News0 min ago
Is your God ever wrong?
143 Answers
Some of the religious here claim that Atheism a religion and that Richard Dawkins is its God. I disagree with some of what Richard Dawkins says, so how do they conclude that he's my God?
Do you, the religious, ever disagree with your God?
Do you, the religious, ever disagree with your God?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I think the criticism deserves a bit more respect that this.
Sometimes the religious present it in crude termsand the valuable point is missed.
Why is your faith in the story that Science tells different to the faith they have in their religion.
I doubt many here have any reason to believe that the Universe is 14 Billion years old and expanding other than the fact that they have been constantly told this in documentries and books.
How do you actually know that we share DNA with so many other animals and have evolved from them - have you ever done a DNA analysis? are you not taking this all on faith.
Perhaps it's because it all come together to make a logical self consistant picture - only it doesn't does it - relativity and Quantum mechanics don't marry up and QM tells us things that are logically absurd.
So why is our belief in scientists different from belief in priests?
Sometimes the religious present it in crude termsand the valuable point is missed.
Why is your faith in the story that Science tells different to the faith they have in their religion.
I doubt many here have any reason to believe that the Universe is 14 Billion years old and expanding other than the fact that they have been constantly told this in documentries and books.
How do you actually know that we share DNA with so many other animals and have evolved from them - have you ever done a DNA analysis? are you not taking this all on faith.
Perhaps it's because it all come together to make a logical self consistant picture - only it doesn't does it - relativity and Quantum mechanics don't marry up and QM tells us things that are logically absurd.
So why is our belief in scientists different from belief in priests?
@JtP - You are right that we all cannot individually, personally, know all the evidence, or be an expert in every field of scientific endevour. So what?
The various scientific theories that underpin our current understanding of the universe are documented.Use of the Scientific Method means that the evidence that supports such theories is registered,documented, submitted for peer group review, ferociously argued over, amended, retested before being accepted as the current best model, which in itself implies a willingness to change should new, more compelling evidence come along.
Very few of the devoutly faithful could claim the same, which is the point of Naomis OP.
To imply that an unevidenced belief in a supernatural deity with not a jot of evidence beyond faith in a book of verse is somehow similar to having confidence in the scientific method is facile. You know this already. Science is anathema to religion, and there are, to my knowledge, very few scientists who have faith in any sort of a personal abrahamic style god - Several surveys have demonstrated this - Religiosity is inversely proportional to the level of education and scientific knowledge.
I could, if I chose, elect to study a particular scientific discipline, using texts referenced to real world observations, to real world experimentation, to real world results. I could, if I chose, see documentation of the results of experiments leading to corroborating theories of evolution, or gravity, or other such theories. I could, had I access to the equipment, repeat the experiments for myself.
This is why your comparison is both trite, and false - the faithful cannot do any of this.
The various scientific theories that underpin our current understanding of the universe are documented.Use of the Scientific Method means that the evidence that supports such theories is registered,documented, submitted for peer group review, ferociously argued over, amended, retested before being accepted as the current best model, which in itself implies a willingness to change should new, more compelling evidence come along.
Very few of the devoutly faithful could claim the same, which is the point of Naomis OP.
To imply that an unevidenced belief in a supernatural deity with not a jot of evidence beyond faith in a book of verse is somehow similar to having confidence in the scientific method is facile. You know this already. Science is anathema to religion, and there are, to my knowledge, very few scientists who have faith in any sort of a personal abrahamic style god - Several surveys have demonstrated this - Religiosity is inversely proportional to the level of education and scientific knowledge.
I could, if I chose, elect to study a particular scientific discipline, using texts referenced to real world observations, to real world experimentation, to real world results. I could, if I chose, see documentation of the results of experiments leading to corroborating theories of evolution, or gravity, or other such theories. I could, had I access to the equipment, repeat the experiments for myself.
This is why your comparison is both trite, and false - the faithful cannot do any of this.
A God that can do no wrong is a refutation of His alleged omnipotence, creation and existence. God's alleged creation confirms that He can do wrong and being endowed with omniscience therefore does so willingly making Him more akin to the devil than his alleged creator.
Consequently, God's existence is only conceivable in the imagination of those who likewise share in and worship their own ignorance and incompetence making of themselves the very devil they despise.
Consequently, God's existence is only conceivable in the imagination of those who likewise share in and worship their own ignorance and incompetence making of themselves the very devil they despise.
I think the introduction of the science vs religion thing goes off at a bit of a tangent.
I think the question was about whether atheism can be correctly called a religion - ie a 'belief' in the non-existence of god. I don't think it can. It's just something religious people come out with every now and then to try and annoy atheists.
Ha Ha! - you're just as mental as us. That kind of thing.
I think the question was about whether atheism can be correctly called a religion - ie a 'belief' in the non-existence of god. I don't think it can. It's just something religious people come out with every now and then to try and annoy atheists.
Ha Ha! - you're just as mental as us. That kind of thing.
I think you know I'm being provocative
Yes the willingness to change is the key point, the real differentiator
But my point is that there are many people who have a faith in science that is *not* willing to change no matter what the evidence.
There are plenty of examples but consider Fred Hoyle - a distinguished scientist who stuck to his "steady state guns" even after the discovery of the background radiation.
That is a position of faith easily the equal of a religious man
Particularly ironic given Hoyle's atheistic credentials
Yes the willingness to change is the key point, the real differentiator
But my point is that there are many people who have a faith in science that is *not* willing to change no matter what the evidence.
There are plenty of examples but consider Fred Hoyle - a distinguished scientist who stuck to his "steady state guns" even after the discovery of the background radiation.
That is a position of faith easily the equal of a religious man
Particularly ironic given Hoyle's atheistic credentials
Atheism is not a religion but a kind of faith. Few people have faith that there is only one God few say no there are three in one, few say that god is only one but has millions of ways of showing himself and finally few people say that there is no god.
As for Richard Dawkins, I do not believe and have never said that he was god for atheists. He is a human like 7 billion (and a few more since two days ago) so obviously he is bound to be wrong somewhere, sometimes. For me description of God is very simple and if Richard Dawkins or anyone else fits in according to this then I would accept him/her as God, and here (once again),
Quran 112
1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.
As a religious person I do not disagree with my God however there are few (or many) things that I may not understand as over the history people did not know about certain things and then they found out but that does not make God wrong because again the above rule applies here that human knowledge is limited and there is no question about that.
As for Richard Dawkins, I do not believe and have never said that he was god for atheists. He is a human like 7 billion (and a few more since two days ago) so obviously he is bound to be wrong somewhere, sometimes. For me description of God is very simple and if Richard Dawkins or anyone else fits in according to this then I would accept him/her as God, and here (once again),
Quran 112
1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.
As a religious person I do not disagree with my God however there are few (or many) things that I may not understand as over the history people did not know about certain things and then they found out but that does not make God wrong because again the above rule applies here that human knowledge is limited and there is no question about that.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Listener 4848 Return By Dysart
Crosswords7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
