The God Delusion - TTLG Forums

SD on 16/1/2007 at 16:43

Quote Posted by Thirith

Stronts: Don't be silly. Absolute certainty about something that you quite simply can't be certain about - that's what I'm talking about here. I'm not saying that one should doubt natural laws such as thermodynamics or gravity. Practically by definition, the question of God is one of metaphysics, not physics. Look at that as a cheap copout if you wish.

It is a cheap copout, because God's existence goes directly against the law of evolution by natural selection, and I'm certain that evolution exists. Intelligences don't just exist fully-formed off the bat, like God is supposed to have done, they evolve gradually.

Quote:

You obviously don't see that Dawkins is out to antagonise those who believe, but frankly, I see that as a failure on your part to even consider any validity in the others' perspective.

There is no validity to the God perspective though! He's as probable as fairies and unicorns. Why am I the only person here who grasps this?

Quote:

Whether the idea of God is delusional or not, even if God is simply a powerful fiction: you don't dismantle a powerful fiction by telling those people who subscribe to that fiction that they're all stupid.

He's not saying people are stupid, he's pointing out why they're wrong. Heavens above, if he thought that religious people were by their very nature stupid, then he wouldn't count so many bishops among his circle of friends.

Quote:

Out of interest: Why are you a vegetarian?

Because I like animals. Not in the interspecies erotica sense, I hasten to add.

Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer

Again, tell me how the CURRENT President of the United States having a view on athiests constitutes a threat to humanity?

Atheists in the USA are scared to "come out" because of the climate there. I'd say being viewed as a second class citizen by the majority was an infringement of their civil rights. Does it seriously not worry you that powerful people are saying that atheists should be stripped of their rights?

Quote:

Plus, what's the statistics on a Muslim President, or a Catholic President, or an agnostic President? I'm curious, since you place so much weight in that simple statistic and presume so much further from there (unless it is all backed up by your as yet absent and silent "research").

Don't take that sarcastic tone with me, I never invent statistics. The figure is from a Gallup poll, and it's actually 49%, or was in 1999. The latest Newsweek poll shows only 37% of Americans would elect an otherwise well-qualified atheist. I forget the specific figures for a Muslim or Catholic president, but they were at least higher than those for a Mormon president (79%). 95% would vote for a black president.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

waht? Seriously? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if Bush had a personal bias against atheists, but has he actually publically expressed this?

It was George HW Bush who said it when he was president, not George W, though I'd not be surprised if he felt the same way.

Quote Posted by Convict

Well according to someone rather fundamentalist (Paul), Christianity is falsifiable - if you find Jesus' body you disprove Christianity.

You don't need to find his body even - you just need to demonstrate that it is impossible for a virgin to give birth.

Oh lordy, virgins giving birth, I mean this is the level of pernicious nonsense we're dealing with here - how on earth can a rational person not get worked up about this sort of thing? People say Dawkins is offensive - I'm in awe of the level of restraint he's able to show in his writing. It just beggars belief how otherwise intelligent people can believe this stuff.

Celtic_Thief on 16/1/2007 at 17:05

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

When George HW Bush can come out(20 years ago) with statements like "This is one nation under God, I don't even think atheists should be considered citizens", maybe that doesn't worry you, but then it doesn't affect you, does it?

Fixed.

Vivian on 16/1/2007 at 17:07

EVOLUTION IS A GODDAMN THEORY STOP CALLING IT A LAW, it gets me a little bothered when people are 'all for science and stuff' and get it half-cocked. Laws are for physics. Biologists are lucky if we even get rules. Besides, I bet you believe in a ton of stuff just because people told you about it. Elementary particles? Quantum wierdness? Even something relatively easy to spot like microevolution, I would be very suprised if you've had firsthand observation of it. You make rational decisions and stuff, sure, but if enough people you trust tell you that something happened, you believe it happened. This behaviour is common to both religion and science, and it would be nerve-shatteringly impossible to do ANY scientific research without implicit trust (or belief, if you will).... or, you know what, I'm going to shut up.

Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 17:17

Stronts, perhaps you can answer one thing for me: What came before the Big Bang (if that is how the universe started)? What came before the thing that came before the BB? What came before that?

It seems reasonable to me to think that the question for a beginning may be answered by something outside, or above, the system. If that is the case, this 'something' may not be subject to all of the rules within the system. Feel free to tell me where my thinking breaks down, Strontium; so far I've seen conviction on your part but few convincing arguments.

Chimpy Chompy on 16/1/2007 at 18:12

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

God only clashes with the laws of this physical universe if he's a being of this physical universe. Which, according to most faiths, he isn't.

Science isn't interested in god, it isn't making claims either way in his existence. He's off the radar, he's not relevant. Trying to use science to disprove him\it\whatever is just as invalid as bringing creationism into science class. And just to be clear I mean claims regarding the actual existence of such a thing, not the Great Flood or Jesus rising from the dead or whatever.

Mingan on 16/1/2007 at 18:13

In answer to Thirith: While it is reasonable to think about what was 'before' the Big Bang, and that there was something before, but it is also reasonable to say that there was 'nothing' before. 'Nothing' as in nothing except the superdense singularity. In fact, even that's not true; there was no time nor space before the Big Bang, as far as we (and I) understand it.

For scientists, the 'before' is meaningless; it is outside the realm of sciences, because it is outside of this universe. It is a question of metaphysics, and no one will ever agree on this, because nothing can be known of it. Our physical laws (as imperfect as they come), are irrelevant when outside of our dimensions. Unless there are other universes out there, and there's a way to get there, both of which is possible but unlikely.

Finally, I think that it is of no import to bother about something that I cannot access, so I live in the 'today' instead of living in expectation of something that may happen when I die. If you choose to believe, it's fine by me. Just don't push your beliefs on me.

fett on 16/1/2007 at 18:15

Quote Posted by Mingan

For scientists, the 'before' is meaningless; it is outside the realm of sciences, because it is outside of this universe.

HERE'S an apple. HERE'S an orange. Both of these things are not like the other.

paloalto on 16/1/2007 at 18:18

There are many factors that govern the power to heal.It is not magic nor is it as simple as saying a prayer.Jesus was granted more than usual power to heal because he proved he would not use it to harm others as were some of his disciples.
With a psychosis your more than likely dealing with posession which is a tough nut to crack.
I know science relegates entities and demons to the dark ages but modern science nor psychology has cured mental illness except to administer a drug or routine to let the person cope with their affliction.This is not a bad thing as it is better to have a functioning person than not.Priests who have dealt with posession and the documented observed physical phenomena would probably argue for their existence.
From a personal standpoint I have been addicted to pornography off and on through my life.This addiction ia also partly entity driven as the entity increases the desire.Others may say that is a copout.So be it.Even though I intellectually understand that pornography is damaging to me when I get to the point of breaking free I choose to participate in it.By my free willNo prayer will cure me of my own choice.So the question is do they really want to do the work to change their state of mind even though they say they do?
Part of it is that I fear I will lose something by giving it up.
But not even Jesus can violate a persons free will.
There is also the factor of whether a persons karma will allow him to be healed.As many afflictions are karmically driven.
It is simply not as simple as the Bible makes you think it is.
Main topic.
Does Dawkins ascribe any positive aspects to religion?

ignatios on 16/1/2007 at 18:26

If you want anyone to read that you'll have to put spaces after the periods.

Actually, leave 'em out.

Anyway. Dawkins asserts that "God exists" is a scientific hypothesis: it isn't, at least not the way most people mean it. He's either out of his philosophical depth, or he chooses not to jump in for the sake of an elaborate and obvious piss-take.

Either way, I can see why you like him so much, Stronts.

Gingerbread Man on 16/1/2007 at 18:30

Quote Posted by Mingan

For scientists, the 'before' is meaningless; it is outside the realm of sciences, because it is outside of this universe.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that science is only about those things which are demonstrable, verifiable, and measurable. There are vast (rather spooky) back alleys of science which lead exclusively to the development of conceptual frameworks we can use to understand how something can be outside of it all.

The theoretical aspects of science are -- at least in my opinion -- incalculably more important to "science" than the empirical stuff. Anyone can measure onions. It takes a certain sort of person to realise that length can be measured in the first place.