BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

I also noted earlier that neither Einstein nor Darwin were atheist, but rather agnostic--the sensible choice of the two.. Let's start with Einstein.

The poster who quibbled with my assertion--no fool he---made sure to say that any evidence I might bring up could not be "out of context".   Thus giving himself an easy out to claim that anything I might cite was in fact "out of context".

Recognizing therefore, that talking to that person might possibly be talking to the wall, here are a few quotes from Einstein himself.   You are welcome to provide your own quotes, realizing of course that, like you, I will also be interested in the context.




"The bigotry of the non-believer is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."
(Quoted in:    Einstein's God (1997)

Excellent point, Albert, and wonderfully applicable on this thread.   Especially since the bigotry of the believer has not been in evidence on the thread.



"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.   You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

(Letter to Guy H Raner, Jr. 28 Sept 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in "Skeptic" Vol 5, No. 2.)

"crusading spirit of the professional atheist".    I wonder if any of our Mudcat atheists' ears are burning.

Mr. Dawkins has a good excuse;   after all, his main goal is to sell books; he doesn't have to necessarily believe anything of what he writes.




"There are people who say that there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

Source:   Hubertus Loewenstein:   Toward the Farther Shore, 1968, p 156.




"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."


Source: The Diaries of Count Harry Kessler,   (published 2002)






The ball is in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:49 PM

Ron, Elvis may have left the building. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM

Before we get too "atheism bad" here let's remember that there are more people in psychiatric treatments due to religion than due to atheism.

Let us remember that while the Nazis were douchebags, they weren't raping children and covering it up. Neither was Mao or Stalin. And even if they were, how long could it have lasted? With organized religion, it went on for centuries unchecked.

When atheists get overzealous they just become a pain in the ass a la our own professor shaw, rarely is anyone ever hurt. When religious people get overzealous, not only are they a pain in the ass but rarely is anyone not hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 05:27 PM

Oddly enough I agree with Josep here although I think he's too hard on Steve Shaw who in my opinion has articulated his point-of-view with clarity.

Mao and Stalin were atrocious tyrants.

Atheists have a right to defend their position without being belittled and called "a pain in the ass". One person's concept of "overzealous" might just be another's reasonable expression of concern.

Ron Davis, Richard Dawkins doesn't need to sell books to correctly identify why religion has in many cases changed the brain and corrupted logic and reason. That's the old ploy when you don't agree with someone. "Oh they're just trying to sell books". He passionately believes what he writes about and your accusation that he is somehow insincere and just wants to make money from his ideas is specious and ridiculous. If he wanted to make money he could write a book called "The Purpose Driven Life" although Rich Warren may actually believe the garbage he writes.

Hitler decried atheism in the same way that the Pope does today. They had that in common.

It should be mentioned that many Agnostics are Atheists. It's a big tent.

Darwin was never talking about religion in any of his scientific treatises so that the idea that he was an agnostic was never really verified. At the time, it would have been dangerous for him to declare any form of atheism. This is true with many scientists who worry quite reasonably about their public acceptance and ability to procure grants for their research. In this, he was not that far away from Gallileo.

Einstein, however, thought that organized religion was not useful. He was closer to a pantheon view of religion like Spinoza and would have considered Christianity useless particularly as a method of interpreting science.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 10:34 AM

1) " (Hitler) decried atheism."    If you believe what he said in public, rather than how he acted.       If so, I have several bridges to sell you.

Far more instructive is the quote from the song sung by the Hitler youth, the citation I gave several eons ago on this thread. As I recall it's along the lines of "We follow Horst Wessel, not Christ."   That's the real attitude of Hitler's regime.    Anybody who does not believe that Hitler encouraged the idea of substituting Nazi "saints" for Catholic ones, and himself for God, needs to do a bit more reading.

Of course history never was a strong suit for many Mudcat atheists.    Perhaps because it is inconvenient for their assertions.

And on the scale of death, it should be obvious to any thinking person--perhaps that excludes some atheist Mudcatters--- that the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao hugely outnumber any deaths caused by religion.




2)   I never claimed that religion was a good method for interpreting science.   Nor do such religious Mudcatters as Joe, I suspect. Both he and I lean more towards Einstein's declaration of why and how he is religious.   I am probably more skeptical in general.   

But not an atheist.    Agnostics have a healthy sense of what man does not know.   
Atheists--especially some Mudcat atheists, it seems (aside from Bill D and
Amos)- tend more towards an unjustified arrogance on many questions.    And they could use a dose of humility.

In fact, religious people have one more plus over atheists.   The religious are honest enough to admit their religion is at base grounded on faith.   Atheists claim to have all the answers, but when push comes to shove, there are still some questions science can't answer.    I 've watched with amusement while Mudcat atheists have come upon this problem in this very thread.

Einstein, and sensible people like him, have, faced with this, acknowledged the mystery.   But some Mudcat atheists have not.   They have blithely assumed that science does have all the answers. That is, they have faith that it does.

But they have not been honest enough to acknowledge that this belief is faith.    So, to add to their charms, they are intellectually dishonest.

Face it, there are approximately zero positive aspects to atheism, as compared to both religion and agnosticism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 10:52 AM

"many Agnostics are Atheist".   Drivel.

Words mean something. I refer you to Mr. Dictionary.

I've given the definitions for the two from my dictionary, earlier in the thread.

If you ask an agnostic if he or she is an atheist, how many do you think will say yes?   Pick a small number.

Most are very likely sensible people, like Einstein, who in general wanted it clear he was agnostic, not atheist.

As I said, agnostics can live with a large degree of uncertainty on many philisophical questions.   Atheism assumes more certainty than is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:26 AM

Ron, do have any evidence that the atrocities caused by "atheistic" regimes or the atrocities caused by "religious" regimes were anything other than power-hungry monsters doing what power-hungry monsters do? Gordian's Knot would suggest that, since there is no preponderance of atrocity on either side of the religion issue, that being the sort of person who seeks that sort of power might be the answer, not whether or not they are religious. Your asking for evidence that will prove you wrong is an attempt by you to force the conversation onto your ground. Most of us -- including the religious folks here -- think you're on the wrong ground to start with, so why should we provide evidence to disprove an obviously faulty assumption?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop referring to "Mudcat atheists" or "most atheists". Lumping people into groups and making assumptions about them once you have placed them in your groups is very bad conversational technique. It allows you to ignore and belittle people and the things they say because, in your mind, they are by definition worthless. You're still being a jerk in this regard.

Quoting famous people to make your points is pointless. Guest from Sanity already did that, and we already showed how meaningless they are. It's easy to find a bunch of anti-atheist quotes on the internet. It's a bit more difficult to examine the actual value of the quotes within a discussion. Perhaps you could give it a try, though.

Atheists--especially some Mudcat atheists, it seems (aside from Bill D and Amos)- tend more towards an unjustified arrogance on many questions. And they could use a dose of humility.

Please show me where I've been arrogant. Please read all the posts by the religious folks to ensure that there is no hint of arrogance there. Please get a sense of humor -- most of the stuff that Steve has said that has pissed you off so much was obvious light-hearted playing with the ideas. Please explain how you would avoid being a bit bitter if you were surrounded by a society that, in general, believes you are going to hell because you can't believe in impossible things.

I've asked you this before, speaking of deafening silence: if you think belief or agnosticism are smarter than atheism, give your evidence for the possibility of the existence of god. Steve wants scientific evidence. I can see his point, but I would settle for any evidence whatsoever. Logic is also a fairly big deal for me. Present the evidence. That's all any of us in this thread have been asking for. Either you have evidence, or the belief is irrational. There's nothing wrong with irrational belief -- as has been said many times, folks are free to believe anything they want. But if you want to claim that belief is rational, you have to actually provide evidence and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM

////Anybody who does not believe that Hitler encouraged the idea of substituting Nazi "saints" for Catholic ones, and himself for God, needs to do a bit more reading.////

Sir, perhaps you should do some reading of your own. The Nazis and the Catholic Church were complicit in Germany. It is doubtful the Nazis could have risen to power without the help of the Church.

You may further want to read about the ratlines of the Vatican which ferried Nazis out of the Germany or Europe after the war and hid them in places as South America (and also North America). An example is Paul Touvier, a French Nazi of the Vichy govt.

His father was devout Catholic who pushed his son into the joining the Nazis. He was discovered hiding "in the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) Priory in Nice. The SSPX stated at the time that Touvier had been allowed to live in the Priory as "an act of charity to a homeless man."[1]" where he been for over 20 years.

At his trial, "A Traditionalist Catholic priest of the Society of Saint Pius X sat beside him at the defense table, acting as his spiritual advisor."

After his death, "A Tridentine Requiem Mass was offered for the repose of his soul by Father Philippe Laguérie at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, the Society of St. Pius X chapel, in Paris."

Paul Touvier

It is one example among literally thousands of how the Church rescued and shielded Nazis from justice.

From a Wiki article on the ratlines:

"The origins of the first ratlines are connected to various developments in Vatican-Argentine relations before and during World War II.[2] As early as 1942, Monsignor Luigi Maglione contacted Ambassador Llobet, inquiring as to the "willingness of the government of the Argentine Republic to apply its immigration law generously, in order to encourage at the opportune moment European Catholic immigrants to seek the necessary land and capital in our country".[3] Afterwards, a German priest, Anton Weber, the head of the Rome-based Society of Saint Raphael, traveled to Portugal, continuing to Argentina, to lay the groundwork for future Catholic immigration.[3] According to historian Michael Phayer, "this was the innocent origin of what would become the Vatican ratline".[3]

Spain, not Rome, was the "first center of ratline activity that facilitated the escape of Nazi fascists", although the exodus itself was planned within the Vatican.[4] Charles Lescat, a French Catholic member of Action Française (an organization suppressed by Pius XI and rehabilitated by Pius XII), and Pierre Daye, a Belgian with contacts in the Spanish government, were among the primary organizers.[5] Lescat and Daye were the first able to flee Europe, with the help of French cardinal Eugene Tisserant and Argentine cardinal Antonio Caggiano.[5]

By 1946, there were probably hundreds of war criminals in Spain, and thousands of former Nazis and fascists.[6] According to US Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, Vatican cooperation in turning over asylum-seekers was "negligible".[6] According to Phayer, Pius XII "preferred to see fascist war criminals on board ships sailing to the New World rather than seeing them rotting in POW camps in zonal Germany".[7] Unlike the Vatican emigration operation in Italy, centered on Vatican City, the ratlines of Spain, although "fostered by the Vatican" were relatively independent of the hierarchy of the Vatican Emigration Bureau.[8]"

The entire article is damning:

Ratlines

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:00 PM

An excellent article on the ratlines

When one reads just how complicit the Church was in assisting the Nazis before, during and after the war, one must conclude either the Nazi anti-Christian bent was a front for the Church or the entire Church from the Vatican on down was a front for Nazism.

In the book, Unholy Alliance, about the ratlines, which I read several years ago, there is actually photograph of Martin Bormann (a man who once said that Nazism and Christianity were incompatible) in South America wearing the garb of a Catholic priest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

Of course, the Society of St. Pius X has no canonical status within the Catholic Church, and its leaders were excommunicated...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:07 PM

//"1) " (Hitler) decried atheism."    If you believe what he said in public, rather than how he acted.       If so, I have several bridges to sell you."

His statement is in Mein Kampf. How he acted is no different than some Christians have acted in the past.

//"   Anybody who does not believe that Hitler encouraged the idea of substituting Nazi "saints" for Catholic ones, and himself for God, needs to do a bit more reading."

This is not necessarily clear. It's an interpretive opinion. A lot depends on not just reading but what you read and whom you choose to believe.

//"Of course history never was a strong suit for many Mudcat atheists.    Perhaps because it is inconvenient for their assertions."

History is often confused with opinion. Historians rarely agree on anything. Knowledge of the bible is not a strong suit for most Christians let alone history.

//"And on the scale of death, it should be obvious to any thinking person--perhaps that excludes some atheist Mudcatters--- that the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao hugely outnumber any deaths caused by religion."

This is incorrect if you figure the advent of religion over the period of history. Far more deaths were caused by Auto-de-fes, Purges in the Crusades, Burning of witches advocated by Martin Luther and John Weseley and Constantine. Religion has left a bloody wake throughout history that eclipses what Hitler, Stalin and Mao have done.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:29 PM

Ron, which dictionary do you like? Webster's? the OED? Funk and Wagnalls?

Agnosticism and atheism do overlap. You can be both. There are those who declare themselves to be so. The only difference is in a matter of degree.

It is unclear just what Einstein actually believed. He has said many things which comport with the views of an atheist.

As to arrogance, Christians are notable for their arrogance in the denial of anything except what they believe which is true of most religious believers. The defense of religion as being anti-atheist is in itself an arrogant assumption. It seems that religionists could use a strong dose of humility before they start in on atheists.

You say, "Atheism assumes more certainty than is justified." A lot has to do with who evaluates what is just and for what reason. People were put to death historically because religious leaders had more certainty that was justified, if we are to talk about justice.
The bloodletting of religion was done by religionists who had "more certainty than is justified".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: InOBU
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM

Dear Richard: Having seen you stray down the road of Nationalism, let me offer this to thy statement of the danger of Religion...
"At times, orthodox and free thinking folks come to the same conclusions (though free thinkers can't really be said to come to conclusions more than pauses on the road.) Both would reflect that even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, the free thinker would acknowledge both clocks are likely wrong most of the... time." - Lorcan Otway from "The pride of always being right."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM

"far more deaths" caused by autos da fe, etc.

Patently false. For the obvious reason that there just weren't enough people alive long enough in the world before the 20th century.

If you want to quibble with my dictionary's definitions of atheism and agnosticism, I'm not about to dredge up those old posts.   If you'd like to, we'll go from there. And please provide your dictionary's definitions--and the name of your dictionary.

Re: Catholic complicity in the Jews' annihilation.    It's not that simple, by a long shot. I wonder why some Mudcat atheists like a simplistic approach to history.    Are they against research, and prefer bumper-sticker solutions to problems?

If I get a chance I will try to explain the history there a bit--but I have a heavy rehearsal schedule til Wednesday. Endless wrangling on Mudcat is somehow not my top priority.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that
Einstein had it right, regarding why he could be considered religious--or agnostic. In general, not atheist.

Because he was smart enough--and humble enough--to realize what he didn't know.

Both of which some Mudcat atheists could try=-rather than their pseudo-scientific efforts in their version of cramming angels onto the head of a pin.

To be continued.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:27 AM

As I've said, the main difference between atheism and agnosticism is the degree of certainty asserted by each.   Atheists--certainly some Mudcat atheists-- are more sure there is no God than agnostics are.

Do you agree with this distinction? Yes or no?--though I know atheists have a vested interest in muddying the distinction.

And it is the Mudcat atheists who are most sure there is no God who are the ones who stridently attack, smear, and ridicule religion.

Those are the ones who need to first recognize that this is not a live and let live attitude--and they need to change their approach.   Especially since the religious on Mudcat are willing to live and let live.

It's somewhat amazing to see that some of the most aggressive atheists live in a country where there only about 5% of the population attend church on a regular basis--the UK . Their attitude can only be described as extreme paranoia.   

US atheists have less to complain about under Obama than probably any other president--they'd best hope Palin does not get in--but that does not seem to keep them from also feeling persecuted, for some reason--a persecution which seems to be overwhelmingly in their heads--and for which they have provided precisely zero evidence.   And they do not seem to realize they are not exactly winning friends anywhere by constantly smearing religion and the religious.




As an agnostic, I don't have a dog in this fight. I can see clearly that atheism has virtually nothing to offer culturally---unless you are a really really big Frank Zappa or Sartre fan. Actually I--and quite few others, I suspect-- could remarkably easily live without either Frank Zappa's or Sartre's contributions to the richness of life.   But not without the glorious musical literature based on religion.

And on top of that, atheism has been the worst disaster ever for the world--for reasons I have gone into more than once.   

It is obvious to the objective observer---though, not, it appears to some Mudcat atheists--that, as I've said over and over, Hitler exploited anything and anybody.   Does anybody deny that?

By the way, have you atheists done your homework and found out about Gleichschaltung?. In a nutshell, it means that if you did not fit the 3rd Reich's view of an issue, you were marginalized or eliminated. Quite a few religious people did not agree--and paid the price.

Do you believe that the 3rd Reich sought to replace Catholic saints with Nazi "saints", Protestant leaders with Nazi leaders, and God with Hitler?    If you don't understand that, you will be hopeless in understanding almost anything about the regime.

To say that the 3rd Reich was Christian in any sense whatsoever betrays a staggering ignorance of the situation.

But it's not surprising to hear from some Mudcat atheists. Not that they have an obvious motive for this assertion. Of course not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 09:33 AM

Ron,
You're talking like a bigot. No, that's incorrect. You ARE a bigot. Bored now.

Getting back to the actual topic of this discussion:
If you think belief or agnosticism are smarter than atheism, give your evidence for the possibility of the existence of god. Steve wants scientific evidence. I can see his point, but I would settle for any evidence whatsoever. Logic is also a fairly big deal for me. Present the evidence. That's all any of us in this thread have been asking for. Either you have evidence, or the belief is irrational. There's nothing wrong with irrational belief -- as has been said many times, folks are free to believe anything they want. But if you want to claim that belief is rational, you have to actually provide evidence and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM

John P,

Way more than 3 billion people have religion of one kind or another. If that is not evidence enough for you then you are using some kind of very specific, evidence excluding, version of logic that I would not care to hear.

Prove your case that there is no God or stop demanding something from others that you, yourself are unwilling or unable to provide.

Steve is a troll. A troll who seems to limit his trolling to a specific topic but a troll nevertheless. If mockery and off topic insults become a legitimate form of debate, his words may have some value.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM

if steve is still peeking in,here is one scientist [among others]that disputes evolution :dr matti leisola-i first read of him in creation magazine,but seeing you call creationists frauds i also checked on internet.wiki lists a string of credentials to his credit.
his expertise in biotechnology ,i dont think makes him a"moron"in countering evolutionism.
asking humbly of you learned scientists-what is the evolutionary take on DNA which i understand is composed of so many parts it surpasses a hi tech factory and of which each has to be in place to function.how does evolution propose an upward path in such mechanisms that apparently may lose or transfer information but are not known to gain it?sorry if its a bit muddled but hope you get the drift
ron-must admit that it may be innacurate to say dawkins motive is money.having seen him on tv a few times,i think it more likely he is genuinely paronoic about God!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM

Steve is still peeking in but Steve doesn't talk to brainless muppets these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

Way more than 3 billion people have religion of one kind or another. If that is not evidence enough for you then you are using some kind of very specific, evidence excluding, version of logic that I would not care to hear.

Yeah, not good enough evidence for me. Just because a bunch of people are superstitious doesn't mean that I have to be, or that I have to accept their superstitions as evidence of anything.

Prove your case that there is no God or stop demanding something from others that you, yourself are unwilling or unable to provide.

Very easy to prove that god doesn't exist: there is no evidence. Besides, I don't need to prove anything. The folks that say that belief in god is rational need to prove that it is. If you believe in god, that's fine. Just don't say that it's a rational belief unless you can convince me of the rationality of it without referring to The Bible or the faith of others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:28 PM

Hi y'all, I've been gone at the Sanity rally in DC, what fun fun fun. My personal favorite sign: I disagree with you but you make some valid points.

Very few of the atheists I hang out with or listen to, with the exception of George Carlin whom I adored and miss terribly, state their certainty of their being no deity in real life.

Almost all say that they do not believe that any deity exists, and many (and all the scientists+) *also* say they see no reason to posit the possibility, given what is known about the world through actual human observation. These observations can be learned by reading or listening to cosmology, biology, psychology, geology, speleology, and a bunch of other -ologies except astrology, so astronomy. I am confident enough in human intelligence to conclude that the way the world is, to us, in real life, is the way the world looks to all these diverse points of view of that real life.


+By "all" the scientists, remember, I'm talking about *among* my atheist friends, not the world.


I live in the good ole US of A, which I wouldn't trade for anything despite being very glad that I grew up in post-colonial West Africa back when it was deep and dark, so I know juat how bloody lucky I am. I will vote tomorrow reminding my kids that there are people whom I could have gone to school with their aunts or uncles or elder cousins or something getting their fingers and hands chopped off with machetes trying to vote, so it's not so much a right as a privilege and a duty.

I opine that freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and the rest of the 1st amendment (well, pretty much the whole Bill of Rights, actually) - are great ideas, and wholeheartedly support people's right to an *informed* opinion...

***BUT***

*I can no longer be silent* when my fellow Americans (and I never hear anybody else do this, perhaps because I don't hang out with people from official theocracies) spout myth and nonsense that flatly contradicts actual, known, reality, nor do I believe that they have the right to have such opinions *respected* just because they come from the (I would say deliberately uninformed) individual spouting the nonsense's dogma.

The harm is going to be incalculable, and I'm not just talking about my kids' highschool HONORS history text:

Here is judaism, when it started and what its followers believe.
Here is islam, when it started, what its followers believe.
Here is christianity, and we know it's true because the Bible says so, and here are the following facts to learn(quoting chapter and verse). *Nothing* about what its followers believe, like the other religions. *No* historical rationale even for the historical Jesus, let alone any possible doubt about his divinity.
And when I got to the top of the food chain in the education system, I was metaphorially patted on the head and told but of course we know it's true, silly, or we wouldn't have the religion.
I am quoting the Superindentent of Schools, just before she won some national award.
I'm sorry if it appears as if my intolerance for this willful more-than-ignorance, and especially its harming of children's right to a decent education in this {the best/richest/whatever we here in the US have kind of country}{place} seems to spill over into a general intolerance for faith or religion in even more general.

Oh, yes, and I am also no longer able to allow people within hearing/reading-shot to attempt to reason unreasonably. If you're going to attempt rational discourse, you have to do it rationally, and while I'm sorry if this upsets anyone, I don't consider my intolerance of this small thing unreasonable.

And quibbles about semantics (my favorite thing!*) notwithstanding we all know what I mean by the terms reasonable, rational, and faith.

*A reference to a great joke about cats and dogs. Obviously, I'm quoting the dog there.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM

That joke. Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:19 PM

So John P your argument is it is superstition because you say it is?

OK. Lets leave it at that.

Mrrzy

You can find many Christians and other people of faith who agree with your stand on how history should be taught. I would not be surprised if some of them were ACLU lawyers. But if you are lumping ALL Christians in with that school superintendent then you and I have a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:46 PM

And since I have reepetedly both claimed not to, and refrained from doing so, why bring it back up? I do find many people of many faiths that agree with reality. I don't argue with them.

But I get in trouble for not "respecting" beliefs that nobody in their right mind *would* respect if they (the beliefs) weren't backed up by dogma.

Sorry, I can't respect the willful denial of reality > ignorance.

Much "inferieur a" (forgot how to do html accents, helpul bilingual clones go ahead)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:55 PM

Ignore him, John. He's not worth it.


Tee hee...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 06:12 PM

I think that the point is that atheism has a right to exist without religionists condemning it because they have the hubris to think that they are right. It really comes down to a personal approach to life. The issue is not one that can be approached by proving or disproving because there is no basis to test such a thing. It can't be done scientifically without calling into question an evaluation of someone's mental state.

I have no problem with people who believe whatever they want to as long as they don't sit in judgement with people that don't agree with them. I can even accept a flat earth society as long as I don't have to agree with it. I may think that it's crazy but the right to believe what you want is important to me as an American.

When someone condemns atheism because they somehow think that it's harmful or wrong, then I have a problem with them. There is nothing on this thread that has been said that is going to change someone's mind about what they believe or disbelieve. Absolute statements about atheism by someone who doesn't share that disbelief comes under the heading of arrogance. Saying that atheists are "stupid" or "narrow-minded" or "wrong" says more about the one making that claim than those they make the claim against. Insisting that there is only one way to believe or disbelieve is the problem.

You mentioned Jon Stewart's rally. I think the premise is correct. A civil dialogue on a subject is not as some have put it a distraction from evaluating important issues. It is identifying a process in the exchange of information and ideas. When the discussion takes place without name-calling or vituperative table pounding, then something enlightening can come from it.

Remember, though, that tolerance cuts both ways for those who believe and those who disbelieve.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 07:00 PM

So John P your argument is it is superstition because you say it is?

Nope. Try again. Or not, I don't really care.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:30 PM

"It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely."

H.L. Mencken

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM

"It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely."

It is only the Mudcat "Atheist" who is as certain as those two.

-------------------------------------------

>>>So John P your argument is it is superstition because you say it is?

Nope. Try again. Or not, I don't really care. <<<

In that case how clever of you to hide you persuasive arguments and only present us with your crap. Is your "logic" that the good stuff can never be challenge if it is not presented? How clever for you to try to turn it so only the other side has to back up what they say with evidence. Did you learn that one from Glenn Beck?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM

Sorry, Jack, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It sounds like you want me to present evidence for the fact that there's no evidence for the existence of god. How droll! You seem to be missing the basic concept: I don't need to present evidence for the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence. Can you present your evidence that proves there is no giant teapot orbiting the moon?

If you, however, want to say that there is evidence for the existence of something, you actually have to present that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:53 PM

Pastafariansare making as much sense as anybody these days...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM

The entire surface of the moon has been photograph to a high resolution. No teapot has been found. No one is claiming to have experienced moon based tea. There are not 3 billion people who believe that there is a tea pot.

Now your turn.

Prove to my satisfaction that there is no God.

Or take your arrogant self-centered "logic" and place it where it belongs.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

Yes, God believes he exists.

When asked by Britain's Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM

Calmly, Jack, calmly.

The teapot can't be seen in photographs, silly! What are they teaching kids in Teapot Sunday School these days?

OK, here's my proof that there's no god: There is no evidence to suggest that there is. Side note: evidence isn't something you get to vote on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM

Here is my rebuttal.

There is plenty of eye witness testimony. That is evidence.

Now try again. Prove there is no God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:05 PM

Prove to my satisfaction that there is no God.

If it's not too much trouble, please specify the proof that you require for your satisfaction and your rationale for not believing in all the other gods.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM

Sorry Smokey.

But that is not fair. John P. is asking for "evidence" that he will accept without specifying what evidence he will accept. I pointed out that 3 billion believers is evidence. He asked me to take his word that each and every one of those people were acting solely on superstition without offering a shred of proof that they were.

"Because I say so." Is not a logical argument.

He needs to prove his argument before demanding that I prove mine. That said, I can say right now that it is impossible to prove that there is a God or not.

>>please specify the proof that you require for your satisfaction and your rationale for not believing in all the other gods.<<

I have long ago addressed this matter on one of these threads. If you were too focused on your own "side" to remember, you will just have to do without hearing from me again.

Also Smokey. I need to point out to you that you have allied yourself here with someone who is clearly only here to mock and who travels the Internet to mock as a bit of a hobby. You have already received more reasonable attention then you deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:55 PM

>>John P - PM
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM<<

>>Calmly, Jack, calmly.<<

I've been calm. Is the evidence that makes you believe that I am not calm coming from the same place as your evidence that there is no God.

>>The teapot can't be seen in photographs, silly! What are they teaching kids in Teapot Sunday School these days?<<

I didn't go to teapot Sunday school.

>>OK, here's my proof that there's no god: There is no evidence to suggest that there is. Side note: evidence isn't something you get to vote on. <<

There is no evidence which you will accept. Obviously there is plenty of proof that BILLIONS of others will accept.

You have proved that you do not believe in God. You have not proved that billions are wrong. And I am confident that you cannot prove that.

Aren't you the one who said that visits from Aliens are more likely than God?

Show me your evidence for that. There is much more evidence for God than there is of visits from Aliens.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

You have already received more reasonable attention then you deserve.

Thank you for being so reasonable, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:11 PM

I know it isn't much. But why put in real effort only to get "tee hee" in return?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

I don't think I have ever written that. No matter - you answered my question adequately.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

is not positing teapots on the moon a red herring or straw man or something evading the point.back to basics-nothing is known to create itself and for millions a creator requires less faith than the belief that it just happened.the claim that evolution is a fact is one worldview interpreting the data according to the a presupposition,but unfortunately they dont [largely ]allow other scientists to do the same without mockery or even persecution.
i hear that a top scientist in israel was sacked for being a skeptic on global warming and evolution.he apparently committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting teaching alternatives as well as evolutionism.and what is so dangerous about that?.whether taught in religious or science class as long as the science is tackled ,why the objection?.
atheists often decry religion in the school but insist on their faith position being taught exclusively.[if that position is as unassailable as evolutionists assert,what are they so worried about?]

yes,but thats science you cry, but my questions to you are not answered,except directing me to darwin and dawkins.well it might go over my head but a former teacher like steve ought to be able to help me understand the logic of your position,even if i dont accept it.o k you are not teaching now and you have no time for me,even though i have consistently responded to you-without insults and mockery.
someone earlier compared creation scientists to scientists believing in reincarnation.i dont believe in that and i shall have to take your word that they exist,but if they can present scientific reasoning, as creation scientists do on their subject,they should at least be respected,though not agreed with.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM

Pete,

If you want me to read your posts, or anyone to understand them, you need to use proper punctuation and formatting.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:36 PM

Smokey,

Correct me if I am wrong.
You have been egging on the Tee Hee guy.
You have said you agree with everything he has said on this topic.

And Yes. My reasonableness tank on this topic, toward certain speakers, is quite depleted.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM

If that is what you believe, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:59 PM

Cool!

Thank you for the reasonableness.

(I meant the above, no joke.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:04 PM

Aren't you the one who said that visits from Aliens are more likely than God?

Actually, I said that there is more evidence for intelligent beings on other planets than there is for god. The logic seems pretty straightforward to me -- we have hard evidence that it is possible to have sentient life on a planet. It's not a big stretch to imagine that it might exist on more than one planet.

There is no evidence which you will accept. Obviously there is plenty of proof that BILLIONS of others will accept.

As I've said many times, I will accept lots of things as evidence, even evidence that wouldn't be at all scientific. All those billions of people who believe in god -- what's their reason for doing so? Is it based on anything other than being told that there's a god when they were children? What's your evidence? Why is this such a hard question for you? Why believe in something when there are simpler reasons for the observed phenomena?

I repeat: evidence for the existence of something isn't something we get to vote on. I'm not at all swayed by your argument that the majority opinion should hold sway. A majority of people once believed that the world was flat. By your reasoning, the world was flat back then.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM

>>>I said that there is more evidence for intelligent beings on other planets than there is for god.<<<

There is no evidence. None. Zero. Yet you say that there is. What does that say about the "reason" and "logic" you claim? Speculations that there may be billions of planets which you will never see is NOT evidence. Yet YOU accept these speculations as evidence.

I can go around my neighborhood and find people who can tell me about specific prayers they have had answered. I have shared that experience on these threads myself. You dismiss this testimony based on YOUR subjective evaluation of what is more "likely."

I am not saying that the majority opinion should hold sway. I am say that the fact that billions believe is evidence. It is evidence that you cannot dismiss just by calling it superstition. If I need to PROVE what I say SO DO YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:29 PM

>>>I said that there is more evidence for intelligent beings on other planets than there is for god.<<<

I think that you actually said there was "HARD EVIDENCE"

And in the way you replied to what I said, without qualification, you certainly implied that you disagreed with my point that a host of aliens had visited this planet was unlikely.

I have come to believe that you are not well informed enough to tell me what is "likely." That brings you contention that 3 billion people are "superstitious" into question. Prove me wrong if you wish. Or not. I really don't care.

>>>From: John P - PM
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM

They would say it was space aliens, as if a host of beings traveling over light years of distance were less unlikely.

We actually have hard evidence that there is sentient life in the universe. With what we know so far, aliens are a LOT more likely than gods. <<<

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:41 PM

We are that hard evidence, aren't we?