SD on 5/12/2007 at 18:08
Of course he's considered that he may be wrong. As a scientist, you are always open to that possibility. But there's no evidence whatsoever to support him being wrong, in which case, it's safe to dismiss the notion.
jtr7 on 5/12/2007 at 18:09
A major clue that a person may be wrong:
He/she thinks he/she is more right about many things than others.
Which is most of us.
Thirith on 5/12/2007 at 18:23
SD: If Dawkins was going about this scientifically, he'd give a fair hearing to every argument why someone may or may not believe in God. He doesn't. He picks his opponents for the weakness of their argument, and then he extends those weak arguments to the entirety of people who have some sort of religious faith. That's *bad* science, if you ask me.
paloalto90 on 5/12/2007 at 18:53
Quote Posted by catbarf
(
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg)
All I can say is OWNED.
And nonetheless, it's a valid point. In the words of Stephen Roberts: 'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.'
So the logic is if some concepts of God are wrong,all concepts of God are wrong? Doesn't work in my book.
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 18:54
Quote Posted by Aja
God, by definition, must be two things. He must be omnipotent, and he must be perfectly good.
But there is clearly much pain and suffering in the world. Therefore, God is either not omnipotent, not perfectly good, or not existent. And what would be the point in worshiping a god who wasn't good and all-powerful?
I have been thinking about this a lot and have not found a satisfactory answer yet. One thing I've started wondering about is the idea that God is limited
by perfection. There are some things he cannot do
because he is perfect. Lying would be an obvious example.
Quote Posted by SD
... no evidence whatsoever to support him being wrong ...
You may not have come accross evidence which you find convincing, but that does not mean there is no evidence; people would not believe if there were no reason at all to do so.
Quote Posted by fett
The OT revolves around God protecting Israel because it was through them that he would bring forth a Messiah to save mankind from eternal
death. It's a very 'ends justifies the means' mentality that makes wonder why an omniscient, all-powerful, loving deity can't find another way to accomplish his all important plan.
Half the time it's the Israelites which are on the receiving end, so I don't think that can be the main reason.
One suggestion which I have heard is this: If everyone deserves to die anyway, then the question isn't "why does God let some people die" but rather "why does God not kill everyone". While that does not answer the question "why do things go wrong at all", it does clarify the context in which the OT operates.
jay pettitt on 5/12/2007 at 19:09
I'm not aware of any positive, observable evidence for the existence of a God. Do tell.
Quote Posted by paloalto90
So the logic is if some concepts of God are wrong,all concepts of God are wrong? Doesn't work in my book.
That's not the point. My fingers can think of 7 wrong answers to 4+4=? The point is to beg the question 'what makes my beliefs right where others are wrong?'
SD on 5/12/2007 at 19:09
Quote Posted by paloalto90
So the logic is if some concepts of God are wrong,all concepts of God are wrong? Doesn't work in my book.
No, the logic is that if there are one million concepts of God (a conservative estimate), then even assuming a deity or deities exists, the chances of any concept being correct is one in a million.
The point is that if a Christian rejects the notion of Zeus or Thor
et al, then he can't have any complaints if an atheist adds Yahweh to that staggeringly long list.
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
You may not have come accross evidence which you find convincing, but that does not mean there is no evidence; people would not believe if there were no reason at all to do so.
No, there really
is no evidence. If you want to take something that isn't evidence and call it evidence, go right ahead, but calling a sheep a duck doesn't mean it can fly.
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 19:17
Quote Posted by SD
No, there really
is no evidence. If you want to take something that isn't evidence and call it evidence, go right ahead, but calling a sheep a duck doesn't mean it can fly.
You can keep on saying 'there is no evidence' but that does not make it so. I could say there is no evidence that man landed on the moon but plenty of people seem to think there is.
Besides, what's the difference between 'there is no evidence' and 'I have never come across any evidence' ?
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
Quote Posted by fett
Also, on the subject of hell: It is not primarily defined in the bible as a place of physical anguish, brimstone, etc. - most of this idea is a modern extrapolation based on a few scriptures and Dante's Inferno. The concept of hell as understood in the context of scripture is a spiritual separation from god for all eternity - thus a place of mental, psychological, emotional, and spiritual suffering. Jesus speaks of 'the lake of fire' and 'outer darkness' but it is typically in parables which are not useful for forming doctrine (though people often do so for their own purposes).
As a follow-on point, the concept of hell depends on where you look in the bible. The old testament simply speaks of the land of the dead where all people went (good or bad), whereas Jesus (when he mentions what we translate as hell) talks about Gehenna, which was the local refuse-tip outside Jerusalem - people took their rubbish there to be burnt. The whole idea of hell being a place of eternal suffering etc is not specifically mentioned in the bible (afaik) and is a more modern interpretation, mainly from Dante's stuff, as Fett mentions. So "hell" is more of a concept than an actual place, hence Jesus' talking about seperation from God etc.
The stuff about the lake of fire etc, which fett mentions, is in Revelation, which pretty much uses figurative language throughout and is not meant to be taken literally.
Interesting thoughts. The idea of hell as an on-going never-ending pain is something which I have the most difficulty with. One reason is that there would never be closure, there would never come a time when everything is as God wanted it to be. That seems very odd.
Thirith on 5/12/2007 at 19:18
Quote Posted by SD
The point is that if a Christian rejects the notion of Zeus or Thor
et al, then he can't have any complaints if an atheist adds Yahweh to that staggeringly long list.
Thing is, even if you have a point there, Dawkins still doesn't answer the question.
"What if you're wrong?"
"I'm not wrong. And you're stupid."
That's what it boils down to.
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 19:28
Quote Posted by catbarf
In the words of Stephen Roberts: 'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.'
That's a valid point but ... doesn't that mean that atheists are just as intolerant as believers? :joke:
