 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The God Delusion 2010
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:57 PM Introductory Philosophy! I had my 2 years as a graduate asst., teaching small, once-a-week discussion sessions with new students. I wish you not only luck, but forebearance. Some just never get the distinctions required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ebbie Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM "Scientists locate God Spot in human brain"? Ah yes. I have heard of the 'G-Spot' :) Sorry! (Not really) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:02 PM Pshaw, Bill. You are ignoring the bottom of the curve of Occam's razor, where, in order to simplify, things are lumped together incorrectly. Thus a devout Creationist can claim that all the distinctions and comparisons of fossil record experts are no good--it is all God's show. No, there's a simple explanation, no? But to those who engage in real observation it might appear not only simple of text but even simpler of mind. The corrollary to Occam is that differences should not be ignored in order to over-simplify. Otherwise you are bucking Einstein's lower limit ("...but no simpler". And who wants to mess with him??? Pishtush. Things you can kick (which I very much agree are real) are not going to think much about your motives, intend revenge, or dream up plans to stop being kicked. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Lox Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM If only the universe knew what wonders it contained. Maybe it does. If this random collection of chemicals (me) can produce "I" then why can't that ever more complex collection of chemicals support an infinitely greater "I". Hawkins says that God doesn't fit in his universe. How does compassion fit? how do royal wedding commemorative spoons fit? Why does music sound so much better when you sing with your soul? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM If you think that there are no gods, it follows that you don't believe in them. I've noticed that agnosticism is generally supported by some believers but atheism isn't. Agnostics don't want to hedge their bets just in case there is an afterlife whereby they would be judged. "The bible is about one of the most unpleasant characters in all of fiction". The flip side of fundamentalist religion is sanity. I'll accept the veracity of a reputable scientist over a philosopher any day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: John P Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:52 PM If this random collection of chemicals (me) can produce "I" then why can't that ever more complex collection of chemicals support an infinitely greater "I". I suppose we could think that. But I have a great deal of evidence that tells me I exist. Likewise that you exist. I don't have that evidence for an infinitely greater consciousness. Hawkins says that God doesn't fit in his universe. How does compassion fit? The fact that things exist that we can't scientifically measure doesn't imply the existence of anything else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Lox Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:59 PM I [verb] ... For thousands of years we've been working to understand the above riddle. We've learned a lot but we haven't got near finding a solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM Thanks for clearing that up for me, John P. And for your excellent post. "Agnostics don't want to hedge their bets just in case there is an afterlife whereby they would be judged." I suppose you mean that they ~do~ want to hedge their bets... Yep, a serious problem for those who like to think they're agnostic. Another way of putting it would be "piss or get off the pot." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Lox Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:10 PM Steve - you seem to be saying that people need to make up their minds for some reason. Why? If God doesn't exist, what difference does it make? Our consciousness is a temporary blip that will wink out along with all memory, identity etc ... So why the rules about having to commit to one certainty or another? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM "...a devout Creationist can claim... well, sure! He can misinterpret what 'simplify' really means, thus misapplying Occam in his very critique of it. A.N. Whitehead also said "Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it,"....and I can even agree with the warning.....that's where the "sine necessitate comes in....and that's why "God made it all" is not a useful answer to "Why is there something, instead of nothing?". But, the more science discovers about brain chemistry and structure and DNA, etc....the less it seems we NEED metaphysical concepts to explain many, if not most, experiences. There will always be subjective 'stuff' that we can never totally measure, record or track, but until we can do statistically relevant tests that **incontrovertibly** show non-physical causality, Occam's law will still be a basic tool...(and I'm sure you will find a way to 'kick it' if only by using your linguistically enhanced 'virtual toe'... *grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM There is confusion about agnosticism and uncertainty. I don't know of any atheists who will declare with certainty that God does not exist. I smell the horrid stench of certainty in many religious writings and in many prayers. I think that's a shame. Being an atheist is not about being certain that God doesn't exist, but neither is it agnosticism. Agnostics just don't know. What I know, as an atheist, is that the possibility of the existence of a supernatural being who breaks every law of nature we know about, and who is impossible to explain, is vanishingly small. I can live my life happily in that knowledge and I am completely unconcerned about wacky ideas of afterlifes, etc. Unto stardust I shall return and I'm deliriously happy with that. Agnostics just haven't made up their minds, and they have a serious problem of not having made up their minds about who and what they are on this planet. They have to answer to the hedging-of-bets charge, I reckon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:35 PM "how do royal wedding commemorative spoons fit?" Did Fergie get one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:43 PM I am Christian, and have Christian faith, by my upbringing. If I had have been born somewhere else, or in a different time, I likely would have a different faith and religion. But, would my faith, beliefs, and goodness to my feellow man be less? Possibly not. Would I be convinced that my faith and religion was right, and others wrong. I suspect so. Would I be less of a good person? Maybe yes, maybe no....depeends on the test and interpretation? Would I still pray to God? Likely yes. Would it be the same God? It beats me. I suspect noone really knows, and is in a position to judge others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ebbie Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM I've noticed that agnosticism is generally supported by some believers but atheism isn't.Stringsinger (love that handle!) The answer to that, I think, is simple: Even believers have their moments of doubt; therefore they don't blame others for having doubts all the time. Doubt, to me, is a logical response. "The fact that things exist that we can't scientifically measure doesn't imply the existence of anything else." John P See, I think of that statement as being beyond arrogant. If you really mean that, do you also go along with the notion that everything that could possibly be invented is already here? That we already know everything? Tut tut. "I don't know of any atheists who will declare with certainty that God does not exist. " Steve Shaw For assertions regarding God's non-existence, just look at some of the above posts. Methinks some people have short memories. "Agnostics just haven't made up their minds, and they have a serious problem of not having made up their minds about who and what they are on this planet. They have to answer to the hedging-of-bets charge, I reckon." Steve Shaw See above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:36 PM "Agnostics just haven't made up their minds, and they have a serious problem of not having made up their minds about who and what they are on this planet." That is not true at all. No more true than agnostics are bet hedging either. My agnosticism is based on the lack of proof one way or the other for a God. It has nothing to do with any thoughts towards... "but I'll keep an open mind just so I may go to heaven". It's about keeping an open mind until actual proof, based beyond just faith, occurs. I do not expect it will happen in my life time... yet it could happen tomorrow. As to those who have such faith it is not for me to judge or criticise their belief system. It is a very individual thing. The above statement can be quite insulting to an Agnostic. Be happy in your Atheism but there is no need to lash out at those who have alternative beliefs. I know full well what and who I am. I also know what I believe in and don't. There are many things I remain quite open minded about because I do not know one way or the other. If it is that I like to have proof of certain things then so be it. It has nothing to do with bet hedging or not knowing myself. So you believe you know there is no God. That is your own decision. Do allow other's theirs without insulting them as Dawkins did and then used words like "there probably is no God". Such commitment! Agnosticism is just a valid a stance as any other. Thankfully most other Atheists I have spoken to on that subject have been far fairer about it. It is an individual choice. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM Ebbie said "Even believers have their moments of doubt; therefore they don't blame others for having doubts all the time. Doubt, to me, is a logical response." The person wasn't born who never had a doubt. In Christianity itself Christ doubted his ministry and task several times. To me it signifies his human failings, although failings is the wrong word, and his fears. If I were to believe it all I would take it to be that Christ himself really did know human emotion in the raw. He even asked that this cup be removed from him if it could be.... Very understandable and very human. For me a believer who says they have never doubted is being somewhat economic with truths. If Christ had his doubts then there is certainly nothing to be worried about having doubts on belief. It is the overcoming of those doubts I well imagine that strengthen faith. AQx person never tested by a doubt can never really know what they would do if confronted with one. Blind faith is just that: blind. I believe you have to be able to see your way through things to be abel to know your faith is true. Sadly I lack that amount of conviction. I am unable to have such faith with some proof. Perhaps that is my failing. I do often envy true believers their faith and commitment. But then I can also appreciate the athiests and agnostics viewpoints too and why they have come to that conclusion. It's all very complex but does make for a facinating topic and conversation. To each their own :-) mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM Don't worry about Greg. He and I have a mutual admiration society of longstanding. Perhaps someday he'll make a worthwhile contribution to the thread. And possibly even broaden his vocabulary. But at least he's managing to stay out of the gutter. I suppose we should be grateful for that. It's not something you can assume. I'm sorry to say I won't be able to participate in this scintillating and vital discussion for a while. I have other things to do. I'm sure this is crushing news--especially for dear Greg. Have fun, kids. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:26 PM Agnostics who say "no proof either way" don't believe in any gods, and *are* thus atheists in one (narrow) sense of not having any god beliefs. But they choose to call themselves Agnostic, as I understand it, to distance themselves from others who profess to believe there are no gods, which is another (narrow) sense of the term. I don't have a problem with that choice, although I choose to claim the term Atheist in the hopes of getting the hoodoo off the word so other agnostics don't have to prefer not to be called it. Hope that makes sense. Two things I love about this kind of discussions are a) that because the world turns and we have Catters ally ally over, whenever I go to sleep the thread goes on and when I check it in the morning has always gone off in interesting directions. Hope that is the same experience for those of you across the pond, and b) that I'm not the only one who keeps bipping it back to the top! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM It's a shame Ron's going - now I'll never find out how to tell the difference between Christian and atheist instrumental music. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:50 PM That's not hard, Smokey... Christians have more trumpets: "When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound, and time shall be no more, And the morning breaks, eternal, bright and fair; When the saved of earth shall gather over on the other shore, And the roll is called up yonder, I'll be there." and Gabriel blew a horn, and Joshua commanded lots of of them to topple the walls of Jericho. I assume therefore that Louis Armstrong is a major force in Heaven, and harps are issued to those who don't have the lung capacity. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM Oh, I'm sure Louis won't be in Heaven after what he said about folk music.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM The other thing about all this circular verbal bouillabaisse is that it ignores the fact that Godhood is an idea, not a thing. It is a true idea for some, and true in other ways for others, and a mere flight of imagination for yet others. But there's no-one who has ever claimed to be able to count or measure or plot the location thereof. I think some versions of the idea are very fine, and other versions of the idea not so much. Another way to approach the definition is that god-ness is a quality of own intention toward the world, rather than something one can aim intentions at. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mousethief Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM If we assume that all the other candidates have asked for "kind thoughts/prayers", what is God to do? Pick me. Duh. Look, if you don't want to wish somebody well, then don't. I assume that out of consistency you don't root for any sports teams, and in job interviews you admit you're no better than any of the other candidates? I can understand you not wanting to bare your soul on an internet thread, hostile or otherwise, but you probably shouldn't claim to have evidence that leads you to conclusions and then refuse to supply the path of your thoughts. Well, I haven't exactly said that *I* have evidence. I was referring to theists in general. Actually, Steve Shaw was the one who said he'd never said there wasn't any evidence for religion. It was my quote you responded with. Which explains why I thought he had. I had mixed him up with you. Apologies to you both! I try to be careful but sometimes.... Oh, and good luck with the job! My good thoughts are with you. Which college are you trying for? Thanks! Green River Community College in Auburn, WA. I'll accept the veracity of a reputable scientist over a philosopher any day. On a non-scientific question? Why? It's like letting a rock star tell you which car you should drive. The fact that things exist that we can't scientifically measure doesn't imply the existence of anything else. True, but it does imply that being capable of being scientifically measured isn't a necessary qualification to exist. Being an atheist is not about being certain that God doesn't exist Isn't necessarily, no. But for some, it is. You don't get to speak for them. Hope that makes sense. Um... But there's no-one who has ever claimed to be able to count or measure or plot the location thereof. You assume all "things" can be measured, counted, or located. Why? Another way to approach the definition is that god-ness is a quality of own intention toward the world, rather than something one can aim intentions at. A possible definition, yes, although of course not one that all god-botherers will accept. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Sep 10 - 04:57 AM "My agnosticism is based on the lack of proof one way or the other for a God. It has nothing to do with any thoughts towards... "but I'll keep an open mind just so I may go to heaven". It's about keeping an open mind until actual proof, based beyond just faith, occurs. I do not expect it will happen in my life time... yet it could happen tomorrow." No, you're quite safe. There will never be actual "proof" one way or the other. Saying that I'm an agnostic until proof shows up is just disingenuous. It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy. Which it probably isn't in most cases, but there is a hill to climb there. " 'Being an atheist is not about being certain that God doesn't exist' Isn't necessarily, no. But for some, it is. You don't get to speak for them." Oh yeah? Where are these people then? Hands up any atheist on this thread or anywhere else who will declare to the world that God certainly does not exist! You certainly won't get Dawkins to say it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: TheSnail Date: 03 Sep 10 - 05:30 AM mousethief Pick me. Duh. Look, if you don't want to wish somebody well, then don't. You asked for prayers. You asked us to appeal to God to intercede on your behalf, to favour you over other of His/Her/Its children. I assume that out of consistency you don't root for any sports teams, Well, I don't actually but if I did, I wouldn't ask God to sway the result. and in job interviews you admit you're no better than any of the other candidates? I may be better or I may be worse but I would want to get the job on my own merits not through divine intervention. If you are the best candidate, I hope that the interviewer has the judgement to see that and gives you the job. If you are not, it would be unfair on the better candidate and the students if you were appointed. Why should I pray for that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 03 Sep 10 - 05:33 AM "The slippery slope in confusing these realms, as I have mentioned before to Bill is that you can easily get sunk into the apparent solidity of things and lose all contact with your higher qualities, reduced in scope to a dull-witted computing machine with no higher goal than to keep passing food through the food-tube." I completely agree. The key to not reducing us to computing machines is to see and revel in our achievements as a race. Go and visit an art gallery. Pick up your musical instrument and play. Read philosophy (good luck mousethief!), read a novel etc etc. As I suggest below, it's rather unimaginative to say the least to condemn us to mere machines. We're much more than that. "If only the universe knew what wonders it contained. Maybe it does." No maybe about it - it does and is still learning. This is my point - I'll try making it again as the last time one or two of my phrases were a tad pejorative. If, at the very least there is no God(s) or any other divine being(s), if at the very least we are biological machines, conforming to a set of laws which govern the workings of the entire universe, then all is not lost; in fact all is wonderful. Because we are made of the same stuff as the stars, the planets and all those incredible cosmic sights that dazzle us and induce that feeling there is more to life than the daily grind. We are the universe ourselves, and we are conscious; we are the universe recognising and learning about it's true nature, we are the universe contemplating itself. And that's at the very least. How can one not be deeply moved by that thought? P.S. Cheers Bill! I don't think it works on a Mac :-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 03 Sep 10 - 05:37 AM Steve says "No, you're quite safe. There will never be actual "proof" one way or the other. Saying that I'm an agnostic until proof shows up is just disingenuous. It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy. Which it probably isn't in most cases, but there is a hill to climb there" I personally do not see how I am being diingeneous by being honest about my own stance and my feelings about that stance Steve. You may think it is. That is your choice. But as I am the one who knows my thoughts and beliefs better than anyone I can assure you that my comments are far from the definition "not sincere, lacking candour" for disingeneous. I would also say that your statement that there will never be actual proof one way or another is a little too assured. You can believe that as is your right. I believe that there may be a time when some proof - if proof can exists at all ever - MAY be avaialable. I have no uphill struggle to show or prove anything about my agnosticism not being an insurance policy. I never mind explaining it - as I see and feel it - but I do not need to justify it to you or anyone. People believe what they wish in the end anyway. My agnosticism, to me, is a simple statement of me saying "I really don't KNOW". I have stated earlier in the thread that I am emotionally spiritual but intellectually skeptical. That much *I* KNOW about my thoughts and feelings on this. I am in the best place possible to know what I feel and think. If you think that disingeneous then fair enough. Though just because you think it does not make it true. As I have also stated. I know who and what I am. I can, and do, respect you have your own ideas and thoughts. They differ from mine and I have no need to 'attack' your views in order to give my own greater validity because that never really does work in reasoned discussion. No matter how much one puts down someone's else's argument, seldom would it ever make your own more potent. Sometimes one has to agree to differ with respect and not 'insults'. Besides. My insurance premiums are high enough. Why would I try to sustain insurance formsomething I am not committed to? lol "Hello. Is that Heavenly Insurance? I would like a quote for my belief. Could you give me some idea of what the cost would be for taking out fully comprehensive, new-for-old, protected no claims on such a policy please?" "Life?... you say it would cost my life? Oh my. That's quite a high price don't you think?" ;-) mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Sep 10 - 06:34 AM Ha. But my atheism (a term I hate, as it's religion defining me, which is scarcely without irony) is also a statement of me saying "I don't really know." All I've done is weighed up the odds of God's existence on a scale of my own construction and found them to be almost unimaginably long. It means that I can completely disregard the influence of any God or talk of afterlife on the way I proceed through life. But that doesn't mean I "know." I don't. Before your offence takes root too much, remember that I did say "It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy. Which it probably isn't in most cases..." As for this elusive proof. The real proof of proof will finally be when it gets to be universally accepted. That's the problem, innit. For starters, proving a nagative is notoriously impossible, so the only proof left that may rear its head will be proof that God exists. Heheh - hardly fair! And hardly likely to be universally accepted unless he comes down in a chariot of fire and shows us a load of magic. And even then.... No, agnostics waiting for proof are in for a long wait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Sep 10 - 08:23 AM Mousethief earlier on: "I have evidence, just not evidence that you would accept. Indeed, you don't even accept that it's possible that I have evidence, because of how narrowly you have defined evidence." Mousethief later on: "Well, I haven't exactly said that *I* have evidence. I was referring to theists in general." Er... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 10 - 10:19 AM "I don't think it works on a Mac :-(" If you can see the faces on a Mac, there is some way to make them on a Mac....just different keystrokes for different PC folks :>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 10 - 10:46 AM and.... "...it's rather unimaginative to say the least to condemn us to mere machines. We're much more than that." Of course we are! The very fact that we can have this debate shows that we are something unusual. We are this amazing neuro-chemical 'machine' that has enough funny little cells, synapses and inter-related parts to our brain that we have not only become conscious, but self-reflectively 'aware' and able to 'do' phenomenological tricks and contemplate our own existence! It doesn't detract from the mystery and awe at all...(at least to ME).. to realize that just as 'critical mass' allows nuclear reactions, when applied to neural synapses, it also allows 'creative thinking' reactions. It's all marvelous and exciting and beautiful...and sometimes depressing and dangerous (but that part fuels much literature & music and relationships, just as the 'good' parts do.) When I go to a concert or read a book or look out over a garden filled with flowers and birds, I am not simultaneously wallowing in disappointment that I am 'only' a complex 'machine' made of flesh....I just appreciate. I appreciate even more that I can reflect ON my 'machine-like' status when the situation requires and not be lured into vague, hypothetical constructions of indefinite origin and unprovable realms of ambiguous concepts which no two 'believers' seem to 'see' in the same way. This does not prevent me from remaining open-minded and willing to see other possibilities IF new information appears. Open minded, however, does not mean there are no BS filters at the entrance to my....mind... ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM "We" are an amazing neuro-chemical machine? C'mon, Bill. From time immemorial superstitions have been the raw porridge of the unthinking, and the notion that "we are machines" is a classic candidate. Insisting that things that are different are the same is an earmark of premature conclusive ignorance. "Everything is biochemical" is just as superstitious a remark as "everything is illusion" or "everything is God's will". Anyway, speak for yourself. If you want to be an amazing neurochemical machine, feel free. After all, beingness--the identities with which we choose to associate ourselves--are elective. Don't look too hard, though, at the question of who is doing the election, or you might find yourself floating six feet back of yourhead! :D Please, don't go lumping into your generalizations those who choose some other category to be in. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mousethief Date: 03 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy. Well yes it's imossible to prove a negative claim like that. Fox News uses this all the time -- Is Obama really a space alien? If he's not, why doesn't he come clean about it? What's he got to hide? Substitute innuendo-of-the-day for "space alien" and repeat. Obama does not have to prove he's not an atheist, foreign-born, or Muslim. Nor do Agnostics have to prove they're not agnostic because they want fire insurance. That's something of a slimy move, Steve, and I'd have thought it beneath you. Oh yeah? Where are these people then? Hands up any atheist on this thread or anywhere else who will declare to the world that God certainly does not exist! You certainly won't get Dawkins to say it! But he will say believing in God is a "delusion" which presupposes it. Obviously he believes it, but is too something to say it. He should have the courage of his convictions. You asked for prayers. And kind thoughts. What, if the word "prayers" is in the sentence do you not read the rest of it? Mousethief later on: "Well, I haven't exactly said that *I* have evidence. I was referring to theists in general." It's a fair cop. Nevertheless, what I said about baring my soul to a semi-hostile audience. I've been ripped to shreds too many times. Fool me once, shame on you, etc. The problem is that if a theist does mention what their reasons are for believing in God, then they enter into this no-win argument when people start tearing their reasons apart. What end does that serve? To make trigger-happy Atheists feel better about themselves? Get your own happy juice. They're not reasons you would accept. I've already said that. If I told you what my reasons were, you still wouldn't accept them, and you'd gloat over me as well. Who needs that? I can understand you not wanting to bare your soul on an internet thread, hostile or otherwise, but you probably shouldn't claim to have evidence that leads you to conclusions and then refuse to supply the path of your thoughts. Oh wait, you already do gloat over me. ::rolleyes smiley:: I claim to have great sex with my wife. I'm not going to tell you what the evidence is. Why should this be a problem? I'm not saying you should believe, or that there's something wrong with you if you don't have evidence that convinces you of the existence of God. Why should my saying that I have evidence that convinces me, but I'm not willing to wrangle about it, somehow be a fault? (PS and no, I don't think you will go to Hell. I'm a universalist. So don't even go there.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: John P Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:12 PM Well, I'm not looking to gloat. I'd probably start probing and poking at your reasons, but the purpose wouldn't be to "win". Certainly not I don't have any belief that I could change your mind. Actually, I was just grabbing an opportunity to investigate the thinking of some articulate and non-dogmatic Christians. I like things to make sense and this one doesn't. Equally not making sense to me is the fact that it makes sense to intelligent people such as yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: TheSnail Date: 03 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM mousethief And kind thoughts. What, if the word "prayers" is in the sentence do you not read the rest of it? Yes, you asked for kind thoughts but you also asked for prayers. Do you see them as equivalent? I thought a prayer was a direct appeal to God. Do you consider that a morally acceptable way to compete for a job? What do other religiously inclined people think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mayomick Date: 03 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM John P asks , "What's the word for "I've never been given any reason to even consider it" or "it really doesn't make any sense to me"?" A free-thinker? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:29 PM " "Everything is biochemical" is just as superstitious a remark ..." To quote a well-known pundit 'round these parts: "pshaw" or "pishtush" If you review, very carefully, my years of discussing this topic, you will be reminded that my assertion is that There is no compelling reason to assume a non-physical basis to the mystery of 'us-ness'..... that's all. " If you want to be an amazing neurochemical machine, feel free. ....Not sure yet whether 'feeling free' IS free....scholars differ. I was almost one of them. 'Taint a matter of 'want'... it is what it is, and I doubt that "choosing some other category to be in" affects anything but one's own It's kinda like some of those British 'titles' which confer the privilege of putting a longer & fancier return address on your mail. ;>) You 'feel' more important. I feel just fine, and I retain my sense of wonder & awe at whatever I...and you... are. If you discover any profound insights as to why I can add metaphysical credits to my sense of beingness, lemme know......but I do have my standards! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:42 PM Bill: I see your bastion of certainty is deep-rooted. The reason for differentiating the two realms has been pointed out over and over in these threads but your gloss is impermeable. That's why I fell back on "feel free". As long as you exclude the data that might unsettle your perspective, you won't find any reason to modify it. It's a self-proving machine. All the transcendant experiences in the universe reported by others will not scratch the invisible shield. Smug? Not me. I am all for wonder and amazement and the creative awe that playing in the fields of the universe instill. But I suspect my mind may be more open than your own, sir. Rigid systems of logic do not contain within them the notion that they themselves may be arbitrary. It would ruin the game. But there are more dimensions and broader fields of play than even the wonders of "natural" space-time can afford, which I hope to see you in one day. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 10 - 03:09 PM As long as you use phrases like "I see your bastion of certainty is deep-rooted.", you show that you don't 'quite' comprehend what my position really is. It is very much an UNcertainty on most topics. I am very much NOT certain that "...the transcendant experiences in the universe reported by others .." represents 'good evidence '. Forgive me for delaying in applying my rubber stamp to the reams of documentation. "But I suspect my mind may be more open than your own, sir." You may be right... I do think I hear the wind whistling thru it at times.. (thus, the hat, I assume? but if all you mean is that you have a more...ummmm.. 'vivid imagination', I can certainly allow you that status. ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM That's not the wind you hear, Bill. It's the sound of the Akashic Records downloading!! :D You deflect my argument most reasonably, but you do not meet it. But since we have both wrapped around this axle before, and you have not modulated your hard-nosed (if narrow) perspective a whit, and since it seems clear to me that it is entirely attributable to exclusionary data definitions to which you closely cleave, I have nothing further to offer on this front, aside from repeating myself ad infinitum (which is probably easier for me than it would be for you). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 10 - 04:38 PM " probably easier for me than it would be for you)." well, sort of.. ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞...∞ Ok, then... it IS Friday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Lox Date: 03 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM You know - there is an oft repeated mistake in these conversations. It is that "there is no evidence for Gods existence" In fact this is not true. There is evidence in the form of testimony. The accurate way to describe our predicament is to say that the claims made by "witnesses" have yet to be tested, either proved true or discredited. Some opine that the available testimony isn't true, some opine that some of it is true, and many disagree as to how to interpret that testimony. What does "God" mean? What is the "Soul" Are they by products of chemical reactions? Or are they independant of the physical realm? Is my consciousness a scientific Miracle or a spiritual one? What is the difference? Lots of questions .... no satisfactory answers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Sep 10 - 09:03 PM " 'It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy.' Well yes it's imossible to prove a negative claim like that. Fox News uses this all the time -- Is Obama really a space alien? If he's not, why doesn't he come clean about it? What's he got to hide? Substitute innuendo-of-the-day for "space alien" and repeat. Obama does not have to prove he's not an atheist, foreign-born, or Muslim. Nor do Agnostics have to prove they're not agnostic because they want fire insurance. That's something of a slimy move, Steve, and I'd have thought it beneath you." Sorry to see you've turned sour following a couple of careless faux-pas. I don't do innuendo but I do do challenges to so-called agnostics who don't want their comfort zones violated (which is by no means all of them I hasten to add). I don't see agnosticism as a particularly honest position, generally speaking, and I don't need to resort to innuendo to state that. Now why would anyone be an agnostic? Maybe they haven't given the matter much thought. Or the pros and cons are too complicated to deal with right now. Or they have a sneaky suspicion that agnostics, if they happen to be wrong, might go to hell. Or they have given the matter a huge amount of anguished thought but have decided they still don't know. I've met a good few agnostics but very few fall into that latter category. I do see an awful lot of apathy wrapped up as agnostism, in contrast. I think the trouble with agnosticism is that it doesn't understand atheism very well. It is slightly scared of atheism's supposed absolutism. The fear is without foundation, as any serious atheist (and there are a few of the other kind, I know) will tell you they're not certain about God's non-existence. Atheism doesn't deal in absolutes (in stark contrast to religion). Most so-called agnostics I've met seem actually to be closet believers. I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that belief and agnosticism comes with a whole load of potential self-interested baggage. In a way, you've sort of proved that yourself by asking for prayers. Asking God to give you an advantage will always mean that you're asking him to give someone else a disadvantage. There are no victimless prayers of that sort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Sep 10 - 09:46 PM Testimony is always misleading. Eye witnesses can be wrong. They generally can't be counted on for veracity in legal proceedings. DNA and other methods of scientific verification can. There are no eye witnesses among those who are testifying. They are speculating after the fact. I agree with Steve Shaw about agnosticism. It's from a position of denial, I think, by not wanting to make a clear appraisal. I also agree that atheism doesn't deal in absolutes. There are too many different kinds of atheists. I think that a Freethinker has given intense thought to the idea of whether a god exists or not. I like this designation rather than the term atheist. It means to me that the question of the existence of a god has been thought through and conclusions that are reached are that there is no god. We are a species and not a machine. If the species in our world were "designed" than the "designer" would have to be relegated back to the drawing board. Evolution, not "design" explains how sometimes inefficient biology is prevalent in all species and genus's. There are examples of this in Dawkin's book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" which may be his best. Being a Freethinker or an atheist includes compassion for fellow human-beings and high moral standards. It also means that you can be kind and understanding to others. You can be empathetic and sympathetic to people and other animals. The idea that religion is necessary to do this is specious. From: mauvepink - PM "So you believe you know there is no God. That is your own decision. Do allow other's theirs without insulting them as Dawkins did and then used words like "there probably is no God". Such commitment!" I see no insult in Dawkin's statement. This is the kind of ultra-sensitivity that causes problems when broaching this topic. People take this examination personally. "Probably" is the key word here. The insult is insisting that there is a god. That violates free thought. Anyone can have an opinion. It doesn't have to be agreed to. I see no more insult to this statement than those of a political nature. The GOP probably will mess things up in November. Notice I said "probably". Would you have a problem with that statement? Dawkins when he offers a critique of religion is immediately accused of insulting someone. The supreme insult is denying the critique at all and assuming that this is not a topic for conversation. The supreme insult is the argument from ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Lox Date: 03 Sep 10 - 09:57 PM Interestingly, Christianity does not advocate asking God to prioritize ones interests over somebody elses, but it states clearly that God already knows what you want. Once it has stated this it goes on to prescribe a specific prayer. But we digress ... I am an agnostic because, coming from Hong Kong, I am all too aware of how chinese whispers works. Even if people are reciting from the same scripture, they often represent a whole myriad of interpretation. Given the huge array of accounts of God and how he/she/it has interacted with humankind, it seems unreasonable to me to subscribe to any specific interpretation or set of beliefs. An agnostic feels that there is more to the universe than mere apparent physical solidity, but doesn't presume to be able to explain it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mousethief Date: 04 Sep 10 - 12:06 AM Yes, you asked for kind thoughts but you also asked for prayers. Do you see them as equivalent? No. Can't one ask for both? If I ask you for a sandwich and a glass of Coke, do you conclude they're the same thing? But really I was asking for one or the other. A free-thinker? Free-thinkers aren't allowed to make decisions? He said he never had the evidence to convince him. That doesn't mean he's a free thinker. It just means he hasn't had the evidence to convince him. For all we know he could be hidebound as a horse on some other topic. (I assume not, but I'm talking about the unjustified inference.) Asking God to give you an advantage That's one way to pray for a person, certainly. One could also pray that their nerves not be shot while waiting. Or that the people making the decision do not unfairly prejudice against them in any way. Etc etc. But these are things that believers talk about; probably atheists don't think about the various meanings and objects of prayer, since they don't pray. But they do jump to conclusions, don't they? I think that a Freethinker has given intense thought to the idea of whether a god exists or not. I like this designation rather than the term atheist. It means to me that the question of the existence of a god has been thought through and conclusions that are reached are that there is no god. If a Freethinker gives intense thought to the idea, and concludes a god does exist, does she thereby cease to be a freethinker? Or are you defining "freethinker" in such as way as to preclude ever coming to believe in God or god(s)? It reminds me of the hilariously self-congratulatory label "Brights" that some atheists have (or had) taken for themselves. @Steve re. Lox: Lox's agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your insistence that few people are agnostic for intellectually honest reasons almost smacks of religious dogma. Why is it so important to you that Agnostics call themselves Atheists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 04 Sep 10 - 12:50 AM Much as I like the term 'free thinker', could it not just as easily be applied to a believer as long as they were open to the possibility of being wrong, as I am about my lack of belief? I suppose the answer is that it varies from person to person, but do the believers here think that is an unreasonable thing to expect of a believer, or does religious belief by definition normally demand no doubts whatsoever? That looks to be the case, but not being a believer, I've no idea really and I'd be genuinely interested what believers think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: TheSnail Date: 04 Sep 10 - 05:38 AM sandwich ==> kind thoughts a glass of Coke ==> prayers (A reverent petition made to God) Hmmm. One could also pray that their nerves not be shot while waiting. I can see that you praying might, given your beliefs, help calm your nerves but the idea that a bunch of people scattered round the World praying on your behalf would have any effect stretches my credulity. If it did, it would mean the most nerve calming would go to whoever had accumulated the greatest quantity and quality of prayers in God's judgement. Anyway, you'd already had the interview. Or that the people making the decision do not unfairly prejudice against them in any way. So you're asking us to pray that the best person gets the job on their own merits. Good. (But it might not be you.) But these are things that believers talk about; probably atheists don't think about the various meanings and objects of prayer, since they don't pray. But they do jump to conclusions, don't they? I have no idea what atheists think. I find their position even more absurd than believers. To define yourself by something you believe in is an understandable position even if I don't share that belief. To define yourself by something you don't believe in seems bizarre. I don't believe in Blurquahal but I don't agonise over it or define myself as an ablurquahalist. Perhaps, as a believer, potential adjunct professor of philosophy and expert on epistemology, you could enlighten us as to the various meanings and objects of prayer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:06 AM "If a Freethinker gives intense thought to the idea, and concludes a god does exist, does she thereby cease to be a freethinker?" Yes she does. You are demonstrating, perhaps unintentionally, in this remark the inbuilt certainty that blights religion. Anyone who comes to a conclusion of such certainty, either way, without sufficient evidence (and there can never be sufficient evidence for certainty) is not a freethinker. You may conclude that there is some possibility that a God exists and still be a freethinker. But if you conclude that there is a strong possibility that God exists (let's say, more likely than not) you are in danger of losing the badge as you are reaching conclusions that fly in the face of all rational evidence. The other issue for aspiring freethinkers is to ensure that certain baggage is ditched, such as fear of heavenly reprisal or fear of social disadvantage here on the ground. Not easy, and organised religion makes very sure that it isn't easy. "Your insistence that few people are agnostic for intellectually honest reasons almost smacks of religious dogma. Why is it so important to you that Agnostics call themselves Atheists?" I'm not insisting on it at all. I'm speaking as I find. Next time you meet an alleged agnostic ask them why they're agnostic. You may get lucky and get a good debate going, but you're far more likely to hear that "it's all a load of rubbish as far as I'm concerned," or "I can't be bothered with all that hocus-pocus and dressing-up" or you might get a remark about priests and child abuse. Largely, you'll hear a lot of veiled excuses for the fact they've stopped going to church. I don't want or not want it this way. It's the way it is. And actually, as I've said several times on this thread, I don't want anyone to call themselves atheists, not even atheists. It's outrageous that we're defined by religion when religion has nothing to do with the way we live. And it's a negative word in any case. My view that so-called atheism is largely misinterpreted to be an absolutist stance - it is anything but - is meant more as an invitation to agnostics to think again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:17 AM Strinsinger wrote: "I agree with Steve Shaw about agnosticism. It's from a position of denial, I think, by not wanting to make a clear appraisal. " and to me... "I see no insult in Dawkin's statement. This is the kind of ultra-sensitivity that causes problems when broaching this topic. People take this examination personally. "Probably" is the key word here. The insult is insisting that there is a god. That violates free thought." Where exactly is my denial occurring in my statement about how I choose to be agnostic? What is there to deny? I am clearly stating that I await proof one way or the other. I am denying no possibilty of one idea or the other therefore. THAT IS my clear appraisal based on many many years of being let down by both religious dogma AND science. I am looking at it as someone who has been involved with religion and science. Science can sometimes be misleading too (deliberately) and try and shut down free thinkers. Anyone who doubts it look up the story of what happened to Alton Arp when he discovered various innacuracies about quasars and the Hubble Constant. At one point I was left with totally nothing I could belive in with honesty and truth. That aside. No denial is taking place. My uncertainty comes from lack of what I need to make a decision for myself. What insulted me about Dawkin's statement and involvement with the bus advertising, which again I clearly stated earlier in this thread, was his pompous and arogant attitude. He calls agnostics fence sitters and then he himself uses the word "probably". Probably suggests some doubt or alternative is possible. Where is his conviction with such a sloppy statement? As a scientist I had no problems at all with Dawkins. Brilliant man. But he should have stuck with what he was good at. This, what now seems like a private crusade, to trash those who have belief is unworthy of him in my opnion. He has made his point. Several times... and several times and again and again... ad nauseum. Why does he have to keeping thrusting it home? And then, with all his oh-so-certain statements and commitment, he goes along with the word probably. THAT word just about said it all and with it went my respect for him. Someone who stands on for what they believe in has my respect. I may not necessarily believe in what they do, but I can respect their commitment and stance. I also accept that sometimes people change their position. But to hammer home a point about something that he is certain about, and call those who do not go along with his thinking, and then use the word probably, is wishy-washy at best. It is insincere. Had he advertised THERE IS NO GOD then, no matter what I personally think, he is sticking by his message. The word "probably" said a great deal. Over sensitive? Well, no. But I am entitled to feel affronted when I get called a fence sitter by the likes of Dawkins. He is no better with the statement he made. I get called as being in denial, something I clearly am not. I get called diingeneous when I am neither a liar or insincere. I only 'personalise' this as I cannot speak for other agnostics. Just myself. I have not taken ofence on a personal level. I know Dawkin's and yours and others are not personal to me. But my response is a personal one. It is also honest and sincere. Fundamentalist atheism is as bad as any other form of fundamentalism. Hammering home insults to open minds or believers does not make the other's mesage any more certain or correct. There are many variations on this theme and I think people are entitled to them without having to suffer the indignations of those who hold other views. If you believe there is not God then well and good. No argument will you get from me. You do need to allow for other people having other views though without seeing it as being in denial. Sorry to have rabbited on ;-) mp |
