The God Delusion

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, Aug 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny] @ you taking time off and then trying to reappear and make alliances with superior minds

    It does entertain me the way some of you talk to one another and hold hands, instead of carrying the discussion directly with the person whom you began discoursing with.

    But, that is the way of the world, I suppose.

    *Shakes Head*


    If I'm talking to Riz, then the discussion is between Riz and I.
    If I'm talking to you, then the discussion is between you and I.
    If I'm talking to Sodium, then the discussion is between Sodium and I.
    Why is it that when ALL 3 of you talk to me, it's between me and each of you (respectively) until you lose footing and then the other two are appealed to through a common foe? That's cowardly.

    Then again . . . why would I expect any of you to act like men of integrity?
    That is foolish on my part, eh?

    Each of you desire acceptance from the others so strongly (indicating a low confidence level) that at the very sight of losing ground in your views you drag an ally in to mock the other person. Why not just carry the conversation? Could it be that none of you are able and instead prefer to have others agree with you than to arrive at a truth?
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Or you could just not be making sense and well all just happen to agree.

    One of my favorite books is The prince of Machiavelli.
    test
  3. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016


    If that were the case, your arguments would be enough to stop me. The fact that it takes three of you to stand up, together, against me . . . speaks volumes against your theory.
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    My arguments are always more than enough to stop you.
    You just don't shut up. So we discuss other things.
    Which sometimes I don't mind because i'm bored.

    You're just acting really dumb, people happen to agree.
    Get over it. For all the man-up talk you're such a fucking child.
    test
  5. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    No, he was talking about people who misrepresent Eistein's philosophy. This is entirely different than using parts of his philosophy.

    Maybe you need to re-read it. For a third time.

    So, you don't know what a question mark represents, and apparently the same is true for quotation marks. The fact that I put those words in quotation marks represents that I'm using an idea that isn't mine... in other words, using your phrase against you.

    God, I shouldn't have to be wasting my time with this stuff.

    [funny]

    Somebody is getting emotional. When the Ad Hominems come out, that's when you know that the ego has been touched.

    No, it's you who's re-reading it because their ego had been so infatuated with menaz they couldn't take it in first time. I remember his argument just fine, thanks.

    What's up Sodium, my nig? lol @ yahuayoutube

    The problem with Azeus is that he thinks outlasting someone = outsmarting someone. If he can dilute the original point by taking it in as abstract a direction as possible, playing semantics along the way and boring his opponent into submission, then he can claim victory.

    It's for this reason, Azeus, that I am dismissing you from the conversation.
    test
  6. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    That was beyond gangsta that was roman!
    test
  7. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    aszeus its obvious youve objectively been sonned. you should change your screen name and move to alaska to live a quiet life in the wilderness away from more potential sonnings
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny]

    That's exactly what I said that he accused them of doing (which he was also doing with Jefferson). Are you having trouble keeping up with the conversation?

    Around and around we go.


    What question mark and what quotation marks are you referring to Rizzie?

    What phrase did you use against me, Riz?
    You have absolutely failed to argue what I was saying, because you have referred not to a single statement of Dawkins. Your only claim is that I have misunderstood Dawkins. Yet, you haven't provided a single quote as an example. What does that say?


    That isn't an Ad Hominem attack. Saying somebody looks like a schmuck (when doing something schmuck-ish) is not calling that person a schmuck. It is saying that they appear as one when doing what they have done.


    A minute ago you couldn't remember what he said, now you do? You've got to make up your mind, Rizzie.




    That isn't what happened here and you know it. Now you're just trying to come out on top. You have failed to make your argument properly and instead of simply making it, by providing quotes from Dawkins book to support what you're saying, you're committing yet another "Ad Hominem" fallacy.


    [funny]




    Side Note: Thank you Menaz and Sodium for proving my point.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    The point that I was making in the first post (which evidently went right over your head, Riz) is that after re-reading the book I agree with a great portion of what Dawkins is saying. My disagreement is only in his approach. It does not benefit the truth when one accuses another of misrepresenting somebody, all the while doing the same. That leaves room open for attack. If a man/woman is going to approach the subject of God scientifically, it does not matter one way or the other what the opinion of major scientists were on the subject. A belief, whether from a scientist or a theologian, is a belief. A belief, whether scientific or not, is not proof. A belief, by definition, cannot be used as knowledge.

    Yes, people misrepresented Einstein and others in claiming them as religious in the Judeo-Christian sense. But, Einstein himself said, "In this sense and this sense alone I am among the devoutly religious men." (The sense which he was speaking of was a more "natural" philosophy and not actually "religious" in essence.) The problem is, Dawkins is trying to make Einstein an Atheist in the book and Einstein wasn't an Atheist. He simple did not believe in the "man in the sky concept of God"

    If a theist claims Einstein as a theist and an atheist claims Einstein as an atheist, neither one is more or less correct than the other. They are both incorrect. Einstein was neither theist nor atheist. There is a middle ground, regardless of how ill informed most people are about it.

    Dawkins commits the same fallacy using Jefferson as Christians and some Jews have done using Einstein. Dawkins also does this with Einstein, trying to make him into an atheist for his own personal ambition.
    test
  10. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    what is his approach? Besides the fact he says point blank in black and white print try to challenge my ideas. Which makes him a good open minded scientist. However, he is not so open minded his brain falls out.

    I repeat: This thread is not about God, it is about the contradictions . This thread is NOT about God. Do not come in here and discuss whether or not God exists or whether you think Dawkins was right or wrong on his view of God. That is not the concern of this thread.

    Once again you switched to the God subject.
    You yet again contradicted yourself.

    When it comes to God all dawkins says is science will explore alternatives which may one day actually empirically prove how we came into existence. which he says theologist will never be able to do. Which makes sense to reasonable people, because science has figured out how other things are such as planets revolve around the sun not the sun revolves around the planets.

    Thus, we do not dwell in ignorance.
    Thus, we do not relie on defualt logic.
    Thus, we do not god-gap worship.
    Thus, no more christian coalition.
    Thus, no more muslim brotherhood.
    Thus, no more radical jews.

    "if indeed the cosmos lie beyond science, they most cenrtainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well." - Dawkins.

    Stop misrepersenting the BOOK.
    You seem to think God is the only answer despite there
    being no empeircal evidence and that's just not the case.

    Do not even reply back to this as if we are having a GOD argument.
    I'm just pionting out what dawkins is saying in the correct context.

    He never called nor implied einstein was an Atheist.

    Einstein spoke in metaphors as the book points out.
    What dawkins said was Einsteins use of the word "God" was metaphorical for "nature". Which Dawkins goes into more and better detail about in the book. If anything dawkins is saying enstine was saying he's a naturalist.

    Einstein: "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 God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

    Einstein: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

    Those are einsteins words.




    You're jefferson argument was already explained away and corrected in proper context. What the fuck is with you? Stop reinventing an argument just because you lack the complete context.

    What about the fallacy you are making?

    Jefferson and the dixiecrate movement are nolonger enslaving blacks nor are they killing anyone else. WHY? because they are nolonger a existing movement. However, Religion is still a simplistic ignorant movement in the world. Religion is still around today enslaving people, waring with people, causing violence at a alarming ww3 rate.
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny]

    Menaz, how did you come to the conclusion that that quote had anything to do with God as the subject? The word God was used once in that paragraph and it was merely used to make a point, the point was not God.

    BUT, since you have taken it back to this subject (once again) due to your inability to comprehend what you're reading:

    "The tremendous success that science has had so far seemed to rest on two foundations. One was the belief in an objective reality, the other was the belief that the methods of science were bringing us closer to understanding that objective reality. But quantum mechanics seems to argue against the first belief, and philosophers of science have demonstrated that there is no evidence supporting the second belief.

    So is the nature of scientific knowledge different in any way from that, say, of religion or musical knowledge? The answer is yes and no. Different kinds of knowledge are defined by the process by which they are created and not by anything intrinsic to each field. So scientific knowledge, with its method of paradigm creation and refinement, is different from those disciplines that follow different routes to knowledge creation. They just have different paradigms and different methods of knowledge creation."


    The only religions that will be squeezed out by the "God Gaps" which are being filled by Science (as it progresses, explaining many things theologists merely guessed at) are the religions that place God in those gaps (the Western Religions). The Eastern Religions/Philosophies will thrive, as they always have, without conflicts with science. In fact, Hindu, Taoist and Buddhist scientists have contributed an amazing amount of work to the field of science. Einstein himself seen Buddhism as the religion of the future.



    Do you really need me to quote him? I have 3 places underlined in which he says that Einstein was actually an Atheist and that Einsteinian Religion wasn't religion at all.

    Thank you for agreeing with me. I already stated this. Why do you feel the need to repeat my words back to me? That is what I have been saying all along, and you have reacted like a fucking child. Now suddenly you understand that the word God does not necessarily mean the Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept? Are you trying to teach me again something which I've been saying to you for over three years?

    WRONG! That is a misquote. This is what he really said: (The word "personal" makes all the difference in the world you stupid prick)

    "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." - Einstein

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

    "A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive." - Einstein

    "The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness." - Einstein

    "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." - Einstein

    "The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." - Einstein

    "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." - Einstein

    I have been telling you for 3 years now that there is no singular individual to survive death. The individual is an ego illusion. It simply does not exist in truth and so it cannot continue into some next life.


    And here is where Einstein states that he is not an Atheist.

    "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - Einstein


    This is all identical to what I have been trying to get across to you for 3 years and you just simply won't pay attention. You're too busy trying to speak to hear (or reply to read).

    I've already responded to this.
    test
  12. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Try to stay focused I know you can't follow a simple conversation without talking irrelevant subject matter. So I'll keep you focused.

    "If a man/woman is going to approach the subject of God scientifically, it does not matter one way or the other what the opinion of major scientists were on the subject. A belief, whether from a scientist or a theologian, is a belief."


    Here you are applying God into the subject matter between scientists and theologians.

    Though you quite clearly said this to begin with: "I repeat: This thread is not about God."

    Which means you have contradicted yourself.

    You can whine, You can keep lying to yourself, it will not change the fact you're a walking contradiction. If you say something don't be hypocritical then bring it up. You side track the discourse which is why Riz ignored you.


    This had nothing to do with my point. Stop trying to Side track from the main point of the conversation.


    This is why I corrected you: "It does not benefit the truth when one accuses another of misrepresenting somebody, all the while doing the same."


    "When it comes to God all dawkins says is science will explore alternatives which may one day actually empirically prove how we came into existence. which he says theologist will never be able to do. Which makes sense to reasonable people, because science has figured out how other things are such as planets revolve around the sun not the sun revolves around the planets"

    "if indeed the cosmos lie beyond science, they most cerntainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well."

    ^ that is me correcting you on how dawkins actually views the situation.


    You seem to think I'm arguing with you. No I am correcting so you don't misrepersent what dawkins position is on the matter.


    I would like you to quote it I'm pretty sure he never called Einstein a flat out Atheist.


    Where I corrected you was the part where you said dawkins called einstine an atheist. If you could comprehend I'm merely correcting how dawkins explained Einstein was a naturalist/agnostic. Einstein had no religion.


    Naturalist: a person, often a scientist or writer, who studies and promotes nature Someone who studies animals or plants, usually in their natural surroundings.
    agnostic: one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive.

    I nor anyone else ever said Einstein was an atheist.

    Einstein was an agnostic, but for a public face he, for practical reasons, wished to keep his lack of faith from the public. The press and the church wanted people to believe that he was a man of faith, and they succeeded.

    same quote: only he is agnostic.
    "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."


    "You may call me an agnostic"

    Did you forget that part or was the quote messed up?


    True, I've all ready corrected it.
    test
  13. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    I usually enjoy fucking around with Azeus, it's always a good back and forth. This time, however, he's failed to comprehend every point and misunderstood a number of things. That's no fun.

    For future reference: step yo' comprehension game up.
    test
  14. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Next topic.

    I don't have the patience for the two of you today.
    test
  15. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I'm not interested any longer in this exchange. But, I did tell you that I would provide one of his quotes if you wanted it, and I don't want to leave you thinking that I have lied to you . . . so here it is:

    "Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own."

    It is true that Theists have misrepresented and misunderstood Einstein.
    It is also evident that Dawkins has done the same in calling Einstein an Atheist, in an attempt to do the very thing which he accuses supernaturalists of doing, which is: "claim so illustrious a thinker as his own".
    test
  16. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I couldn't quite recall if he did or not but I have to admit he did imply enistine was an Atheist. However, you're suggesting he got it wrong like the theists.

    Here is how dawkins comes to his conclusion...

    "The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them. He was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion that he was a theist. So, was he a deist, like Voltaire and Diderot? Or a pantheist, like Spinoza, whose philosophy he admired: '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'? Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism" - dakwins

    He is suggesting Einsteinian pantheism.


    My point differs from Dawkins... Einsteinian atheistic agnosticism.

    "atheistic agnosticism": encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Due to definitional variance, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods and by extension holds true one or more of these statements: The existence and nonexistence of deities is absolutely or currently unknowable. Knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is irrelevant or unimportant. Abstention from claims of knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is optimal.

    I can see what dawkins is saying...
    And he might just be right.
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    Einstein wasn't an Atheist, but he certainly wasn't a Theist either.
    He also wasn't Agnostic, because Einstein knew what he believed.
    To say that Einstein ignorantly used the word God (as a simple error in word choice) would be foolish. Einstein was a very articulate man. He knew what he was and wasn't saying, very well.

    While Dawkins is correct on quite a few things in his book, he is wrong about this.

    [I'm sending you a PM, btw. Read it before you reply to this, if you see this first.]
    test
  18. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Personal God: Atheist.
    Spritual God: Agnostic.
    That is how I see Einstein.

    Dawkins is making quite a bit of sense though.

    Given this...

    "Einstein was an agnostic, but for a public face he, for practical reasons, wished to keep his lack of faith from the public. The press and the church wanted people to believe that he was a man of faith, and they succeeded."

    I just PM'd you, reply back.
    test
  19. M.T

    M.T Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    15,306
    Good book[turn]
    test
  20. Straw_Man

    Straw_Man If I only had some brains

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    482
    What is the difference between a spiritual God and a personal God?

    Einstein believed in a divinity.
    So did T.H. Huxley and Charles Darwin.

    They just didn't believe in a personal God, like you said.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)