Leeds Ram Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 In all honesty the belief of faith is stupid, i believe that is what he said, i may be wrong though as i haven't heard everything he has said .It wouldn't guarantee a peaceful society but it would help in my opinion, the fact that we are human kind of makes religion a ridiculous belief, if someone put us on this earth then they were either rubbish at making things or very callous and cruel. One can't disprove faith, however one can dismiss something without evidence if the assertion which one is dismissing is also made without evidence. I am never 100% sure of anything but i am 99.99% sure that when we die that is it, that there is no grand creator and we are here by chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 the belief is stupid but clever people can believe in stupid things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 He does preach hate. To him, I'm stupid. He's explicitly said that believers are stupid. And of course we'd still have problems! Humans are naturally evil. Before organised religion, tribes have always thrown sticks and stones at each other, homo erectus and neanderthals were always fighting it. Faith asks things science can't always prove itself, so I think the whole "why believe in something you can't prove" thing is a particularly weak one. Science tell us how, religion asks why. And isn't that the whole point in "faith" anyway? Something you can prove is "knowledge". That's viewing the world in binary, as either 1 or 0. I think putting all your faith in any argument is foolish and stupid, you have to look at the world with an open mind. Land and liberty.. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Y_f7teZTGZA/TQZJCwUzQdI/AAAAAAAAACA/xQsxCy_XKiA/s1600/249px-Black_flag_waving.svg lets give Anarchy a chance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 anarchy makes no sense, we all need a government sorry. direct democracy which would have to be absolute for the 2nd type of anarchy is too difficult to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Interesting debate here and I can see why and equally fully understand why religious people would find Dawkins very offensive. It is never easy to attack a belief system without causing distress to the people living by it. He cares about the truth though, as most scientists do. I've used the word "truth" which again is divisive on the basis of what is true to him (and to me) is different to someone else. I'd imagine it is difficult to take when a respected scholar and world leader in the human genome is essentially being told he is talking rubbish. I don't get that in my field and everybody is happy to go along with my science because, put simply, it doesn't clash. It shouldn't be double standards imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 all property is theft! too much red wine is stupidity! I'm going to bed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Wouldn't you agree though that sometimes one needs to be offended, e.g. someone with a National Socialist belief would be offended by our saying Hitler is evil, yet no one would object to that, National Socialism was an ideology and many people had a deep seated ideology with that, i believe in freedom of speech, i believe that Mr Dawkins (as well as agreeing with him) has a right to freedom of expression as long as it doesn't cause physical harm to anyone, so does the pope and mr choudry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Anyway. Reading. Great, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Interesting debate here and I can see why and equally fully understand why religious people would find Dawkins very offensive. It is never easy to attack a belief system without causing distress to the people living by it. He cares about the truth though, as most scientists do. I've used the word "truth" which again is divisive on the basis of what is true to him (and to me) is different to someone else. I'd imagine it is difficult to take when a respected scholar and world leader in the human genome is essentially being told he is talking rubbish. I don't get that in my field and everybody is happy to go along with my science because, put simply, it doesn't clash. It shouldn't be double standards imo. also there are very rare strands of truth as it were where it is not subjective, faith is one of those where not everyone can be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 also there are very rare strands of truth as it were where it is not subjective, faith is one of those where not everyone can be right. It is where to draw the line between science and religion, where one starts and another stops. It has to be one or the other. Nobody would dispute laws such as those derived in quantum theory and the law of relativity but these same laws tell us things about the origin of the universe and its current expansion. IMO you either have to discredit them completely or stick your weight behind them. Constants and laws can't tell two stories! A scientist never has an "agenda", nor any desire to disprove or prove, simply to report the evidence experimental work shows. The greatness of science owes itself to the fact that independents can work unknowingly on the same problems and arrive at the same results, even calculus was derived by 2 people unaware of the other (Newton and Leibniz). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 well frankly science should always come first. Science has forced religion back and has disproved their theories, there are a number of theories including m theory which are interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 well frankly science should always come first. Science should put forward the evidence to back up its theories/assumptions, freedom of thought should be left to an individual. Religion in a lot of cases is forced upon someone, science shouldn't be and hopefully never will. A theory can always be modulated and improved whereas the bible can not, that is an asset not to be underestimated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Science should put forward the evidence to back up its theories/assumptions, freedom of thought should be left to an individual. Religion in a lot of cases is forced upon someone, science shouldn't be and hopefully never will. A theory can always be modulated and improved whereas the bible can not, that is an asset not to be underestimated. indeed no doubting that at all, science often does put forward evidence to back up it's assumptions, the difference with science as well is that it doesn't claim to know everything, e.g. before the big bang, there are multiple theories like M theory about before the big bang, but none of them claim to be absolute and unchangeable and correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I've renamed the thread to reflect the content better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 indeed no doubting that at all, science often does put forward evidence to back up it's assumptions, the difference with science as well is that it doesn't claim to know everything, e.g. before the big bang, there are multiple theories like M theory about before the big bang, but none of them claim to be absolute and unchangeable and correct. Yep, the difficulty is making those explanations palatable to the general populus. To give people an idea how accurate some of these theories are mathematically, quantum theory is accurate to 11 decimal places plus in describing numbers so big and so small its margin of error is effectively 0. So, when you have a system where prediction equals realisation it gives a powerful argument in the for column. The evidence for the big bang is 100% certified, anybody who wants to argue that imo is on the losing side, you can work out the start of time by simply measuring decreases in activity of radioactive materials on earth, the exact same principle is used in carbon dating but in this case extrapolated, and that is just one of multiple methods which point to creation 13.7 billion years ago. The only real point of contention now, which is where M-theory comes in is explaining the origin of the big bang. The fact that it occured is so overwhelmingly proved its no longer debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 indeed but like i said the contentious question is what happened before the big bang, science has pushed religion backwards in all reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the464444 Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 How can we prove that any science is actually real though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 cogito ergo sum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 cogito ergo sum. very good quotation of rennais Descartes, i think therefore i am, which translates to cogito ergo sum, we can prove the laws of gravity are real because we can test them and come out with the same answer over and over, if you are going into metaphysics of is this real then it becomes a farce and then anything goes really. We can safely presume, we exist as does the world and gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghRam Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 In all honesty the belief of faith is stupid, i believe that is what he said, i may be wrong though as i haven't heard everything he has said .It wouldn't guarantee a peaceful society but it would help in my opinion, the fact that we are human kind of makes religion a ridiculous belief, if someone put us on this earth then they were either rubbish at making things or very callous and cruel. One can't disprove faith, however one can dismiss something without evidence if the assertion which one is dismissing is also made without evidence. I am never 100% sure of anything but i am 99.99% sure that when we die that is it, that there is no grand creator and we are here by chance. The belief of faith is stupid? get outtaaa here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.