|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 16, 2019 20:05:04 GMT
Can you quote him in his own words saying something about you?
Do you actually mean that you interpret Smithy's comment as him saying that he thinks that Dawkins is literally presuming things about him... as a specific individual?  Would it really take that much effort on your part to wonder if there might have been a hint of sarcasm behind the nature of the question?
Yeah, probably.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 16, 2019 20:07:20 GMT
I knew the first quote would be something from that idiot Dawkins. The hatred and fear that fools have for the learned is akin to the hatred vampires have for sunlight. If Dawkins is an 'idiot', then you must be several magnitudes below the lowest denominator of idiocy. Which would come as no surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jul 16, 2019 20:18:01 GMT
I use quotations here in my posts frequently, when they are applicable to the topic. But sometimes I just want to use a quote out of the clear blue sky. Today is one of those days. "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." Bertrand Russell That says it all. The faithful need that faith precisely because no satisfactory evidence can be produced to support the reality, or even desirability, of their belief systems. They then become so addicted to it that it stands in the stead of any evidentiary proofs, and in fact becomes preferable to those proofs. If their faith could be shown beyond any question to be based on nothing at all, most of the faithful have betrayed their own intelligence to the point that they would still prefer to cling to it than to accept the reality that proof would force on them. Your post reminded me of another quote: "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jul 16, 2019 20:41:17 GMT
And.. No. This isn't the quote of a smart man. Set aside the stupidity of just blindly lumping all faith of others as an excuse of theirs...Yeah.. The guy is kind of an asshole.. The second sentence just doesn't make any sense: Take out the "even perhaps because of"... and you have - "Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence" Why would any conclusion that evidence doesn't exist to contradict be "in spite" of that lack of evidence? There could only be belief "in spite"... if there was evidence to the contrary to be in spite of. And why would he even use "perhaps because of" as a clause?... It should be obvious - to any one not a bitter dumbass - that the primary cause of faith is because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
This isn't the quote of a smart man.
Set aside the stupidity of just blindly lumping all faith of others as an excuse of theirs...Yeah.. The guy is kind of an asshole..
Wow, how profoundly analytical!
The second sentence just doesn't make any sense:
Take out the "even perhaps because of"... and you have - "Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence"
Why would any conclusion that evidence doesn't exist to contradict be "in spite" of that lack of evidence?
There could only be belief "in spite"... if there was evidence to the contrary to be in spite of.
And why would he even use "perhaps because of" as a clause?...
Don't worry, they will teach you more about English comprehension in 5th grade!
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2019 21:19:51 GMT
I couldn't really presume to speak for him, but it's not necessarily a contradiction. It may just be that in the first quote he's describing the minimal requirement to be an atheist, and in the second giving his personal view that he goes somewhat further than that. It just seems odd to me as there are atheists who do claim to know at least something about the metaphysical (and it appears he himself is one of those!) and there are theists who claim not to know, but think it more likely than not. For a minimal requirement, it's a pretty confused one. ...and yet you just described why I call myself an 'agnostic atheist' because philosphically there is in fact that differential. Hence it cannot be considered confusing at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2019 21:32:16 GMT
I'm sure Wagner's program to rehabilitate religion might interest dramatists but I don't see it influencing church leaders that either have a pretty literal interpretation of their religious symbols or at least understand the necessity of keeping that that mindset in their money-giving parishioners -- as badly as many Christian sects (Protestant and Catholic) need serious rehabilitating. If Wagner was an atheist why would he be so concerned about the loss of potency of religious symbolism? Was he like Tolkien bemoaning the lack of an English mythology? You're absolutely right that Wagner (nor any art/artist) has any hope of rehabilitating hardcore literalists; but Wagner was a bit of a megalomaniac--we're talking about a guy who had an entire theater built JUST to stage his operas--so it wouldn't surprise me if he thought he had a chance of doing so. I think like many artists, Wagner understood the value of religion on an artistic/symbolic level and disliked how literalness obscured, if not outright obliterated, this value. He's hardly the only artist to have had this view: Blake and Stevens thought along similar lines, as did someone like Jung (and modern day Jungians like Jordan Peterson). I also think many of them shared with the modernists an anxiety of what would happen to a fractured society without the "Supreme Fiction" (as Stevens called it) that united us under a single belief, history, culture, mythology, etc. So much modernist angst was about the fragmenting of perspectives that happened as such old institutions were eroded away, and Wagner was just one artist that kinda prefigured that obsession. The Tolkien comparison might not be far off (though I'm less familiar with Tolkien's philosophy regarding the mythology/art/religion relationship). There is also a deep cultural phenomenon in German history in the 19th century when there was ( as a part of a general 'Romantic' movement in Britain and Europe) a huge revivalist movement of Romantic Nationalism. German folklore and traditions were revived and additions of Greek and Roman myths entered a narrative that influenced art , architecture music drama poetry and literature, of which Wagner was a slightly more modern exponent. He continued a great German tradition ehich of course Hitler also used to produce Neo-Nationalism, anti-Semitism etc. I have researched this for my first book in which a key event was a tableaux put on by the German Royal family in 1821 when the Russian royal family visited and Berlin ( The Kaiser's sister Charlotte married the Tsar of Russia) and participated in a performance of Thomas More's Lalla Rookh.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2019 21:41:02 GMT
"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." Carl Sagan " Religion is founded on an unhealthy obsession with and fear of death instead of the wonders of life ".
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 17, 2019 2:16:42 GMT
The second sentence just doesn't make any sense:
Take out the "even perhaps because of"... and you have - "Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence"
Why would any conclusion that evidence doesn't exist to contradict be "in spite" of that lack of evidence?
There could only be belief "in spite"... if there was evidence to the contrary to be in spite of.
And why would he even use "perhaps because of" as a clause?...
Don't worry, they will teach you more about English comprehension in 5th grade!
Yeah... It could mean that "It's belief without any evidence"... but that's just a bad way of putting it.... and then there is fact that ONE DOESN'T NEED EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING.. EVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. If people didn't believe in anything without evidence there would be no hypothesises.. es… hypothesii?.... ever being tested to find evidence. It's still just a dumb quote. 
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 17, 2019 10:31:23 GMT
It just seems odd to me as there are atheists who do claim to know at least something about the metaphysical (and it appears he himself is one of those!) and there are theists who claim not to know, but think it more likely than not. For a minimal requirement, it's a pretty confused one. ...and yet you just described why I call myself an 'agnostic atheist' because philosphically there is in fact that differential. Hence it cannot be considered confusing at all. Yes, but it seemed to me that he was saying "being agnostic is what makes you an atheist" and was then going on to describe himself as at least something of a gnostic (ie he claims to know that there is no prime mover who cares about people personally). Meaning either he's not an atheist or he didn't define atheism properly beforehand. Though as Graham clarified, what he was actually saying is "if you're not a gnostic theist, you're an atheist." I don't agree with that (I think you can be a theist without claiming to know anything), but I can accept it is at least not inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 17, 2019 11:37:42 GMT
"When religion becomes artificial, art has a duty to rescue it. Art can show that the symbols which religions would have us believe are literally true are actually figurative. Art can idealize those symbols, and so reveal the profound truths they contain." -- Richard Wagner Was the "death" of Jesus on the cross a fact or some sort of poetry? Remember that his heart, lungs and brain were not damaged, and there was no word for a "coma." How "miraculous" was crossing the Red Sea? Remember the Hebrews also crossed the Jordan River, but that time by blocking it's flow with rocks. How much deeper was the Red Sea? Lately it was possible to walk across most places and a canal had to be built for shipping traffic. So I would say that if the Bible is "art" it is one very concerned with facts, and that makes fools of atheists as much or more than anyone else. I believe the very serious failing of many people who consider themselves "scientific" is that they do not realize theirs is a faith. The faith you do not realize you have is the worst faith there is. Many very important facts have yet to be discovered, and most issues in life that become controversial absolutely cannot be settled by science. That's why they become controversial. Do not expect an "atheist" to understand how that works though. Just look at them here. ~~~== Faith Is Not a Disease ==~~~
Faith can be most efficient. Faith can save many people the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over again. Of course problems can occur if you do not realize yours is a faith (atheists) or if you follow the wrong leaders (Trump followers). People who think Dawkins was a great thinker are a big joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 17, 2019 12:44:26 GMT
I believe the very serious failing of many people who consider themselves "scientific" is that they do not realize theirs is a faith. And this, in a nutshell, shows that at a fundamental level you have no idea what being "scientific" means.
I don't know of anyone who thinks Dawkins is a great thinker. What he is great at is communicating complicated scientific ideas that other people thought of first, and doing so in a manner that an educated layperson can understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2019 12:47:46 GMT
"When religion becomes artificial, art has a duty to rescue it. Art can show that the symbols which religions would have us believe are literally true are actually figurative. Art can idealize those symbols, and so reveal the profound truths they contain." -- Richard Wagner Was the "death" of Jesus on the cross a fact or some sort of poetry? Remember that his heart, lungs and brain were not damaged, and there was no word for a "coma." How "miraculous" was crossing the Red Sea? Remember the Hebrews also crossed the Jordan River, but that time by blocking it's flow with rocks. How much deeper was the Red Sea? Lately it was possible to walk across most places and a canal had to be built for shipping traffic. So I would say that if the Bible is "art" it is one very concerned with facts, and that makes fools of atheists as much or more than anyone else. I believe the very serious failing of many people who consider themselves "scientific" is that they do not realize theirs is a faith. The faith you do not realize you have is the worst faith there is. Many very important facts have yet to be discovered, and most issues in life that become controversial absolutely cannot be settled by science. That's why they become controversial. Do not expect an "atheist" to understand how that works though. Just look at them here. ~~~== Faith Is Not a Disease ==~~~
Faith can be most efficient. Faith can save many people the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over again. Of course problems can occur if you do not realize yours is a faith (atheists) or if you follow the wrong leaders (Trump followers). People who think Dawkins was a great thinker are a big joke. I don't know how much of the Jesus story is fact, how much is fiction, and how much is a mix of the two. I don't think it really matters for the purpose of the quote, or for the purposes of extracting the significance of the story. I'll never understand the literalist obsession with needing things to have really happened in order to get meaning from it; and that's not just with religion. I've known people who think films "based on a true story" are better because the stories "really happened," which doesn't make any sense to me either. The crossing of the red sea is almost certainly fictitious given that Jews were never Egyptian slaves, making all of Exodus a fiction. The Bible is probably about as concerned with "facts" as any comic book is. Meaning there are factual places and (frequently) people, but the main characters and events are fictitious. Rest of your post is typical rambling Arl(n)onsense.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 17, 2019 13:26:07 GMT
The crossing of the red sea is almost certainly fictitious given that Jews were never Egyptian slaves, making all of Exodus a fiction. I've read theories that Exodus was written during the Babylonian captivity as a veiled condemnation of the Babylonian oppressors and to give hope to the Israelites that they would be delivered. A good example of a story that could have significance to its audience without needing to be taken as literal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 17, 2019 21:12:57 GMT
Was the "death" of Jesus on the cross a fact or some sort of poetry? Remember that his heart, lungs and brain were not damaged, and there was no word for a "coma." How "miraculous" was crossing the Red Sea? Remember the Hebrews also crossed the Jordan River, but that time by blocking it's flow with rocks. How much deeper was the Red Sea? Lately it was possible to walk across most places and a canal had to be built for shipping traffic. So I would say that if the Bible is "art" it is one very concerned with facts, and that makes fools of atheists as much or more than anyone else. I believe the very serious failing of many people who consider themselves "scientific" is that they do not realize theirs is a faith. The faith you do not realize you have is the worst faith there is. Many very important facts have yet to be discovered, and most issues in life that become controversial absolutely cannot be settled by science. That's why they become controversial. Do not expect an "atheist" to understand how that works though. Just look at them here. ~~~== Faith Is Not a Disease ==~~~
Faith can be most efficient. Faith can save many people the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over again. Of course problems can occur if you do not realize yours is a faith (atheists) or if you follow the wrong leaders (Trump followers). People who think Dawkins was a great thinker are a big joke. I don't know how much of the Jesus story is fact, how much is fiction, and how much is a mix of the two. I don't think it really matters for the purpose of the quote, or for the purposes of extracting the significance of the story. I'll never understand the literalist obsession with needing things to have really happened in order to get meaning from it; and that's not just with religion. I've known people who think films "based on a true story" are better because the stories "really happened," which doesn't make any sense to me either. The crossing of the red sea is almost certainly fictitious given that Jews were never Egyptian slaves, making all of Exodus a fiction. The Bible is probably about as concerned with "facts" as any comic book is. Meaning there are factual places and (frequently) people, but the main characters and events are fictitious. Rest of your post is typical rambling Arl(n)onsense. It remains a "fact" that your opinions by no means carry as much weight as the Bible, whatever might be in the Bible. Thanks anyway for playing our little game. Who knows? Maybe one day you'll be any good at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 17, 2019 21:17:52 GMT
It remains a "fact" that your opinions by no means carry as much weight as the Bible, whatever might be in the Bible. The bible carries no weight whatsoever for anyone with even a causal interest in truth and reality. And that's a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 17, 2019 21:29:36 GMT
I believe the very serious failing of many people who consider themselves "scientific" is that they do not realize theirs is a faith. And this, in a nutshell, shows that at a fundamental level you have no idea what being "scientific" means.
I don't know of anyone who thinks Dawkins is a great thinker. What he is great at is communicating complicated scientific ideas that other people thought of first, and doing so in a manner that an educated layperson can understand.
My impression of many of the "scientific" people here is that they are afraid of discussing anything that is not as obvious and universally accepted as the boiling point of water. They are afraid of entering the arena of opinions. They prefer to believe they have no beliefs, silly as that is. They expect to command top level attention for their knowledge of the fact that water is wet, silly as that is. What do you think being "scientific" means? I see that despite those traits many have failed to stick to the obvious facts and believe all sorts of nonsense simply because it was labeled as science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 17, 2019 21:31:18 GMT
It remains a "fact" that your opinions by no means carry as much weight as the Bible, whatever might be in the Bible. The bible carries no weight whatsoever for anyone with even a causal interest in truth and reality. And that's a fact. Now you're just being delusional. Maybe I should just ignore you until you realize I have no reason to pay you attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2019 21:31:38 GMT
...and yet you just described why I call myself an 'agnostic atheist' because philosphically there is in fact that differential. Hence it cannot be considered confusing at all. Yes, but it seemed to me that he was saying "being agnostic is what makes you an atheist" and was then going on to describe himself as at least something of a gnostic (ie he claims to know that there is no prime mover who cares about people personally). Meaning either he's not an atheist or he didn't define atheism properly beforehand. Though as Graham clarified, what he was actually saying is "if you're not a gnostic theist, you're an atheist." I don't agree with that (I think you can be a theist without claiming to know anything), but I can accept it is at least not inconsistent. Read what Graham said again, and add to it my emphasis that "if you are NOT a theist (ie believing in God or gods) you are an atheist. It s that simple. What confused you was the differential I mentioned ie whether any given atheist has an alterative to God, or whether they admit lack of certain knowledge on the subject or somewhere in between.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2019 21:40:24 GMT
The bible carries no weight whatsoever for anyone with even a causal interest in truth and reality. And that's a fact. Now you're just being delusional. Maybe I should just ignore you until you realize I have no reason to pay you attention. A prayer for Planet Arlon: "Please God, make the nasty logical thinking man go away, because he is rocking my delusional boat of religious nonsense and I don't like it. He challenges my credentials on scientific matters and Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger BOTH know that I know more about science than this internet whipper snapper" Please smite him., AYmen."
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 17, 2019 21:45:12 GMT
Now you're just being delusional. Maybe I should just ignore you until you realize I have no reason to pay you attention. A prayer for Planet Arlon: "Please God, make the nasty logical thinking man go away, because he is rocking my delusional boat of religious nonsense and I don't like it. He challenges my credentials on scientific matters and Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger BOTH know that I know more about science than this internet whipper snapper" Please smite him., AYmen." There are things I would pray for, but being recognized by you or faustus5 are not among them.
|
|
