6 of 13
6
The Dawkins Delusion
Posted: 15 January 2007 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2007-01-08

Give me an example.

Have you been reading Joad’s comments??

As for my dogmatic, close minded position…. 2+2=4. I don’t see any possibility of changing my dogmatic view on that. My Atheism is equally true. It would be hypocritical if I was not dogmatic.

By definition, in his mind atheism is dogmatic; it must be dogmatic if it is to be consistent.  As such, dogmatism in an inherent quality of atheism.  Now, I don’t think that is true of all atheists but it is certainly true of many.  If you ask me, any worldview that by definition is dogmatic is holding to an extreme position.  I understand that many Christians fall into this position which is why they are criticized.  The irony I have observed is that the criticism often comes from an equally, if not excessively, dogmatic position.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  558
Joined  2006-11-17

He was being sarcastic, dogma, by definition requires maintaining their views via an unthinking and conformist fashion.  Atheists tend to be anything but unthinking or conformist.  Present us with some strong evidence, that means nothing that involves faith or the bible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2007-01-08

nm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2007-01-08

dogma, by definition requires maintaining their views via an unthinking and conformist fashion.

No, that is not the definition of dogma.  Dogmatic has to do with the stubborness with which you hold to a given position.  It has nothing to do with arriving at that position unthinkingly.  To be uttertly immovable in your worldview, whether you are right or wrong, is to be dogmatic. 

One would think an atheist would understand the definition of a word they oft throw around.  Apparently that is not the case.  Oh well, consider yourself educated in this matter.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  775
Joined  2006-12-04

JGrice02,

Perhaps I should clarify.

I suppose you could define my Athiesm as dogmatic. But you could also define my belief that I have two eyes as dogmatic.

For me, it is simply a matter of fact. I can no more change my Atheism than I can change my race.

I did not ‘become’ an athiest. I was born an Athiest. I never made any distinction between Jehovah or Donald Duck.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2007-01-08

Joad, I understand your position.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  558
Joined  2006-11-17

Dogma in religion

Religious dogmata, properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately faith. Perhaps the pinnacle of organized exposition of theological dogma is the Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas, who proposed this relationship between faith and objection: “If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith” (I 1 8)..

Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term “dogma” is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings (e.g., Galatians 1:8-9). Rejection of dogma is considered heresy in certain religions, and may lead to expulsion from the religious group.

For most of Eastern Christianity, the dogmata are contained in the Nicene Creed and the canons of two, three, or seven ecumenical councils (depending on whether one is Nestorian, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox). Roman Catholics also hold as dogma the decisions of 14 later councils and two decrees promulgated by popes exercising papal infallibility (see, e.g., immaculate conception). Protestants to differing degrees affirm portions of these dogmata, and often rely on denomination-specific ‘Statements of Faith’ which summarize their chosen dogmata (see, e.g., Eucharist).

In Islam, the dogmatic principles are contained in the aqidah. Dogma is referred to as Doctrine inside many Christian religions.

Despite the Buddha reportedly asking his students not to believe anything simply because it is stated in religious texts, Buddhist cultural practices often appear to embrace beliefs that appear to be dogmatic in style. Closer academic examination though reveals a more complex reality. [1]

[edit] Dogma outside of religion

Many non-religious beliefs are often described as dogmata, for example in the fields of politics or philosophy, as well as within society itself. The term dogmatism carries the implication that people are upholding their beliefs in an unthinking and conformist fashion. Dogmas are thought to be anathema to science and scientific analysis, though some small groups may argue that the scientific method itself is somewhat dogmatic. In a similar way in philosophies such as rationalism and skepticism, although metaphysical considerations are normally not explicit in those fields, traditional religious dogmas tend to be rejected while unexamined presuppositions are sometimes upheld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogmatic has to do with the stubborness with which you hold to a given position.

I would agree with your assessment if included “despite evidence that diminishes that given position.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-06-01

[quote author=“JGrice02”]Joad, I understand your position.

By the way man (not of the United States); your hero Mcgrath either in ignorance or willingly lying, claims that Antony Flew had converted to Christianity…he did not; he merely became a deist, which has precious little to do with a Christian God and more to do with the atheist position he formerly held. Listen to his talk again where he claims that…

 Signature 

Get with it. Millions of galaxies of hundreds of millions of stars, and a speck on one in a blink. That’s us, lost in space. The cop, you, me… Who notices?
-Vincent

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2006-12-26

[quote author=“JGrice02”]As for the rest of what you said, I’m sure the criticism will be shared by many who agree with your worldview.  Psychology might say that you disagree (and I agree) not because of the actual arguments but because of the presuppositions we bring to the conversation.  Funny how that works.  But its a tough thing, to separate your presuppositions and objectively listen to something.

But aren’t you doing the same thing?  I honestly don’t know, but I think this is what most people do.  It is something I fight hard not to do myself, but I’m sure I do it anyway.  I know that when I was a practicing Christian, I automatically put up defenses and basically argued points from a reverse engineering point of view.  I only realized this in hindsight after my deconversion.  It was virtually impossible for me to listen objectively to a non-theological POV because I “knew” that Christ was the truth, the one true life everlasting.  I had to rationalize up the wazoo. 

I don’t do that anymore.  Now, I let the evidence speak for itself, and I form my opinions accordingly.  Sure, it is sometimes difficult to reform an opinion even when rooted in fact, but it is much easier now because I’m not concerned about my eternal soul.  Ironically, I’m often accused now by my conservative Christian friends of being “close minded” in the way that you suggested Dawkins and the rest of us are being, when I know that I’m more open minded now than I ever was before. 

If I were to say I agree with you, you’d say I was being open minded for reading this alternate pov, but if I disagree, I’m falling back to my predisposed world view?  Its a catch 22.  Maybe I and others here have come to believe what we believe for specific reasons, such as evidence.  There are crack pots on both sides of the fence who will believe what they want whether all the evidence suggests otherwise.  You see this in science too.  A scientist spends their whole life supporting a theory only to be proven wrong… that scientist is not likely to concede gracefully.  Its hard to admit one is wrong. 

I’m starting to ramble now, but my point is, can’t we just argue the points instead of making assumptions about a person’s bias?  The facts should stand for themselves.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 05:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1241
Joined  2006-11-05

BC that’s BS, they flew those planes into the buildings so that they could become martyrs and go to heaven.

Ya, cause you were the last person to talk to them before they died. You didn’t just make that assumption up based on the news media and Bush’s spin he used to invade Iraq. You know everything. Too bad they died so you will never know.

I can feel important because I am a member of the first species in this planet’s 4.5 billion year history that can look at the stars in the night and the sun in the daytime sky and understand that they are the source of not only my life on a day to day basis, but are also the source of the elements that make up the earth and therefore led to those first simple life forms from which I am a descended.

Ya, because no fish on earth knows when the tide arrives. They pay no attention to the moon. That’s a typical ignorant, white male, American comment if I ever heard one.

A ‘creation’ has no importance. It has a use, a function. A car doesn’t care if it is driven, or where. A painting doesn’t care if we look at it or not.

If everything we create is unimportant, than we ourselves are unimportant. Thus, God is still more important.

When I see the word ‘created’, I read ‘manufactured’. It makes things clear.

That’s just proof you see what you want too see, and ignore all other facts to prove yourself correct.

Atheism is internally NOT consistent. Even Harris has buddist beliefs.
2+2=4, but no two things are alike. Atheists tend to be anything but unthinking or conformist. Actually, they are equally as unthinking and they conform to atheism. I’ve yet to hear any new idea’s from an atheist on this forum, just the same obvious, lame and repeatative comments. Not to mention a horde of unneccesarily personal insults.

This sentence…

I did not ‘become’ an athiest. I was born an Athiest. I never made any distinction between Jehovah or Donald Duck.

..doesn’t make any sense. How can you say you don’t know the difference when you clearly seperated the two nouns with and?

I know that when I was a practicing Christian, I automatically put up defenses and basically argued points from a reverse engineering point of view. I only realized this in hindsight after my deconversion. It was virtually impossible for me to listen objectively to a non-theological POV because I “knew” that Christ was the truth, the one true life everlasting. I had to rationalize up the wazoo.

See, I believed in God than became an Atheist. I argued with Christians, just as you do, untill I was convienced they were all dellusional. But now I know there is a God, there is no arguement that can change a fact.

I’m starting to ramble now, but my point is, can’t we just argue the points instead of making assumptions about a person’s bias? The facts should stand for themselves.

If there is a God, it is he who will judge you in the end. Of course, if there is no God, what’s the difference? You’ll die anyway.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 06:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  452
Joined  2006-03-06

[quote author=“JGrice02”]There is a book soon to come out that some of you might be interested in.  It’s called The Dawkins Delusion – a response to Richard Dawkins and it will hit stores in February of 2007.  It was written by Alister McGrath in response to Dawkins book, The God Delusion.  McGrath has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins, calling him “embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology”. He has wanted to have a public discussion with Dawkins but Dawkins has declined.

Alister E. McGrath is a biochemist and Christian theologian born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and is currently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford.  I don’t know all that much about him but after hearing some of his lectures I think he is an interesting guy.  Many of you will likely disagree with him before even listening to what he has to say.  If that is you then don’t bother reading the book.  But many of you are not afraid to listen to a differing worldview.  And for those who enjoyed Dawkins’ book you owe it to yourself to hear what McGrath has to say. 

To listen to a recent lecture of his click on the following link:

 

I hope to finish Dawkins book and follow it up with McGrath’s.  It will be interesting to hear what these guys have to say.

I don’t think that a person can “honestly” say he believes in God and claim to be christian. In order to believe that you have to discart the other gods. You have to positively assert that Allah doesn’t exist. This means to be a strong atheist with regards to Allah. And most important, you have to discart the ideea that the god of the jews might exist. This is requires to have a switch in your brain that switches from “skeptic” to “believer” depending on the god. That switch is controlled by pure desire and has nothing to do with being true to one-self.

What makes a scientist go from “I believe in God” to “I believe the bible is the word of God”? It’s mind boggling.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 07:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  775
Joined  2006-12-04

Miller,

Correct. Christians say we cannot disprove that god exists. Then they proceed to state that Allah does not exist.

Bad_conduct wrote:

Quote:
I did not ‘become’ an athiest. I was born an Athiest. I never made any distinction between Jehovah or Donald Duck.

..doesn’t make any sense. How can you say you don’t know the difference when you clearly seperated the two nouns with and?

I can’t explain that to you because you do not know the difference between ‘difference’ and ‘distinction’.
But, just in case: I know the difference, I just don’t make any distinction.
I know the difference between a Toyota and Lexus. I just don’t think the difference is important. Although I will admit that the difference between a Toyota and a Lexus is more important than the difference between God and Donald Duck.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 10:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  558
Joined  2006-11-17

Ya, cause you were the last person to talk to them before they died. You didn’t just make that assumption up based on the news media and Bush’s spin he used to invade Iraq. You know everything. Too bad they died so you will never know.

I doubt that you will find anyone who doesn’t believe in an afterlife committing suicide in that way.  If you read the kuran and look at the muslim mentality in the middle east, it will support my assurtion that they committed this attrocity based on their religion.

ps Bush invaded Iraq because he had the misguided assertion that there were WMD’s there.  He invade Afghanistan because of the Taliban.  Those are two different wars.  When there were no WMD’s in Iraq, he still had to support the war, so he came up with the war on terror (the less political name could have been the war on militant islam).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 04:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1241
Joined  2006-11-05

ps Bush invaded Iraq because he had the misguided assertion that there were WMD’s there.


Ha ha, that’s a good one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 05:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2007-01-08

[quote author=“stardusk”][quote author=“JGrice02”]Joad, I understand your position.

By the way man (not of the United States); your hero Mcgrath either in ignorance or willingly lying, claims that Antony Flew had converted to Christianity…he did not; he merely became a deist, which has precious little to do with a Christian God and more to do with the atheist position he formerly held. Listen to his talk again where he claims that…

Actually, McGreth said the following: “How many people do you know who, not believing in Father Christmas at the age of six, do start believing him at the age of eighteen, or 35, or 50, or even, in the case of Anthony Flew, a recent mover away from atheism to belief in God, in their 70’s.”  And that is exactly correct.  He made no suggestion whatever that Flew converted to Christianity, only to belief in God. 

The next time you tell someone to “listen to his talk again where he claims that” it might help if you are actually right.  Otherwise, people might accuse YOU of being ignorant or YOU of lying.  I won’t go that far, but if the roles were reversed I’m quite certain you would.

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 13
6
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed