What do you think about Dawkins?

[warpus]

Just how I did. You want to engage in a game of semantics? Fine. You can call it <enter whatever name you want here> for all I care. What you call it isn't exactly important, though.

I'm just wondering how you made that jump in logic.

And to clarify, are you talking about the personal Christian God here, or just some unknown entity responsible for the creation of the Universe that's possibly intelligent, but who knows, when you say "God" ?

I mean, if you're going for the latter, I'm going to have to question your definition of "God" but agree with you that 1. if the Universe was created by an outside force then --> 2. the Universe was created by an outside force.

But if you're going to say that 1. an outside force creating the Universe --> (implies) 2. The God of the Bible creating the Universe, then I would have to question the jump in logic and wonder what steps you're skipping in between.

 

[Bei1052]

You give atheists and the non-religious everywhere a very bad name. Just a word to the wise.

That's it - they don't. If they only believed that something might have created our Universe, and proposed some sort of coherent scientific theory explaining how this might have happened, I wouldn't say a word against that.

So your "problem" with believers stems not the fact of what they believe, but what they claim? Why, exactly, do you have a problem with what they claim? How does that, in any way, affect you?

The problem with believers is that they assign another properties to their God. According to them, he didn't only create the Universe. Supposedly, he also gave humans immortal souls, which he then sends to hell if they use another thing the supposedly gave them - their rationality

Because, obviously, rational people don't believe in God.

Believers make TONS and TONS of baseless claims about their God/gods, without any sort of evidence, without a tiny shred of proof. That is irrational, that is stupid and that makes them delusional.

All right. I'll bite. Like what?

That is not what I said. I only pointed out that since the Big Bang is also the point when time as we know it started, there is no point in asking what was before it.

This is why I said "assuming". And I find the concept of there being no time before the Big Bang to be odd. I believe the correct prase would you, "You don't know what was before the Big Bang"

We're getting to the usual argument used by the believers: "You don't know how the Universe began, so it might as well have been our God who created it."

Apparently, you don't see the irony in lambasting someone for believing in God, when you, yourself, have no reason to claim it wasn't God who caused or brought about the formation of the universa other than you don't believe it was. So, this leads to the inevitable question of who's right? The person who knows God exists, or the person who thinks the other person doesn't know what they claim to know, even when they don't know themselves?

Think about it.

Yes. It might as well have been the Invisible Pink Unicorn for all I know, the point is that I do not know. Cosmology has some theories which make my head hurt every time I try to read something about them, but I am sure many clever people are working hard on answering this question RATIONALLY, using scientific approach to the problem.

So because you don't know, others don't know as well? That's a fairly odd argument to make, wouldn't you say? What prevents others from knowing even when you don't?

...And, seriously, stop with the science worshipping. Everyone and their mother's knows that science has its limits.

What believers do is that they make a claim, fail to back it up and then expect me to respect that claim. Well, that's not going to happen.

No. What believers do is that they make a claim based on the same evidence as you, but you call them delusional for reaching a conclusion different to that of yourself.

I'm just wondering how you made that jump in logic.

And to clarify, are you talking about the personal Christian God here, or just some unknown entity responsible for the creation of the Universe that's possibly intelligent, but who knows, when you say "God" ?

I mean, if you're going for the latter, I'm going to have to question your definition of "God" but agree with you that 1. if the Universe was created by an outside force then --> 2. the Universe was created by an outside force.

But if you're going to say that 1. an outside force creating the Universe --> (implies) 2. The God of the Bible creating the Universe, then I would have to question the jump in logic and wonder what steps you're skipping in between.

It's not a, as you would say, "jump in logic". I merely said that people consider that outside force to be God. If you want, you can replace the word God with <enter name of diety/dieties/whatever here>. It's not going to change what I said any.

 

[cardgame]

The person who knows God exists

How, please?

 

[Bei1052]

How, please?

<enter spiel about epistemology here>

Without being overly verbose, I'd say that the belief in God usually is usually a posteriori (That is, it's based on some prior experience).

 

[Flying Pig]

I fail to see how you can have an experience which justifies believing in the Biblical god (ie, not just 'some intelligence behind the universe'. I would also say that 99.999999999% of people have not had a religious experience

 

[Seon]

You give atheists and the non-religious everywhere a very bad name. Just a word to the wise.



So your "problem" with believers stems not the fact of what they believe, but what they claim? Why, exactly, do you have a problem with what they claim? How does that, in any way, affect you?

Religious people affecting us atheists? I agree that religion is not all bad, but...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/falwellquotes.htm

When the religious go around yelling that the AIDS is a wrath of god, god is purely merciful, but not towards non-believers, that god hates homosexual blah blah blah and goes off into a riot in front of a private school for being named after an homosexual poet, than you can be a bit annoyed with religion. Trust me. I would know.

Because, obviously, rational people don't believe in God.

Shrug. Don't know about that

All right. I'll bite. Like what?

-God created Universe
-God created human
-God gave intelligence to human
-God created animals
-God made humans to rule the world
-God hates homosexuals
-God is masculine
-God lives up there somewhere
-God sends all nonbeliever to hell
-God created himself
-Some random ranting by Christian Fundamentalists
-God exists

This is why I said "assuming". And I find the concept of there being no time before the Big Bang to be odd. I believe the correct prase would you, "You don't know what was before the Big Bang"

Yes. The correct phrase is that we don't know. Now prove that it was your so called god who started the Big Bang.

Apparently, you don't see the irony in lambasting someone for believing in God, when you, yourself, have no reason to claim it wasn't God who caused or brought about the formation of the universa other than you don't believe it was. So, this leads to the inevitable question of who's right? The person who knows God exists, or the person who thinks the other person doesn't know what they claim to know, even when they don't know themselves?

Think about it.

There is a box in my hand. You don't know what is inside it, so you claim that there is a chicken inside,and refuse to hear any other possibilities. Yeah. That's rational .

So because you don't know, others don't know as well? That's a fairly odd argument to make, wouldn't you say? What prevents others from knowing even when you don't?

...And, seriously, stop with the science worshipping. Everyone and their mother's knows that science has its limits.



No. What believers do is that they make a claim based on the same evidence as you, but you call them delusional for reaching a conclusion different to that of yourself.

I'll use the box thing again.

There is a box. It is a large box. It's completely soundproof so you don't hear anything from it. It's glued to the floor so you can't tell if it is moving or not. You reach the conclusion that chicken is inside the box. The other says "I don't know." There may actually be a chicken inside the box, but how the hell did you figure it out? Where's your evidence? Oh, and science limit thing, well here's the deal. We haven't met that limit yet.

It's not a, as you would say, "jump in logic". I merely said that people consider that outside force to be God. If you want, you can replace the word God with <enter name of diety/dieties/whatever here>. It's not going to change what I said any.

Many people may consider that to be god/gods/chicken, but it might not be right.

 

[warpus]

It's not a, as you would say, "jump in logic". I merely said that people consider that outside force to be God. If you want, you can replace the word God with <enter name of diety/dieties/whatever here>. It's not going to change what I said any.

I know, I thought we were both clear on what you said by now! What do you think, though? Forget other people

 

[Yared]

So your "problem" with believers stems not the fact of what they believe, but what they claim? Why, exactly, do you have a problem with what they claim? How does that, in any way, affect you?

Someone who seriously believes that a man rose from the dead is believing in something which contradicts with reality. If he truly did rise, he wasn't dead in the first place. How it affects us? Well just look at all the religious [ADD ON: Christian] politicians who believe what is written in the bible is correct. I don't know about you but it'd be very uncomfortable for me to live in a country run by a man who wants to stone all men who've committed the disgusting [sic] act of you know what with another man.

All right. I'll bite. Like what?

One example already included in this thread is the story of Jonah - the man who lived in a "great fish" for 3 days or so. There is currently no known "fish" who can hold a man for 3 days and have him come out alive after. Of course, if you know something I don't I'd be happy to know.

So because you don't know, others don't know as well? That's a fairly odd argument to make, wouldn't you say? What prevents others from knowing even when you don't?

It depends on what one claim to "know". If one claims to know that a man rose from the dead - something which is not only contradicting by definition(death) but also very much impossible right now let alone 2000 years ago - and s/he fails to provide evidence, why should we be inclined to believe them? The story of when Jesus died (pun intended) is just one of many stories that contradict with reality.

...And, seriously, stop with the science worshiping. Everyone and their mother's knows that science has its limits.

The scientific method has provided us with a way to be sure that something is true. The limits of science ends at where we can observe and measure - reality. There's no point in saying "god exists outside of reality and as such can't be proven nor disproven. "His work is horrible. It's not right - it's not even wrong!"

 

[Bei1052]

I fail to see how you can have an experience which justifies believing in the Biblical god (ie, not just 'some intelligence behind the universe'. I would also say that 99.999999999% of people have not had a religious experience

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I'm fairly sure that number is quite that high

Religious people affecting us atheists? I agree that religion is not all bad, but...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/s...wellquotes.htm

When the religious go around yelling that the AIDS is a wrath of god, god is purely merciful, but not towards non-believers, that god hates homosexual blah blah blah and goes off into a riot in front of a private school for being named after an homosexual poet, than you can be a bit annoyed with religion. Trust me. I would know.

That's an argument against humans and their nature, not the the nature of religion or the religious.

Shrug. Don't know about that.

It is according to Winner.

-God exists

I'm just going to answer this question, since the rest of those things are contingent on this one. We can treat this a couple of ways:

1.) We can consider God's existence a tautology.

2.) We can argue that existence is merely a property of an object, encompassing both existence and non-existence.

So which would you prefer?

Yes. The correct phrase is that we don't know. Now prove that it was your so called god who started the Big Bang.

How do you "prove" something which is outside the realm of conventional scientific proofs (Which is the only thing you'll accept)? You can't.

There is a box in my hand. You don't know what is inside it, so you claim that there is a chicken inside,and refuse to hear any other possibilities. Yeah. That's rational .

I have a serious question. How was this, is any way, shape or form, even pertinent to what you quoted and responded to? It wasn't. At all. And it didn't even try to be. So let me restate the question to you:

So, this leads to the inevitable question of who's right? The person who knows God exists, or the person who thinks the other person doesn't know what they claim to know, even when they don't know themselves?

This is a rather simple question of experience vs. non-experience, and which holds more weight.

A better example would be as follows: There's a box in the middle of the room. Neither of us know what's inside. I turn to you and say that there's a clock inside, you ask me how I know and I say to you it's a clock because I can hear it ticking. You then tell me that you don't hear any ticking, that I must be delusional and that I'm wrong. So who's right? Well, no one really knows who's right, but what we do know is that my assertion is based on the fact that I can hear ticking while yours is based on the fact that you can't.

It's goes back to an earlier point in this thread: "Does love exist?". Well, we can't exactly measure it, but people can feel it. Because we can't measure it, does that mean that those who feel it are delusional and those people who don't feel it don't because love doesn't exist? Or does it simply mean that loves exist yet isn't measurable or demonstrable and that those who haven't experienced it haven't done so not because it doesn't exist, but simply because they haven't?

I'll use the box thing again.

There is a box. It is a large box. It's completely soundproof so you don't hear anything from it. It's glued to the floor so you can't tell if it is moving or not. You reach the conclusion that chicken is inside the box. The other says "I don't know." There may actually be a chicken inside the box, but how the hell did you figure it out? Where's your evidence?

What I feel you're not understanding, is that this is all dependent on how one came to the conclusion that there's a chicken in the box. Obviously, a simple guess based on nothing isn't going to cut it.

...Now, if you want to talk evidence about what's in the box, then you can just open the box and see what's inside.

Oh, and science limit thing, well here's the deal. We haven't met that limit yet.

Sure, we have. Science can't make value judgments concerning the morality of an action nor can it instill meaning or purpose in one's life nor can it deal with those things outside of nature. The misapplication of science works both ways.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I like him not.
And I am an atheist.

 

[cardgame]

A better example would be as follows: There's a box in the middle of the room. Neither of us know what's inside. I turn to you and say that there's a clock inside, you ask me how I know and I say to you it's a clock because I can hear it ticking. You then tell me that you don't hear any ticking, that I must be delusional and that I'm wrong. So who's right? Well, no one really knows who's right, but what we do know is that my assertion is based on the fact that I can hear ticking while yours is based on the fact that you can't.

...Now, if you want to talk evidence about what's in the box, then you can just open the box and see what's inside.

Problem is, there's only a few people who can hear a clock ticking. And they are called delusional. Because it isn't a clock after all, just their own mind, making things up.

And the majority of people would actually say it's a clock because their parents and community told them it was a clock, not through any effort or thought or hearing of their own.

 

[Bei1052]

I know, I thought we were both clear on what you said by now! What do you think, though? Forget other people

I'm sure there's some underlying meaning here, but I'm dumb and didn't get it

Someone who seriously believes that a man rose from the dead is believing in something which contradicts with reality. If he truly did rise, he wasn't dead in the first place.

Not to get embroiled in a game of semantics, but this depends on what definition you use of death. Technically, the current meaning of the word (Cessation of all brain activity) is about thirty or forty years old, give or take, though it doesn't mean that you are actually dead as you can be kept alive for prolonged periods of time. Before that, death was marked by the end of respiration, heartbeat or other bodily functions which was, and still is, reversible.

How it affects us? Well just look at all the religious [ADD ON: Christian] politicians who believe what is written in the bible is correct. I don't know about you but it'd be very uncomfortable for me to live in a country run by a man who wants to stone all men who've committed the disgusting [sic] act of you know what with another man.

Outside of the Westboro Baptist Church, I've yet to meet anyone who wants to stone homosexuals-- Or anyone, for that matter. And I'm not so sure even they want to stone them.

One example already included in this thread is the story of Jonah - the man who lived in a "great fish" for 3 days or so. There is currently no known "fish" who can hold a man for 3 days and have him come out alive after. Of course, if you know something I don't I'd be happy to know.

I can't say I know any more than you do.

It depends on what one claim to "know". If one claims to know that a man rose from the dead - something which is not only contradicting by definition(death) but also very much impossible right now let alone 2000 years ago - and s/he fails to provide evidence, why should we be inclined to believe them? The story of when Jesus died (pun intended) is just one of many stories that contradict with reality.

*points upwards*

The scientific method has provided us with a way to be sure that something is true. The limits of science ends at where we can observe and measure - reality. There's no point in saying "god exists outside of reality and as such can't be proven nor disproven. "His work is horrible. It's not right - it's not even wrong!"

It has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with the fact that science doesn't deal with things which are, quite literally, untestable by their very nature (There's nothing to objectively measure).

And I don't understand the last little quote, so you're going to have to break it down for me.

 

[Bei1052]

Problem is, there's only a few people who can hear a clock ticking. And they are called delusional. Because it isn't a clock after all, just their own mind, making things up.

It seems to me that you're paraphrasing Dawkin's: "When one man believes something, he's delusional. When a thousand men believe something, they're religious." But, here's the rub. Under what basis do you say they're delusional and that it's just their minds making it up?

And the majority of people would actually say it's a clock because their parents and community told them it was a clock, not through any effort or thought or hearing of their own.

So people are religious only because they're were raised that way or because they want to fit in? That's probably true for some people, much like it's probably true for some atheists, but I highly doubt that's true for the majority.

 

[warpus]

I'm sure there's some underlying meaning here, but I'm dumb and didn't get it

My initial comment was about something you wrote. You wrote that if the Universe was created by an outside agent, then this implies that this outside agent is God.

I asked you how it implies that, and your response was: "Some people mean 'outside force that somehow created the Universe' when they say God", and I said: "Yeah, but most people don't"

Then we got sidetracked by a bunch of stuff.. so let's return to my intial point:

What do you mean by "God" when you say what you initially said?

 

[Kerozine]

So many atheists on this forum.

 

[Seon]

That's an argument against humans and their nature, not the the nature of religion or the religious.

Fair enough

I'm just going to answer this question, since the rest of those things are contingent on this one. We can treat this a couple of ways:

1.) We can consider God's existence a tautology.

2.) We can argue that existence is merely a property of an object, encompassing both existence and non-existence.

So which would you prefer?

I was merely listing those things at top of my head as a joke . But let us see.

Possibility One: God's existence is tautology, therefore it has no meaning.

2: Hmm?

How do you "prove" something which is outside the realm of conventional scientific proofs (Which is the only thing you'll accept)? You can't.

Ok, so you are saying that since you cannot tell if the answer is A or something else, you are just gonna go with A?

This is a rather simple question of experience vs. non-experience, and which holds more weight.

A better example would be as follows: There's a box in the middle of the room. Neither of us know what's inside. I turn to you and say that there's a clock inside, you ask me how I know and I say to you it's a clock because I can hear it ticking. You then tell me that you don't hear any ticking, that I must be delusional and that I'm wrong. So who's right? Well, no one really knows who's right, but what we do know is that my assertion is based on the fact that I can hear ticking while yours is based on the fact that you can't.

You claim that you saw god did it then? Seriously. There was nothing before the Big Bang. We only know about our universe about trillionth of a second AFTER it happened. We have no evidence about whatever it was out there before the Big Bang, but you think that god did it, so you claim god did it.

Above may be a ranting. Perhaps a better question would be "What experience?" Yeah, if you can hear a clock ticking inside a box, it can be a clock. But what experience/ knowledge do you have for god causing Big Bang/

It's goes back to an earlier point in this thread: "Does love exist?". Well, we can't exactly measure it, but people can feel it. Because we can't measure it, does that mean that those who feel it are delusional and those people who don't feel it don't because love doesn't exist? Or does it simply mean that loves exist yet isn't measurable or demonstrable and that those who haven't experienced it haven't done so not because it doesn't exist, but simply because they haven't?

Again. What is your evidence with god causing Big Bang?

What I feel you're not understanding, is that this is all dependent on how one came to the conclusion that there's a chicken in the box. Obviously, a simple guess based on nothing isn't going to cut it.

...Now, if you want to talk evidence about what's in the box, then you can just open the box and see what's inside.

So how did you came to conclusion god caused Big Bang?

Sure, we have. Science can't make value judgments concerning the morality of an action nor can it instill meaning or purpose in one's life nor can it deal with those things outside of nature. The misapplication of science works both ways.

How does morality and purpose of life have to do with all the things going on here?

 

[RedRalph]

I like him not.
And I am an atheist.

Because of his anti-Stalinist views?

 

[Yared]

Not to get embroiled in a game of semantics, but this depends on what definition you use of death. Technically, the current meaning of the word (Cessation of all brain activity) is about thirty or forty years old, give or take, though it doesn't mean that you are actually dead as you can be kept alive for prolonged periods of time. Before that, death was marked by the end of respiration, heartbeat or other bodily functions which was, and still is, reversible.

Well I guess it depends on the description provided in the bible. Either he died and remained dead in such a way that it was/is impossible to reverse in which case his resurrection is impossible or he didn't "die" in which case he never "rose from the dead" because he was never with them. If it's the latter then I don't see anything miraculous about it. Of course, they didn't have access to such medical equipment so the definition of death gets limited because even if he was brain dead, there was no way to keep him alive.

Outside of the Westboro Baptist Church, I've yet to meet anyone who wants to stone homosexuals-- Or anyone, for that matter. And I'm not so sure even they want to stone them.

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It differs from different versions (king james, new international, etc) but that's the gist.
I know few politicians would actually kill gays but I think it's hypocritical to state one to be a Christian and then cherry pick.

TRIVIA: This is where Dawkins got the "homophobic" part for that place in his book . Ya no wut I b talking bowt.

I can't say I know any more than you do.

Bummer!

But do you agree with me (and Winner ) that some parts of the bible are absolutely absurd?

*points upwards*

Hmm...

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." -
Richard Dawkins sorry this quote seemed a little appropriate. Just ignore it!

It has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with the fact that science doesn't deal with things which are, quite literally, untestable by their very nature (There's nothing to objectively measure).

If you can't objectively measure something, how can you be sure it exists? There's nothing really that makes the existence of [the Christian] God more probable than my Invisible Unicorn.

I too, can write some fancy story whose only purpose is to show the omnipresence of the Invisible Unicorn.

And I don't understand the last little quote, so you're going to have to break it down for me.

It's a modified quote by Enrico Fermi, a scientist. He said it about some guy's work. What the guy said was so vague that you couldn't prove it wrong. Just like how I can't prove you to you that your god doesn't exist outside reality and vice-versa.

 

[Smidlee]

Someone who seriously believes that a man rose from the dead is believing in something which contradicts with reality.

I would say almost everyone believes
- once there was no life on Earth
- now there is life on Earth.
Somewhere in between life arose from non-life.
- Some believe in the existence of "RNA world"
- Others believe in the Creator.

 

[Danielos]

I would say almost everyone believes
- once there was no life on Earth
- now there is life on Earth.
Somewhere in between life arose from non-life.
- Some believe in the existence of "RNA world"
- Others believe in the Creator.

After three days every cell in the body is dead and your body has started to decompose. If God would have managed to resurrect Jesus, the man would have been as good-looking, charming, eloquent and witty as the shambling, moaning zombies in "Dawn of the Dead"...