BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

folks in the future may say the same of us in a few hundred or thousand years, as scientific progress seems to be moving at a faster pace.

I expect they will, providing we're still here. In the meantime we have to make the best of what we know.

So, what is the actual risk ( as you note) of such a gamble to a belief in a God?

I never actually mentioned a risk; I was talking about odds and logic, but since you ask, the track record of religion so far hasn't exactly been trouble-free.

On an individual basis, however, so long as people keep their beliefs to themselves and don't seek to control, influence or assume superiority over others I don't think it's a problem. Unfortunately that isn't what happens, and there's your risk.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

"There were far fewer known laws of physics in the past"

Smokey:
Maybe so, but, folks in the future may say the same of us in a few hundred or thousand years, as scientific progress seems to be moving at a faster pace. It wasn't that long ago when Einstien indicated that what is current known in some areas of science was not possible.   

"nevertheless gambling on a rank outsider seems illogical to me"

Smokey:

What seems "illogical" to you obviously is not seen in the same light by many in the world (right or wrong).

So, what is the actual risk ( as you note) of such a gamble to a belief in a God? And, I do not mean following the dogman of an organized religion, which I do see as, in many cases, as having many risks for society.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM

There were far fewer known laws of physics in the past, but nevertheless gambling on a rank outsider seems illogical to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM

"I can respond to any point in any post I like, I think. That's the interweb for ya."

Yes,and I see ya feel free to do so. Anyone can also loudly fart in public, not take showers, smell and look like a skunk, and call folks rude names, if they want. Imature kids rudely interupt folks in discussions clearly directed at others, and, most often get away with it. That's life and what most of us we must deal with, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:57 PM

"I can't see how the known laws of physics could ever change enough to accommodate what seems to be commonly posited as 'God'."

We'll Smokey, many people in past made similar personal observations, (not being able to see future change, of course) and were proven wrong. Inclluding, but not limited to, the flat Earth folks, and scientists adhering to the RC church :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:52 PM

Organised religion seems to depend on the fact that the existence of God/s cannot be proved. From my own, admittedly cynical, point of view, the scam just wouldn't work if there was a real god with actual power.

That aside though, I can't see how the known laws of physics could ever change enough to accommodate what seems to be commonly posited as 'God'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM

I can respond to any point in any post I like, I think. That's the interweb for ya.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 12:53 PM

Sorry Steve, my question was to another poster.

But, thanks anyway.

Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM

The question here is being "begged". The issue is not about opinion or the existence or non-existence of a god but the inherent harm it causes when religious evangelists attack atheists for example as does the Pope. The delusion enables so-called religious moderates to enable the fanatical to voice their disapproval without rebuttal by insisting that their views are correct and atheists are wrong.

History is rife with religious persecution by the religious rather than the Christians that Constantine decided to embrace. It goes on today with the murder of abortion doctors, the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by church goers and preachers, the hiding of abuse of children and others, the insistence that their laws trump those of the U.S. government, the austere pronouncements of authoritarian self-styled pundits and preachers, and the economic plutocrats such as Falwell and Robertson who have polluted the discourse with their smothering blanket of media ownership.

The bible has been used as a weapon to silence dissent, promote racial segregation, subject young men and women to fight in futile wars, and stop free thought.

Other religions do similar things as the atrocities in the Mid-East and Israel attest.

"seems to me that this amounts to"no observational or experimental evidence".just what you charge theists with."

This statement only shows ignorance of scientific findings of the Twentieth century. You can find all kinds of rubbish on the net. This statement doesn't take into account the accomplishment of hard-working scientists to improve the human condition

This is the era of deniers. Holocaust, global warming, evolution, reproductive science deniers have thrown the world back into the nineteenth century.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM

i went on a pro darwin site yesterday and found it gave the same information about evolution as creation.com.in fact less.what was the same was the evidence for micro evolution that darwin discovered.there was nothing attempting a mechanistic explanation for macro change.
seems to me that this amounts to"no observational or experimental evidence".just what you charge theists with.
at least stringsinger followed the argument,though being predictably dismissive in his responce.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 09:19 PM

Would it be more accurate and reasonable to say "under the Laws of physics, as we understand them today"?

No it wouldn't. The laws of physics have abundant evidence to support them. What you seem to want to do is to invent a new law, for which there isn't the slightest scrap of evidence, that says that all the other laws may be circumvented in order to accommodate your God. We try to get to the bottom of the laws of physics in order to explain the universe as we see it. You want a new law that unexplains everything in one fell swoop, innocent of all evidence. It's so easy to do, isn't it? And cloudy and lazy and intellectually-stunting to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 04:39 PM

Stringsinger

I suspect we are not on the same groove. Possibly, I did not explain my interest well. I will give it another try.

Your original statement that I referred to was:

"It is not a delusion that any god can't be proved. This is fact.
(There is no balance in this argument. The delusion of god stems from a belief system that is untenable because it has no basis in scientific fact. Atheism is not a delusion because it does not profess belief but merely states that without proof, a god probably doesn't exist. This is not a belief system operating on faith but on fact".

And, you recently state, "Atheism remains simply the recognition that a deity can't be proven and that is a fact"

I have no interest in joining a debate on defining Atheism, whether it is a faith or not, or what it contends to be a fact or not (though some seem to have such an interest). I feel it has been beaten to death, and see it as pointless, as I would see a debate on what theists believe or not.

My interest is investigating the logic in statements that seem to say a belief in a God is a fact, or not so, and statements that (sometimes at the same time) that the existence of a God is "probably" a fact, or not. It puzzles me why one would add this important word, "probable" in some cases and omit it in others?

I also feel, for accuracy purposes, it is important to add that it is based on current knowledge. To me, whether scientists feel researching a belief in God is important or not is not important to this matter.

I note that people frequently seem all "fired up" and defensive (and sometimes nasty) when one raises a question. Be assured, I am in no way trying to change (or take away) anyones belief, (or lack of one) or opinion (or conclusion) on what they see as facts.

Just trying to get closer to a statement that seems logical...which I suspect some others are doing, maybe in a different way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM

Even though there is no proof that there is no god, (you can't prove a negative, this is a logical fallacy) there are a great many scientific theories that many have tried to prove and not been able to. So it is right that we dismiss them as being invalid. The same goes for any hypothesis about a deity.

The existence of a deity is therefore is not a fact but a fallacy.

Atheism remains simply the recognition that a deity can't be proven and that is a fact.

As to "Creationist scientists" it is possible that a scientist can be effective in a limited range of expertise and also become a "mad scientist" by attempting to prove what he/she believes to be true such as "cold fusion" or "spiritualism".

Science is not at the service of religion otherwise we would be living in primitive times
where people believed that darkness was evil and sunshine good.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM

Not only is it a fact that there is no evidence...(that there is or ever could be a god, I assume is meant), it is also a fact that any God, in order to exist, would be in breach of all the laws of physics"

Would it be more accurate and reasonable to say "under the Laws of physics, as we understand them today"?

If it is a fact (that no god exists), can it be proven to be so?

Most would likely cooose to say it is probably a fact (as noted below), given current science understanding, not that it is a fact...that can be seen as stating that it is known beyond any probability?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM

"Wow, what a guy"

And, what does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 01:35 PM

You're just trolling now,

lol

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:56 PM

Hey, where di my post go? I had said it better before...

I was saying that deity is possible the way the flying spaghetti monster or the ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil are possible - anything is possible.

But none of the above are *reasonable* possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:29 PM

You're just trolling now, Pete. How many more times... "creationist scientists" is virtually the expression that defines "oxymoron." If you wish to be taken seriously, once and for all give me the names of these creationists to whom science is indebted. And how arrogant to make up a new law that negates all the laws of physics, which, unlike them, has no observational or experimental evidence to support it!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM

steve-of course God is beyond the laws of physics as an eternal spirit.as for believing being an obstacle to scientific research;historically science is indebted to a number of christian creationists for their imput,and current creationist scientists still do useful science.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 09:43 AM

Not only is it a fact that there is no evidence, it is also a fact that any God, in order to exist, would be in breach of all the laws of physics, and it is also a fact that he must be far more complicated and inexplicable than all the complicated and hard-to-explain things we already know about and struggle with. He's just an intellectually-dumb bolt-on that puts us in severe danger of being satisfied with third-rate non-explanations of the universe. If God is seen as the answer to anything at all he's going to stop us looking for the real answers. And that search for answers needs that mighty brain that God's followers allege he endowed us all with. So let's invent a God that gives us our mighty brain and then stops us from using it. Wow, what a guy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 10:40 PM

I don't know whether deity is possible, but nothing has ever convinced me of anything resembling a likelihood. I can clearly remember when I was little, coming to the conclusion that they were all just pretending. To a five year old it was the only reasonable explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 08:47 PM

Right; deity is possible, just not worth positing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM

The fact in question is that there is no known evidence for the existence of gods, not that there aren't any gods - that is only a reasonable conclusion drawn from the available facts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:09 PM

"In the case of god, however, it's not a question of what we know but rather what is possible"

Would that be "What science currently knows as possible"?

Is it not just as reasonable that what we now see as possible could change or be broadened in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:04 PM

Note this statement

"Atheism....merely states that without proof, a god probably doesn't exist. This is not a belief system operating on faith but on fact"



fact - a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM

Is man's current knowledge the ultimate authority on what is not a fact, what is a mistake, or what is, as some choose to call it, a lie?

Not at all. I don't think anyone thinks we currently know everything there is to know. Most knowledge is still in our future. In the case of god, however, it's not a question of what we know but rather what is possible. The fact that we can look forward to all sorts of new knowledge doesn't mean that we should accept the possibility of something for which the chances of existence are vanishingly low. Speaking non-scientifically, one of the things we know is that the existence of god is not possible. Or, more accurately, there is no reason to entertain the notion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 06:02 PM

I find it difficult to see logic in the statement that "there probably is not a God, therefore it is a fact that there is no God".

With all due respect Ed, you made the statement, no-one else has.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 05:52 PM

Some reject the concept of a God because it fails to correspond with man's (their, or someone elses) current knowledge and reasoning.

Is this not the same as happened with many concepts rejected in the far, and not so far, past...some of the same concepts that we see as proven concepts today?

Is man's current knowledge the ultimate authority on what is not a fact, what is a mistake, or what is, as some choose to call it, a lie?

I find it difficult to see logic in the statement that "there probably is not a God, therefore it is a fact that there is no God".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 05:22 PM

stringsinger-i hope you have always found me to have been polite and respectful,despite my poor formatting,and our opposing positions.

the reason i say that atheist delusion is at least as valid as God delusion is that the straightforward reason a creation is,is that there is a creator.to posit matter and then life just happening sounds a lot like a faith position ,and not grounded on any observable science.

i am not definate on global warming,but is,nt it true that there have been fluctuations of temperature in history?.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM

One of the new ploys of the Religious Right will be for the Greedy Old Party in the House to investigate global warming scientists in an effort to prove that global warming is fraudulent.
Issa (R) will head the investigation.

There are two basic reasons for this obstruction and waste in the congress.

1. The global warming deniers receive money from the energy corporations that
they are attempting to defend by persecuting scientists (ala Joe McCarthy)

2. There is a religious bias at the base of this since some of the deniers have claimed
that their god would not let global warming happen therefore the scientists must be in error.
It's a variation of the infamous Scopes Trial in which science is once more being denigrated in favor of religious belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

"stringsinger-was your last post in ref to mine?if so the connection seems a bit loose,at least i failed to comprehend it"

The latter is more likely, Pete.


"nevertheless,some random thoughts.
did i say dawkins "suppresses" religious thinking?"

Maybe not you if you say you didn't. But others here infer that.



"i understood that the vatican historically sponsered scientists?i also understand it accepts evolutionism-sadly IMO."

There is no evolutionism. Only evolution. If the vatican sponsors scientists then they wouldn't be as adamantly opposed to abortion. They may sponsor scientists that they feel agree with them.

That said, there are many Catholics today who do not agree with the Vatican such as on issues of abortion, priests being allowed to marry and the coverup of child abuse.


"are you saying i am arrogantly demonising atheists etc just because i disagree,and debate [as much as i am able]."

I'm not sure if you are or not. Are you?

"atheist delusion is at least as valid as God delusion."

No this is a false equivalency. It is not a delusion that any god can't be proved. This is fact. There is no balance in this argument. The delusion of god stems from a belief system that is untenable because it has no basis in scientific fact. Atheism is not a delusion because it does not profess belief but merely states that without proof, a god probably doesn't exist. This is not a belief system operating on faith but on fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 12:59 PM

Nonsense, Pete. A conclusion based on data is always more valid than an unbased belief. But you know that...

In the post 2525!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM

Pete, If you were being respectful you would properly format your writing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

stringsinger-was your last post in ref to mine?if so the connection seems a bit loose,at least i failed to comprehend it
nevertheless,some random thoughts.
did i say dawkins "suppresses" religious thinking?
i understood that the vatican historically sponsered scientists?i also understand it accepts evolutionism-sadly IMO.
are you saying i am arrogantly demonising atheists etc just because i disagree,and debate [as much as i am able].
atheist delusion is at least as valid as God delusion.
respectfully pete

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 11:31 AM

You are one to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:31 AM

Back to the thread, children, don't make me get a switch...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:21 AM

*Sigh* Just trying to be nice to you. Oh well. I have to chop trees before it goes dark. You may entertain me again later.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:13 AM

Sorry, only got to the end of the first line. You are back to ranting again.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:10 AM

Well, YOU'VE certainly piled an awful lot of emotion into replying my posts, even going so far as to ask others to try to get me psychiatric help for my insanity (aka "disagreeing with Jacko"). As for how pithy you want 'em, do you have limits for word-length, number of syllables per word, sentence construction? I'm not wanting to over-tax you, you know. I'm that kind of guy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:58 AM

It is a reflection of the amount of effort your posts are worth.

Also I find that the more you type the less sense you make and the meaner you get.

Short and pithy is better than long winded ranting.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:33 AM

Would that be a reflection of your education or your attention span?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:10 AM

If they are short enough they might get read.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 05:33 AM

He reads my posts all right, Mrrzy. It's just that he replies to them as though a middle man has read them out to him. It's quite droll, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM

I didn't say he was bullying me. Though he has certainly tried.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM

hard to bully someone who won't read your posts, though!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:48 PM

repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:46 PM

>>Ever heard of bullying? <<

Until Steve Shaw, I've never heard it defended as serious discussion.

Poor old Wacko. He's forgotten that bullying tirade, that sheer litany of insults he entertainingly indulged in a few short weeks ago when he repeated posted that I was insane and in need of psychiatric help (for disagreeing with him). Stuff that would have got him permanently dumped off quite a few forums I know, it was that bad! Somewhere down one of these threads it's all collected together for general delectation (and Jacko's mortification). No matter how much you now want to whine about "bullying", Jackie Tar, this will forever come back to haunt you. It's so hard to unsay things you've said, innit? Of course, you could always admit to the assembled brethren here that you were stupid and wrong to indulge in such bad, bullying behaviour, and we can then drop the whole thing. Until such times, your squirmy moans about bullying carry precisely zilch credibility (a bit like your "arguments", actually).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

From any given viewpoint time appears the moment more than one particle exists and is in motion relative to another. From this perspective it is an artifact imposed by the viewpoint, and requires the assertion that particles persist (which they appear to do at our scale, anyway). This may not be fundamentally "true". though. Maybe the hologram is a petaherz regenerative display scheme, for example.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM

Well, he may not *demon*ize them, ha ha, but he does call them as he sees them, which is as delusional. I would call them instead irrational (i.e., poor) thinkers, but and therefore we both find them likely wrong.

And these nonthinkers do demonize, or attempt to, we atheists/free thinkers.

But we don't know yet how time, which we perceive as space, began, which does not mean it had to be created, by an agency (defined above as intender, if you will).

Then again, Hawking's latest book may explain even that. It's on my Solstice list.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:46 AM

I would respectfully disagree that Dawkins suppressed any thinking about religion. He is a critic, not a suppressor. However, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists have suppressed thinking for years. They have labeled, as most all religionists do, critical thinking as heresy. Critical analysis or contradictory thought is not suppression. That's a religious fallacy. The reason that religionists use that as an argument is because they can't conceive of any idea that doesn't conform to their so-called "faith".

I think most FreeThinkers have examined religious thought thoroughly. They don't arrive at this position capriciously as suggested by the "faithful". Most of them know more about the bible then those who criticize them for being dogmatic.

It's a reflexive stance by the religionists who instead of seeking actual information from Freethinkers, atheists or agnostics, they choose to arrogantly demonize them. Dawkins doesn't demonize any one but examines the issue of what religion is as a scientist would being presented by any idea. Hence you have a thread called "the atheist delusion".