FC Bayern Forum

nm462272 wrote:

JANCKER wrote:

nm462272 wrote:...did i miss something?

In the beginning there was nothing... he tried to explain nothing.

okay, so this video is missing all context of the conversation. how can anyone know if Dawkins was "owned" without any context?

i'm going to assume that Dawkins was talking about what happened before the Big Bang, and there is no way to know what happened before that.

He said that it must've been "something pretty misterious".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA

Is Dawkins confused over claims that the universe can come "from nothing"? Material incorporated under Fair Use for critical, journalistic, educational and satirical purposes. The latter approach is encouraged by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss themselves, who describe satire and ridicule as "legitimate" forms of argumentation, and affirm that "there's no-one whose views are not subject to question".

ramsej84 wrote:

Firefox1234 wrote:In my personal life I was semi raised religiously as I attended a Christian school and went to church moderately. But to be honest it was the "fear" of God that kept me a believer than anything else and I eventually outgrew that fear. It also didn't help that the more I studied about world history and the things done in "the name of God", the abuse of religion by the Catholic Church for centuries and in my personal life seeing a lot of hate coming from so called children of God made me become more distasteful of religion. My dad Kenyan born also shared to me why he stopped being religious due to the abuse he witnessed in his youth(not experienced fortunately). To this day he reminds me that religion was the worst thing that the Europeans brought to Africa.

Don't get me wrong I'm not painting religious people with a brush but I rather not feel like I'm feeling brainwashed especially amongst former colonies like Africa and Latin/South America. Never understood why embrace a belief system meant to subjugate you

In my opinion people should be free to believe in whatever they want as long as it doesn't impede the rights of others....

Sorry to hear that... but I am sure that you also appreciate the help that most Religious volunteers carry out in Africa and rest assured that they don't look after Catholics they help everyone... they build hospitals , schools etc. I had a family member who lived in Kenya for many years, she also spoke Swahili...
Malta does a lot of Charity around the world especially in Kenya Sudan Ethiopia Tanzania Nigeria and in S.America and Asia namely Pakistan India Philippines...
P.S in Africa other Religious which were not brought by Europeans are present as well...

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Haha forgot Islam in there but I do agree a lot of religious organizations do a lot of good in Africa. What I and my father don't like is how it has caused even more division in Africa. A lot of my family there is very religious include my Dad's brother who I found out had a reawakening in his 30s I think. I hope the genuine religious people will continue to preach peace and love loud enough to block out the hate by the rotten apples....

JANCKER wrote:He said that it must've been "something pretty misterious".

i believe the key difference is that agnostics or atheists would say the cause is unknown, or would adjust their view based upon the latest scientific findings, and a theist would say there is no other option than what their holy book/teachings say it is.

nm462272 wrote:

JANCKER wrote:He said that it must've been "something pretty misterious".

i believe the key difference is that agnostics or atheists would say the cause is unknown, or would adjust their view based upon the latest scientific findings, and a theist would say there is no other option than what their holy book/teachings say it is.

Atheist and agnostic are different... atheists believe that there is no god. Agnostics are more open minded, I considered myself to be one for some time.

Prove that there is no god and I will follow.

You think that you're a free thinker because you're agnostic/atheist... a TV and a computer won't make you smarter than your theist ancestors.

JANCKER wrote:

nm462272 wrote:

JANCKER wrote:He said that it must've been "something pretty misterious".

i believe the key difference is that agnostics or atheists would say the cause is unknown, or would adjust their view based upon the latest scientific findings, and a theist would say there is no other option than what their holy book/teachings say it is.

Atheist and agnostic are different... atheists believe that there is no god. Agnostics are more open minded, I considered myself to be one for some time.

Prove that there is no god and I will follow.

You think that you're a free thinker because you're agnostic/atheist... a TV and a computer won't make you smarter than your theist ancestors.

i am aware of the differences between atheists and agnostics - in my last post i was referring to a specific situation where their thinking was similar.

as others have said, disproving something exists is nearly impossible. rather, you should believe in something that has the most proof backing its existence... this is the scientific method.

the personal attacks are not necessary, but they did make me laugh... when i want to put my faith in a book written thousands of years ago, and ignore all human progress since then, i'll let you know

JANCKER wrote:

harry-muc wrote:

JANCKER wrote:Where is the evidence that he doesn't exist? Exactly, a belief.

if YOU claim something exists, YOU have to bring the evidence. thats the way it works.

You bring the evidence that he doesn't exist and I stop believing. That's the way it works.

You are wrong, Jancker, that's not the way it works, that would be a logical fallacy and I'm gonna explain that in detail.
The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the claimant. It's how it works in philosophy, it's how it works in law: the obligation of one party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence for their claim. One such party (the claimant) is you, you are the one making the claim that something exists, just like at any trial the accuser is expected to bring evidence for its claims, while the defendant refutes them or not. This is why you won't end up at a random trial where a random car was stolen and you had to prove it wasn't you; no, they need evidence to call you, to make the claim you are at least a suspect. Otherwise it would be a shift of the burden of proof through the argument from ignorance (our claim is right because you haven't proven it to be false) which is also a logical fallacy. Ignoring fallacies like these (there are many others) would have us ending up with all kinds of people demanding loads of money because they claimed to have seen aliens in space insulting them or whatnot and getting their chance in an actual trial.

Having these in mind, for philosophy and especially in the context of religion, punkcapitalist gave you the Superman example, which is good but not entirely because it's already a claim (we all know Superman's traits) that can be refuted through the laws of physics. I prefer Russel's teapot among many others: If I were to tell you there was a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere between Earth and Mars, and I would add that this teapot was small enough not to be detected by any telescope, how would you refute that? Your only chance would be maybe to appeal to reason and tell me there's no reason why somebody would put that there (it is scientifically possible), why would it exist there in the first place. Wrong, the burden of proof lies on me, I have to first prove my claim and you need to refute my evidence.

So, yes, you first need to prove that God exists. And I know what you may want to say now, that there IS evidence for God, and supposing you're talking about the personal/involving Abrahamic God I expect you to come up with something which you consider evidence from either the Bible, Quran, Toran, Talmud (because that's where the claims for this god are) or some phenomena which you considered to be paranormal or some personal interpretation of science. Now not only have these all been refuted already but most are also quite silly and contradicting. And while I have only thoroughly studied the Bible from those please do bring your arguments here if you want.

JANCKER wrote:He said that it must've been "something pretty misterious".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA

Is Dawkins confused over claims that the universe can come "from nothing"? Material incorporated under Fair Use for critical, journalistic, educational and satirical purposes. The latter approach is encouraged by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss themselves, who describe satire and ridicule as "legitimate" forms of argumentation, and affirm that "there's no-one whose views are not subject to question".

Yeah, Dawkings is not a physicist in that matter and he's stepping into uncovered territory but neither is the bishop, so they have to rely on reasons and logic. Again, that's the argument from ignorance right there, we don't know what's that, so it must be God, here, you try to explain this Richard. It's like the old saying, where science ends, religion begins. Funny it has to be the Abrahamic God also, not Thor, Zeus or other god or entity.
And there's no problem in admitting we don't know something yet or we can't understand it. We very well might in the future, science was always like that. People couldn't understand what's in the skies, they put God there, they later realized geocentrism was wrong, they moved God further into the unexplored. It's now at the big bang, that place just gets smaller and smaller.
I have to remind you that Higgs boson was proven to exist and function as expected in 2012 at LHC which shines a little light further. We are a long way to go but it's slowly moving.

MUTU wrote:

harry-muc wrote:

JANCKER wrote:Where is the evidence that he doesn't exist? Exactly, a belief.

if YOU claim something exists, YOU have to bring the evidence. thats the way it works.

The evidence lies in a probability calculation that life would have been created on Earth the way it is following the big bang. The probability is so extremely low that it is virtually impossible. It is therefore extremely beyond reasonable doubt that a form of higher entity exists/existed.

The argument from design/the argument from improbability is not evidence, it may have been in Socrates' time but we have advanced in our understanding of the world. It just shows a misunderstanding of natural selection, laws of physics and statistics while it's also self-defeating begging the question whether or how the god was created.
Natural selection is not a theory of chance as in hocus pocus surprise overnight, it is a very long process. Life on Earth is also not perfect, there are many flaws (neither are the laws of physics), and while Earth was exposed to some privileges which allowed it to form certain mechanisms, it is nowhere near representative of an extremely low probability, on the contrary, when taking Universe scale into account it is statistically impossible for life (even in better conditions) not to exists in other places of the Universe as well.

@ramsej, these discussions aren't insulting, you just have to realize that religion and belief are open to interpretation and critique just like any other ideas. And no, why exlude LGBT, why? Now that can be insulting.

No, and I am yet to see a phenomena unexplained by science.

ramsej84 wrote:I am interested to know when most of you decided to forget everything and to became atheists.
Former believes vs current believes...
I bet that only a handful of Muslims will ever become atheists... and I tell you why, cause they love their Religion and live by what they are thought, while Christians become indifferent cause our Rel is more relaxed... I really admire the moderate Muslims...

P . S Catholicism teaches that all men / women can go to heaven and one doesn't have to be RC or another form of Christian...

Interestingly, you call these teachings propaganda as soon as they don't fit your opinion anymore

FCBayernMunchen wrote:

#12 wrote:Don't get me wrong, it is absolutely stunning and insane, how life works, how small we are, etc...
BUT: Our species and it's limited tech alone knows of a four digit number of planets highly likely to carry life alone - it's not that improbable

I might be saying something scientifically stupid here (while science does interest me a lot, I can't claim a high level of knowledge in it), but if the chances of having the right combination of elements to support life is as rare as MUTU and many, many others claim, then the fact that there are so many other planets with similar combinations kind of increases the probability of a higher entity.

Or you know, the universe might just be THAT big...

Also, ramsej: I DO believe birth is very special, and don't you think that there's oh so many people doing it, or many taking it lightly... But a cluster of cells is not yet born... Don't get me wrong, I have never been in the situation and more likely than not would not be in favor of it - but I think it's okay to have a choice... Not every child is a lovechild...

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:18-20)

That's all from me...

To joke on king James' bible translations (which are most likely correct in this regard, don't think original hebrew versions had any sex equity in mind either): so God is a male since He, His, Him are so present?
You do realize that God who allegedly brought wrath upon such sins is the same God which commanded its people to conquer and murder, marry siblings etc? The God which was jealous of the Egyptian gods and showed off with curses to see which is more powerful? Do you know what I'm talking about? Have you ever wondered why there are such contradictions in the Bible? The answer is a fairly easy one.

Dalv wrote:To joke on king James' bible translations (which are most likely correct in this regard, don't think original hebrew versions had any sex equity in mind either): so God is a male since He, His, Him are so present?
You do realize that God who allegedly brought wrath upon such sins is the same God which commanded its people to conquer and murder, marry siblings etc? The God which was jealous of the Egyptian gods and showed off with curses to see which is more powerful? Do you know what I'm talking about? Have you ever wondered why there are such contradictions in the Bible? The answer is a fairly easy one.

Which is the answer?

The books in the Bible had more authors, not just one hence the contradictions. They mainly comprised local myths or teachings the way the world was understood at that time. And many of the myths are actually babylonian, egyptian, assyrian, indian etc myths.