Thirith on 6/12/2007 at 14:56
Quote Posted by catbarf
He never says that he's not wrong. He says that, in his opinion, there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a God. Then, someone comes along and gives him the old Pascal's Wager argument, to which he makes a very succinct counter.
To which I call bullshit again. Both you and he make an assumption based on what that woman said: "What if you're wrong?", namely that she meant something along the lines of "I'm a Christian, and won't you feel really silly while you're burning in hell and finally realising that God exists?" That's not what the woman asked. She may have been getting at that, or she may not. In any case, Dawkins' answer isn't a succinct counter to the question as asked - it's a cheap rhetorical move. At the very least, he's making a huge assumption when he addresses her as if she obviously, and stupidly (in his opinion), believed in God. (I don't think the question would have come from an atheist, but I can easily imagine it coming from an agnostic. And as I said earlier, I believe there are a number of not-too-unreasonable counters to what he said. Yet he felt it necessary to belittle that woman on the basis of a dubious assumption and an unwillingness to actually enter into an argument.)
Edit: Dawkins is not saying he isn't wrong the way dethtoll hasn't said that fans of Joss Whedon's writing are stuck in adolescence and have execrable tastes... :p
catbarf on 6/12/2007 at 15:56
You're completely missing the point. She isn't saying 'Well God exists so you'll burn in Hell!'. She's giving him Pascal's Wager, to which he explains quite pointedly that Pascal's Wager does not apply due to the multitudes of religions out there.
SD on 6/12/2007 at 16:14
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
You can back up claims about Julius Caesar existing from multiple sources - books, coins, art.
Same as any other historical dude.
Not so much Jesus though. Indeed, many historians at the time appear to have forgotten to write anything about him at all; quite an omission when you consider this guy was walking on water and holding alfresco banquets for thousands of surprise guests.
Chimpy Chompy on 6/12/2007 at 16:33
Oh? I thought the existence of a Jewish teacher called Jesus was fairly much accepted, whatever god-related stuff people might believe, but maybe I'm assuming wrongly?
[edit]i could look it it but it's easier to just light up the FETT SIGNAL
Thirith on 6/12/2007 at 17:03
Quote Posted by catbarf
You're completely missing the point. She isn't saying 'Well God exists so you'll burn in Hell!'. She's giving him Pascal's Wager, to which he explains quite pointedly that Pascal's Wager does not apply due to the multitudes of religions out there.
At least not explicitly. She may be getting at that, but I do think that's quite an interpretive jump. "What if you're wrong?" != "Wouldn't the safe bet be to believe there is/may be a god, just in case you're wrong in believing God doesn't exist?" Even if that is what the woman meant, there is room for believing that all religions are attempts at getting at the essence of God, so it may not be about being a believer in god 1 but atheist about gods 2 to infinity. Again, Dawkins' reply makes huge assumptions, the result being that he fails to take the question seriously - and until he does so, his debunking will come across like schoolboy wit at best.
In any case, I honestly don't think we're getting anywhere arguing about Dawkins and that video. There's a lot that I agree with him about, and there's a lot where I think he's taking intellectual shortcuts and using rhetoric rather than science. Therefore I think that in part he fails to meet his own standards. That I will gladly talk about, if you or anyone is interested in. But I don't think we'll get anywhere beyond "I think Dawkins made a very good point in answer to that question" vs. "I think Dawkins isn't answering the question that's been asked, and even if, his answer is a lazy, uninformed one."
fett on 7/12/2007 at 03:05
Quote Posted by SD
Not so much Jesus though. Indeed, many historians at the time appear to have forgotten to write anything about him at all; quite an omission when you consider this guy was walking on water and holding alfresco banquets for thousands of surprise guests.
Oh please stop. You expect historians of the day to write as much about some Jewish bricklayer in bumfuck Israel as a Roman Caesar? Are you kidding me? I can't believe there are still people in the world who ride this 'Jesus never existed' thing. It's still getting bumped around from Dick Dawkins all the way down (or should I say up?) to the Western Civ 101 community college 'professor' and you kids eat it up like ice cream. From now on, people who throw this out in an intelligent conversation should be automatically lumped in with the Roswell/JFK/Illuminati conspiracy lunatics and not invited back until they have enough brain cells to read something more substantial than Dan Brown and Richard Dawkins.
Aja on 7/12/2007 at 07:03
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
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.
The answer is that "omnipotent" and "perfectly good" are only words and that God, if he does exist, is beyond all human comprehension.
I can't understand this need to justify God with science and logic. A neighbor of mine gave me a book in which the author tried to define god through science, and it just struck me as so monumentally stupid to try and "prove" God's existence by scrounging up biological and astronomical evidence. If I were a religious person, I would be content in knowing that God is beyond my knowing, and rely purely on faith. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Vasquez on 7/12/2007 at 07:23
Quote Posted by Aja
I can't understand this need to justify God with science and logic.
Neither can I. How weak in faith is a person, who desperately tries to persuade everyone to agree with his/her personal religious views?
Just as stupid IMO is the way some scientists try to "prove" that God does not exist.
Science and faith are not in conflict, because they are completely different things.
Thirith on 7/12/2007 at 08:25
Quote Posted by Aja
I can't understand this need to justify God with science and logic. A neighbor of mine gave me a book in which the author tried to define god through science, and it just struck me as so monumentally stupid to try and "prove" God's existence by scrounging up biological and astronomical evidence. If I were a religious person, I would be content in knowing that God is beyond my knowing, and rely purely on faith. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I agree with you when it comes to proving God's existence. The bit in
The God Delusion where Dawkins shoots down the 'proof' for God's existence is really like shooting fish in a barrel.
However, I understand and sympathise with the attempt to give reasons for believing - thoughtful, intelligent reasons. (Note that a reason for an individual to believe is not the same as proof for God's existence.) I find it difficult to take people seriously who don't think about their faith, who just say "Well, my parents told me to believe in God, my pastor told me to believe in God, the bible tells me to believe in God (or so my pastor says), so I believe." That's not too different from "My parents and friends tell me to hate niggers, so I hates them niggers."
SD on 7/12/2007 at 09:57
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Science and faith are not in conflict, because they are completely different things.
Wrong. "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" is a theory for the origin of human life and the universe, and as such, it deserves to take as much of a scientific hammering as any other crackpot theory.
