BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

"Do you really think that casting nubile maidens into a volcano to appease the goddess who dwelt there was preferable to today's belief in a supreme deity?"

Depends on whether I was lurking in the volcano at the time...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:19 PM

"Sorry, Steve.   Atheism conveys more of a degree of certainty than is justified.

By the way, if you think the human mind can in fact know if there is a God or gods--a subject on which by definition there is no proof-- I'd have to say your arrogance is quite striking.   Just as that of religious fundamentalists--to which your attitude is indeed the perfect flip-side.   

Which is not surprising. What a surprise you do not acknowledge it."

In your blind quest to shout me down, Ron, you fail to take the elementary step of actually reading what I've typed. Atheism conveys no certainty at all. No atheist worth his or her salt will ever tell you that there's definitely no God. He simply can't be disproven, any more thsn that cosmic teapot can be disproven, and we're honest about that. On the other hand, the religiosity that you're so keen to defend is absolutely riddled with the arrogance of fake certainty. Why, you even get little kids to parrot things like "Our Father, who art in heaven..." - no sign of equivocation there! Not much room for doubt! You have it arse about face. It's religion that's replete with unsupportable, irrational certainty. We atheists tell it like it almost certainly is. Get the "almost" there, Ron? As a religious man, you probably don't. Close your eyes and join your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

"Atheism was the only sense for millions of years until you believers, you Johnny-come-latelys, showed up! We did muddle through reasonably well even without you before that, remember. Better, probably." SS

It is quite likely that you are being hyperbolic but I feel like I want to respond to this statement anyhow.

By all accounts and judging by long-found relics, long before there was religion in the organized sense, certainly before Judaism Christianity, superstitious fear was rampant. Do you feel that blaming or crediting one's state of mind brought about the destruction of a village was a healthy state of affairs? Do you really think that casting nubile maidens into a volcano to appease the goddess who dwelt there was preferable to today's belief in a supreme deity?

Methnks life today has gotten much tamer and safer than that of a thousand years ago, give or take a thousand.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:12 PM

Is then the difference down to atheists saying 'I require proof' and agnostics saying 'there cannot be any proof'?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM

"No surprise, then, that Darwin and Einstein, for instance, were agnostics, not atheists."

Show us where either of these blokes ever showed their hand. You know, really said it, and not some tortuous interpretation of yours of out-of-context quotes!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM

Sorry, Steve.   Atheism conveys more of a degree of certainty than is justified.

By the way, if you think the human mind can in fact know if there is a God or gods--a subject on which by definition there is no proof-- I'd have to say your arrogance is quite striking.   Just as that of religious fundamentalists--to which your attitude is indeed the perfect flip-side.   

Which is not surprising. What a surprise you do not acknowledge it.

And it's also a blazingly clear reason why discourse with you is likely to be a black hole of time--just as it is with religious fundamentalists.    A conclusion I am likely to reach rather soon.

Reminds me of Henry Ford:   "You can have any color Ford you want, as long as it's black."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:56 PM

Well, I cross-posted with you there, Ron. Having read those dictionary definitions, followed by my post, I suspect that you need to get yourself a more reliable source. Atheists neither believe that nor do they deny stuff. We think that you have an interesting notion but it isn't one we feel is particularly exciting, still less plausible. We might be more inclined to listen were you able to produce evidence for your God. It's a reasonable and oft-repeated request that, sadly, never gets fulfilled. Until it does we'll just carry on as normal. There you have it. Atheism in a nutshell. No hint of that worrisome agnosticism there!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:42 PM

Yes Ron, I looked them up too. I'm trying to see clearly, not muddy the water. Agnosticism does indeed make more sense, but only if you assume the atheist position is unshakable by proof, which I maintain it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:41 PM

"Also, as I understand it, the bus ads are not in fact "atheist ads".   The word 'probably' is used.   That makes it agnostic, not atheist."

No it doesn't. Atheists are realists. We understand that there cannot be proof of the non-existence of God. Even Dawkins thinks that. To say that God definitely doesn't exist would be like saying that the cosmic teapot definitely doesn't exist. You simply can't say it, even though the likelihood of the existence of either is vanishingly small. The atheist says that the upshot of this is that God and cosmic teapots can, in effect, be totally disregarded. Neither is a notion that can even remotely influence the way we live our lives (except for all that ubiquitous iconography rubbing off - believe it or not, we atheists are only human). We have better things to concern ourselves with. An agnostic is a completely different animal. They believe that there is a real possibility that God exists and that nothing currently known can prove him one way or the other. They are fence-sitters. Actually, there are probably very few of them. Most so-called agnostics are probably people who simply don't give a bugger one way or the other.   

"Agnosticism makes perfect sense.   Atheism makes no sense--as well as being the worst thing to ever happen to humanity."

Atheism was the only sense for millions of years until you believers, you Johnny-come-latelys, showed up! We did muddle through reasonably well even without you before that, remember. Better, probably.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:30 PM

Gee, I can't tell you how surprised I am that some of our delightful atheists want to muddy the water on the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

It's getting a bit boring--in fact I've dealt with it before--say about 500 posts ago or so.

But if somebody were in fact interested in distinguishing between the two, there is in fact an aid which could be used. It's called a dictionary.

Webster's New World:

atheism:   the belief that there is no God or denial that God or gods exist.

agnosticism:   the belief that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.

It's pretty clear which position makes more sense.


No surprise, then, that Darwin and Einstein, for instance, were agnostics, not atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:23 PM

"My argument is that it is rational to believe because it is personally beneficial."

And my argument is that it's irrational to not look at all those people who win through in life without God and to consider how they have possibly managed it. If you can see that there are two routes through the rocky road of life, one with God (burdensome, what with all that ceremony, dogma, commitments, family pressures, mythology, threat of hellfire and bogus tradition) and one without (completely free of all aforementioned burdens but every bit as effective), and you choose the God route, you are indeed being irrational. Stop talking as if there's no alternative. Of course, organised religion force-feeds its followers with the false notion that there are no alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM

Being a staunch Dumptyist, I'm of the opinion that words ultimately mean what the user intends them to mean whether we like it or not, but I'm not entirely clear just what is meant by atheism and agnosticism here. I can't imagine a sane atheist who would not be persuaded by clear evidential proof, yet such a person seems to be classed here as an agnostic. Distinguishing between the two using the criterion of willingness to believe looks rather meaningless to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

Re:   "atheist ads":

For my money the ads are pointless.    I don't care what somebody puts on the side of a bus.   It's faintly amusing, and absurd for anybody to get bent out of shape about it. I note that in fact some religious people have no objection to them. It is starkly different from "The God Delusion".    Corresponding thread would be "The God Improbability". That is not a value judgement, as "delusion" is.

Words mean something--even if some Mudcat atheists don't seem to recognize that fact.

Also, as I understand it, the bus ads are not in fact "atheist ads".   The word "probably" is used.   That makes it agnostic, not atheist.

Agnosticism makes perfect sense.   Atheism makes no sense--as well as being the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.

You asked for my 2 cents.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM

predictable responses of total intolerance to an alternative view .i shall be away most of this week.maybe catch up later though it,s hard to debate with people who just make assertions and accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 04:47 PM

Mrrzy,

I'm too tired to discuss the meaning of the word "rational" with you. But I believe the definition I have been using must be more accurate than yours.

Actually all of these definitions support my arguments better than yours. My argument is that it is rational to believe because it is personally beneficial.

ra·tion·al
   /ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3.
being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4.
endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5.
of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6.
proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7.
Mathematics .
a.
capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b.
(of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8.
Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

I see nobody has answered with any rational evidence for deity.

I do see many people having reasons to believe in their deity. None ofof those reasons, however, are data-based.

So although yes, billions believe in deity, and yes, those same billions find it "better" to do so, there is still no rational reason to posit the existence of deity.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM

You don't mean josep, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

I don't think ID is a product of the highly irrational. It is produced by the highly cynical who make a very good living from it.

Joesp. "Flock of Dodos" if you rent it will give you the other side of the argument in a light and entertaining way. You will be surprised at who the film maker calls Dodos and you will learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

I have to agree with Steve Shaw about Creation Science. There is no science in it. If you understood the science you would know that.

Creation Science. I just Genesis dressed up with scientific-(ish) lingo and anyone, anyone, ANYONE who says that he agrees with it who was awarded a degree in science from a reputable university is lying or insane.

Josep,

If you can't take the time to write properly, I don't feel inclined to read what you write. If you are worried about your typing then be more concise, write and format what write with respect to those reading.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM

There is no such thing as creation science or a creation scientist. And creationism/intelligent design is clearly utter nonsense and it isn't unconstructive to say so. It happens to be true. They are inventions of the highly-irrational. And there is nothing ironic in the fact that I enjoy sacred music or cathedrals with amazing architecture. These things are as fully a part of my heritage as they are of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM

jack-saying that creation science is clearly nonsence,is hardly constructive ,as is the link to a trailer ridiculing ID.frankly i was surprised at you resorting to this,when you usually have reasoned arguments.no,i have not read darwin et al,which creation scientist did you read before pronouncing it nonsence?.as to grammer,i already posted my slowness typing so i am not changing that im afraid.read if you wish or ignore if you wish.most of my previous post was to ,and in answer to johns enquiry anyway.
steve-asking about the need for the virgin birth and the resurrection-shall i explain the gospel again ?!
i dont see why asking if there is a creation why there should not be a creator.
again you put words in my mouth which i did not say.i am not claiming our christian heritage as only for christians.i am glad you find something agreeable in it .i just found it ironic,and was only making a good humoured jibe-no offence intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM

Ron Davies, what's your opinion of the atheist advertisements that have drawn so much heat lately, the ones that encourage people to do without religion? Are you one of the many people who has spoken out against them, accusing the atheists of rudeness and "being a religion" for putting them up?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:59 AM

Amos, I'd like to second that motion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:05 AM

I think it is perfectly possible for a pure atheist to enjy the beauty in the BEatitudes or the applicable Commandments and decide they were good principles, and live his life accordingly, without having to take up any of the clutter and luggage. Good ideas are like that. You can recognize them through the power of your own perception, and apply them if you will through the exercise of your own integrity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:12 AM

accusing "religion of being arrogant enough to flaunt its iconography in all our faces..."

I don't see how the poster can possibly stagger through life with this terrible burden.

The poster might possibly want to be aware that Kendall might come by to warn him that there is a $5 fine for whining. Don't know what that is in GBP these days, but I hope the poster can afford it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:24 AM

The people who allegedly need the crutches have been thrown them by religious leaders and told they can't do without them. They are not advised by those leaders to look around at the people who have won through (and who have sound "moral codes") without them to see how you can gain strength by standing on your own two feet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:08 AM

I'm not laughing, Jack, and I'm not disputing that it suits some. Nor am I claiming to have extra strength, I don't think. People differ, that's all. Each to his own.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM

Smokey, Its not a laughing matter. If you are strong enough not to need that crutch, bully for you. But a lot of people do need it and are grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:23 PM

I wouldn't say all Christians use their faith as a crutch, but I regard the (what I would call) 'non-religious' commandments as no more than common sense - they don't need religion to be credible. The Church needs that element of common sense in there to be able to sell its more 'supernatural' aspects to a wide enough clientele.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:07 PM

>>Is not obeying the commandments (the Christian's rudder) the price payed for receiving the crutch? (The relief provided by faith)

It seems to be for some, but not everyone. <<

I meant that the above applied to Christians, of course if you do not want the "crutch" then I would imagine the commandments are not a concern.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

"I've read some of your thoughts on this thread. You have consistently lumped one Christian in with all and made your comments accordingly. You complain about things people have not said rather than addressing what they have said. You consistently avoid tough questions by addressing trivia like grammar and spelling or which of your posted names is used."

I'd like you to show me where I've done that lumping, please. I'd also like you to demonstrate where I've criticised people for what they have not said. As for ducking questions, well I don't know how many times I've posted to this thread by now but I've tried to stay focused. Just once I railed at someone's accusations of my poor English when his was laughably worse, and I think I might have asked Pete, along with several others, to just try a little punctuation and spacing now and again, a perfectly reasonable request to someone who is apparently being lazy to the point of rudeness in the way he posts. Pick out a couple of posts out of many dozens all you like, but all that shows is that you've run out of ideas and now wish to resort to petty matters. And I have only one posting name and always have had, so I don't know what that particular bit of your litany is supposed to refer to. Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

"i read literature that demonstrated the absurdity of evolution -that is, macro evolution .as far as i know there are no intermediate forms-at least as proven so.though evolutionary scientists aplenty ,there are many scientists that disagree and present scientific reasons for their dissention .even if you are an evolutionist a first cause somehow got it started,but for me a creator is the most reasonable.creation.com has lots of science on the subject,though rubbished by atheists."

You're clutching at straws. Darwin's simple explanation of evolution by natural selection explains the whole of life on earth in a way which can be expressed in a single sentence. Nothing in his theory needs extra explanation. It takes nothing for granted. It uses only evidence. Yet here you are trying to bolt on a Godly first cause, one which is so complex that we'll never be able to explain it, let alone actually get any evidence for it, which we can't and never will be able to. It's a cop-out, Pete. The onus is on you to try to justify this intellectual dereliction (there's no way of putting it any more kindly than that). Oh, and if you actually take the trouble to read your Darwin, you'll find that he addresses the issue of the alleged lack of intermediates most elegantly. That one's belly-up, I'm afraid.

"having established for myself that God is creator and the bible is trustworthy,it is no problem believing in the virgin birth and resurrection."

Where's your evidence that the Bible is trustworthy? Why do you really *want* to believe in the completely unnecessary and patronising myth of the virgin birth? And wasn't Jesus already good enough for you without the jiggerypokery of an alleged resurrection? Why do you need that?

"steve-interesting you being affronted by all these churches-did,nt i read somewhere that you like to visit them[historical heritage],not to mention an interest in religious classical music?!"

I didn't say I was affronted, did I. I merely accused religion of being arrogant enough to flaunt its iconography in all our faces, whatever our creed or none. But architecture and art is as much my heritage as it is yours. I think you'd rather like to me say that I want all cathedrals demolished. Sorry, can't oblige there. Exactly the same with my religious music. Why, only this afternoon I was singing along lustily with the fugue at the end of the Gloria of Mozart's C minor Mass. Annoying bugger, aren't I? Would you Christians like to claim it exclusively for yourselves?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM

Is not obeying the commandments (the Christian's rudder) the price payed for receiving the crutch? (The relief provided by faith)

It seems to be for some, but not everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:15 PM

>>jack-would you care to adequately inform me?

No I wouldn't but if you were to read the science itself an not the criticisms of it you might have a different opinion.

Flock of Dodos is a good place to start if you want to know what evolutionary biologists actually think.

This is clearly nonsense,

>>>i read literature that demonstrated the absurdity of evolution -that is, macro evolution .as far as i know there are no intermediate forms-at least as proven so.though evolutionary scientists aplenty ,there are many scientists that disagree and present scientific reasons for their dissention .even if you are an evolutionist a first cause somehow got it started,<<<

And at the risk of sounding like Steve Shaw, I think you would be taken a little more seriously if you were to make an effort to use proper punctuation and capitalization.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM

hello john.way back on this thread i did mention the reasons why i turned from adolescent atheist, to mental assent, to christian,though not in much detail-no one was that genuinely interested [as you profess to be]
the process was both spiritual and reasoned persuasion.of the latter the militant atheists would obviously argue against ,but i found it convincing enough to continue at church till i was ready to put faith in Christ.
i read literature that demonstrated the absurdity of evolution -that is, macro evolution .as far as i know there are no intermediate forms-at least as proven so.though evolutionary scientists aplenty ,there are many scientists that disagree and present scientific reasons for their dissention .even if you are an evolutionist a first cause somehow got it started,but for me a creator is the most reasonable.creation.com has lots of science on the subject,though rubbished by atheists.
the 2nd thing was bible prophecy.i read of cities and nations that fell according to prediction .old testament predictions of Christ referring to his birth,life,death and ressurection.of course i cannot claim these are indisputable-the militant atheists are committed to dispute any evidence!they are entitled to do so but i trust it goes some way as answer to your question.
having established for myself that God is creator and the bible is trustworthy,it is no problem believing in the virgin birth and resurrection.
admittedly there are few miracles now[or are hotly disputed if claimed]i like the story of the child told that Jesus did,nt really turn water into wine,replied"why not-he turned beer into furniture with my dad".apocryful story maybe but there are countless stories like it.
jack-would you care to adequately inform me?
mrrzy-if there were rational arguments for atheism,there would be no christians either!as you imply i,m entrenched in my position-as you are in yours.
steve-interesting you being affronted by all these churches-did,nt i read somewhere that you like to visit them[historical heritage],not to mention an interest in religious classical music?!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:34 PM

That rudders vs crutches thing is all very witty. But since you ignore all questions about your rudder, I wonder if you have one.

I also wonder why you appear not to understand the difference between the two. Is not obeying the commandments (the Christian's rudder) the price payed for receiving the crutch? (The relief provided by faith)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM

Steve Shaw,

I've read some of your thoughts on this thread. You have consistently lumped one Christian in with all and made your comments accordingly. You complain about things people have not said rather than addressing what they have said. You consistently avoid tough questions by addressing trivia like grammar and spelling or which of your posted names is used.

I did not say that one could not "stand on ones own two feet" when dealing with such things. I did say that a lot of people find relief by believing. I did say that it helps them. Finding help for such things is rational when it works and for many people it does work. Many of those people, including myself, have tried all of the Atheistic solutions and found them lacking.

My choice was God or suicide. I chose God.

A former friend of mine, from East London, UK, faced with the same choice, hung himself.

I don't mean to try to scare you or win you over when I say this but I do feel obligated to say it. Your words and attitude are virtually identical to his. I am concerned about you. Good luck to you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM

"Rudders trump crutches"

Beautifully put, Prof.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

"I don't think Atheists as a group would be very proud to have an anti-theist as nasty as you claiming to belong in their group."

We don't have groups. And, in all the years I've been discussing this on various forums, I've yet to come across an atheist who has distanced him or herself from my views, with the possible exception of josep, and even he seems to agree with me on occasion. No doubt he'll pop up and deny that, but, well, josep is josep...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:41 PM

Well. I put up a fairly relaxed post about why it isn't atheists who are aggressive or paranoid, following accusations of same, and whaddya know? Two Christians pop up, one calling me nasty and the other calling me paranoid. Lovely stuff from those who profess to follow the teachings of the Prince of Peace!

"It is not irrational to believe when that belief helps you deal with alcoholism or drugs or anything else that a ten step program requires you to "Acknowledge a higher power" to deal with.

It is not irrational if it simply helps you put your fears and ego aside and deal with the problems of the day.

Since it works for me and a couple of billion others it is not irrational."

Well, there are lots of people who overcome tribulations just as well without God. Perhaps believers could learn a few lessons from them about the strength you can gain from learning to stand on your own two feet. Rudders trump crutches. Not knocking what you claim, but it's a thought isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:07 PM

I'm never quite sure how it ties in, but I always feel that the sensation and quality of 'love' is somehow relevant to this discussion. Materially speaking, love does not exist other than in its basic form of ensuring reproduction and protecting those who may reproduce your dna and species.

And yet, we know that love is so much more. There is the altruistic love we feel for those less fortunate and in need or the joy we take in the sudden good fortune for someone whose situation had seemed impossible, and the love we feel for those who meet our needs and the (irrational) love we feel even when we try to argue ourselves out of it, as to an inappropriate object like a married target or obvious incompatibility or across wildly different ages/cultures/interests/character/beliefs. Love is an intangible but has tangible outcomes and results.

Now. If we substitute the word 'God' for 'love', where does it lead us?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

>>>>Subject: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:23 PM

Dawkins was on More 4 TV tonight (25th Aug 2010).

I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous.

In his programme the scariest were the extreme Muslims - but it's all in the editing and indeed who is selected for interview. <<<

By the way John, above is the first post of the thread and the title of his most controversial work is the title of the thread. I have been operating on the assumption that this particular discussion has been about Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:18 PM

It is not irrational to believe when that belief helps you deal with alcoholism or drugs or anything else that a ten step program requires you to "Acknowledge a higher power" to deal with.

It is not irrational if it simply helps you put your fears and ego aside and deal with the problems of the day.

Since it works for me and a couple of billion others it is not irrational.

"What are those things and why don't you think they are rational? Please be very specific. Let's discuss the relative merits of each argument."

I have done so and dealt with those things on this and other threads. I have no interest in having you try to defend other posters.

Of course God is not a proven fact. If God were apparent to all then we wouldn't need faith and without faith religion does not work and thus offers no benefit.

I have not been on these threads to try to argue non-believers into belief. I am on these threads to talk about what interests me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

I have no desire to defend Dawkins's point of view. I don't even know what it is. And I don't want you to defend Robertson's, since I already know enough about him. They are not in this discussion.

Shall I take it then, that you also can't explain the rationality of believing things for which there is no evidence? If you don't think about the rationality of your belief, why are you in this discussion?

I will say that a lot of things that many Atheists say do not seem rational to me.

What are those things and why don't you think they are rational? Please be very specific. Let's discuss the relative merits of each argument.

I'm tired of a general discussion that goes nowhere -- either there is logic involved or there isn't. If there isn't, that's fine, but that is what this whole discussion is about. There's not much difference between saying "there is no rational explanation" and saying "rationality isn't important to me". Either statement brings us back to the concept that it is irrational to believe as fact the specific tenets of any religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM

John P.

I don't think about whether it is rational or not.
That is not important to me.
I will say that a lot of things that many Atheists say do not seem rational to me. You don't have to go further than this thread to see a lot of those things.

Certainly the benefit I gain is rational enough and that benefit is diminished by questioning when praying would be of benefit.   

I think that in life, and in this thread, Atheists and Theists talk across each other asking those they are talking with at the time to explain and excuse statements from the fringes.

I tell you what. I won't ask you to defend Dawkins point of view if you don't ask me to defend William Jennings Bryant's or Pat Robertson's.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:03 AM

Jack, yes, of course religion works for people. There are lots of great things about it -- being part of a community, having a venue for doing good works, taking time to focus on the spiritual. That can all take place without irrational belief being in the picture. Why the belief? How is it not irrational? Do you really think there is an omnipotent being with a personality and conscious thoughts who pays attention to prayers from individuals? Or that a virgin gave birth? If so, why? If not, what do you believe and why do you believe it?

I have no problem at all with people believing things that seem impossible. I do have a problem with people who say their belief isn't irrational, and then are unable or unwilling to offer any rational reasons for the belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:01 AM

Also, one of the brilliant atheists we are privileged to have on Mudcat made the assertion fairly recently that Stalin was an aberration. I responded to that.

My point in that regard--and no one has even started to rebut it--is that Stalin is all too typical of an atheist regime.

You are always welcome to provide the name of an atheist regime which treated its people well and was successful in general.

As I said, non-atheist regimes have a mixed record.    Atheists in power have been unmitigated disasters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:45 AM

"...clutter the airways..." .   So sorry you are being forced to listen to religious broadcasts.

If you are by some chance not forced, your rather intemperate comments on them seem to fit snugly into the category of paranoia.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:31 AM

John P,

There are billions of religious people in the world, there are converts every day. People who join are expected to contribute, even without the financial costs there are often social costs. People would not join without a perceived benefit, people would not stay without a real benefit.

The argument for religion, and for believing in God is that it works for people. Millions of people. Most people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:22 AM

Hey folks, please stop talking about each other and discuss the topic.

Ron, PLEASE get involved with the conversation we're actually having here. Or go start a thread about atheists and their lack of contribution to classical music and your list of atheist atrocities.

Christians, I ask again:
I like a good debate with people who have different viewpoints than mine, but this debate keeps stopping at the point where Christians say, "It's not irrational" and atheists saying, "Why do you say that?" and the Christians simply not having an answer. Do you have one?

Anyone?