Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

View Poll Results: Do you believe in God?
Yes, I believe in Johnny Hoogerland. 37 15.88%
Yes, I believe in a supernatural, personal being. 32 13.73%
I believe in a life force or spirit, but not in a personal being. 24 10.30%
I don't know. I'm an agnostic. 27 11.59%
No, I'm an atheist in that, while I can't assure there is no God, I believe there is none. 52 22.32%
No, I'm an atheist in that I assure there is no God. 61 26.18%
Voters: 233. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-24-11, 17:38
Descender's Avatar
Descender Descender is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kvinto View Post
Even making a distinction between these terms, they are still relative, the belief can't exist without a holder (holders) and bashing that belief may bash a person who holds it as well. A random belief can include controversial points (actually a lot of), totally unacceptable in the modern world but a random holder of that belief can be into it (belief) due to the other points which noone would criticize but in the end those negative points make the negative impression about all holders of the belief. The same happens when a random holder of the belief impressed by negative points of it does unacceptable deeds.
So as a holder of the Christianity I don’t want to look responsible (in someone’s eyes) for every wrong word written in the Bible or every crime made by the Church.
I hope you understand my reasons and I can leave this thread for good
I understand your point, but can't agree with it.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-24-11, 17:46
Descender's Avatar
Descender Descender is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
Dawkins doesnt agree

He has himself admitted that he would lose a debate to Hitchens, should they ever meet on opposite sides, and wrote that the first time he saw Hitchens (when they were made to join debate against some religious people) he was astounded at what he saw.

Ill get you the video clip where Dawkis says the first bit, later. It will take me a while to find it.

Which is logical as Hitchens comes from the pen and microphone, Dawkins comes from the bunsen burner.

Dawkins is atheism for the simple. He repeats the same easy arguments, uses the word science and scientists 100 times a minute. His book was quite well challenged by Allistair Mcgrath.

From the biology angle he is unsurpassed but when arguing in person, well Dawkins is weak Imo.

In the book department Dawkins was by far the easiest. One that parents could give to their 10 year olds. One can predict what is going to say before he says it as all the arguments are all well known. Other than the 1 or 2 chapters on his specialised subject.

Hitchens was next. Though he is called an author it is on the podium not on the page that his talents come out. Its a good read, more complex than Dawkins but seems to me, a way to get in on the atheist market.

Harrises book was by far the most complex. Im talking about The End of Faith, not Letter to a Christian nation

I have yet to read breaking the spell.

As a debater, which is what I believe is the most important, and the one i spend most time on, Dawkins is very weak though, and its not his fault, its because he has no experience in the field.

He is never able to get over his shock at the fact that the person he is talking with actually believes in religion. Never. He is unable to hammer home and ends up repeating the same arguments.

Sam Harris rarely if ever does debates, but when he does, its on theory.

Hitchens. As the comments from opponents saying they wish he was on his side, demonstrate, is who the faithful dont want to debate against.

He also doesnt tell them they are deluded either

I need to go now. More to come later.
Well I respectfully disagree. I find Dawkins to be the best of them all. His arguments might be repetitive, but that is because their opponents' arguments are repetitive too. And Hitchens is also repetitive himself.

Hitchens is witty and funny, he is an actor and a master of the crowds. If he can't be erect, then at least he can be upright. But I have seen him fare astonishingly poorly in some debates, notably the first one with Craig.

McGrath challenging Dawkins's book? Please... McGrath is a bad farce. In every single Dawkins debate I've seen, he ends up not only winning, but flat-out destroying his opponents. It is really something to see.

Harris is very articulate and is versed on neurological matters, and it shows. I fully recommend his latest book, The Moral Landscape.

It's extremely invigorating to watch debates from these four, with Dennett bringing in the philosophical perspective. They are so different, come from such different backgrounds, and yet have so much in common.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-24-11, 17:47
ChrisE's Avatar
ChrisE ChrisE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,202
Default

My god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodly appendage. Amen.
__________________
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 10-24-11, 19:37
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pistolero View Post
If God loves everyone then why does the Bible say I have to throw rocks at homosexuals?

Is the God from the Old Testament all of a sudden a different God then the one from the New Testament(there were in fact some Christian sects that believed that, but they were all prosecuted by the Church of course)
question#1: Good question, but I have never heard or read a verse that says that. Here's my reference (John 8:3-9, NIV), which I will let speak for itself:

Quote:
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
If you have a reference or version that says differently, I'd like to see it.


question#2: Same God.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 10-24-11, 20:06
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,037
Default

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

- Albert Einstein

"The melancholy of the antique world seems to me more profound than that of the moderns, all of whom more or less imply that beyond the dark void lies immortality. But for the ancients that "black hole" is infinity itself; their dreams loom and vanish against a background of immutable ebony. No crying out, no convulsions - nothing but the fixity of a pensive gaze. Just when the gods had ceased to be and the Christ had not yet come, there was a unique moment in history, between Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, when man stood alone. Nowhere else do I find that particular grandeur."

- Flaubert, undated letter to Madame Roger des Genettes

I now give the divine that is in me, back to the divine that is in everything
.

- Plotina (III century Neoplatonic philosopher), supposedly at the moment before his death

These three sentiments are, I think, enough to keep me silently wondering for the next 40 years or so; and about which, naturally, I will never have any understanding.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 10-24-11, 20:07
The Hitch's Avatar
The Hitch The Hitch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London.
Posts: 21,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descender View Post
Well I respectfully disagree. I find Dawkins to be the best of them all. His arguments might be repetitive, but that is because their opponents' arguments are repetitive too. And Hitchens is also repetitive himself.

Hitchens is witty and funny, he is an actor and a master of the crowds. If he can't be erect, then at least he can be upright. But I have seen him fare astonishingly poorly in some debates, notably the first one with Craig.

McGrath challenging Dawkins's book? Please... McGrath is a bad farce. In every single Dawkins debate I've seen, he ends up not only winning, but flat-out destroying his opponents. It is really something to see.

Harris is very articulate and is versed on neurological matters, and it shows. I fully recommend his latest book, The Moral Landscape.
Hitchens has debated Craig many many times. They did a debating tour together. Either way, whichever one you saw, i am sure he still won.

And yes Hitchens does repeat himself, all the time. Bits from 2 or 3 of his debates can be identical. But what I meant is that Dawkins will repeat himself several times in 1 debate.

Dawkins arguments are the ones everyone knows and everyone uses. The Betrand Russel Spagheti Monster argument. He opens his book with the - if you were born in Alabama chances are you are a Chrstian and if you are born in Afghanistan, chances are you are a Muslim argument.

Not that you need to go past those arguments to be convinced

I agree that Dawkins wins his debates (not that he does many) but thats because he is right, not because he knows how to debate which he doesnt.

Its not just that he comes from a different profesiion but also that he has lived most of his life in Oxford devoting his life to becoming one of the best of all time in his very important and very difficult profession. He hasnt read as much, he hasnt lived in foreign countries, he has less experience.

As a result on simple religion vs atheism debates he is not that great, though he is still worth watching.

Perhaps most importantly, Dawkins tends to debate far easier opposition. He tends to argue with evangelical christians, creationists, extremist jews extremist muslims. A lot of the people he debates with do not believe in evolution. Hitchens of course debates a lot of evangelicals too. Desposes with them better too I would propose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA

But he does also debate aginst more advanced believers. People who know what they are talking about.

Dont get me wrong, Dawkins is a hero but its when people try to challenge him on science that it gets gold.

Dawkins is known as Darwins poodle. When someone tells him they dont believe in God because of morality or because of Pascals wager, Dawkins says the party line, just adds "science" and "scientists" a few times in every sentence

His heart isnt in it and he doesnt have the total expertise on the subject needed to answer it differently every time it comes up, nor to add comedy, nor to smack down his opponents.

But when someone tries to challenge him on science, say suggests that evolution is just a theory, or that dinos are 6000 years old, or that miracles are more effective than medicine, THAT is where Dawkin's inner Hitch comes out

Then he delivers the Smack down.

But on the other stuff, Dawkins is like Cav trying to climb. Better than 99% of the world, but not what he specialises in

Quote:
It's extremely invigorating to watch debates from these four, with Dennett bringing in the philosophical perspective. They are so different, come from such different backgrounds, and yet have so much in common
They are all rich white toffs as would be called in this country. And the thing they have in common - atheism, is something they share with a lot of people.

If you want someone who comes from a totaly different background and ends up in the same place, Hitchens and Harris have said that the 5th member of this "4 horsemen" is Ayyan Hirsi Ali.
__________________
The Hitch: Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013 (still undefeated). Currently 2nd all time cq rankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pre 2009 wiggins
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that.
journalist with integrity.

Last edited by The Hitch; 10-24-11 at 20:41.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-24-11, 20:25
El Pistolero's Avatar
El Pistolero El Pistolero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by on3m@n@rmy View Post
question#1: Good question, but I have never heard or read a verse that says that. Here's my reference (John 8:3-9, NIV), which I will let speak for itself:



If you have a reference or version that says differently, I'd like to see it.


question#2: Same God.
I'll tell you why the God of the Old Testament is the same as the one from the new

In the Antiquity people believed the old days were ALWAYS better. If something was old it was automatically better than something that was not as old. The early Christians thus decided to hang on to the Old Testament to show everyone else how old their religion was.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryo Hazuki View Post
horrible. boonen just the same guy as years before and this course is too hard for him. that's why he rode like a coward there were at least 3 guys stronger than boonen today and none of them won: sagan, ballan, pozzato
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch
Goss will woop boonens candy ass in a sprint he cares about, any day of the week

Last edited by El Pistolero; 10-24-11 at 20:28.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-24-11, 20:32
lancaster lancaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 326
Default

I voted for Hoogerland. not because I mock the question, but because it's the closest to the truth.

i believe in so many things, the fallibility of humans, Profit & Loss, courage, loyalty, failure, success, trial and error, trial by jury, free choice, reading, knowledge and it's quest, literature and film, forgiveness, moral hazard, smoking is really bad for you (and that it still might be worth doing), discretion, honesty, generosity, tough love, photography, excellence, improvement, that people should be measured by what they can endure rather than what they can inflict, that "the abyss gazes also", that prisons are awful, that execution is wrong, that democracy thrives despite politicians not because of them, people do good things and it doesn't make them good people, people should be punished for what they did rather than the result of their actions, i believe in data and peer review, i believe that religion is of huge cultural significance, that religion and its disciples help millions of people, i believe in quiet reflection, i believe that the bible contains many ideas that are improving, that you shouldn't believe everything you read, that people should be encouraged to think for themselves, that I'm better than Gaddaffi, Bin Laden and Hussein BECAUSE i don't think their deaths make the world a better place, that Vengeance is human.

to me church is culturally significant, i do go (irregularly) and occasionally pray (although more conscious contemplation). religion is too often an excuse for trouble that would be there anyway.


(to place me culturally, i'm white Irish, protestant, born and raised in England.) i over use commas and let sentences overun, but you knew that already.)
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-24-11, 21:08
Cobblestones's Avatar
Cobblestones Cobblestones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisE View Post
My god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodly appendage. RAmen.
fixed it for you.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 10-24-11, 21:09
Descender's Avatar
Descender Descender is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
Hitchens has debated Craig many many times. They did a debating tour together. Either way, whichever one you saw, i am sure he still won.
I saw the very first one they did, said by the moderator.

Quote:
And yes Hitchens does repeat himself, all the time. Bits from 2 or 3 of his debates can be identical. But what I meant is that Dawkins will repeat himself several times in 1 debate.
Hitchens does that too. It is irrelevant anyway, they repeat themselves when it is necessary.

Quote:
I agree that Dawkins wins his debates (not that he does many) but thats because he is right, not because he knows how to debate which he doesnt.
I disagree. But that is also irrelevant.

Quote:
Its not just that he comes from a different profesiion but also that he has lived most of his life in Oxford devoting his life to becoming one of the best of all time in his very important and very difficult profession. He hasnt read as much, he hasnt lived in foreign countries, he has less experience.
I'm sure he has read a lot, and I'd say he has lots of experience.

And he most certainly lived in America as a young man.

Quote:
Perhaps most importantly, Dawkins tends to debate far easier opposition. He tends to argue with evangelical christians, creationists, extremist jews extremist muslims. A lot of the people he debates with do not believe in evolution.
I find it surprising you're not aware of the fact that Dawkins has fervently opposed to debate creationists since at least 2005.

In fact, he has refused to debate Craig several times because of this.


Quote:
But on the other stuff, Dawkins is like Cav trying to climb. Better than 99% of the world, but not what he specialises in
One of the best similes I've ever seen, I tell you!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.