LordReed:


You keep mentioning Dawkins like he is some kind of prophet we rely upon to show us the way. Besides what exactly did Dawkins say that you think we hold as immutable?

dawkins is an atheists. And a scientist. A professor. He states the
purpose of life from the viewpoint of a scientists. I.e he speaks for science and is qualified to do so going by his educational qualifications.

He's written nd espoused this view.
His view is expressed as a scientific fact or at least a position.
See his talks on this matter nd read up on his book the God gene.
I bring up hawkins to make a point about science. It answers or has an opinion on issues religion only purports to answer, like "what is d purpose of life"?
"why am i here"?
"is there a God"?


And now we are philosophy then you say its not word games.
i said tht philosophy is the foundation of all systematic objective bodies of knowledge.
Hence,it is a science.
I mentioned how philosophy influences the formulation of rules that govern how ppl relate in society. Just as religion does.
How does tht constitute a word play?

asalimpo:
dawkins is an atheists. And a scientist. A professor. He states the
purpose of life from the viewpoint of a scientists. I.e he speaks for science and is qualified to do so going by his educational qualifications.

He's written nd espoused this view.
His view is expressed as a scientific fact or at least a position.
See his talks on this matter nd read up on his book the God gene.
I bring up hawkins to make a point about science. It answers or has an opinion on issues religion only purports to answer, like "what is d purpose of life"?
"why am i here"?
"is there a God"?

i said tht philosophy is the foundation of all systematic objective bodies of knowledge.
Hence,it is a science.
I mentioned how philosophy influences the formulation of rules that govern how ppl relate in society. Just as religion does.
How does tht constitute a word play?

hakeem4:


First of all there are no scientific authorities it’s not like religion where the imam or pastors tell the members how to behave, believe or do whatever.

i know there is no central authority since it is not a formal diety-worshipping creed-based religion. It however has prominent proponents. E.g dawkins,who is evangelistic.
I mentioned dawkins to point out how science forms d bedrock of intellectual/logical atheism and that science answers or seeks to answer all questions theistic religions answer e.g what is the purpose of life? I used dawkins reply to this answer . The reply is from an expert in the field-a professor of biology-. His claim mayb disputed by other scientists but he argues his point as a scientist rather than as an atheists.


Atheism is not a religion for fucking sake. Is theism or pantheism a religion? It’s just a position of belief.

Theism: believe in gods or gods
Atheism : lack of belief
Simple. It’s like me asking you what is your favorite carbohydrates and you say rice. Then you in turn ask me what mine is and I reply “ I do not eat carbohydrates” and you conclude that “ not eat carbohydrates is your favorite carbohydrate “

you r right. Atheism isnt a religion neither is theism. They are religious classes. In the theistic religious class,adherents believe and direct worship in a supernatural? being called God.
The atheistic class has no such being. Within theism are islam n christianity.
Within atheism is intellectual atheism (science based ) nd non intellectual atheism.
That's d division.
Atheism (intellectual) manifests all the attributes of religion. The issue here is d definition of religion.
The division of concepts into classes to me is mere semantics but to b politically correct,i do it.

malvisguy212:
the reality in which atheism is commonly called has in common in which religion is called.

LordReed:


Can you rephrase? I don't understand this.

malvisguy212:
okay. religion is something that has a POSITION on a divine being or afterlife.

Art, mathematics, sport. etc are not religious because it has NOTHING to do with God .

Atheism HAS something to do with God and afterlife and it stand on that is it doesn't exist.

I want you to know that there is big different between atheism and non-religion .

LordReed:


It only has something to say about god because the question is put to us. You do not ask mathematics if it believes in god, you ask human beings and when they say they do not how does that translate to having a belief?

malvisguy212:
the question you will ask a sport man, you will not ask an atheist.

are you a Christian ? no, I am an atheist, are you a Hindu ? no, I am a Christian. are you a Muslim ? no, I am a Buddhist . are you a Buddhist ? no, I am an atheist. This suggests that being an atheist is
analogous to being a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Hindu.

LordReed:


Wrong. VERY VERY WRONG. Dawkins as a human is free to express his views on any subject he chooses.
- Dawkins isnt just anybody but an expert in his field. He is a professor . His opinions are weighty. His view on a field he has no knowledge in ,is ofcourse trash. But in a field ,he is highly knowledgable in,it matters.


His qualifications do not make him an oracle of science or of atheism, no such authority is vested in him.

his qualifications do determine the weight of his statemnt. The issues of controversy are inconclusive, but the voice of someone who has worked on the fringe of the field has weight.
2) science isnt a closed field. It is expanding,with practitioners contributing to the field, on matters still unknown the voice of researchers matter.
That doesnt make them spokesmen for science-they could b wrong,but to refute them,scientifically,you should also b at their level of knwledge on the subject matter-sometimes.
His views on god and life are NOT taken as scientific fact get that very wrong impression out of your mind.
Steve hawkins also was an atheists,who expressed his opinions on these issues.



It is word play because as you very well know philosophy as a study is very much different from science, at least in our modern world. One can practice science and be more or less divorced from the philosophy of it, you do not even need to know philosophy to practice science.

all of modern science has it's roots in philosophy. So it is no double talk. [/b]
mathematics is built on philosophy,so is medicine,physics etc.
I am not talking of philosophy as a discipline studied today but as a system of knowledge and equiry.
The greek school of philosophy inspired many works that later grew into full grown scientific fields of study.


Also philosophy does not always take cues from science
- i never it does. I said modern science is built on philosophy.


because some of its subject material are metaphysical
properties which science does not even attempt to explain.

this has bearing with the point i was making. Some aspect of philosophy may b outside the scope of science, so what? The physical sciences are not philosophy and philosophy is not d physical sciences. The foundation of the house isnt d house. But the house rests on it.
In almost every formal field of study,you encounter a course that deals with the philosophy of that field. There is d philosophy of mathematics, accounting, etc.
Without philosophy,theyd be no specialized subfields like mathematics,biology etc.

LordReed:


This is like saying zero is analogous to 10. How is the absence of a thing analogous to its presence?

Atheist just means absence of a belief in a god(s). Where does a faith analog now come into it?

malvisguy212:
like I said, anything that has a POSITION about God and afterlife can be view as religion. as long as it proposed a reason to reject or accept belief, we can view it as a religion.

LordReed:


So having no god or gods, no worship, no devotion or rituals, nothing that is considered a religion is in fact also a religion. Wonderful. Your logic is amazing. LoL

OLAADEGBU:


Who said atheism is not a religion?

LordReed:


So having no god or gods, no worship, no devotion or rituals, nothing that is considered a religion is in fact also a religion. Wonderful. Your logic is amazing. LoL

malvisguy212:
do you know that the oldest form of Buddhism does not believed in the divine, only the afterlife .

there are some group such as the boys scout, Freemason etc. members are ask of there position of the Devin and afterlife without commiting to any religion. atheists will perfectly fit in here.

LordReed:

None of which sets up atheism as a religion.

LordReed:


Who said you can bring you can bring your strawmen?

OLAADEGBU:


The faith of Christians is a leap into the light while that of atheists is a leap into the dark.

LordReed:


Yeah that why its Jesus that taught us how to harness electricity and the germ theory of disease.

OLAADEGBU:


Who did you think started the scientific method? Go figure.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

OLAADEGBU:


Real Scientists Who Believe

Most of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were creationists.  Note the following sampling:

Physics:  Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay

Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur

Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz

Astronomy: Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder

"These men, as well as scores of others who could be mentioned, were creationists, not evolutionists, and their names are practically synonymous with the rise of modern science.  To them, the scientific enterprise was a high calling, one dedicated to thinking God's thoughts after Him."

-- A creationist and theologian, Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science?

Here is another quote from Arthur H. Compton, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics:

"Science is the glimpse of God's purpose in nature.  The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything . . . An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God . . .'" 

Johann Kepler:

"The chief aim of all investigation of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God."

Lord Kelvin: 

"With regard to the origin of life, science . . . positively affirms creative power."

Sir Isaac Newton: 

"All material things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid particles above mentioned, variously associated in the first creation by the counsel of an intelligent Agent.  For it became Him who created them to set them in order.  And if He did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature."

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

-- Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," New Scientist

And this is what a Jewish scientist who was obviously influenced by the Jewish Scriptures had to say:

Albert Einstein:

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with inspiration toward truth and understanding.  This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."

LordReed:


So your Jesus did not reveal anything useful even though he was the almighty god. Then the God waited 1600years before scientists would make significant discovery, it took another 250 years+ before we can harness electricity and know the germ theory of disease. LMFAO! Your god must be very incompetent. It waits for men to make discoveries before claiming credit. LMFAO!

OLAADEGBU:


How much of this electricity do you actually see in a week?

LordReed:


Go ask Kumuyi why he bought a generator since your god is too incompetent.

OLAADEGBU:


Non-sequitur. Real scientists believe in God and hence can think God's thought after Him.

OLAADEGBU:


Non-sequitur. Real scientists believe in God and hence can think God's thought after Him.

paraltero:


Unlike religions, most atheists' belief or (lack of) isn't tied to authority figures so....this would make no difference. In this particular setting, atheists typically are firm with the assertion that faith is personal.