The God Delusion

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 What you've disproven are the little variances attached to the Christian god - none of which actually relate to the "god" part of it.

And what you are doing is creating another creation story. Your hypothetical bullshit is great and all, but it is no different from all the other creation stories invented by man. So why should I believe in your hypothetical creation story and not the Native American one? Why not just take the logical position and believe in all of the creation stories or just disbelieve in all creation stories?

Instead of trying to figure out what could be, I try to figure out what is. Your what ifs are so far out in left field that it will drive anybody nuts, which is what you are doing in this thread..

[Kamehameha34]

Wow, you didn't even take the time to craft a good copout.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I'm not going to address you in this thread until you convince me you have a point, and you're not just whining.

I'm not going to address you in this thread until you convince me that you don't...

suck at life! Go eat shit! Your points are pussies! Why are you alive!? Go die!

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez And what you are doing is creating another creation story. Your hypothetical bullshit is great and all, but it is no different from all the other creation stories invented by man. So why should I believe in your hypothetical creation story and not the Native American one? Why not just take the logical position and believe in all of the creation stories or just disbelieve in all creation stories? Instead of trying to figure out what could be, I try to figure out what is. Your what ifs are so far out in left field that it will drive anybody nuts, which is what you are doing in this thread..

If you don't know, then you shouldn't call yourself an atheist, then say you don't hold a faith.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If you don't know, then you shouldn't call yourself an atheist, then say you don't hold a faith.

by default everybody is agnostic, because nobody knows whether god exists or not.

The only logical position is to either believe in all gods or disbelieve in all gods.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez by default everybody is agnostic, because nobody knows whether god exists or not.

Right, so it's incorrect to say you don't hold a faith if you say you're an atheist or a theist.

The only logical position is to either believe in all gods or disbelieve in all gods.

You think announcing a claim before it's proven is more logical than maintaining that it's unknown?

No, that's faith, which is demonstrably illogical.

[Alive]

Quote by: rez explanations that provide predictions that later turn up true explanations that provide new and better discoveries, which lead to new and better explanations.

Yeah. I did mention this in my post. This is one advantage some worldviews have over others; that is; the worlview predicted an occurance prior to it actually occuring. There are many problems with this method of choosing though. We know that a worldview can sometimes correctly predict one event, then some time later make another failed prediction. So obviously using this method as your only one will lead to contradiction. The most basic problem is that it simply isn't proof. Lots and lots of correct predictions still does not make a proof. Without a proof, there is simply no way of knowing how likely a worldview is to be true.

This is what I would call a "practical" or "pragmatic" method of choosing between worldviews. Not exactly a moral argument, but not really one of truth either--choose this worldview if you want the "best" results, because it has offered the "best" results so far. Of course, if practicality is your only reason for holding a belief, why do you care if anyone else holds an opposing belief? Why not leave them in their stupidity?

I don't speak for all atheists, but I know that I want people to be as honest and logical as possible. Theists are not honest or logical.

The problem with logic is that it gets you nowhere without axioms which themselves cannot be derived from logic (such as logic itself). Therefore it offers no certainty; your logic is only as good as your axioms and you have no way of proving your axioms better than anyone else's (or anything at all). That is why argument between atheists and theists will never be solvable by "purely" logical argument (there is no such thing, all logical argument requires "illogical" axioms), and thus why I think activist atheists will always use moral arguments against theists. You can't say "my axiom is true, yours is false" because you cannot show this to be true, but you can say "my axiom is more morally good than your axiom" since theists and atheists have many common moral beliefs.

[loser]

You're asking for evidence against the existence of god? Our world does not match up with the existence of a god who is described in the Bible. The Bible itself is contradicting. Injustice of absolute punishment and rewards.

Let's examine the first three pieces of 'evidence' that you presented:

1) Amazingly, I find that our world matches up so well with the existence of God (of the Bible) that I see it as incontrovertible 'proof' of His existence.

2) People contradict themselves often. Is this evidence that people don't exist?

3) Explain the injustice of "absolute punishment and rewards". Are you against the legal and judicial system? Are you against testing, scoring, grading, and competing?

I only listed the first three but every one of your arguments are invalid and can be shown to be so (the last one was really a hoot). In the end, however, it's moot. Life is a series of life-changing events. As future events unfold, your beliefs will be tested and altered in ways that are impossible for you to foresee.

Faith isn't concerned with evidence, whether or not the theist believes there is more faith for a god than against. Faith does not change for evidence while simple belief does.

This is a total misconception by 'non-believers'. Without evidence, faith would die. It is the overwhelming evidence (of the existence of God) that keeps faith alive. Remember, believers are every bit as intelligent (if not more) as their non-believing counterparts and are no less interested in logic and/or evidence.

Does Dawkins himself ever make that claim? No. He admits there is a tiny chance of him existing, a very tiny chance.

Methinks that Mr. Dawkins' elevator doesn't go all the way up to the top floor and that he's a few bricks shy of a load and that he's not hitting on all of his cylinders and...well, you probably get the idea, whereas he doesn't.

...but the Christian god is evil.

How so? Has He done something evil to you? To someone you know? What is your evidence against Him? Did you personally witness some atrocity that you SAW Him commit? Are you absolutely certain it was Him? Could it have been someone else that you mistook for God? Ask yourself these questions and consider the answers carefully before making such damning accusations.

I'm willing to bet that you have never met the 'Man'.

But why doesn't the argument that is more logical win over the members of the argument that is less logical? There are two possible reasons: 1. The less logical side just does not understand that it is being illogical 2. Logic is not what the arguments are really based on.

3) People ARE illogical (most of the time) and don't care who knows it. I'm convinced that the majority of people DELIGHT in stupidity.

But I do like Number two.

I don't speak for all atheists, but I know that I want people to be as honest and logical as possible. Theists are not honest or logical.

You must either be:

1) a theist (and, therefore, also #2)

2) dishonest and illogical

3) an atheist (and, therefore, also #2)

All choices point to #2.

It's rather amusing that "I want people to be as honest and logical as possible." and you can't even be honest to yourself. What a dichotomy you are. How can you tell if you are coming or going.

You're bound to lies but the truth (NOT talkorigins) would set you free.

Your hypothetical bullshit is great and all, but it is no different from all the other creation stories invented by man.

Doi you mean like evolution? I admit that it was a pretty clever invention...though it really was kind of juvenile and silly. I guess he thought his audience were all second-graders. Imagine him thinking that we would be so immature and childish to actually believe such foolish fairy tales. Go figure...some people just really aren't all that smart, are they?

Why not just take the logical position and believe in all of the creation stories or just disbelieve in all creation stories?

Because that would be illogical...and not very wise. It shows a certain amount of immaturity (that all-or-nothing attitude).

Instead of trying to figure out what could be, I try to figure out what is.

Keep figuring...one day you may 'get it'.

The only logical position is to either believe in all gods or disbelieve in all gods.

When God said, "Logic!" you thought He said, "Dodge it!" and it flew right over your head! Good grief. You're about the most ILLOGICAL person I have ever heard speak...especially one who is speaking about, get this, logic.

Unbelievable!

Yeah. I did mention this in my post. This is one advantage some worldviews have over others; that is; the worlview predicted an occurance prior to it actually occuring.

Kind of like prophecy, huh?

[pahl]

You think announcing a claim before it's proven is more logical than maintaining that it's unknown?

Yes, in some cases. I consider myself an atheist and not agnostic even though i realize that there is no way of knowing if God exists or not. Why? Because of the lack of evidence, i dont believe the "evidence" of a god one bit. I consider the chances of Gods existense to be somewhat equal to the existense of something no one ever mentioned or thought of before, and i just made up in my mind.

Therefore if i were to give any thought to weather this imaginary thing really existed i could waste my entire life just giving thought to all things of equal possibility. I make some basic assumptions to be able to live my life. Like that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that eating food will satisfy my hunger. If i where to take the unknown stance on these things people would certainly call me crazy, even though the chance that the sun wont rise tomorrow is much greater then the chance that God exist.

The thought of giving in to that the idea of God might be possible just seem really unnecessary to me. I do agree though that we cant really know anything for sure.

[Yarn]

Really? I have definitely not found that to be the case. In my experience, it is extremely rare that arguments between theists and atheists end in one or the other side admitting its wrongness. Granted, it is oversimplistic to say that theists and atheists can't argue through a common basis of reason. Obviously logic in a certain common form does get played on by both "sides." But why doesn't the argument that is more logical win over the members of the argument that is less logical?

If there was no common worldview held, then most arguements would diseminate into faith based axioms, which they commonly don't.

There are two possible reasons:
1. The less logical side just does not understand that it is being illogical
2. Logic is not what the arguments are really based on.

In my observation, #2 is the more common occurance, though #1 appears a lot as well. This is because almost all arguments between theists and atheists fall under #2 whereas just most of them fall under #1.

People can hold worldviews, and be unobjective in their application of them as a result of strong desires for certain conclusions to emanate from them.

That is, it is not true that "most people share the same worldview for how to find reality." People interpret data in different ways, especially in areas of metaphysics. And to go further, no one interpretation is "provably" better than any other interpretation. This is because proof attempts are themselves interpretive, and therefore proving a method of interpretation is necessarily circular.

Any arguement against knowledge, is intrinsically an arguement against itself, and is therefore useless.

Now it is worth asking: If theists and atheists are going to fight for superiority, will they argue in "moral" terms or in "rational" terms? By moral, I do not mean what you seem to mean by moral when you state that humanism is more moral than religion. I mean: Which of atheism and theism is more morally utilitarian? Would the world be better off if everyone was an atheist or theist?

I could state the pluses and minuses of religion, but I could not state its net charge.

I think all atheist-theist "arguments"--that is, discussions where both sides are debating on a common ground and not just speaking past each other--are moral arguments. Moreover, I think atheists and theist activists basically understand this and therefore tend to argue in these terms when trying to convince the other side to switch over. Both sides say: Believe in a/theism because it is better to believe in a/theism, not because it is more likely true.

Atheists and theists debate one another, not generally to convert one another, but rather to enjoy the mental process of debate. They know that they are unlikely to ever win the debate over the existence of god with anyone.

Even arguments which are explicitely about "truth" tend to have implicit moral components. Saying there is no evidence to believe in god, therefore you should not believe in god, contains the moral argument that one should not believe in that which a person has no evidence for (a good way to detect moral arguments is the presence of the word "should"). I think an intelligent theist could be convinced to agree that there is no data that an atheist activist would classify as valid evidence for the existance of god. The disagreement would be over whether it is "right" to believe that which lacks such evidence. No way to prove this logically. But you can offer moral arguments; i.e, believing in an all-knowing god will make you less likely to commit evil acts (stating implicitely that it is worth believing in god regardless of whether he truly exists). Or, believing in an all-knowing god will make you more susceptible for criticizing others for acts you consider evil but which actually are not (again stating implicitely that it is worth not believing in god regardless of whether he truly exists.)

Really, the closest you can get to victory in this debate is making the otherside look stupid.

[Nono]

Quote by: Alive Religion=religious wars, sexual repression, little scientific advancement Science=technology to improve life, predictions that work a whole lot better than prophecy, rationalism

Well, yeah, up to a point.

If I put Stalinism, say, in the "science" category, you'll claim that it wasn't really "scientific" and therefore doesn't count.

But my Catholic friends (and spouse) will protest that the Inquisition, say, wasn't truly Christian.

And off we go. I'd say Stalinism was a full-fledged religion, and that humans are hard-wired for the religious experience.

Therefore, secularity is doomed by natural selection to ultimately display the same hysterical irrationality as theocracy. That's the danger anyway.

But the point of this thread ain't what's the best way of organizing human affairs, but rather whether we can really say anything either way about the existence or otherwise of God.

[Alive]

Quote by: yarn If there was no common worldview held, then most arguements would diseminate into faith based axioms, which they commonly don't.

I'm not saying there is no common views held, I'm just saying that there are enough differences between the worldviews that a definite logical argument cannot convince anyone, even if both sides fully understand the argument. If both sides fully understand an argument, and both have the same axioms, then there is no way for them to hold different views after the argument is stated.

I do think that if you reduce atheist and theist arguments to their bare fundamentals, you will find that they do actually "diseminate into faith based axioms." It's just that both atheists and theists build upon these axioms massive structures. Complicating the matter, the method of structure is very similar between atheists and theists, and each one will commonly poke fun at the other for the small structual difference that looks to him awkward, while not getting that the real difference is at the level of fundamental axiom.

Quote by: yarn People can hold worldviews, and be unobjective in their application of them as a result of strong desires for certain conclusions to emanate from them.

Those "strong desires for certain conclusions" are part of their worldview. Thus, as I said, "logic is not what the arguments are really based on", rather, those desires are what the arguments are based on and logic is merely a tool.

Any arguement against knowledge, is intrinsically an arguement against itself, and is therefore useless.

An argument for knowledge is intrinsically circular, and therefore useless. :)

Nevertheless, I am not making an argument for or against theoretical knowledge. My point is empirical. In practice, people do actually interpret data in different ways. In practice, it is often not possible for a person with one interpretation to prove his interpretation to another person with a different interpretation, because any attempt at proof requires that the other person already accept the method of proof, which itself differs by interpretation.

Atheists and theists debate one another, not generally to convert one another, but rather to enjoy the mental process of debate. They know that they are unlikely to ever win the debate over the existence of god with anyone.

I don't disagree, but this doesn't go against my point. Even arguments for the purpose of mental satiation are funner when both sides can actually argue about something, and therefore atheist-theist arguments tend to become moral arguments even on internet debate boards.

[Alive]

Nono,

Hey, you should've read my whole post! I know it was pretty long, sorry. But I myself put in that post two different views of the affects of science and religion on the world. I am not arguing that religion or science is good or bad, my point was that your worldview determines whether you consider religion or science to be good or bad. Which is the exact point you are making in your post right now.

But the point of this thread ain't what's the best way of organizing human affairs, but rather whether we can really say anything either way about the existence or otherwise of God.

Yes, I know. And my point is that "the argument" really has nothing to do with whether we can say anything about the existance of god. The atheist-theist debate is not about truth, but about opposing worldviews conflicting on the grounds of morality.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I'm not going to address you in this thread until you convince me you have a point, and you're not just whining. I'm not going to address you in this thread until you convince me that you don't... Wow, you didn't even take the time to craft a good copout. I'm not going to address you in this thread until you convince me that you don't... Quote by: Kamehameha34 suck at life! Go eat shit! Your points are pussies! Why are you alive!? Go die!

Careful Kame.. your age is showing. I know how hurt you feel when members connect your immaturity to your age.

[Matt W]

How about we focus on the debate, Lullaby & Kame? :rolleyes: Save the sniping for PMs, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Nono As an agnostic, I view atheists as people who are convinced, as a matter of blind faith, of something they couldn't rationally be at all sure about.

Please.

If you're going to talk about the God Delusion, then talk about the God Delusion. Dawkins sets a scale for belief in god:

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

*

The "atheism requires faith" argument is every bit as intellectually bankrupt now as it was the first thousand times it was discussed here. We've proven in other threads that if faith is defined as belief without evidence it is agnostics who rely the most heavily on faith: atheists have science & reason. Theists have tradition and so-called holy texts. What exactly do agnostics have? The unwavering fundamentalist faith that god is "possible".

And, as with Bertrand Russell's sneering dismissal of the Church of England (by means of which he imagined he was somehow disproving theism), there's a note of zealotry in what I've read by Dawkins on the subject.

To be sure, Dawkins has an enthusiasm for his subject matter, but if passion for one's subject equates to zealotry, then all authors are zealots.

You're going to need to cite specific examples. Right now, you're just name calling.

The biologist H. Allen Orr puts it rather nicely in this article from The NY Review of Books. One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins's book is why it was written.

Dawkins is quite specific about this. He sees faith as a threat / bad influence to our society. He notes quite carefully with specific examples of how moderate peaceful religion is the breeding ground for extremism and how often the two are one and the same; moderates being influenced to become extremists.

The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer.

This makes me wonder if Orr bothered to read the book. It's also a statement he failed to support. I've yet to see any biologist examine why we have religion in the honest and logical method that Dawkins goes about.

Nono, I'm going to go out on a limb here: have you read Dawkins' book?




--------------------

*Without Gods: Dawkins' Belief Scale

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Agnosticism is NOT without beliefs, it is the belief that the question of gods is unknowable at this point.

It's never knowable.



The entire point of faith is that you have to believe the answer is yes without the possibility of any proof.


If proof existed, regardless which answer it point to, there would be no need for faith.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's never knowable.

Ah, the know-nothing stance. This has been dispelled so many times by so many volconvo.com members I'm surprised anyone is still using it.

We can know things using logic and what we already know. We know that claiming "god created the universe" is on par with claiming "the wright brothers used a Boeing 747 to create their first powered glider". Both hypothesis require incredibly sophisticated things and give absolutely zero explanation for how they came to be.

We know that sophisticated things don't just pop into existence and we know "always existed" is a tremendous cop out. Dawkins points out that design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's never knowable.

You can't account for every conscious mind in existence. God probably knows whether or not he exists. Perhaps there are angels that know this. Perhaps there are people that are beyond your understanding that know this. Fact remains, by saying that God is an unknowable, you yourself are acting on faith just as much as anyone else, really. Because YOU are not omniscient and cannot know that statement is true.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The entire point of faith is that you have to believe the answer is yes without the possibility of any proof.

Right.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If proof existed, regardless which answer it point to, there would be no need for faith.

There is no such thing as proof. But if it were to exist, I presume people would have faith in the contrary regardless of being presented the proof. If Christians ignore evidence now.. how will they recognize proof?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Zhavric We can know things using logic and what we already know.

Induction and deduction can't prove anything without an axiom.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer by saying that God is an unknowable

First of all, I didn't say that God was unknowable.

God exists or he doesn't. That is knowable.

you yourself are acting on faith just as much as anyone else, really.

Am I acting on faith if I say that 1+1=3 is false?

There is no such thing as proof.

Yes there is.

I presume people would have faith in the contrary regardless of being presented the proof.

You can hope that 1+1 does not equal 2 if you want.

It doesn't make it true.


Knowing for sure that God does or does not exist would eliminate the need for anyone to ever believe he does or doesn't without proof.