interesing news

pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
interesing news

i got a brief moment in my busy life to checkout some really interesting news, the first reakky shocked me but, can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

 

i also got a chance to see the vatican put out the ten commandments of driving. ok now im a thiest i beleve in jesus christ, to see religion do something like that just makes me shake my head in amazment. what was the vatican thinking.

later pat


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Lots of scientists were

Lots of scientists were theist.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
scientist

 i think they had it right !!!  look to god to find the answers. about the universe, how people deny him these days surprises me, but since your a fellow theist, i have a question? are we doing the right thing? i thougt i read that we were not supposed to argue with a non believer??  any help would be great.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, it was the 17th

Well, it was the 17th century, when people were more ignorant - he also probably would have been burned at the stake if he said he didn't believe in god!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Well, it was the 17th century, when people were more ignorant - he also probably would have been burned at the stake if he said he didn't believe in god!

Well he got pretty mad at science contrarily as it was the scientific community that treated him the more harshly constantly contending with him for academic credit. He withdrew himself from them to a rigorous examination of Alchemy and it was after his long study of this theological metaphysics that he published Principia. And even in that event he again got mad at his fellow scientists, who were accusing him of plagarism denouncing science itself as "an impertinently litigious lady.". Hooke went after the credit for just about everything Newton published, and Liebniz came up with an equal to Newtons calculus which was also the subject of much debate.

Newton wrote probably a hundred times more on various theology and history than any other subject, he had loads of power as President of the Royal Society for years and undoubtedly was able to choose his own interests safely. He openly rejected a lot of mysticism and refused the sacrament at his death. He was not afraid, he was definitely curious.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Remeber that

Remeber that Delicously_Saucy or whatever the user was who posted that scientific theist topic? LOL @ them. 

 

 

pm9347 wrote:
i think they had it right !!! look to god to find the answers. about the universe, how people deny him these days surprises me, but since your a fellow theist, i have a question? are we doing the right thing? i thougt i read that we were not supposed to argue with a non believer?? any help would be great.

 

There is nothing wrong with defending your position. 


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
that doesn't mean anything

none of this has any relevance to the veracity of theism without appealing to authority.

but for those simply curious how intelligent people can believe in something irrational: compartmentalization. just because you're rational doesn't mean you're always rational. in the case with religious scientists, they're either blocking out rationality or selectively picking truths to support their religious views. everyone is just as prone to emotional thinking as anyone else.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Newton may have been a

Newton may have been a christian, but he also did good things.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yes many a scientist,

Yes many a scientist, poet, artists and musicians believed in god or acted as they believed in god for their time. Remember for the most part religion has dominated human society for the last 5000 years. During much of history especially in the last 2000 years, the church had the power, if you didn't believe you didn't get funded (gee is president bush trying to get the church back into power?) Galileo had to retrack his findings because it went against the church's beliefs and affirm is his belief in god and the church. Many artists and musicians had the church as benefactors. So it isn't really that surprising that many professed their beliefs in god. After all in order to keep doing what you wanted you had to. Some believed more than others, however their beliefs do not dimish their findings and their importance in history. Nor does there beliefs mean that god is real and the bible true. It just means they believed. Einstein did not believe in a personal god at all and he was one of the greatests minds of the 20th century and there have been and are many great minds that don't believe in god, as well many great minds that do beleive in god even today, however I wonder how many other great minds didn't believe in a personal god or a god at all, but had to hide behind false belief in order to do what they loved to do?


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote:   i got a

pm9347 wrote:

 

i got a brief moment in my busy life to checkout some really interesting news, the first reakky shocked me but, can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

 

Sir Isaac Newton this man feared god in his latter years he feared many things including his own shadow, his experiments with alchemy involved many highly dangerous substances including Mercury which undoubtedly played a major part in driving him completely mad as it is a neurotoxin. the phrase mad as a hatter is derived from the use of mercury in hat making in the early 19th-century

 In his latter a years it would be wrong to perceive him as a dusty old professor continuing his earlier brilliant work as this be far from the truth

pm9347 if you wish to discover the truth then I suggest you research this man's fascinating and controversial history

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The Big Bang was proposed

The Big Bang was proposed by a priest.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Soctrates was a drunk and a

Soctrates was a drunk and a pederast, should you be a drunk and a pederast because he was smarter than you?

 

BTW: I'm not comparing christianity to alchoholism or pederasty, but only for fear of insulting drunks and pederasts. ba dum bum 

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Actually, many of the

Actually, many of the brightest thinkers throughout history were theists of some sort. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Boethius, Duns Scotus, Pascal, Ockham, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Reid, Kant, Hegel, Bayes, Kierkegaard, Jacobi, Husserl, Brentano, Frege, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, James, Godel, Cantor, Planck, Santayana, Kripke, Polkinghorne, and hundreds more.  As for contemporary philosophers: Geach, Anscombe, William Wainwright, Kvanvig, Alexander Pruss, Peter Forrest, Michael Bergmann, William Vallicella, Lynn Rudder Baker, Robert Koons, Douglas Groothius, Nicholas Rescher, Bas van Fraasen, Timothy McGrew, John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, Hud Hudson, Richard Davis, Eleonore Stump, Robin Collins, Antony Flew, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, Keith Derose, Michael Sudduth, Timpe, Beebe, Dougherty, Mullins, and hundreds of others.  Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pm9347 wrote: i got a

pm9347 wrote:

i got a brief moment in my busy life to checkout some really interesting news, the first reakky shocked me but, can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

 

i also got a chance to see the vatican put out the ten commandments of driving. ok now im a thiest i beleve in jesus christ, to see religion do something like that just makes me shake my head in amazment. what was the vatican thinking.

later pat

This already has a couple posts on this forum.

Anywho, this smacks of narrisism to me. Courtious driving has been a concept that has been taught in drivers ed in highscools and private driving schools for ages. Why it requires a Catholic to teach is beyond me. As if a baptist or Hindu or Buddist couldnt figure it out.

1. Dont talegate. DUH

2. Let people in, keep your distance.

3. Dont engague angrey drivers.

You need steemy smoke from a mace and a wafer on the tounge to know how to drive?

Maybe Oedpus could have used a preist before he met daddy at the crossroads and killed him. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Argumentum ad Verecundiam.

Gavagai wrote:
Actually, many of the brightest thinkers throughout history were theists of some sort. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Boethius, Duns Scotus, Pascal, Ockham, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Reid, Kant, Hegel, Bayes, Kierkegaard, Jacobi, Husserl, Brentano, Frege, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, James, Godel, Cantor, Planck, Santayana, Kripke, Polkinghorne, and hundreds more.  As for contemporary philosophers: Geach, Anscombe, William Wainwright, Kvanvig, Alexander Pruss, Peter Forrest, Michael Bergmann, William Vallicella, Lynn Rudder Baker, Robert Koons, Douglas Groothius, Nicholas Rescher, Bas van Fraasen, Timothy McGrew, John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, Hud Hudson, Richard Davis, Eleonore Stump, Robin Collins, Antony Flew, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, Keith Derose, Michael Sudduth, Timpe, Beebe, Dougherty, Mullins, and hundreds of others.  Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. What authority do any of those people have that would bring any level of credibility to any theistic argument? Equally comical as well since atheist don’t need apologetics, your lack of a coherent argument means we win by default sans apologia.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Gavagai wrote: Actually,

Gavagai wrote:

Actually, many of the brightest thinkers throughout history were theists of some sort. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Boethius, Duns Scotus, Pascal, Ockham, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Reid, Kant, Hegel, Bayes, Kierkegaard, Jacobi, Husserl, Brentano, Frege, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, James, Godel, Cantor, Planck, Santayana, Kripke, Polkinghorne, and hundreds more. As for contemporary philosophers: Geach, Anscombe, William Wainwright, Kvanvig, Alexander Pruss, Peter Forrest, Michael Bergmann, William Vallicella, Lynn Rudder Baker, Robert Koons, Douglas Groothius, Nicholas Rescher, Bas van Fraasen, Timothy McGrew, John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, Hud Hudson, Richard Davis, Eleonore Stump, Robin Collins, Antony Flew, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, Keith Derose, Michael Sudduth, Timpe, Beebe, Dougherty, Mullins, and hundreds of others. Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

Everything, including your quote in your sig fails to recognize human nature.

1. Being smart and contributing to schools of thought does not your deity or their deity, or even a exists by default.

2. Plato did not believe in the Abrahmic gods. He even railed like Jefferson did against the idea of blindly following without question.

3. Einstien's god was NOT a mythological magical creature like Isis Allah or Jesus. His |"god" was a purely spectulative statement that    IF he had to concieve of one, god would not be a preformer of parlor tricks, but the mere potential and kenetic energy that resides in the universe. Your sig only reflects his "passion" for absurving nature. At best you could call him a deist, but in no way could you call him a Jew or Christian.

4. The "roof" gets hit by one of these famous people and they dont know what is beyond that "roof". It is because of modern skeptisism that is now challenging these people to refrain from incerting a "who" which is what theism does.

5. Much of these "speculative statements by some, NOT ALL, of these people you mention are a result of cultural pressures. Some, if had been given the chance without fear of reprisal would do what we do here and call fiction fiction. But, just like human nature, people often revert to "softening the blow" as to not get a sever backlash.

Plato was a theist. Plato was smart. So why dont you believe in the mulitiple gods of his day? Obviously he knew something. 

Let me cut to the chase here. I love to be proven wrong. But highly susspect that there IS a spacific deity you ultimatly are trying to defend. So using other people's religions and motifs and cultures makes no sense to me, unless your goal is to defend a generic god, and not a specific one.

1. If it is a specific god, name it and defend it.

2. If it is a generic god, then dont claim a specific deity to defend. I susspect however, the old, "everyone believes" fallacy. Yea, they do. But at one point most people believed the earth to be flat and that the sun rotated around the earth. EVEN SMART PEOPLE!

Saying that most people have a god believe is a huge NO DUH, to me and not a suprise at all. Just like it is not a suprise to me at one time that most humans thought the heart did the thinking and not the brain.

You never want to consider theses smart people as being either tools of the church when they write what they do. You never want to consider that the "skeptics" still may have to face a majority oposition and have to write what they do in a politically correct way.

That is why I cant stand polliticall correctness. That is why junk science is still trying to enter our school system. That is why smart people who really see that a myth is a myth cant speak their minds and have to sugar coat it.

You try to equate the diversity of backgrounds of these famous people as to A god existing when it is not as compartmentalized or black and white as you'd like to make it.

If you read Newton's full quote, he is actually making fun and warning against predicting "the end". It seems to me it was written in sarcasm but unfortunatly even today people are too dumb to see, weither he was a theist or not, that HE DIDNT WANT THE END OF THE WORLD TO HAPPEN.

It came across to me as, "Well you might as well pick this date" because nobody knows.

I think Newton would be much fonder of skeptics and RRS than dogmatic a-holes like Aquinus and Ray Comfort and Newton would have been protesting outside the "Crapinism" musium along with Einstien.

My point is that I smell an agenda here. I am not foold by it. It smacks of a bait and switch. If you end up being a Jeffersonian deist without a spacific label, that would be tollerable. But I susspect there IS  a spacific label that you are hiding from us. I hope not, and I hope I am wrong.

It is an old argument, "Everyone else does it".

So? What reason do you have to "do it". 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:
 

Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

That's one way of describing it, let's continue

Gavagai wrote:

 Actually, many of the brightest thinkers throughout history were theists of some sort. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas

 " theists of some sort " cough "of some sort" obviously the wrong sort ? maybe they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists of the wrong sort

Or maybe I misinterpreted your post, and there is nothing wrong with sacrificing children to the Sun god ? as this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if your a theists

Or maybe these people are celebrated because they help to move mankind away from the ignorance of theist beliefs into  enlightened skepticism and disbelief of all theist mumbo jumbo witch doctors voodoo dolls human sacrifice Sun worship ect ect ect ect 


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian, Go back and read

Brian,

 Go back and read my post carefully, and you'll notice that I nowhere argued from "so-and-so believes in God" to "therefore, God must exist". Moreover, I explicitly stated that these thinkers were theists "of some sort". I nowhere said that they all believed in the Christian God (although, many of them do).

Further, it's extremely ad hoc to speculate that these thinkers believe in (or argue for) God merely because of "cultural pressures". Have you conducted the relevant sociological and psychological studies to prove this, or do you know somebody who has?  Do you know any of these thinkers personally, Brian? Is there any basis, beyond mere speculation, to support your claim? I doubt it; good grief, you don't even know how to spell their names. It's not "Aquinus", it's Aquinas; it's not "Einstien", it's Einstein. One would think that if you knew so much about these men, you'd at least get their names right.

Especially frustrating is that the bulk of your post seems not even remotely aimed at anything I've said or done, and much of it is simply unintelligible or unclear. For example:

Quote:
You never want to consider theses smart people as being either tools of the church when they write what they do.

Where have I done this? Please quote me where I have.

Quote:
You never want to consider that the "skeptics" still may have to face a majority oposition and have to write

Where have I done this? Please quote me where I have.

Quote:
Plato did not believe in the Abrahmic gods.

Where have I asserted otherwise? Provide the quotation.

Quote:
You try to equate the diversity of backgrounds of these famous people as to A god existing when it is not as compartmentalized or black and white as you'd like to make it.

Please quote me where I did this.

Quote:
My point is that I smell an agenda here. I am not foold by it...But I susspect there IS  a spacific label that you are hiding from us. I hope not, and I hope I am wrong.

What are you talking about? Unclear.

Quote:
It is an old argument, "Everyone else does it".

Where did I make this argument? Please quote.

Quote:
Being smart and contributing to schools of thought does not your deity or their deity, or even a exists by default.

Unintelligible.

Quote:
Everything, including your quote in your sig fails to recognize human nature.

Unclear.

Quote:
If you read Newton's full quote, he is actually making fun and warning against predicting "the end". It seems to me it was written in sarcasm but unfortunatly even today people are too dumb to see, weither he was a theist or not, that HE DIDNT WANT THE END OF THE WORLD TO HAPPEN.

I never provided any quotations of Newton. What are you talking about? Unclear.

Basically, you've misunderstood my whole post, you've wrongly accused me of making arguments I never in fact made, and you've invented bizarre speculations with no basis. You can barely even form an intelligible sentence. And you use "we", as though you speak on behalf of RRS. Is this what being a "rational responder" is all about? Wow.

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Argumentum ad

Quote:

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. What authority do any of those people have that would bring any level of credibility to any theistic argument?

Please go back and read my post carefully. I never argued from "so-and-so believes in God" to "therefore, theistic arguments have credibility".

Quote:
Equally comical as well since atheist don’t need apologetics, your lack of a coherent argument means we win by default sans apologia.

 Why would I need a coherent argument for the fact that those people were theists? It's obvious. If you read their biographies, or click on the links, you'll see.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Rev, Quote:  " theists

Rev,

Quote:

 " theists of some sort " cough "of some sort" obviously the wrong sort ? maybe they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists of the wrong sort

Or maybe I misinterpreted your post, and there is nothing wrong with sacrificing children to the Sun god ? as this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if your a theists

Or maybe these people are celebrated because they help to move mankind away from the ignorance of theist beliefs into  enlightened skepticism and disbelief of all theist mumbo jumbo witch doctors voodoo dolls human sacrifice Sun worship ect ect ect ect 

It's difficult to tell what your point is. I don't think any of the people I listed believed in a "sun god". Please state whatever argument it is that you're trying to make, using numbered premises and conlcusions. And we'll go from there.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

 

It's difficult to tell what your point is. I don't think any of the people I listed believed in a "sun god". Please state whatever argument it is that you're trying to make, using numbered premises and conlcusions. And we'll go from there.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Hi Gavagai my point was theist is an incredibly general nonspecific term take the Aztec gods for instance, and the Aztec philosophers that believed in these Gods, you seem to be suggesting in your post that because they were theists there was nothing wrong with cutting the heart out of another living being and anybody who suggested this type of theists was suffering from a mental disorder was obviously so incorrect in their assumptions you found it amusing

 

Gavagai wrote:

I don't think any of the people I listed believed in a "sun god".

 

If you care to research the origin of religion you will find most of them worship the Sun God, amen / amen-ra / amen-ra the Egyptian sun god


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:

Gavagai wrote:
Please go back and read my post carefully. I never argued from "so-and-so believes in God" to "therefore, theistic arguments have credibility".

bof... You can backpedal if you like, it’s advisable at this point anyway, but you were clearly implying that since those people are not fools and they are theists that theism is not a foolish belief. And if not then what exactly was the purpose of dropping those names?

Quote:
Why would I need a coherent argument for the fact that those people were theists? It's obvious. If you read their biographies, or click on the links, you'll see.

I was referring to your lack of a coherent argument for god’s existence. The personal beliefs of the people on your list are completely irrelevant.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Rev, Quote: Hi Gavagai my

Rev,

Quote:
Hi Gavagai my point was theist is an incredibly general nonspecific term

On the contrary, "theist" is a very specific term and it's definition is widely agreed upon. A theist is someone who believes that a God exists. 

 

Quote:
take the Aztec gods for instance, and the Aztec philosophers that believed in these Gods, you seem to be suggesting in your post that because they were theists there was nothing wrong with cutting the heart out of another living being

Please quote me where I suggested this. 

 

Quote:
and anybody who suggested this type of theists was suffering from a mental disorder was obviously so incorrect in their assumptions you found it amusing

Please quote me where I suggested this.

Quote:
If you care to research the origin of religion you will find most of them worship the Sun God, amen / amen-ra / amen-ra the Egyptian sun god

OK.

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:

Gauche wrote:

you were clearly implying that since those people are not fools and they are theists that theism is not a foolish belief.

Or perhaps, rather, that Theism is not the belief of fools.

I am aware that in statistical groups it's been shown that education levels run inverse to religious levels. But the same does not translate into an inverse relationship of remarkable intellect over theism, and people are presenting the fallacy that it does, here as argument.

Compartmentalisation is not an accurate description of the theism of history's great thinkers. They are certainly not people who weren't/aren't letting logic seep into their 'god box'. Newton's alchemical texts for example display a rigorous and balanced examination of theological text, and he is believed to have been taking deliberate steps to conciliate philosophy with theology, the only possible way to do such a thing is logically. And I don't need to stick with Newton here, either, Mendel, Cauchy, Faraday, Wallis, or even Nobel Laureate Charles Townes who published a paper on the conciliation of science and theology in the 20th century, All these people were demonstrably faithful and dedicated theists for which compartmentalisation cannot fairly be an issue.

However, my favourite Nobel Laureate Marie Curie was an atheist, had she not been, she may never have become a scientist, she was living in oppression of religion and broke out of it.

Roger Bacon (laws of nature fame) was imprisoned by his own church for teaching science, and Paracelcus 'the bombastic' Eye-wink was often seen as an angry heretic, but neither he nor Bacon were any less a Theist for their stand against organised religion.

These are a few examples of why I rather say that theism is not the belief of fools, but capitulation to contemporary dogma would have made fools of great people. A true moral and philosophical passion expressed at least in part as faith in a single loving God does not seem to me to have an adverse affect on the intellect.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Or perhaps,

Eloise wrote:

Or perhaps, rather, that Theism is not the belief of fools.

I am aware that in statistical groups it's been shown that education levels run inverse to religious levels. But the same does not translate into an inverse relationship of remarkable intellect over theism, and people are presenting the fallacy that it does, here as argument.

 

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else but I’m fairly certain that I haven’t presented that fallacious argument. For to be a belief of fools would require that only fools believe it and that is easily refuted.

But compartmentalization aside, those people, brilliant though they may be, believe because they want to not because their brilliance has revealed something to them that is not apparent to the rest of us. And that was the clear implication here; otherwise there is no reason to even bring it up.

Whether you’re a genius or an idiot unsupported is unsupported as unsupported. So don’t tell me newton did it too. If newton ate cow flops for breakfast that doesn’t mean that if you eat cow flops for breakfast your breath wont stink. With that said though I pretty much agree with everything in your post.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche,

Gauche,

 

Quote:
bof... You can backpedal if you like, it’s advisable at this point anyway, but you were clearly implying that since those people are not fools and they are theists that theism is not a foolish belief. And if not then what exactly was the purpose of dropping those names?

You've read far too much into my post. I presented those names for the fellow who started this thread. He was amazed to discover that Newton was a theist, so he'd probably be delighted to find out that hundreds upon hundreds of the brightest minds throughout history and up to the present are actually theists. I noted at the end that it's amusing how radical atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins think all these people have a "mental disorder" to the extent that they're theists. And it is amusing. Anybody can see that these thinkers reflected on their belief in God in a very serious, systematic, and intellectually rigorous way; they weren't suffering from a "mental disorder" or "virus".

 

Quote:
I was referring to your lack of a coherent argument for god’s existence. The personal beliefs of the people on your list are completely irrelevant.

I was never trying to argue for God's existence in the first place. Please re-read my post carefully, and you'll see this.

 

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:

Actually, many of the brightest thinkers throughout history were theists of some sort. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Boethius, Duns Scotus, Pascal, Ockham, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Reid, Kant, Hegel, Bayes, Kierkegaard, Jacobi, Husserl, Brentano, Frege, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, James, Godel, Cantor, Planck, Santayana, Kripke, Polkinghorne, and hundreds more.  As for contemporary philosophers: Geach, Anscombe, William Wainwright, Kvanvig, Alexander Pruss, Peter Forrest, Michael Bergmann, William Vallicella, Lynn Rudder Baker, Robert Koons, Douglas Groothius, Nicholas Rescher, Bas van Fraasen, Timothy McGrew, John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, Hud Hudson, Richard Davis, Eleonore Stump, Robin Collins, Antony Flew, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, Keith Derose, Michael Sudduth, Timpe, Beebe, Dougherty, Mullins, and hundreds of others. 

Indeed. Some very bright people there, most of them arguably or proffessed theists. This should come as no surprise considering that most people throughout the ages have believed in some sort of deity. 

 

Quote:
Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

They were irrational or deluded when it came to their beliefs in the supernatural for the most part. This is not to say they were or were not brilliant in other regards, simply on this point, and perhaps others, they failed to apply the same standards to their belief in the supernatural.

I see it every day working in the scientific community. One can be quite empirical, rational, scientific and demanding of evidence in their work, but in certain aspects of their life - such as say, god belief, gambling, personal relationships, etc, be completly irrational - even to the point of being self-destructive.

I know hundreds of kind, and very brilliant people who believe in some sort of god.

It's called compartmentalization.

Nobody is denying that there are very bright and intelligent god believers. Being brilliant in say, physics or expository writing and being rational about a supreme being are two rather different things though, and they often dwell in the same mind.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's called

Quote:
It's called compartmentalization

 Anybody can see that these thinkers reflected on their belief in God in a very serious, systematic, and intellectually rigorous way; they weren't suffering from a "mental disorder" or "virus".

 Nor were they compartmentalizing. At least, the vast majority weren't. Anybody familiar with their work knows this. God played a huge role in their intellectual lives. Same goes with the contemporary theistic philosophers I listed. Your suggestion that they all must be compartmentalizing is a mere superstition -- it's manifestly false, and you'll realize this if you keep up with a lot of their work. 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:

 

Quote:
and anybody who suggested this type of theists was suffering from a mental disorder was obviously so incorrect in their assumptions you found it amusing

Please quote me where I suggested this.

 

Gavagai wrote:

Amusingly, popular-level atheological apologists like RRS and Dawkins would like us to believe that these people suffered from a distressing mental disorder, or that they were somehow cognitively deformed insofar as they were theists.

Gavagai wrote:

Quote:
Hi Gavagai my point was theist is an incredibly general nonspecific term


On the contrary, "theist" is a very specific term and it's definition is widely agreed upon. A theist is someone who believes that a God exists.

 Many religions have multiple gods. and what one religion perceives as a GOD widely differ from religion to religion ie the sun is a GOD the Erath is a GOD the stars are GODS the moon is a GOD the Emperor of Japan is GOD the Egyptian pharaohs are GODS.

The definition of what a GOD is. "is an incredibly general nonspecific term" thus the term theist is an incredibly general nonspecific term


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: A nybody can

Gavagai wrote:
A

nybody can see that these thinkers reflected on their belief in God in a very serious, systematic, and intellectually rigorous way; they weren't suffering from a "mental disorder" or "virus".

Are you are suggesting that those that attended say witch burnings weren't infected with a socially corrupting mental disorder 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: Quote: It's

Gavagai wrote:

Quote:
It's called compartmentalization

 Anybody can see that these thinkers reflected on their belief in God in a very serious, systematic, and intellectually rigorous way; they weren't suffering from a "mental disorder" or "virus".

I can't see that. I don't care how intelligent you are, believing a man rose from the dead and was born of a virgin is not quite rational.

There are VERY few people who I think were systemmatic in their approach to god belief, Spinoza and Jefferson comes to mind. The vast majority, the extremely brilliant included, tended not to apply the same standards to such beliefs as they did in other areas of their lives.

I really don't wish to hash things out on a person by person basis.

I've freely given you that, yes, very smart people believe in god, and that occasionally these people have very carefully considered their beliefs.

The fact remains, that a great many of the people who did do that before the turn of the last century had vey little science to go on. The additional fact remains that, like it or not, most of us employ some sort of comparmentalization.

I ultimately fail to even see why you brought out this list of names. You seem intelligent enough to know that such appeals carry little weight and should have enough experience to know it usually boils down to little more than a pissing contest.

 

Quote:
Nor were they compartmentalizing. At least, the vast majority weren't.

Truthfully, that really isn't for either of us to say. 

 

Quote:
Anybody familiar with their work knows this.

I'm familiar with many of the people you mention, I certainly don't know this and have little reason to believe it in most cases.  

 

Quote:
God played a huge role in their intellectual lives. Same goes with the contemporary theistic philosophers I listed. Your suggestion that they all must be compartmentalizing is a mere superstition -- it's manifestly false, and you'll realize this if you keep up with a lot of their work. 

And you cannot possibly state with certainty that I'm wrong.

Smart people believed and still believe in deities. Whoop-de-doo. They also may believe in aliens, white supremecy, Ether, and Time Cube. Lots of very smart people believe completely ridiculous things. It doesn't make them any less brilliant in the areas where they are in fact brilliant.

Hell, I know of at lest one former Noble nominee who thinks the White Sox have a chance at taking the series next year.

Again, I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish with your list of names.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
BTW, care to do a count and

BTW, care to do a count and tell me how many of the people you mentioned were born in the last, say 100 years? Or better yet in the last 50 years? After such principles as quantum mechanics, big bang cosmology and evolution has been scientifically established? Think perhaps some of these great thinkers you mentioned might have been influenced by such things?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
This sort of name dropping

This sort of name dropping is ultimately pointless, and you should know that.

It ends up being, I see your Spinoza and raise you a Sagan or Dawkins.

This does nothing for us.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: You've read

Gavagai wrote:
You've read far too much into my post. I presented those names for the fellow who started this thread. He was amazed to discover that Newton was a theist, so he'd probably be delighted to find out that hundreds upon hundreds of the brightest minds throughout history and up to the present are actually theists.

Perhaps I have read too much into your post. But why would you think that the op could know who thomas aquinas was and not know that he was a theist? And if he doesn't know who thomas aquinas is then why would he be delighted to know that he was a theist?

It seemed more like you were trying to make a point but if you want to maintain that you weren't then I'm not going to try to brow-beat you. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: can you

pm9347 wrote:

can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

Yet Newton tried to keep such people from making what he saw as "outrageous" claims about the end of the world, by making an almost equally outrageious claim about the end of the world.

Apparantly, irony had not been invented yet in Newton's day.

 

Quote:
i also got a chance to see the vatican put out the ten commandments of driving. ok now im a thiest i beleve in jesus christ, to see religion do something like that just makes me shake my head in amazment. what was the vatican thinking.

later pat

The Vatican was simply trying to convince the rest of the world that the Vatican is still relevant.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Yellow,

Yellow,

First, nowhere have I argued from "here's a list of many brilliant theists" to "God exists" or even to "theism has a one-up on atheism". I've made my intentions perfectly clear already. I was providing those names for the person who started this thread, merely because I thought he'd be delighted to know about it. I hope he does some research on these brilliant people and learns that they seriously supported theism.

My claim towards the end -- that it's amusing how RRS and Dawkins think all of those figures suffer from a mental disorder to the extent that they're theists-- is utterly uncontroversial. I know of not a single, well-respected philosopher or historian of philosophy (naturalist or theist) who would disagree with me.

Second, you say:

Quote:
care to do a count and tell me how many of the people you mentioned were born in the last, say 100 years? Or better yet in the last 50 years?

As it turns out, every analytic philosopher in the links I provided was born in the last 50 or 100 years. The fact that you even questioned whether any of the people I listed were born within this period makes me suspect that you aren't the least bit familiar with their work, contrary to certain claims you've made. A great deal of them are still alive and publishing.

Third, the devil is in the details. If you want your claim about "compartmentalization" to be taken seriously, you'll simply have to do some heavy-lifting here and provide the actual evidence that each philosopher does this. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how your claim amounts to anything more than a piece of superstition. If you don't have textual evidence, that's fine. Perhaps you know some of them personally, and you can provide a personal (and, I hope, reliable) testimony about their tendency to keep God totally separate from their philosophical work. Let's start with the contemporary philosophers and work our way back. We can begin with Kvanvig. Do you know him personally? Can you point me to anything he has written that would suggest he likes to keep his theism separate from his academic work? I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
pm9347 wrote:

can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

Yet Newton tried to keep such people from making what he saw as "outrageous" claims about the end of the world, by making an almost equally outrageious claim about the end of the world.

 

Quote:

"The Daily Telegraph report, which summarised some of my archival research on Newton’s theology and mentioned the BBC2 documentary Newton: the dark heretic, initiated a week-long media frenzy surrounding the revelation that, of all people, Isaac Newton was an apocalyptic thinker. But the documentary and much of the media coverage distorted and sensationalised the facts provided by myself and my colleagues to make Newton look much more like a doomsday date-setter than he actually was."

"In fact, Newton was against setting dates for the time of the end, but not because he didn’t believe in the literal fulfilment of biblical prophecy, because he surely did, but because he was concerned that such date-setting would bring Christianity into disrepute. The manuscript jotting on which Newton scribbled the date 2060 was just that: a manuscript jotting that was never meant to be published. A related manuscript that also includes the 2060 date makes Newton’s animus against the foolishness of date-setting clear. "

 

Also for anyone still at all interested in the peripheral question of whether Theism was simply the irrational part-persona of Newton removed and isolated from his reason.

Quote:

"Some modern scientists and secularists who see in Newton the beginning of the Age of Reason have come up with two responses to the reality of Newton’s theology: that it came after his great works in science, or that the crazy theological and prophetic nonsense was somehow kept separate from his “rational” thought. Mr. Harpur’s account hints at the second of these two strategies. Both responses are ahistorical and philosophically problematic. Like it or not, Newton’s own science and this theology (including his apocalyptic thought) can’t be disentangled from each other. What’s more, historians of science are now demonstrating that Newton’s theological and prophetic thought helped to shape elements of his natural philosophy in a profound way. "

All quotes taken from and Article Published Online by The Newton Project Canada:

http://www.isaacnewton.ca/media/rpt-Tom_Harper-Feb_26.htm

attributed to Stephen D. Snobelen Assistant Professor History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax


Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai

Gavagai wrote:

Yellow,

First, nowhere have I argued from "here's a list of many brilliant theists" to "God exists" or even to "theism has a one-up on atheism". I've made my intentions perfectly clear already. I was providing those names for the person who started this thread, merely because I thought he'd be delighted to know about it. I hope he does some research on these brilliant people and learns that they seriously supported theism.

Fair enough. I also hope he takes my comments about Newton into account. While a brilliant man, how such a genius could make such an asinine proclamation about the end of the world can only be attributed to the irrational side of an otherwise careful observationist.

Quote:
My claim towards the end -- that it's amusing how RRS and Dawkins think all of those figures suffer from a mental disorder to the extent that they're theists-- is utterly uncontroversial. I know of not a single, well-respected philosopher or historian of philosophy (naturalist or theist) who would disagree with me.

I can think of several. And, again, I fail to see why any of that matters.

Quote:
Quote:
care to do a count and tell me how many of the people you mentioned were born in the last, say 100 years? Or better yet in the last 50 years?

As it turns out, every analytic philosopher in the links I provided was born in the last 50 or 100 years.

Care to comment on the fact that every such philosopher you mentioned was admittedly theist? I was more so speaking toward those in the scientific fields you mentioned. I think you missed my point. 

 

Quote:
The fact that you even questioned whether any of the people I listed were born within this period makes me suspect that you aren't the least bit familiar with their work, contrary to certain claims you've made.

The theistic philospophers you mentioned? No, not so much. I'm a scientist, not a philosopher, though I'm not ignorant on the subject. While I may not be familiar with the people you mention by name, I assure you I am familiar with their arguments, I deal with them daily. 

Quote:
Third, the devil is in the details. If you want your claim about "compartmentalization" to be taken seriously, you'll simply have to do some heavy-lifting here and provide the actual evidence that each philosopher does this.

Duh. Admitted THEISTIC philosophers need not compartmentalize. They LIVE the lie and their lievelyhoods depend on such.

People who acutally understand how the universe works are a different story in my experience.

 

Quote:
Otherwise, it's difficult to see how your claim amounts to anything more than a piece of superstition.

How, exactly, is it superstition? 

 

Quote:
If you don't have textual evidence, that's fine. Perhaps you know some of them personally, and you can provide a personal (and, I hope, reliable) testimony about their tendency to keep God totally separate from their philosophical work. Let's start with the contemporary philosophers and work our way back. We can begin with Kvanvig. Do you know him personally? Can you point me to anything he has written that would suggest he likes to keep his theism separate from his academic work? I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Yeah, not getting my points at all, are you?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote: I know of

Gavagai wrote:

I know of not a single, well-respected philosopher or historian of philosophy (naturalist or theist) who would disagree with me.

Obviously they don't let you out much


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

Yet Newton tried to keep such people from making what he saw as "outrageous" claims about the end of the world, by making an almost equally outrageious claim about the end of the world.

Quote:

"The Daily Telegraph report, which summarised some of my archival research on Newton’s theology and mentioned the BBC2 documentary Newton: the dark heretic, initiated a week-long media frenzy surrounding the revelation that, of all people, Isaac Newton was an apocalyptic thinker. But the documentary and much of the media coverage distorted and sensationalised the facts provided by myself and my colleagues to make Newton look much more like a doomsday date-setter than he actually was."

"In fact, Newton was against setting dates for the time of the end, but not because he didn’t believe in the literal fulfilment of biblical prophecy, because he surely did, but because he was concerned that such date-setting would bring Christianity into disrepute. The manuscript jotting on which Newton scribbled the date 2060 was just that: a manuscript jotting that was never meant to be published. A related manuscript that also includes the 2060 date makes Newton’s animus against the foolishness of date-setting clear. "

Please. Newton effectively put the date at "no later" that 2060. He said so himself. He gave no exact date, but he DID give a date - just a date that at the time seems SOOOOO far off as to quell all the other twits chattering around him. He effectively did the EXACT same thing everyone else was doing, he simply made it seem more reasonable for the time.

He STILL made an asinine, untennable, and completely ridiculous claim about the end of the world - the exact same thing he was complaining about.

Quote:
Quote:
Also for anyone still at all interested in the peripheral question of whether Theism was simply the irrational part-persona of Newton removed and isolated from his reason.

"Some modern scientists and secularists who see in Newton the beginning of the Age of Reason have come up with two responses to the reality of Newton’s theology: that it came after his great works in science, or that the crazy theological and prophetic nonsense was somehow kept separate from his “rational” thought.

i.e compartmentalization 

 

Quote:
Mr. Harpur’s account hints at the second of these two strategies.

Thank you Mr. Harpur. 

 

Quote:
Both responses are ahistorical and philosophically problematic. Like it or not, Newton’s own science and this theology (including his apocalyptic thought) can’t be disentangled from each other. What’s more, historians of science are now demonstrating that Newton’s theological and prophetic thought helped to shape elements of his natural philosophy in a profound way. "

I have no doubt they did. This is beside the point of what we are discussing though.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:   Also for

Eloise wrote:

 

Also for anyone still at all interested in the peripheral question of whether Theism was simply the irrational part-persona of Newton removed and isolated from his reason.

 

"Some modern scientists and secularists who see in Newton the beginning of the Age of Reason have come up with two responses to the reality of Newton’s theology: that it came after his great works in science, or that the crazy theological and prophetic nonsense was somehow kept separate from his “rational” thought. Mr. Harpur’s account hints at the second of these two strategies. Both responses are ahistorical and philosophically problematic. Like it or not, Newton’s own science and this theology (including his apocalyptic thought) can’t be disentangled from each other. What’s more, historians of science are now demonstrating that Newton’s theological and prophetic thought helped to shape elements of his natural philosophy in a profound way. "

Most of his religious philosophies happened at the same time he was playing around with neurotoxins latter stages of his life

 

Sir Isaac Newton invented gravity discovered cat Flaps Smiling


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Eloise wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

Yet Newton tried to keep such people from making what he saw as "outrageous" claims about the end of the world, by making an almost equally outrageious claim about the end of the world.

Quote:

"The Daily Telegraph report, which summarised some of my archival research on Newton’s theology and mentioned the BBC2 documentary Newton: the dark heretic, initiated a week-long media frenzy surrounding the revelation that, of all people, Isaac Newton was an apocalyptic thinker. But the documentary and much of the media coverage distorted and sensationalised the facts provided by myself and my colleagues to make Newton look much more like a doomsday date-setter than he actually was."

"In fact, Newton was against setting dates for the time of the end, but not because he didn’t believe in the literal fulfilment of biblical prophecy, because he surely did, but because he was concerned that such date-setting would bring Christianity into disrepute. The manuscript jotting on which Newton scribbled the date 2060 was just that: a manuscript jotting that was never meant to be published. A related manuscript that also includes the 2060 date makes Newton’s animus against the foolishness of date-setting clear. "

Please. Newton effectively put the date at "no later" that 2060. He said so himself. He gave no exact date, but he DID give a date - just a date that at the time seems SOOOOO far off as to quell all the other twits chattering around him. He effectively did the EXACT same thing everyone else was doing, he simply made it seem more reasonable for the time.

No that's inaccurate. He said "No sooner" not "No later".

Specifically: 

"It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner."

followed by 

"it is not for us to know the times & seasons"

 He was effectively trying to trump the twits with his status and cast doubt on any nigh end prohecy that anyone could come up with for more than a thousand years. I'm sure he felt it was an adequate and logical effort, you can hardly have expected him to believe 21st century people would be squabbling over the twit status of historical rationalists, why do expect him to have defended his position perfectly to you some thousand years before you were born? 

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also for anyone still at all interested in the peripheral question of whether Theism was simply the irrational part-persona of Newton removed and isolated from his reason.

"Some modern scientists and secularists who see in Newton the beginning of the Age of Reason have come up with two responses to the reality of Newton’s theology: that it came after his great works in science, or that the crazy theological and prophetic nonsense was somehow kept separate from his “rational” thought.

i.e compartmentalization

Quote:
Mr. Harpur’s account hints at the second of these two strategies.

Thank you Mr. Harpur.

LOL, you don't know who Harpur is do you?

http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/p/pagan-christ.shtml

 

Quote:

Quote:
Both responses are ahistorical and philosophically problematic. Like it or not, Newton’s own science and this theology (including his apocalyptic thought) can’t be disentangled from each other. What’s more, historians of science are now demonstrating that Newton’s theological and prophetic thought helped to shape elements of his natural philosophy in a profound way. "

I have no doubt they did. This is beside the point of what we are discussing though.

Yeah I mentioned it was peripheral.  

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Eloise

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Eloise wrote:

 

Also for anyone still at all interested in the peripheral question of whether Theism was simply the irrational part-persona of Newton removed and isolated from his reason.

 

"Some modern scientists and secularists who see in Newton the beginning of the Age of Reason have come up with two responses to the reality of Newton’s theology: that it came after his great works in science, or that the crazy theological and prophetic nonsense was somehow kept separate from his “rational” thought. Mr. Harpur’s account hints at the second of these two strategies. Both responses are ahistorical and philosophically problematic. Like it or not, Newton’s own science and this theology (including his apocalyptic thought) can’t be disentangled from each other. What’s more, historians of science are now demonstrating that Newton’s theological and prophetic thought helped to shape elements of his natural philosophy in a profound way. "

Most of his religious philosophies happened at the same time he was playing around with neurotoxins latter stages of his life

 

Um, throw out your first year physics book then. He wrote the laws of motion and gravity with his blood already well steeped in quicksilver. I'm sure I mentioned that before. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Eloise wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

can you believe newton a renowned scientist someone who had to be a concrete fact finding person , believed in god and christ he even went on to try and predict the end of the world. He was hoping to stop other people from making outrageous claims and therefore keep the scriptures from being ignored. this man feared god.

Yet Newton tried to keep such people from making what he saw as "outrageous" claims about the end of the world, by making an almost equally outrageious claim about the end of the world.

Quote:

"The Daily Telegraph report, which summarised some of my archival research on Newton’s theology and mentioned the BBC2 documentary Newton: the dark heretic, initiated a week-long media frenzy surrounding the revelation that, of all people, Isaac Newton was an apocalyptic thinker. But the documentary and much of the media coverage distorted and sensationalised the facts provided by myself and my colleagues to make Newton look much more like a doomsday date-setter than he actually was."

"In fact, Newton was against setting dates for the time of the end, but not because he didn’t believe in the literal fulfilment of biblical prophecy, because he surely did, but because he was concerned that such date-setting would bring Christianity into disrepute. The manuscript jotting on which Newton scribbled the date 2060 was just that: a manuscript jotting that was never meant to be published. A related manuscript that also includes the 2060 date makes Newton’s animus against the foolishness of date-setting clear. "

Please. Newton effectively put the date at "no later" that 2060. He said so himself. He gave no exact date, but he DID give a date - just a date that at the time seems SOOOOO far off as to quell all the other twits chattering around him. He effectively did the EXACT same thing everyone else was doing, he simply made it seem more reasonable for the time.

No that's inaccurate. He said "No sooner" not "No later".

Specifically: 

"It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner."

followed by 

"it is not for us to know the times & seasons"

I fail to see how this is any better. It's still a completley irrational claim, made at a time when 2060 seemed like forever away.

 

Quote:
He was effectively trying to trump the twits with his status and cast doubt on any nigh end prohecy that anyone could come up with for more than a thousand years. I'm sure he felt it was an adequate and logical effort, you can hardly have expected him to believe 21st century people would be squabbling over the twit status of historical rationalists, why do expect him to have defended his position perfectly to you some thousand years before you were born? 

Hey, I never thought of it that way. Perhaps he simply pulled a ridiculously far off date out of his ass just to shut people up and calm them down, never believing it himself. That is a very possible scenario.

So what do we have: 1) Newton made up a number, because he thought it would quiet the zealots (reasonable and perhaps evidence he didn't believe this garbage at all) 2) Newton actually believed what he said (Newton was clearly a brilliant man, but off his nut in such an instance).

Either one is fine with me.

 

 

Quote:

LOL, you don't know who Harpur is do you?

Nope. I fail to see why it matters.

Quote:
Quote:
Both responses are ahistorical and philosophically problematic. Like it or not, Newton’s own science and this theology (including his apocalyptic thought) can’t be disentangled from each other. What’s more, historians of science are now demonstrating that Newton’s theological and prophetic thought helped to shape elements of his natural philosophy in a profound way. "

I have no doubt they did. This is beside the point of what we are discussing though.

Yeah I mentioned it was peripheral.  

Indeed.

Frankly, I'm not sure what point anyone in this thread is trying to make.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Rev_Devilin

Eloise wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:
Eloise wrote:

 

Also for anyone still at all interested in the peripheral question of whether Theism was simply the irrational part-persona of Newton removed and isolated from his reason.

 

"Some modern scientists and secularists who see in Newton the beginning of the Age of Reason have come up with two responses to the reality of Newton’s theology: that it came after his great works in science, or that the crazy theological and prophetic nonsense was somehow kept separate from his “rational” thought. Mr. Harpur’s account hints at the second of these two strategies. Both responses are ahistorical and philosophically problematic. Like it or not, Newton’s own science and this theology (including his apocalyptic thought) can’t be disentangled from each other. What’s more, historians of science are now demonstrating that Newton’s theological and prophetic thought helped to shape elements of his natural philosophy in a profound way. "

Most of his religious philosophies happened at the same time he was playing around with neurotoxins latter stages of his life

 

Um, throw out your first year physics book then. He wrote the laws of motion and gravity with his blood already well steeped in quicksilver. I'm sure I mentioned that before. 

Indeed. Very bad idea to go around criticising one's ideas just because they were affected by some sort of mind altering substance. You'd be surprised by who you'd end up criticising.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Yes

latincanuck wrote:
Yes many a scientist, poet, artists and musicians believed in god or acted as they believed in god for their time. Remember for the most part religion has dominated human society for the last 5000 years. During much of history especially in the last 2000 years, the church had the power, if you didn't believe you didn't get funded (gee is president bush trying to get the church back into power?) Galileo had to retrack his findings because it went against the church's beliefs and affirm is his belief in god and the church. Many artists and musicians had the church as benefactors. So it isn't really that surprising that many professed their beliefs in god. After all in order to keep doing what you wanted you had to. Some believed more than others, however their beliefs do not dimish their findings and their importance in history. Nor does there beliefs mean that god is real and the bible true. It just means they believed. Einstein did not believe in a personal god at all and he was one of the greatests minds of the 20th century and there have been and are many great minds that don't believe in god, as well many great minds that do beleive in god even today, however I wonder how many other great minds didn't believe in a personal god or a god at all, but had to hide behind false belief in order to do what they loved to do?

White space (even on a black space website) is a good thing. By the way.

How many people that claim skepticism and Freethinkerism, must boldly declare that "now" or lose their funding in the scientific world? The bobbleheads exist in the science community now far, far, more than anything the plethora of Theistic communities have to offer.

And "even" Einstein did not believe in 0 x 0 = the observable and unseen universe.

It would be better for the Skeptic/Freethinker crowd to admit they are goofy about non-godianism and just declare their refusal to believe that the Creator of the universe is or has personhood. It is at least honest the way that atheists are finally coming out of the closet for their rabid hatred of Christians.

It would better serve logic and reason, if atheists/skeptics/freethinkers/progressives/liberals/

leftists/humanists/secularists/ et al, etc., etc., etc., were to just declare their "personal" higher power is better than everyone else's "personal" higher power and stand that ground, as they do their atheistic position. There are a lot of healthy-minded rational thinking people that believe that atheism is not a sound ideology.

Claiming that there is no Creator, no actual cause,  for the seen and unseen universe by claiming random processes drove us to our current state, does not give anyone non-atheistic, confidence that the atheist's position is grounded on anything other than their personal frustration at a world that they themselves cannot understand.

Why do bad people do good things?

Cognitive dissonance to a guy like Richard Dawkins I'm sure.

There is no such thing as bad, to random processes, except when an atheist changes his or her mind on atheism. Then they are treated badly by those that won't budge.

I was once an atheist.

And this proves that many of the heroes of Atheism are not smart.:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

\\\

Hey Dick,

How many Universities were founded by Christians? Look no further than your own paycheck. Now go out and get an education.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
  Yellow_Number_Five

 

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Eloise wrote:

No that's inaccurate. He said "No sooner" not "No later".

Specifically:

"It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner."

followed by

"it is not for us to know the times & seasons"

I fail to see how this is any better. It's still a completley irrational claim, made at a time when 2060 seemed like forever away.


 

Quote:
Quote:
He was effectively trying to trump the twits with his status and cast doubt on any nigh end prohecy that anyone could come up with for more than a thousand years. I'm sure he felt it was an adequate and logical effort, you can hardly have expected him to believe 21st century people would be squabbling over the twit status of historical rationalists, why do expect him to have defended his position perfectly to you some thousand years before you were born?

Hey, I never thought of it that way. Perhaps he simply pulled a ridiculously far off date out of his ass just to shut people up and calm them down, never believing it himself. That is a very possible scenario.

 

not quite. he openly believed in the literal fulfillment of the revelation prophecy, and he genuinely invested himself in calculating a plausible timeframe from the literal text. i daresay he didn't project it deliberately 1000+ years into his own future, but he did share his insight into interpretation in a personal letter, clearly to back his assertion that doomsaying of his contemporaries was unquestionably unsound, in being, not only unbiblical, but, even biblically based, at least 1260 years too early. it's clearly rhetoric, banter between like minds never intended for 21st century scrutiny. 

 

Quote:

So what do we have: 1) Newton made up a number, because he thought it would quiet the zealots (reasonable and perhaps evidence he didn't believe this garbage at all) 2) Newton actually believed what he said (Newton was clearly a brilliant man, but off his nut in such an instance).

Either one is fine with me.

 

of course he did not believe the date. he said as much in his own words. he believed the zealot crazies were, well, crazy, and made a point of showing them up. he, a master of calculus and astronomy, after all, could, couldn't he. 

 

Quote:
Quote:

LOL, you don't know who Harpur is do you?

Nope. I fail to see why it matters.

ok.  

 

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

I have no doubt they did. This is beside the point of what we are discussing though.

Yeah I mentioned it was peripheral.

Indeed.

Frankly, I'm not sure what point anyone in this thread is trying to make.

i'm not reaching for an overall point here, just addressing individual ones to my best knowlege.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, yeah, bubblehead is

Oh, yeah, bubblehead is here.

Abandon all rational discourse and productive conversation.

Quote:

And this proves that many of the heroes of Atheism are not smart.:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

\\\

Hey Dick,

How many Universities were founded by Christians? Look no further than your own paycheck. Now go out and get an education.

Lot's of universities were founded by Christians. I didn't go to one, I went to a GOOD school.

Now please excuse us, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

And my name isn't Dick. I'm, Mike. It's a displeasure to meet you, though you do reinforce every stereotype I hold - so thanks for that Eye-wink

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:
 
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Hey, I never thought of it that way. Perhaps he simply pulled a ridiculously far off date out of his ass just to shut people up and calm them down, never believing it himself. That is a very possible scenario.

 

not quite. he openly believed in the literal fulfillment of the revelation prophecy, and he genuinely invested himself in calculating a plausible timeframe from the literal text.

I honestly don't know one way or the other. To me what we're talking about is like trying to determine whether Thomas Jefferson was a deist or a Christian. One can make the case either way. In the end, what they said and did is all we have to go by.

In Newton's case, I think we can cetainly say he was a very smart man. I've not read his personal thoughts other than what has been in the media as of late, and, well, you've already got my thoughts on that. 

 

Quote:
i daresay he didn't project it deliberately 1000+ years into his own future, but he did share his insight into interpretation in a personal letter, clearly to back his assertion that doomsaying of his contemporaries was unquestionably unsound, in being, not only unbiblical, but, even biblically based, at least 1260 years too early. it's clearly rhetoric, banter between like minds never intended for 21st century scrutiny. 

Perhaps. In fact, probably correct. It sort of strikes me as odd that such a person could believe such a thing, but then I look at the people around me and the time he was in and think, "how could he NOT thnk that?".

It is certianly intriquing.

 

Quote:
Quote:

So what do we have: 1) Newton made up a number, because he thought it would quiet the zealots (reasonable and perhaps evidence he didn't believe this garbage at all) 2) Newton actually believed what he said (Newton was clearly a brilliant man, but off his nut in such an instance).

Either one is fine with me.

 

of course he did not believe the date. he said as much in his own words. he believed the zealot crazies were, well, crazy, and made a point of showing them up. he, a master of calculus and astronomy, after all, could, couldn't he. 

Well, no, he couldn't SHOW them he was correct, but he COULD use his reputation to convince them. He seems like the religious moderate of his day, given the actual climate. I suppose in that way he was possibly ahead of his time in more ways than one.

 

Quote:
i'm not reaching for an overall point here, just addressing individual ones to my best knowlege.

Likewise, I guess.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Oh, yeah, bubblehead is here.

Abandon all rational discourse and productive conversation.

Quote:

And this proves that many of the heroes of Atheism are not smart.:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

\\\

Hey Dick,

How many Universities were founded by Christians? Look no further than your own paycheck. Now go out and get an education.

Lot's of universities were founded by Christians. I didn't go to one, I went to a GOOD school.

Now please excuse us, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

And my name isn't Dick. I'm, Mike. It's a displeasure to meet you, though you do reinforce every stereotype I hold - so thanks for that Eye-wink

Nothing better typifies the pinheaded nature of the atheist position than your free use of invective and vitriol.

Dawkins may just not be a complete idiot. Skeptics/Infidels may just have enough of God's goodness in them to do some good for a mankind that is no more valuable than a gerbil.

I look at the goodness of the "Infidel" compared to the what the world benefits from Christians and say "good point" Mr. Non-Godian.

When you act good you may be patted on the head for being good.

What Infidels Have Done, by Robert G. Ingersoll is a nice reminder that Atheists can act good. Can actually do good. As long as we never foget the hundreds of millions annihilated by Communist Atheists, then who can deny the goodness "somehow" inherent in an individual personhood of some non-Godians?

Jesus didn't. Paul didn't. I don't.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Oh, yeah, bubblehead is here.

Abandon all rational discourse and productive conversation.

Quote:

And this proves that many of the heroes of Atheism are not smart.:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

\\\

Hey Dick,

How many Universities were founded by Christians? Look no further than your own paycheck. Now go out and get an education.

Lot's of universities were founded by Christians. I didn't go to one, I went to a GOOD school.

Now please excuse us, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

And my name isn't Dick. I'm, Mike. It's a displeasure to meet you, though you do reinforce every stereotype I hold - so thanks for that Eye-wink

Nothing better typifies the pinheaded nature of the atheist position than your free use of invective and vitriol.

Right, because you calling me "dick" was all full of warm and fuzzy feelings of peace and love generated by your god beliefs.

Do you even read what you write?

[ignores actual vitriol spouted by you and will no longer reply to you in the future].

Seriously, man, we TRY to have intellectual and productive conversations here. If you want to troll, there are better places to do it.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.