a lot of guff, but your comment (which you seem to have miraculously remembered) implied that everything he wrote was, which is far from the case. He has certainly raised several important issues. More to the point, from what I can see, the original article you were commenting on is perfectly reasonable.

If Rowan Williams declared that muslims should be hauled from their houses and burnt alive he would not get an enthusiastic following anymore than David Cameron would if he suggested the same thing. He'd just experience an abrupt loss of support from a large part of his following

If now you are saying it is a force for good because atrocities are not (in the UK) committed in its name, then you have certainly dammed it by faint praise!
Unfortunately when atrocities are committed by some in its name support for those people does not diminish in the way you describe.

Well I did say in the first place that he wrote a lot of guff, but your comment (which you seem to have miraculously remembered) implied that everything he wrote was, which is far from the case. He has certainly raised several important issues. More to the point, from what I can see, the original article you were commenting on is perfectly reasonable.

Less of a miracle and more of a clicking on the links to reread my original comment.

I am only aware of his work through the howling blunders he has made, and so am unfortunately unaware of any other sterling work he may have done.

The original article on which I commented is [i]not[/i] reasonable.

I am only aware of his work through the howling blunders he has made

The original article on which I commented is not reasonable.

Go on, explain why not.

He uses the fact that the weather in Britain and the Arctic was cold to imply that "warmists" are wrong. He also implies that a short-term thickening in the ice is proof against climate change, while in the same article arguing that the expedition is working on too short a timescale.

He also seems to have missed the main point of the expedition: "raise awareness of the dangers of climate change", not to prove it one way or the other.

I don't necessarily agree that the expedition is a great idea, but his arguments are pretty feeble and reading the column hasn't changed my opinion of him or his arguments.

I'm curious how you're aware of his work. Through Monbiot, or via a (biased) wikipedia page, which only seems to mention his blunders.

Both of those.

Think a few people have really misinterpreted what I've written; For the record, I am definitely NOT completely opposed to Darwinist theories of evolution, or Scientific research and investigation, I am merely suggesting that they MIGHT not have ALL the answers, and MIGHT, just possibly, occasionally, be wrong.

Too many of you see things in far too binary a manner; too Black and White. Try to look at the shades of grey, in between. Also, try to have some confidence in your own convictions. Surely only the most brainwashed person would never question anything? So, you all have questions, right? Ask yourselves; does Science explain EVERY SINGLE aspect of Life? Like not just [b]how[/b] things exist or happen, but also, [b]why[/b]?

I notice that the most intelligent and well thought out responses on here, seem to be from people who are not actually scoffing at the concept of some form of 'Creative Force', or 'God', if you like. something that made it all. Even Einstein believed in some sort of God. So it's not just the stupid, then...

I have thrown a few things into the mix, partly to try and stimulate debate (this has obviously had some effect), and partly for my own amusement, because it's fun to see Atheists acting all smug and superior, as though they have the monopoly on Truth. It seems that the Dawkins acolytes are the most vociferous, interestingly...

See, this is it. None of us have ALL the answers; we can only hope to know as much as is Humanly possible.

As a species, and a truly amazing one at that, we have always sought to find the Truth, the reason for our existence. So, we have, throughout our history, employed various ways of seeking answers. From shamanic rituals involving consciousness-expanding chemicals, the inducing of mass-hysteria, and more formal, sombre religious worship, right through to scientific investigation, we've always sought to find 'enlightenment'. Maybe it's this, which separates us from all living beings on this Earth (including the arse-scratting monkeys).

Science has gradually replaced Religion, it seems, as the globally accepted form of investigation, and quest for meaning. Fair enough. Personally, I'm not a believer of a lot of what I consider to be religious mumbo-jumbo bunkum. And I find followers of some 'extreme' forms of faith, to be deluded, quite frankly. And one or two are downright dangerous. Science, at least, does try to 'prove' phenomena, which I'm more comfortable with, than the suggestion that doing this that or the other ritual is vital to your spiritual salvation.

I have space, in my mind, for both Science, and a concept of 'God'. I think to only make room for one or the other, is narrow-minded and limiting.

Too many of you see things in far too binary a manner; too Black and White.

Like asking for 100% FACT?

Yes, when the purpose of Science is to provide PROOF, and present FACTS, yes! 😀

Yes, when the purpose of Science is to provide PROOF, and present FACTS, yes!

But you're never going to have 100% proof; I couldn't provide 100% proof that the keys on my desk are 11mm away from my pen.

Science sits quite happily with the concept of a god, though it tends not to bother most of the time, as once you've made the suppositon you can't really do anything useful with it. If you attempt to, you end up with religion, which rapidly becomes a bit silly.

You must be reading a different article to me, miketually. All that I can see in that is him pouring scorn on the expedition because it was attempting to "raise awareness of the dangers of climate change" by a single year's measurements, and their ploy backfiring. Nothing in that suggests to me that he thinks the ice sheet increasing in thickness is proof that climate change isn't happening.

ISTM that if the purpose of the expedition was to "raise awareness of the dangers of climate change" then they've singularly failed, unless of course you think that anybody doing anything in the name of that, whatever results they might get is raising awareness (in which case they might as well have sat in a bathtub of beans to raise awareness).

I'll repeat: I don't necessarily agree that the expedition is a great idea, but his arguments are pretty feeble and reading the column hasn't changed my opinion of him or his arguments.

Returning to the creationism / young earth nonsense... perhaps you could simply ask why God couldn't have used evolution as his tool of choice, knowing full well (being omniscient and all) that human kind would be the result.

There's absolutely no conflict at all between God and Darwin it seems to me, in this strict sense.

So creationists denying facts on the ground because they think they represent dis-proof of God is a kind of tactical error - they'd only stick their fingers in their ears and hands over their eyes if [i]they themselves[/i] worried that dinosaur bones meant God didn't exist.

Unless you insist on only the most literal reading of the Bible, there's no problem; if you give it any poetic licence at all then Genesis is remarkably sensible on the general order of things occuring.

Likewise, Dawkins at al also seem to have fallen into the same trap.

Darwin makes God unnecessary, not impossible.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor ]Occam's razor[/url], however, means that I have no time for religion. Which is ironic as [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham ]Occam/Ockham[/url] was a monk.

I first read that as "[i][b]Dawkins[/b][/i] makes God unnecessary, not impossible."

😀

Even Einstein believed in some sort of God. So it's not just the stupid, then

Not true I am afraid.

Einstein said.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"

Unless you insist on only the most literal reading of the Bible, there's no problem; if you give it any poetic licence at all then Genesis is remarkably sensible on the general order of things occuring.

That explanation could be used to gather useful information from any text. As Sam Harris argues, "who decides whats good in the good book"? We decide from an adaptive and moral interpretation of the prevalent zeitgeist. We pick and choose to such an extent the book becomes meaningless and we are left with the fact that without religion we would order ourselves in a broadly similar way.
Some animals have been proved to develop into communities that dislike dishonesty and sexual disloyalty, do they read the bible also?

Not true I am afraid.

Einstein said.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"

'Tis true, I'm afraid. He also said (the bit you either missed or deliberately ignored):

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Einstein (like Stephen Hawking) has said contradictory things about religion and both sides have claimed him for their own. The most anyone can glean from your quotation (which I suspect was around 1952?) was that Einstein was an agnostic on the subject. Hawking also commented something that was pounced on by religious types which he quickly distanced himselfs from.

I could argue you ignored this:

[i]"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions"
[/i]
However it may be the case that at some point he contradicts himself although his criticisms of religion are quite unambiguous.

I din't ignore it at all.

I claimed that Einstein believed in some [i]form[/i] of 'God'. Several statements of his reinforce this!

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

See? His own words.

I have no issue with his criticisms of religion, indeed, they are similar to my own views.

You are mistaking what Einstein is saying. Like many Scientists Einstein (and Hawking) used religious metaphors to describe the unknown.

As Dawkins explains:

"[i]Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense.[/i]

The quotes you use are vague sense whilst his criticisms of religion and his attempts to distance himself from it are less ambiguous.

Its all highly subjective however.

You are mistaking what Einstein is saying.

No I'm not. You are.

Dawkins is merely 'interpreting' Einstein's words to sell books, and get rich.

RudeBoy : Too many of you see things in far too binary a manner; too Black and White... Try to look at the shades of grey, in between.... Ask yourselves... None of us have ALL the answers; we can only hope to know as much as is Humanly possible...

You should try talking down to people sometime, you might be good at it! Not very endearing.

I am good at it, Sweep! Mind, not that difficult on here! 😀

Endearing? I'd rather express my [i]own[/i] views and opinions, than say stuff that everyone is comfortable with.

Yeah, but 'you should this' and 'too many of you that' ...it might be your opinion but it doesn't come across very well, think people are perfectly comfortable with your opinions on the subject but it seems you're making assumptions that you are thinking on a more 'open-minded' or 'more considered' level. That is one massive assumption. Sorry.

You are mistaking what Einstein is saying.

No I'm not. You are.

Dawkins is merely 'interpreting' Einstein's words to sell books, and get rich.

Hardly, your quotes are getting smaller and smaller no doubt just to get the words God and Einstein in the same sentence!
Dawkins has put them into context and given explanations. There are copious amounts of quotations from Einstein where he directly criticises religion but you have selected a quote where he speaks metaphorically of a god like many people do.
As an Atheist I use lots of relgious metaphors but if you think it strengthens your case to recite these unguarded moments then fine.

As I said it always shaky comparing quotations without context, although I am guilty of it!

it might be your opinion but it doesn't come across very well

Ah well. Can't please everyone.

Dawkins has put them into context and given explanations. There are copious amounts of quotations from Einstein where he directly criticises religion but you have selected a quote where he speaks metaphorically of a god like many people do.

WTF has Dawkins got to do with this? I'm talking about Einstein, not some writer. I'm more inertested in the words of a scientist, than some bloke hawking his books around. Forget Dawkins for just a minute, if that is at all possible!

And please, please read what I post. Please. Like, the bit where I have similar views to Einstein, both on the concept of 'God', and on religion's inadequacies.

Einstein was not an Atheist. I used him as an example of a Genius, who happened to believe in the probability/possibility of something 'beyond'. To counter Atheist assumptions and claims that those who believe similarly, are stupid, as has been suggested here. If the likes of Dawkins wish to try and hi-jack Einstein's statements, and re-interpret them to serve their own agendae, then that's not far off what some 'religious' types do.

Do you Atheists have any other prophets?

Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense.

The Bible is explaining 'Creation' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense.

🙂

The Bible is explaining 'Creation' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense

Really? All that Adam and Eve stuff, Arks etc, seems all very specific to me.

I have similar views to Einstein

You seem to have a high opinion of yourself.

I'm talking about Einstein

Your not really you have just latched onto an intellectual and want him in your gang to add legitimacy. I dont care, go on you have him!

Einstein was not an Atheist. I used him as an example of a Genius, who happened to believe in the probability/possibility of something 'beyond'

He did, he believed things werent, and maybe could never be, explained. You cant prove he wasnt an atheist but as above you can have him in your team.

If the likes of Dawkins wish to try and hi-jack Einstein's statements, and re-interpret them to serve their own agendae, then that's not far off what some 'religious' types do

Wasnt it you that brought him up?

I'll repeat: I don't necessarily agree that the expedition is a great idea, but his arguments are pretty feeble and reading the column hasn't changed my opinion of him or his arguments.

You cant prove he wasnt an atheist

What, beyond the fact that he himself said that he was not?

As for 'having him on my team', well, it's the atheists that have tried to 'claim' him, actually, something he objected to!

Atheists just can't accept the fact that someone so intelligent might actually think a little different to themselves....

What, beyond the fact that he himself said that he was not?

[i]Atheists just can't accept the fact that someone so intelligent might actually think a little different to themselves.... [/i]

Nothing like sweeping generalisations.
Atheistist!

Atheistist!

Atheististist!

Lamb Bhuna