About Jørgen

Edit profile

Languages

Danish, English

I'm passionate about

Understanding the Universe (or Multiverse) in the most profound way possible, and to work on the abolition of superstition.

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
To Nick Price, I did answer you further down on the page. I was unable to do it on your last post, so I attached it to some older stuff. And before I forget, I would really like you to show us the real context, in which St. Paul was speaking, when he was not being misogynistic. Include as much of the quotes as you like.
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
All your arguments are not wrong because they disagree with me. They are wrong because they disagree with evidence and logic. That is, if your arguments all presume the existence of God, which the ones you've used here have done. The evidence for evolution, which can exist without any god(s), is mind-blowing, you just have to get in your car and drive to London, to see the evidence. The proof for the existence of X, still is zero. As far as I'm concerned you are just as fundamentalist as Peter Law, as you try to fit reality around your faith. I posit that you didn't read Darwin out of respect; you read it because you heard that there was a theory in conflict with your religion, and you wanted to try to refute it. As for your claim of being a scientist, well, for what it's worth, you're a scientist who couldn't care less about evidence.
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
Your argument: Premise a: The existence of X cannot be proved. Premise b: The existence of X cannot be disproved. Conclusion: We must assume the existence of X. Notice that you can put anything in the place of the X. Now this is not just bad logic, it is simply illogical. You can't make inferences in logic without later being able to back them up. You and anyone else are unable to back them up. I think that you and your predecessors have had enough time. Why is the (hi)story of the X (Christian God, Jesus) more convincing to you than the (hi)story of the X (Muslim God) or the X (Easter Bunny)? Is it the book you keep mentioning? Please, base your answer on the evidence after having read all the holy books. Would you have been a Christian, if you had been born to Pakistani parents in Islamabad?
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
for the liberty of speech than the Danes (The Muhammad Cartoons are a proud emblem for the free speech of my people). However, that doesn't mean that I can't criticize the lack of logic and argumentation put forward. This is called a debate, and I am a militant atheist: I give your argument and evidence the same scrutinizing treatment as I would with any other. It's the scientific way. The trouble for Atheists in the past, and currently in the USA, is that it comes with a stigma. Further, to discuss, religion and the premises of it, used to be taboo here. That time has come to an end in Northern Europe, and in the more civilized parts of the USA. However, because of religious hypocrisy, tradition and lack of education in the "greatest" nation on Earth, evolution and common sense is now under threat.
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
This evidence, by the way, is available to anyone, who would care to visit any museum of natural history. I've been to the one in London, it's amazing, and you should try it. If you've read, and understood, "On The Origin Of Species", then you will already have found out that Evolution is not chance, but exactly the opposite: natural selection. However, I recommend you, again, to buy Dawkins' books, where you will find thousands of pages to explain this point. One, which would be particularly good for this purpose, is "The Blind Watchmaker", another is "Climbing Mount Improbable". Evolution is the explanation, which completely excludes the necessity of a God, and which makes the assumption of him completely and utterly absurd. I would be happy to talk evolution with you when you have actually understood it. At this moment you are not "ripe for it". We may have to accept that people say what they please, that's exactly what I'm doing, and you will find no more prominent fighters
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
Dear Nick, you may not want to meet any of the Gods of the World to get affirmation. You seem to want me to feel the same thing, but it's not working. The only thing, which can prove the existence of your, or anyone else's, God, is for the Gods themselves to bring us positive proof, by revealing themselves. What Dawkins is saying is self-explanatory. He is merely saying that complexity is not an argument for God's existence. Who made God? You'll end up in an infinite regress based on nothing. Dawkins doesn't and has never claimed to be able to disprove the existence to God, but he has stated the obvious: If you claim that God exists, then you can claim anything, as you have no evidence at all. The Judeo-Christian populations have had 6,000 years to prove it, and yet nothing seems to be forthcoming. By comparison, the biologists have had about 60-70 years to gather evidence, since the theory of evolution gained acceptance, and the amount of evidence is staggering.
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
Another thing that worries me a little bit is this quote: "I must admit to only reading Darwin as he is the one quoted most so I wanted to check him out from source instead of judging him on those who follow his ideas." Now, you say that you are into physics and mathematics, why would you read Darwin first, when he must have been wrong about some things, as the theory had yet to gather evidence to be proved. I trust that you know, that reading "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" by Copernicus, doesn't make you any wiser about the heliocentric solar system, than those who wrote after him. It doesn't bring you any "original formula". Darwin turned out to be right, only after his death, as he had no knowledge of genes, DNA or carbon dating. Darwin only used the term "Evolution" once, and preferred descent with modification. Science doesn't work like religion. Take my advice, and read Dawkins' new book. Read Darwin to become wiser about Darwin, come to Dawkins for evolution.
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
Another thing, Peter. Did God specify if it was exactly one third of the population of the World or just about? The reason I ask is because I've had a look and it's not looking good for Christianity. At the very most, 28.82% of the world's population are Christians, whilst your numbers are in heavy decline in Europe. In this number is included a 98% of all Danes. Now, Peter, I must tell you that the Church of Denmark is a state church, and everyone is a member from birth. Most Danes never "quit" the church, as we want to keep them as a framework for our ceremonies. To tell you the truth, I don't believe that I have ever met any Dane, who really believed in God, as many Danish priests tend to get fired, when they admit to it. It includes my wife's homeland, where most are registered catholics, but of all the Colombians I know, it's only my mother-in-law, who actually believes. This doesn't give you good odds, as the asians seem to be making more and more non-Christians.
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
And how do you find this claim of a 6,000 year old world, to be reciprocated scientifically? What's wrong with the Egyptian Calendar? Please, prove to me that Jesus is still alive. I did look for him, even under the bed. How many other people support this theory of a young World? What are all the other planets and stars and moons in our Universe for, if God is not using them? Isn't he a bit wasteful? Did you have a look at the webpage, which proves that God only wants to fulfill some prophecies, or do you have counterclaims? Is God a liar, or just fickle? But even before all of this, I will need to talk to God or Jesus to confirm, that you are absolutely correct.
Noface
Jørgen Leditzig
Posted over 4 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
Who told you that it was unimportant for all Jews to live in Israel? If knowledge increases exponentially, why wouldn't it be increasing with gathering speed? You don't seem to be aware of it, but Denmark is a part of Europe. I've heard George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and other born-again (yesterday) Christians talk of this New World Order, but from no one else. Wouldn't it be a good idea to decide on what your God wants before you start making new world orders? The European Union is going to vote for its first president. True. But the European Union is not one nation, like the United States of America, but a political union of many independent nations. The Danish parliament legislates for Denmark. Would you really like a catholic papist, who believes that the world is 4.5 billion years old, ruling over the European Union? Doesn't look good for the evangelists. America may be bankrupt, because of a former corrupt government, but everything is going just hunkydory here