The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

My point was about the dogmatic hostility by the more zealous types to attack those who question certain (percieved) weaknesses of certain scientific theories.

The attacks on evolution (and life's origins) from creationists are overwhelmingly based on ignorance and deliberate suppression/ misinterpretation of the evidence and theories we have. This gross intellectual dishonesty is what is engaged with "dogmatic hostility" simply because it is repeated over and over and over despite being refuted everytime.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[misskriss 0]

http://postrapturepost.com/index.html

Just in case

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Everyone should remember that there are still plenty of things in this world that can not or have not been explained by science or religion.

Just because something cannot be explained does not mean the best explanation is God did it or any other supernatural explanation. It just means we don't understand it yet and it needs to be investigated.

You mean like "how life on Earth began"?

100 years ago we didn't understand the origin of earthquakes and tsunamis. Some societies attributed them to angry gods. 300 years ago we didn't understand lightning and thunder - most societies attributed them to angry gods. 400 years ago we didn't understand that gravity controlled the dynamics of the solar system and galaxy - many societies believed in crystal spheres placed in the heavens by gods.

Explain how incomplete (but growing) understanding of the origin of life REQUIRES the invocation of a supernatural explanation, as opposed to more scientific research.

I wasn't saying anything against scientific advancement. My point was about the dogmatic hostility by the more zealous types to attack those who question certain (percieved) weaknesses of certain scientific theories.

Incomplete understanding is not a justification for claiming the science is a fraud, and is not proof of supernatural intervention. Over the centuries as knowledge expanded, the claimed role of the supernatural has diminished. Since "past is prologue" we have every reason to think that this will continue; science did not stop with the election of G.W. Bush.

Incomplete knowledge of what happened 3 billion years ago is not evidence of the weakness of science, it is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem since we have not yet developed time travel. Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out what happened just last week.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

current (unsupported) theories....

"Unsupported"?

Jesus H. Christ...

Wait, let me rephrase that...

Okay... how did life begin on Earth?

What scientific advances have been made on this in the last 50 years?

and how many of those scientists were Christians, Jews and Muslims?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

I think Christians have killed more humans than have Poseidon followers.

Now let's compare Christians to non-religious groups. I'm sure you can guess I'm referencing those godless commies.

Wanna talk about the folks that ordered the bombing of Warsaw, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The builders of Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Does it matter if people believe there is (or isn't) a God? No, so long as people respectful to each other over this belief and are allowed to study it.

Can't be done. many beliefs in God include the subset of belief that god wants them to convert others to the same belief. If you respect their belief and let them get on with it then they will not be respecting yours - if you force them to respect your belief you will be disrespecting theirs.

Simply by stating that I am an atheist I am more or less telling all christian/ muslim/ hindu etc believers that they are wrong, and vice verca.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Does it matter if people believe there is (or isn't) a God? No, so long as people respectful to each other over this belief and are allowed to study it.

Can't be done. many beliefs in God include the subset of belief that god wants them to convert others to the same belief. If you respect their belief and let them get on with it then they will not be respecting yours - if you force them to respect your belief you will be disrespecting theirs.

Simply by stating that I am an atheist I am more or less telling all christian/ muslim/ hindu etc believers that they are wrong, and vice verca.

F**ked if you do,
F**ked if you don't.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,990]

> Jesus H Christ woman you are the most condescending poster I have ever read . . .

Your one warning. Go after the issue, not the poster.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You mean like "how life on Earth began"?
. . .
current (unsupported) theories

Just because you believe that does not make it so.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SpeedRacer 1]

I took a HUUUGE dump this morning.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does it matter if people believe there is (or isn't) a God? No, so long as people respectful to each other over this belief and are allowed to study it.

Can't be done. many beliefs in God include the subset of belief that god wants them to convert others to the same belief. If you respect their belief and let them get on with it then they will not be respecting yours - if you force them to respect your belief you will be disrespecting theirs.

Simply by stating that I am an atheist I am more or less telling all christian/ muslim/ hindu etc believers that they are wrong, and vice verca.

F**ked if you do,
F**ked if you don't.

Just my opinion. I've always thought religious tolerance was a contradiction in terms. And of course it woud be nice if everyone was respectful, but the modern world seems, if anything, to be slipping further into extremism.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,990]

>Why is this a straw man?

Because it greatly narrows his argument to the extent that it's no longer applicable to the concept of god. If he had titled his book "The myth of the personal, involved creator" then that's a valid argument - he could claim that Einstein's, Sagan's, Hawking's etc views of god were not personal, involved gods. But he tries to widen his argument to disprove the whole concept of god while "recruiting" Einstein et al to his side.

I see this often on the creationist's side of things. They will title an argument "why evolution is false" then claim that a fish cannot give birth to a human, and even biologists agree with this. Fine, but that's a straw man - intelligent researchers do not think a fish gave birth to the first human. Their essay would better be titled "why I think fish don't give birth to humans" but that accomplishes no objectives in what they perceive as a battle.

>With reference to Einstein, Dawkins is clarifying the type of god that
>he wishes to critique and is making it clear that the type of god that
>Einstein believed in is not his target, nothing wrong with that.

That's fine - but again, I think his book's title (and his own description of his position on the subject) is a bit misleading in that case.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think Christians have killed more humans than have Poseidon followers.

Now let's compare Christians to non-religious groups. I'm sure you can guess I'm referencing those godless commies.

Wanna talk about the folks that ordered the bombing of Warsaw, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The builders of Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau?

I see. Since that "who killed more" angle just ain't gonna cut it, you want to redirect to a tit-for-tat exchange.

How about the look at death tolls for the last 100 years???

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

My point was about the dogmatic hostility by the more zealous types to attack those who question certain (percieved) weaknesses of certain scientific theories.

The attacks on evolution (and life's origins) from creationists are overwhelmingly based on ignorance and deliberate suppression/ misinterpretation of the evidence and theories we have.

What attacks of the origin of life are based on ignorance and deliberate suppression/ misinterpretation of the evidence and theories?

What is being suppressed and/or misinterpreted on this subject?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Everyone should remember that there are still plenty of things in this world that can not or have not been explained by science or religion.

Just because something cannot be explained does not mean the best explanation is God did it or any other supernatural explanation. It just means we don't understand it yet and it needs to be investigated.

You mean like "how life on Earth began"?

100 years ago we didn't understand the origin of earthquakes and tsunamis. Some societies attributed them to angry gods. 300 years ago we didn't understand lightning and thunder - most societies attributed them to angry gods. 400 years ago we didn't understand that gravity controlled the dynamics of the solar system and galaxy - many societies believed in crystal spheres placed in the heavens by gods.

Explain how incomplete (but growing) understanding of the origin of life REQUIRES the invocation of a supernatural explanation, as opposed to more scientific research.

I wasn't saying anything against scientific advancement. My point was about the dogmatic hostility by the more zealous types to attack those who question certain (percieved) weaknesses of certain scientific theories.

Incomplete understanding is not a justification for claiming the science is a fraud, and is not proof of supernatural intervention. Over the centuries as knowledge expanded, the claimed role of the supernatural has diminished. Since "past is prologue" we have every reason to think that this will continue; science did not stop with the election of G.W. Bush.

Incomplete knowledge of what happened 3 billion years ago is not evidence of the weakness of science, it is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem since we have not yet developed time travel. Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out what happened just last week.

So asking questions is bad?

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

I am an agnostic instead of an athiest because I can not currently understand using logic and reasoning why anything exists. (Anyone care to try to explain to me using logic and reasoning why anything exists?)

Everyone should remember that there are still plenty of things in this world that can not or have not been explained by science or religion.

If you want to get technical, there is no such thing as agnostic. There are only two ways of thinking, athiest and thiest, absence of belief in god or belief in god. Because an agnostic does not technically believe in god, he/she is actually an athiest.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[wmw999 2,439]

Depends on how you define "atheist." Believing there is no god is very different from not believing in God as defined by the standard religions.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Because it greatly narrows his argument to the extent that it's no longer applicable to the concept of god. If he had titled his book "The myth of the personal, involved creator" then that's a valid argument - he could claim that Einstein's, Sagan's, Hawking's etc views of god were not personal, involved gods. But he tries to widen his argument to disprove the whole concept of god while "recruiting" Einstein et al to his side.

I think for the large majority of believers in the world today (however much or little they may have thought about the subject) 'God' does mean an intelligent creator, with a distinct personality. For the vast majority of human history this is what god has meant.

When we step outside this definition we run into all kinds of problems, some people will say, for instance "I believe in god, I think God is the universe." I don't even know what that means, let alone how to argue against it! The universe is obviously there, but I don't accept it as God. Similarly when people say "God is this force/ that particle that underpins x theory" I honestly don't understand what idea of God that is, or what use it has beyond semantics.

To collect, catalogue and refute these multitudes of new definitions of God would take a lifetime of study and a book larger than anyone is going to be willing to read.

NB. I haven't read God Delusion and don't really plan to, so this is not a defense of what Dawkins does or does not say, but rather my own thoughts on the matter.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

Quote

it is quite laughable to compare atheism to some sort of dogmatic belief system.

Why? Take a look at what is going on in many schools nowadays. The mere mention of religion brings up lawsuits. The secular movement is seeking to eliminate all reference to God in institutions.


I agree that policy or education should not be based upon the bible. I also agree, however, that people should be afforded the opportunity to pray if they so choose. Sure, other kids may be bothered by those children saying grace before lunch or praying to God to help them pass the algebra test, but why are they so damned against it?

Again, I'm not religious. I'd call myself atheist. But the secular movement seemingly seeks to destroy all religion and religious belief. Dawkins himself said his goal is to make every reader atheist. To me, that is dogmatic.

The suggestion is far less laughable than you may think. By applying reason and logic to your statements, without the subjective feelings that you have (and not ignoring the darn good reasons for having these feelings), there is much to be learned about the similarities between the religious bible thumpers trying to shove religion down your throat and the secular movement trying to shove atheism down people's throats.

There are a couple reasons why god and religion are so taboo in schools. One is the seperation of religion and state. If you are going to a private school, like a catholic one, then it's of course fine, but if you are going to a public school, religion should not be involved. Second, you need to think of everyone there. Say that 90 percent of the school is one religion, and the other 10 percent is made up of some other religions. The 90 percent may pray at lunch or whatever, but the 10 percent of lesser religions at the school may feel uncomfortable to show thier religion at the school due to being the minority or (remember how cruel kids can be) being made fun of and ridiculed by the majority. Just my opinion of course.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

Does it matter that people believed the world was flat? No, so long as people were respectful to each other over this belief and were allowed to study it.

Does it matter if people believe there is (or isn't) a God? No, so long as people are respectful to each other over this belief and are allowed to study it.

Doesn't usually happen that way, When Galelao (not sure on the spelling) proclaimed that the earth revolved around the sun and not everything revolved around the world like most people thought, the Catholic church had him thrown in jail for blasphemy until he decided to change his mind. A few hundred years later the Catholic church made a formal apology.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[billvon 2,990]

> some people will say, for instance "I believe in god, I think God is
> the universe." I don't even know what that means, let alone how to
> argue against it!

Why do you have to? If you choose to study it, then you might decide "hey, this is a good idea" or "this is a load of shit" - and thus accept it or not. But until then, why try to fit people to that particular pigeonhole?

[billvon 2,990]

>Because an agnostic does not technically believe in god, he/she is
>actually an athiest.

An agnostic is unsure. He/she may believe in the general concept of god, but have serious reservations about some aspects of his existence, to the point that a theologian might define him as "not really believing in god." But he himself feels he does, which is the important part.

Plus which, there are deists, pantheists, theists, agnostics and atheists. Their views on god are all quite different. To try to fit them into two categories is like the classic "you're with us or against us" - not a very useful strategy when it comes to understanding.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Following your logic would tend to leave only Buddhism and Wiccan as worthy or respect.

I simply asked a hypothetical question that you just didn't answer. I also did not mention "christians" specifically, so I wonder where your head is in this response. Methinks you're stuck. Enjoy your tangent

Beliefs are interesting, but actions are better. I don't think I'd 'automatically' disrespect someone just because they have some arbitrary belief. If that was the case, everyone that posts here wouldn't deserve respect. (ah ha, ...... I just figured out the character of about 5 people here....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

If you want to get technical, there is no such thing as agnostic. There are only two ways of thinking, athiest and thiest, absence of belief in god or belief in god. Because an agnostic does not technically believe in god, he/she is actually an athiest.

No...

Agnostics are undecided between belief and non-belief. An athiest believes that there is no supreme being. A theist believes that there is a supreme being. Agnostics believe that there is a possibility of a supreme being, but acknowledge that they do not have enough evidence to decide either way.

Agnostics believe that both theists and athiests have made up their minds prematurely, because there is not enough evidence to make a decision about the issue with any reasonable amount of certainty.

What it comes down to is that agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, whereas theism/atheism are statements about belief. An athiest does not believe, while an agnostic does not know.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think Christians have killed more humans than have Poseidon followers.

Now let's compare Christians to non-religious groups. I'm sure you can guess I'm referencing those godless commies.

Wanna talk about the folks that ordered the bombing of Warsaw, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The builders of Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau?

I see. Since that "who killed more" angle just ain't gonna cut it, you want to redirect to a tit-for-tat exchange.

How about the look at death tolls for the last 100 years???

Why did you start with a comparison with non-religious groups then? Whatever Mao and Stalin did, it was not in the name of religion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.