Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
You're wrong on both accounts.The Bible isn't a lens through which one views the universe, but rather a reference point which allows for a greater understanding of the universe and God's creation of it. You seem to forget that many scientists (Newton, Darwin, and Einstein to name a few) qualified their work based on their religious views. Therefore, I fail to see how one's understanding of religion narrows his/her view of the natural world... If anything, it expands it.
|
Religion would be a reference point if it could be expanded on. It cannot. The scientists you mentioned lived under religious persecution and in a world dominated by religion, so in order to make their views palatable, it was necessary to work within the framework that most people understood: religion. You might notice that approach is much less common today, where religion is less imposed than it was. Unfortunately, Darwin and Newton, along with many other scientists, had their findings destroyed, questioned as blasphemy, or tampered with by those afraid of progress. Also, the lens description was more of a type of perception, not suggesting it was more or less narrow than any else's perception.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
For one, the odds aren't nearly that high. That's simple an exaggerated number which most atheists tend to toss around as "Proof" of the fact that God doesn't exist. Anyway, here's a quote I happen to like taken from an interview done between Time Magazine, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins:
|
Actually, I simplified the odds, which are much worse than I figured in order to simply communicate the odds in layman's terms. In order to adequately ascertain a number, one needs any sort of occurrence. No such proof or evidence of the possibility of an occurrence exists, therefore the actual statistics are more like infinity to 1. It's not proof that god doesn't exist. It's simply stating the fact that absolutely no evidence exists to suggest god is real.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: That's God.
|
That's exactly why I'm an atheist. The arrogant swagger and blind faith that are a bane to Collins' logical thought process is evident in his response. Instead of saying, "As science is ever growing and expanding our understanding of the universe", he suggests that anything beyond our understanding is god. That's stupid. Anything that's beyond our current understanding is simply undiscovered science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Dawkins then goes on to argue that the interpretation of "God" could be numerous different entities. It's not the first time I've seen/heard him backtrack on his assertion that God definitively doesn't exist.
|
You misunderstood his argument. He was arguing within a hypothetical situation in which there was god. It's not backpedaling, it's a waste of time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
*Insert fits of wild laughter here*
All right. Sorry. I just had to get that out. You're, in essence, cutting off your nose to spite your face. God doesn't need your respect nor love. He blesses you by honoring him. He doesn't "Miss out" if you choose to deny his existence. I can't help but think of the kid who causes harm to himself in order to try to hurt his parents. Ultimately, it's stupid as you only end up hurting yourself.
|
I didn't say that god needs my love and respect, I said that he wants my love and respect, according to thousands of religious texts spanning the globe and the last several thousand years of human history. Again, you seem to suddenly forget that I said "On the centillion (one million to the hundredth power)-to-one chance I'm wrong," as a qualifier for the rest of the paragraph. God doesn't really exist, of course, but if he did and I was made aware of it, in that hypothetical situation, I would not respect him/her/it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I suppose your experience (Or lack, thereof) is greater than someone else's experience so I'll just take your word for it that nothing happens.
|
Greater than someone else's experience? Nope. It's my own personal proof.