BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:20 PM

"Interesting typo, Tunesmith: at 05:08 PM

"At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher..."

Just what are you implying? :)"

If Jesus taught us to be prodigal then I'll concede that he was historical since we certainly followed him on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:30 PM

See, Guest - it works!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:43 PM

Popper the TV evangelist?

He recently married outside his race.
He married a human.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:22 AM

Popper the TV evangelist?

Karl Popper the philosopher of science.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:28 AM

The fallacy of Godel's argument is that it assumes there are necessary truths in the physical world and there is not the slightest proof that there is. There are necessary truths in abstract thought--I'll buy that--but I can't go along with the necessary truths existing in the physical world. I can't think of one.

I assume here you're talking about Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God, not Gödel's proof of the incompleteness theorem.

It doesn't have anything to do with the physical world.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:46 AM

Steve Shaw, answering me, said: Now just hang on a minute. 'Twas I who said that evolution is true, but you are seriously misrepresenting me here. The post in which I said that was absolutely full of caveats. Sticking it in a paragraph alongside evidence-innocent claims such as the virgin birth, as you do here, is positively disingenuous and just a tad tendentious, no?

Now, Steve, calm down. I was addressing the group, and not just you. There are 59 mentions of evolution in this thread, and 20 of gravity - and a great deal of the time, these physical realities were used as examples of what is true, in contrast with religious concepts that were described as "fabrications." My point is that the religious concepts should not be so easily dismissed. They have been held as sacred for millennia (even by many "learned people"), so maybe there's value in them that is not immediately understandable to all.

Let's take the creation stories. Is the purpose to explain the beginnings of existence, or could it be that these stories serve to illustrate the value of our existence, and of the world we live in? If we see our world as a sacred gift from a sacred Giver, might we not treat the world with the respect it deserves? "And God saw that it was good," seems to negate those who see only evil and depravity in the world.

In the last three centuries, we have seen the deification of Reason and Science and Commerce and Industry. And I think it's safe to say that our worship of these gods has led us to political chaos, world war, economic oppression, and wholesale destruction of our environment. Now, reason and science and commerce and industry can all be wonderful things; but they have been viewed as infallible for much of the last three centuries, and our unquestioning belief in these gods has led us into a world of chaos and trouble and poverty and war. Reason and science and commerce and industry and religion all need to be tempered with a strong dose of common sense. Otherwise, we court disaster.

So, maybe we need to honor the traditional myths that show us the value of our environment and of our fellow men, so we can see the world and its inhabitants as sacred gifts from a sacred source.

Modern society has developed a certain loathing for its traditional roots. Since Christianity is THE major tradition in western civilization, it has become highly suspect. Christian Europeans once dismissed aboriginal religious traditions as worthless, but now these aboriginal traditions are being held in high esteem by a western society that once tried to destroy aboriginal peoples and their traditions. And in an interesting turnaround, there are many in western society today who seek to destroy their own traditions and replace them with the traditions of others.

Religious and cultural traditions and rituals don't make rational sense. They develop for all sorts of obscure or silly or profound or useless reasons. Traditions are rarely practical, and they have very little value when viewed through the eyes of Reason and Science and Commerce and Industry. But traditions show the essence of a people, their world view, their values, what they hold as sacred.

Don't be too quick to dismiss all this - there is truth and value and richness in our roots.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:05 AM

The Nicene Creed (mousethief version)

I believe (but am by no means certain) in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Lox

Snail

"So what do you think it says?"

Are you asking for my interpretation?

Well, it was a bit of a throw away rhetorical question late in the evening but I would be interested to hear any interpretation that allowed any uncertainty as to the existence of God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:23 AM

Well Joe, I think I was the first in the thread to say I thought evolution was true (in its basic tenets). As for religious stories, I've said that I agree that they can be inspirational and can inform our present-day lives (I said very nice things about what Jesus allegedly said, remember!) I accept your interpretation that stories can be true to themselves even if unfounded strictly historically. But I do think this needs to be stressed in the passing-on of these stories. If something is unlikely to be literally true, then I think it's incumbent on the narrator to make that clear to the recipient. This is so routinely not done in religious "education" that we even have such absurd phrases in our language as "the gospel truth." Far too many people believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Ironically, stories that are just so, stories, can have even more powerful messages when presented from the honest standpoint of their not being necessarily the literal truth, mainly because the veil of suspicion of deception has been lifted.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:26 AM

Well, Snail,

Those of us who allow for uncertainty, don't spend a lot of money on television time. But hey, look at Mark 9:24: Immediately the father of the child cried out, 'I believe; help my unbelief!'.

I came across a sermon on the passage at St. Bart's an Episcopalian church in New York that seems quite compatible with the faith of Christian Mudcatters. You won't find many Mudcatters associated with the megachurches.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:28 AM

[quote]"Your notion of God is an interesting diversion,"

What is my notion of God?

I'd love to know ...[unquote]

What I actually meant was "your notion that God exists is an interesting one..." It was gettin' late when I typed what I did.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:33 AM

Mousethief quoth: "You need to get out more."

Thanks for that. I'll bear it in mind. If you'd care to let me know when you're going to be getting out I'll try to avoid getting out at the same time.


:-(

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM

Personally for me I can no more believe in Christianity or God than Santa or Fairies at the bottom of the garden. As a child growing up it was taken for granted no question that I would be grow up to be a good Christian (whatever that means) mainly it was used to encourage us to behave and also to help explain the demise of a beloved pet or family member. But I respect the fact that other people do believe in something other than I do and I respect that, if they get comfort from it that is fine. It is the fundamentalists and fanatics from any belief or non-belief that is the danger.

Please don't put me on the same par as Hitler I find that very insulting, he was also a dog lover and a vegetarian but I don't point an accusing finger at them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM

Steve, I think some people are simply literal-minded. No amount of explanation is going to take them to any depth. And when literal-minded people get involved in religion, the results can be dangerous.
But people who are able to think beyond the literal meaning of things, usually don't need an explanation. And in many years of teaching kids religion, I've found that kids are less likely than adults, to get stuck in literalism. If you're a halfway decent teacher, they catch onto what you're trying to convey.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM

Well Joe, I'll take a lot of convincing that far too much of what is not certain isn't taught as certainties. Prayers, as previously and tediously discussed, seem to deal in certainties in their wording, and we all know how constant repetition can eventually erode doubt in the mind.

By the way, I taught in religious schools for 18 years, seven of them in a Catholic school with a fair contingent of priests and nuns at the helm, and there were plenty of obligatory church services, prayer assemblies and hymn-singing for the kids. Outrageously, I even taught religion for a year. It was in 1973 and much water has since gone under the bridge. Or down the plughole.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:52 AM

"your notion that God exists is an interesting one..."

Again Steve you have put words in to my mouth.

First, "the" notion that God exists existed long before I came on to the scene.

Second, I don't know if I subscribe to it.


On the subject of Popper,

"Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist / inductivist account of scientific method by advancing empirical falsification instead"

Amongst other things.

His observations on scientific method are integral to its evolution in the 20th century.

Popper



Finally, I note with alarming regularity that both Josep and Steve have a well developed argument that refutes the existence of a specific definition of what God "is".

I find it interesting that those on here who are unsure one way or the other don't have such a clear definition of what God means.


If we agree that God is an intelligent being who thought about making a big bang and created the universe, then blah blah etc.

If we agree that helicopters have four legs and say "moo" then it is extremely improbable that they could ever fly.


Don't you find it odd that those on here who refute the existence of God appear to have the most clearly defined definition of who/what that is?


Observation takes many forms. All of them have to do with the way we perceive the world.

"I" perceives the world in many different ways.


Josep

"I don't know but that's not an argument for the existence of god if that's where you were going."

But what it is is an example of how there are other ways of conceiving of what God is than just the simplistic straw man model that Dawkins knocks down with such confidence.

It also serves as a starting point from which one can realize that in fact the universe is conscious of itself.

We are not seperate from the universe but mere atoms within it.

It follows that if we are a conscious part of the universe, then the universe is conscious.

It doesn't mean that God exists (that is the imaginary Straw God created by Dawkins) but, in the tradition of all good science, it is observable, adds to our knowledge, and we may learn more that opens our minds to hitherto unconsidered possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:54 AM

Snail,

"Well, it was a bit of a throw away rhetorical question late in the evening but I would be interested to hear any interpretation that allowed any uncertainty as to the existence of God."

Well there's mousethief ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:57 AM

"What's the more important question, merely to discover what is, or to explore what could be and what it all means?."

By discovering what it is, you open the door to endless possibilities of what could be and what it all means. In my opinion science and art (by that I mean 'the arts', all-inclusive) are the human races greatest achievements, and within those two areas of endeavour, amongst the multitude of scientific and artistic disciplines is a vast, clear space of dreaming and wonder, imagination and creativity, insight and knowledge.

"What about a leaf, with all its intricacies? Is it suitable merely for laboratory exploration and definition, or might it also open up vast possibilities for poetic (or mystical) musings?"

It's suitable for both, and each way of looking at it informs the other, illuminates some small part or detail or meaning . . . or reveals the complexity and beauty of the subject and also demands attention to the interconnectedness of the leaf . . .

How can we define this leaf? Well, we have a myriad of ways . . .

Like this?

. . .or this?

Or this from the modern bard that is Ted Hughes:

FERN

Here is the fern's frond, unfurling a gesture,
Like a conductor whose music will now be pause
And the one note of silence
To which the whole earth dances gravely –

A dancer, leftover, among crumbs and remains
Of God's drunken supper,
Dancing to start things up again.
And they do start up – to the one note of silence.

The mouse's ear unfurls its trust.
The spider takes up her bequest.
And the retina
Reins the Creation with a bridle of water.

How many went under? Everything up to this point went under.
Now they start up again
Dancing gravely, like the plume
Of a warrior returning, under the low hills,

Into his own kingdom.


Wonder and awe can be found in a blade of grass, a puddle on a street or the sound of laughter. But the more you know, the more you can understand and the more you can marvel at the wonder of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:22 AM

Jack,

You'd love Miroslav Holub

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mayomick
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:41 AM

Hs anyone considered the possibility that the exploding balls of Kronus myth could be the ancient world's equivalent to the big bang theory?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:08 AM

[quote Lox]"your notion that God exists is an interesting one..."

Again Steve you have put words in to my mouth.

First, "the" notion that God exists existed long before I came on to the scene.

Second, I don't know if I subscribe to it.[unquote]

Well I thought you did, because just up the thread you wrote:

"When I feel that love, I feel that there is a God."

OK. So as not to offend you any further, I'll reword it again: "the notion that God exists is an interesting one..."

I shall have to give up trying to elicit whether it's your notion as well. I thought it was, but there you go. It's still interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:18 AM

Joe Offer

Those of us who allow for uncertainty, don't spend a lot of money on television time. But hey, look at Mark 9:24: Immediately the father of the child cried out, 'I believe; help my unbelief!'.

Not sure what the television or megachurches have go to do with what I'm saying.

It sounds as if the chap is asking for his doubts to be taken away. mousethief seems to embrace his uncertaintity as part of his faith(and so do you if I read you right). Nobody has yet explained to me why the first commandment allows uncertainty.

I'm not really taking this very seriously, I just started this line of thought to prick the pomposity of someone who tries to use his self declared intellectual superiority as a cudgel to beat down his opponents. He declares uncertainty in his faith but shows none in his arguments.

I await mousethief's response with interest but there are some more interesting points about science to follow up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:44 AM

"OK. So as not to offend you any further"

No worries Steve - theres nothing on here to offend me - just a discussion that I find interesting.

"I'll reword it again: "the notion that God exists is an interesting one...""

Yup - enough to compel you and I to spend a long time on this thread - in fact, it would be fair to say that it is occupying a fairly large part of our respective universes - and fitting in quite comfortably - though I really should go and do the washing up ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 09:49 AM

Thanks for the Holub link Lox - excellent stuff and I'll be delving deeper into his work. Much of my work as an animator deals with subjects on the molecular level, and Holub's work seems to deal with that in ways I'd never realised before.

Thanks again!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:38 PM

Is teaching science teaching atheism?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:48 PM

A god is not needed to appreciate life, nature, and to have a sense of awe, respect for life
and imagination. Those that attempt to define a god are those who are interested in perpetuating that myth. Dawkins, to his credit, has not defined any gods in any way. He does however refute Creationism and Intelligent Design which are limited constructs.
It's interesting how Dawkins gets quoted without his having been read.

I think that I feel the responsibility to clarify the Freethought position as I see it.
I guess this is why this thread winds its way in a labyrinth of circuitous and abstruse
meanderings.

There are also many different ways of conceiving Santa Claus.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM

Many Kinds of Universes, and None Require God
By DWIGHT GARNER
Published: September 7, 2010

Stephen Hawking, the most revered scientist since Einstein, is a formidable mathematician and a formidable salesman. "I want my books sold on airport bookstalls," he has impishly declared, and he's learned how to put them there.



THE GRAND DESIGN

By Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow

Illustrated. 198 pages. Bantam Books/Random House. $28.
Mr. Hawking's "Brief History of Time," published in 1988, sold some nine million copies. (A typical science best seller will move a tiny fraction of that number.) It did so partly by leaning on his preoccupying personal story. Mr. Hawking's body has been wasted by Lou Gehrig's disease, while his mind is utterly intact, a pinging black box amid the physical wreckage. It was no accident that Mr. Hawking's wheelchair and elfin face appeared on that book's cover — a rarity for a book of serious intellect — rather than on its back flap.

In "A Brief History of Time" Mr. Hawking also dabbled in what the science writer Timothy Ferris has called "God-mongering." Mr. Hawking, a longtime professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, has hardly displayed a religious bent during his long career. (A memoir by his former wife outed him as an atheist.) But he ended "Brief History" by declaring that the discovery of a unified theory of physics could help us to "know the mind of God." It was a line that — cynically, some thought — allowed glints of fuzzy sunshine to warm the cold blade of his thinking.

Mr. Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," published yesterday, has already made headlines and been a trending topic on Twitter, thanks to a different sort of God-mongering. This time Mr. Hawking has, we're told, declared God pretty much dead.

His search for an answer to the question "How did the universe begin?" has led him to suggest that the creation of our universe and others simply "does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god." It's another canny move. Books about the God wars are easier to argue about than those that parse the finer points of quantum physics. As I'm typing this, "The Grand Design" is the No. 1 book on Amazon, one spot above "Freedom," the heavily hyped new Jonathan Franzen novel.

...

(New York Times review)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM

"Is teaching science teaching atheism?"

That's a good question. First, we need to discuss what "teaching science" actually means. At teacher-training college in the early 70s we budding science teachers were bombarded with the constant almost-mantra that "science must be caught, not taught." I always liked that. Of course there is a body of knowledge within any formal scientific discipline that has to be disseminated, but that is a long way from saying that science teaching is simply handing out knowledge. I could say, lamely, that science is a way of thinking, and that good science teaching aims to give children the skills to collect and critically assess evidence, and to work within the best-practice guidelines that are common to all good scientists: report your findings clearly and honestly, subject them to the rigour of statistical analysis wherever appropriate, invite and embrace peer review, ensure that data is repeatable, where appropriate, and that it is always verifiable. To that extent, you could say that science is not exactly teaching atheism but is countermanding, without concerning or engaging itself unduly, the methods of religious indoctrination employed by major religions. In religion, it is claimed that you may question the tenets, but the questioning allowed is severely ringfenced within the bounds of theology. In science, you may fearlessly bring the whole house down if you want. You may be opposed slightly by conservative scientists (no-one's perfect), but lets' not forget that many of the great pioneering scientists of the past were vilified not so much by their peers as by religion.

Whilst on this business, I've has a slight rethink about Mousethief's claim that the discussion of the existence, or not, of God is beyond science. I'll contradict my earlier self and say that I don't agree with this. I don't see why God should be put beyond science in this way. The existence or not of God is no different to the existence or not of anything else. God is not making any claims here. It's people who are making claims about him. No claim made by people should ever put in that privileged position beyond science. I'm saying that God should be subject to scientific exploration, applying all the laws that he himself allegedly fashioned. Why would he demur?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM

Teaching science is not atheism at all. It is teaching the working of man's mind(s) in coming to terms with the unknown aspects of the universe and has nothing to say about religious entities, except perhaps the statement that it has nothing to say about them.

As the notion of God is multiply defined, to begin with, and a cultural artifact, and further is a product of human minds and internal to them, and yet further is a concept that has no basis of testing, measuring, or disproving (falsifying), and finally is a set of attributes which themselves are highly unlikely to be falsifiable or testable or measureable, and since instances of His work or presence are entirely subjective, usually not reliably shared, and sporadic and generally non-repeatable, the notion of subjecting Godhood to science is risible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:09 PM

mousethief seems to embrace his uncertaintity as part of his faith

Your ability to ferret out what people believe from what they say is not terribly admirable.

I'm not really taking this very seriously, I just started this line of thought to prick the pomposity of someone who tries to use his self declared intellectual superiority as a cudgel to beat down his opponents.

You admit you're a troll. How sweet.

I think I'd better bow out of this one now. Apparently I am arousing ire and ill-will in otherwise good people, as religion is wont to do, if Dawkins is any judge. Heh heh. So goodbye. Stew in your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:33 PM

"Stew in your ignorance." Yes, last wordism strikes again! Sir, you diminish yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:56 PM

"But what it is is an example of how there are other ways of conceiving of what God is than just the simplistic straw man model that Dawkins knocks down with such confidence."

This individual was saying that chemical reactions created the "I" and why couldn't more complex reactions create a more complex "I"? My answer is that I don't know but the idea that god is simply a more complex human being or a superhuman is not tenable because god cannot be made of matter and yet be above it its pitfalls, shortcomings and temptations. But this person may have been implying that more complex reactions through perhaps evolutionary processes could someday create super "I". That I can buy. The person wasn't clear on what he was getting at.

"It also serves as a starting point from which one can realize that in fact the universe is conscious of itself.

We are not seperate from the universe but mere atoms within it.

It follows that if we are a conscious part of the universe, then the universe is conscious."

I think it much more likely that the universe is unconscious and dreaming reality and we are all bit players in the dream and therefore all part of the same dreamer. We are an "I" in the midst of a universe but also a consciousness in which the entire universe in contained. Consciousness is learning to become conscious by dreaming itself in myriad roles (myriad "I"s) of which you play one and "I" play another. Someday the Dreamer will wake up and there will be no more need for these roles.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:12 PM

OK, is teaching biology teaching atheism? How about astronomy? Geology?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:39 PM

I tried to answer. No it isn't. Showing children how to question fearlessly, and ask for evidence, is what good education is all about. I think that atheists and Christians are both capable of doing that. It's up to religion to decide whether it deals in good education. My view is that it has some way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM

"Showing children how to question fearlessly, and ask for evidence, is what good education is all about."

Agreed

It's also what a great many agnostics do! (Those not looking for an insurance policy but answers)

;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:29 PM

So when an agnostic asks for evidence, and inevitably gets none, what does he or she do then?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:41 PM

Alas, many people ask for evidence of all sorts of things. Some things will have no answers known for many a time to come... but that does not mean we should stop asking questions. I believe, given enough time, that all things will be known to man either by discovery or quest.

If I do not have an answer about something that does not mean no answer exists. If I have to await evidence to help me find that answer then so be it.

Most scientific endeavour is built on the same premise. So much starts out with some intelligent hunch that leads the scientist to look for the answers to 'prove' the hunch. Science still awaits many answers and, as such, evidence to back the answer up.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Mauve P. Evidence matters. But eyes and minds matter more.

Someone provided evidence of God, right here in this thread in a clear precise manner, yet no one even noticed.

While evidence matters, it seemingly doesn't matter very much.
People have been brainwashed to ignore evidence and conentrate on faith.

Your view on education sounds like you have seen an Haddsah in action.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM

What evidence was that, Donuel?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 09:28 PM

"Showing children how to question fearlessly, and ask for evidence, is what good education is all about."

But it sho'nuff ain't what religion is about!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM

I'm not sure what the etiquette is here. mousethief has left the scene leaving a trail of abuse behind him. Do I have the right of reply? What the hell; I will anyway.

Your ability to ferret out what people believe from what they say is not terribly admirable.

No ferreting involved. mousethief's statement of faith -

I believe (but am by no means certain) that God exists

mousethief

You admit you're a troll. How sweet.

To decide who is the troll, take a look at mousethief's first post and many after that. (Although the mangled syntax in that post makes it difficult to understand the point.)

Apparently I am arousing ire and ill-will in otherwise good people, as religion is wont to do, if Dawkins is any judge. Heh heh. So goodbye. Stew in your ignorance.

Nothing to do with religion. What aroused ire and ill-will was mousethief's constant resort to accusations of stupidity, ignorance and lack of understanding of epistemology. That and the total failure to respond to any of the points raised.

I have a friend who is deeply but quietly religious. When the subject of Dawkins' diatribe came up over the dinner table she said something along the lines of "It's not about evidence or probablity. It's about faith. I have faith. That is all I need." That is a view I can respect even if I cannot share that faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:18 AM

OK, settle down. We've come this far with hardly anybody calling anybody names. Let's keep it that way. I've found when Somebody calls another person "troll," we've started on our way downhill. Don't call anybody a "troll," even if they ARE a troll. It just causes trouble, and doesn't do any good.
And a phrase like the pomposity of someone who tries to use his self declared intellectual superiority as a cudgel to beat down his opponents isn't what I'd call peaceable, either.
So, cut that out.

---

And now, back to our previously scheduled program, which is in progress....

There are several statements above requesting evidence to support religious faith. Well, I suppose that in many ways, the evidence just ain't there, and never will be. If you're looking for literal, legal, logical stuff, it just ain't there. I think that true faith is experiential. First, you experience that you are loved. Next, you experience the love from beyond a single source. Finally, you experience that you are loved from a source beyond anything you can comprehend, and then you're hooked. It it's true faith, I think you're driven to express that love to others in ways you didn't think you were capable of.

Now, I think that this sort of spirituality is fully possible for those who do not believe in a god at all. Perhaps it's even possible that there are non-theistic mystics, people who are at one with the harmony of all, without having a god involved in the process. I come from a religious background and see things through theistic eyes, but other people have other paradigms. I come pretty close to non-theistic mysticism when I contemplate my favorite Ponderosa pine tree, especially when there's a beautiful sunset behind it.

Anyhow, it's something to think about.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:26 AM

In surfing about, I found this:

"Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 06:01 AM

"Finally, you experience that you are loved from a source beyond anything you can comprehend, and then you're hooked."

There must be hundreds of millions of people, victims of mass rapes, people who have lost their whole families in conflicts, discriminated-against and repressed minorities, those in grinding poverty or smitten by horrid disease and squalor, who might just find it a little more difficult to detect that they're loved from a source beyond... I'd like to know why, apparently, God doesn't give everyone equal opportunity to detect this love. Why he chooses to test some people in this regard far more than others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 07:46 AM

Josep,

"the idea that god is simply a more complex human being or a superhuman"

Again you have extrapolated a straw man from a post that contained no such idea.

Please stop. I'm sure there are many flaws in my reasoning that you could draw attention to without needing to invent points of view to attribute to me.


Now to return to my point, which was that, just as we describe a person a conscious without distinguishing between the brain and body, we can describe the universe as conscious without distinguishing between us and the stars.


Its not what I believe, but it merely struck me as an interesting observation.



On the subject of teaching science,

This involves teaching a skill.

The skill to observe accurately, patiently and comprehensively, and to learn and understand the properties and qualities of the thing being observed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 07:53 AM

Joe Offer

OK, settle down. We've come this far with hardly anybody calling anybody names.

mousethief's first post.

---

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief - PM
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM

If you think Dawkins is all about free thinking, look up what happened on the chat board on his website richarddawkins.net. He is a shrill little hatemonger who can't stand to have people disagree with him.

People who lash out at religion are no more "rational" than the people they apparently despise. And the idea that there is ANYBODY in the WORLD who only believes things based on reason, logic, science, and math is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:21 AM

Ebbie, that is SO true. In fact, without religion, you couldn't HAVE the rich.

There are several statements above requesting evidence to support religious faith. Rather, I prefer to say that I cannot have faith, I have to have evidence, and while I consider that a strength, I understand that people of faith would consider it a weakness.

And they may be right anyway.

Someone also mentioned a friend who just had faith, no need for evidence. I have mentioned friends like that. I don't know of any atheist that would argue with that. *But* the argument seems to continue with the faithful who cannot, for some reason, accept that *they* just have faith, and instead persist in misapplying rational argument *to* their faith; those arguments are what my high school would have called Hors-Sujet - off topic, inapplicable, and thus way too easy to argue with. And fun, if you can keep your sense of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:41 AM

Did you mean a Hadassah, Donuel? I do not understand what you mean in your post to me I'm afraid

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:27 PM

//Josep,

"the idea that god is simply a more complex human being or a superhuman"

Again you have extrapolated a straw man from a post that contained no such idea.

Please stop. I'm sure there are many flaws in my reasoning that you could draw attention to without needing to invent points of view to attribute to me.//

I also stated in the very next sentence that the person may not have meant that and that he wasn't clear on exactly what he did mean. Moreover, I didn't attribute any of them to you since you weren't the person who made the original statement unless you are using two IDs. That you so deftly ignored the full statement of what I wrote demonstrates that you read the first sentence and then went off on a diatribe without reading the rest in which case shame on you. Or you did read the rest but decided there was nothing there to argue with and so chose only to make an issue of the first part of the statement in which case shame on you. The only one setting up straw men is you and would you PLEASE stop that? Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM

I have a good deal of faith, none of which involves the personfified and iconized deities of any popular human religions. The two are not hard-coupled.

I think it bears repeating that all religious views are constructs in the spiritual or mental realm of an individual.

The reason the subject gets so volcanic sometimes is the confusion between the universe of one's own creations, and the universe of common agreement in which we strive to survive. Thinking that one is the other will lead to all sorts of difficulties which procceed from that single error.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:41 PM

An interesting essay on Mystery and Evidence (NYT) herewith excerpted:

"There is a story about Bertrand Russell giving a public lecture somewhere or other, defending his atheism. A furious woman stood up at the end of the lecture and asked: "And Lord Russell, what will you say when you stand in front of the throne of God on judgment day?" Russell replied: "I will say: 'I'm terribly sorry, but you didn't give us enough evidence.' "

This is a very natural way for atheists to react to religious claims: to ask for evidence, and reject these claims in the absence of it. Many of the several hundred comments that followed two earlier Stone posts "Philosophy and Faith" and "On Dawkins's Atheism: A Response," both by Gary Gutting, took this stance. Certainly this is the way that today's "new atheists" tend to approach religion. According to their view, religions — by this they mean basically Christianity, Judaism and Islam and I will follow them in this — are largely in the business of making claims about the universe that are a bit like scientific hypotheses. In other words, they are claims — like the claim that God created the world — that are supported by evidence, that are proved by arguments and tested against our experience of the world. And against the evidence, these hypotheses do not seem to fare well.

But is this the right way to think about religion? Here I want to suggest that it is not, and to try and locate what seem to me some significant differences between science and religion.

..."