 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The God Delusion 2010
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM Well, I am a seeker without doubt. But nowhere do I think I said, nor do I believe, that I cannot be wrong. It is VERY possible I am but if we never sought answers.... Sometimes asking the right question helps. Counter-intuitive indeed ;-) mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Greg F. Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM Well....the Seeker After Truth has a darn good chance of being wrong, once he/she claims to have captured the truth. Ah, but Joe, "our" Ron, the All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth has ALWAYS claimed not only to have captured, but to be the sole purveyer of, ALL truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM "... sometimes there are illogical reasons for things being in place too." More often than not, it's just that we haven't worked out the proper logic/connections yet. I think the term 'counter-intuitive' is what you may be thinking of...like the guy who 'proved' that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. *grin* The first people who saw bread dough 'rise' didn't understand it either...I'd wager they prayed and made 'offerings' before they learned about yeast. To this day there are Belgian breweries who allow 'natural' yeast to settle into open kettles to create Lambic beer, and NO ONE is allowed to clean the room where the kettles are, for fear of messing up the formula. They know THAT it works, and they have some idea 'how' it works...but...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM Right, Little Hawk. That is precisely why it is so unreasonable to posit the necessity of deity for *any* natural phenomenon, nowadays. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM Well....the Seeker After Truth has a darn good chance of being wrong, once he/she claims to have captured the truth. Those who seek, usually aren't wrong. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Greg F. Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:54 AM The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth is NEVER wrong, oh blasphemous disbeliever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM "Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?"... I knew as I pressed the "submit" button that someone, if not many, would point out that this statement was not quite so logical as it sounds. It's not, I know it, but in my way of thinking I need to make space for things I do not KNOW for sure and leave it open to the possibility. Logically, and using Occam's razor, the chances are there is no God. But even Occam's Razor is quite drastic as sometimes there are illogical reasons for things being in place too. In short: I'm not sure at all, one way or the other, but I am not scared of either possibility. Whether I believe or not is also not as relevant as allowing in my life for those who do have faith. I detest football but can also allow for the true football fan without giving in to the hooligan element that spoils the true fan's reputation so often. The point you make is fair. I know it. Thank you for pointing it out so eloquently. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:17 AM Ron I never seen any posts that indicate any type of racist, but I admit I don't read every post from everyone either ... I would just be shocked to see it. Richard like many others have strong feelings against organized religion .. and that is ok , it sets me off sometimes but they are entitled to their opinion as I am to my faith. so i guess what I am saying is I never saw it .. anyway .. I hope everyone has a good day .. pretty nice here in Western NY .. today .. not so stinking hot as it has been. Grapes are coming into season and people are starting to pick .. love the smell of grapes this time of year. it is a good thing I do, I got 7 miles of them behind my house |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:07 AM mauvepink said: "Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?"...well, that's not exactly a correct 'logical' translation. It's not the same structure as saying "no one knows". In about 1964, my hometown newspaper,The Wichita Eagle, removed the BC comic strip from the paper for over a year because of a strip where BC asks Peter,"Do you believe in God?" "Yes..."..."Why?"..."Because there might be one..." This was a very conservative town, and although Jonny Hart, creator of the BC strip was a dedicated and 'witnessing' Christian who was just using humor to make HIS point, the paper got myriads of call & letters demanding that this 'blasphemous' strip be removed! I 'think' it was not replaced until Hart wrote personally to the paper and 'explained' and apologized for the confusion. All discussions about 'maybes' and 'probably' lead inevitably to "Pascal's Wager", which asserts that IF you admit the possibility of a god, it's smart to act on it and believe. The problem is, Pascal's little chart only lists 4 possible outcomes, and itself assumes too much about what a god, if there is one, does and thinks and requires...etc. There are far more than 4 scenarios if we begin allowing 'possible' truths in our calculations. (God MAY like Jehovah's Witnesses more than Catholics!) Being an agnostic is sort of a formal way of saying "I don't think we can ever know the answer, one way or another." On a practical level, there is not much difference in being agnostic or atheist, except in how you act & argue. If you don't get into discussions, the exact label you give yourself is almost irrelevant....and if you DO adopt a label, you open yourself to all the interpretations of it....as we have just seen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:41 AM Also, the poster in question, as Joe has pointed out, has a long history of similarly delightful attitudes and postings on an array of subjects. It seems reasonable to point it out. Who knows, maybe he's capable of learning. We can but hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:40 AM It just seems Ron you're doing to atheists what you say atheists are doing to Christians, and that's gotta be wrong Ron Ron Ron, plain wrong Ron Ron.* *Sorry. Couldn't help myself. This has become a great thread and if one good thing has come out of it (in my case, a little more understanding), it's the fact olddude isn't going to kill the skunk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM I regard no racists--blatant or genteel-as my friend. Mudcat is not Love Story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:21 AM Did I just read that atheism has caused more trouble than religion? Apparently, that phrase is in the "How to knock on doors" guide for Jehovah's Witnesses. (I know, a mate of mine was one till he discovered beer, loose sex and horse racing.) also, I had a girlfriend who had "seen the dark" as she put it, leaving after being one all her life. Apparently, because Hitler and Stalin weren't religious, so the waffle goes. Interestingly, of course they were very religious. Just that instead of following a cult, they invented their own. Mind you, I have been reliably informed that using Hitler on a forum is a sign of having admitted losing the argument... I reckon the whole you vs me, them vs us etc diatribe can be summed up in my mind as follows; In our so called enlightened society, there are those, including those in power, who would wish to force their way of life on the rest of us. Sunday trading, charity breaks for religious organisations, Bishops in the upper house of legislature, (in our case House of Lords.) In the face of this unacceptable state of affairs, normal rational people will rebel, and rebel strongly. I love being accused of blasphemy, the victimless crime. Why? because it stops superstition taking over completely. Look at Islam, debased and made useful by those who wish to subjugate others. You know what? So do most Christian churches... I read above something about a court in the USA stating that atheism is a religion. Doesn't surprise me. USA courts can be guilty of conspiracy to murder when they execute their citizens, so other strange judgements don't even make me blink. And you know what? When I was last in Georgia, I sent a postcard to my mate saying "greetings from Dumbfuckistan." I thought it was funny, but sometimes, the laughter is hollow. That's why I jump in on these threads. I would hate the civilised world getting deeper in medieval superstition. Not quite so bad here in England just yet, but the bible bashers and Q'ran pushers are waiting in the wings... Sod the lot of 'em. I have no time for hypocrisy, preying on weak minds or jam tomorrow. I get my jam today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM "the Trafford Centre" Omigod! I can honestly say that I've never really equated the Trafford Centre with the enriching of life . . . I do go to visit the Apple Store (but I can avoid that now there's one in the Arndale, a cock's stride from the epicurean delights of the Northern Quarter), and I can see the attraction in the Selfridges food hall (but only when I'm flush), but I rather identify the place with one of the circles of Hell Dante missed the door to. ". . . atheists are also requested to provide names of hospitals founded by atheists, charitable orders started by them, and books saved by them. Er, are you seriously suggesting that atheists are not involved in any good works? That's quite ridiculous. You don't personally know the religious (or otherwise) views of everyone involved in working for the common good. "Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here. Which the above post proves wrong, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:44 AM Ron I may not agree with Richard, but I regard him as a friend and he is a very very good person. It is wrong to accuse him of that. You also are a good person and know you shouldn't do that .. please refrain from such things .. I will disagree with people here about their views on faith. I will sometimes, as now, be a jerk in the way that I disagree but there are no bad people here .. only people who disagree and it is ok to disagree .. hell it is ok to fight .. but not ok to call someone racist .. that is wrong .. like Tam, I have to leave this .. Art is right .. by the way Art you always come up with one liners that make me burst out laughing. You would have had a successful career as a comedy writer. How can someone come up with one liners on the fly that make ya fall over laughing I am admire you (mostly) LOL ... what a line !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:40 AM Here's something to think about. http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: VirginiaTam Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:27 AM Ron if you think Richard is a racist you could not be more wrong. Clearly you have an axe to grind against the OP evidenced by citing a post from more than 2 years ago on another thread. You have been digging for something to use in your attack on him and you take it out of context and misapply it to this thread. This type of behaviour invalidates your entire argument. I won't say any more on that point. Back to the topic ... are you saying that all these people who have created beautiful choral music and attributed it to God would not have created it if they had never been exposed to the concept of God through religion? Surely, the melodies, harmonies might have been laid against a libretto that honoured the glory of nature or a saga of real human heroes and still have been as beautiful. I don't think that is how the creativity of man works. I would say that it is the wonderful creativity in humans which made the concept of God and built upon that with religions. Respectfully to others, this is my feeling. (and I use the term 'feeling' quite literally). Wonder and problem solving are the driving forces behind creativity. Creativity is not the remit of only the religious. Now I am really going to leave this thread, because it is taking too much of my time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Greg F. Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:13 AM When did he say that? Not in the opening post anyway. One is not permitted to contradict The Oracle, Fount of All Knowledge, and Simple Seeher Afrer trutn.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM "And besides - no Religion has ever come up with a cure for disease, advanced medicine, pain killers, the invention of electricity, steam engines, motorcars, washing machines, power stations, violins, trumpets, CDs. MP3s or any of the other billions of technological and medical advances that make life increasingly worthwhile." In any given generation Life has always been worthwhile. From a purely evolutionary point of view, life is always worthwhile. Without life there is no progress in any species. The things you make mention of above may not have been done/created by any one religion BUT they have often come about in the light and faith of religious conviction. Many of the people involved in many good works have belief and believe they are doing what they do in the eyes of God or under Jesus' divine instruction. Can there be any harm in that? These people are not 'preaching the Gospel' so to speak, but are carrying out what they believe is God's will. Should they be denied such inspiration or have no right to do that? Whether or not they actually are is open to interpretation dependant on on'es own belief system. Anyone doing good and using their spiritual base with it cannot possibly be doing anything bad. Likewise many who do bad also believe they are doing God's work or are under divine instruction. They are two sides of the same coin I suppose. One cannot have one without the other (though you would wish you could). And then there are atheists and agnostics who also do good and bad under no spiritual banner. All are part of the fabric of Life. Perhaps one day we will evolve far enough to manage to have one without the other. I would hope the good survive, but the chances are there will always be power mongers willing to get it in any way possible who use other things in life to get it. Get rid of religion and something else would take it's place. Imagine a world without a religion. Do you see a world of peace then? Probably not. Because humans hide behind banners of various labels and names. Politics, business, military, tribal, supporters of this team or that.... no religion there but there is plenty of competition and power grabbing. Money is at the bottom of a lot of it. Let those who do good have their hopes, faith and belief. In whatever they believe. That very force is often what drives many a discovery just as much as someone who is not religious is just as capable of great works. We need them all. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:43 AM The opening poster, it seems, might possibly think describing candidate Obama as a "coconut" is just fine since it was not "oreo". When did he say that? Not in the opening post anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:35 AM Anybody who this is invited to give evidence to the contrary. The Roman Catholic church has too long & bloody a history to detail here; the inquisitions & exterminations of The Albigensian Crusade is a good place to start. Hitler was acting in the name of Religiosity and as compliance to Absolute Truth; Stalin & Mao likewise. The Theology of Roman Catholicism still accounts for suffering of millions and the mission of Mother Theresa doesn't bear to close a scrutiny either. Be it Music or Atrocity - it's human beings who are doing these things, not God or some Higher Spiritual Being but they generallyu so in the name of Absolute Truth. Henry Purcell composed transcendant secular and sacred music in equal measure; Sun Ra spoke of being a member of the Angel Race and Don Cherry addressed his entire output to the service of God, as did John Coltrane. And besides - no Religion has ever come up with a cure for disease, advanced medicine, pain killers, the invention of electricity, steam engines, motorcars, washing machines, power stations, violins, trumpets, CDs. MP3s or any of the other billions of technological and medical advances that make life increasingly worthwhile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:11 AM "Anybody who disagrees with this..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:53 AM Bobad, a more recent survey. Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe. In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:51 AM Furthermore, I'd pursue my earlier point. Atheism has been a complete disaster for mankind. Religion has not. Anybody who this is invited to give evidence to the contrary. Reason is also obvious: in an atheist state it is easy for the leader to take on himself the attributes of God. Makes it not easy, to say the least, to contradict the leader. In addition to defending the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, atheists are also requested to provide names of hospitals founded by atheists, charitable orders started by them, and books saved by them. Also on Mudcat there is another aspect worth discussing: music. Admittedly I am not an unbiased observer, since I have been a choral singer in an excellent group for about 20 years. Atheists are requested to give names of pieces of choral music composed by atheists. Religion, especially Christianity, has given us the most sublime vocal music known to man--everything from choral masterpiece to spirituals. . Examples are far too many to count. Just for starters: Mozart Requiem, Brahms Requiem, Verdi Requiem, Faure Requiem, virtually all of Tallis' and Byrd's choral music. And spirituals--all of them. All unthinkable without Christianity. And don't bother to whine that these accomplishments are due to religion often being organized. My argument is at least as fair as the tarring and ridiculing of religion which goes on constantly on Mudcat. And to further address an earlier issue: The opening poster, it seems, might possibly think describing candidate Obama as a "coconut" is just fine since it was not "oreo". If he learns to read anytime soon he might possibly discover that "oreo" and "coconut", in this context mean exactly the same thing. According to his own definition: "white on the inside" (Identikit thread: 10 Jan 2008, 5:43 PM). As I said earlier, genteel racism is no more acceptable than the more blatant sort. Though with his just so slightly supercilious attitude, he may think that it is. Wrong. Open mouth, insert foot. And he is indeed a past master at this. Sorry, it is not at all clear that this definition of Mr. Obama is "a criticism of which I disapproved". . What is clear is that he thought he was being witty. No surprise that he wants now to conveniently-- ex post facto (perhaps he understands Latin)-- claim that he disagreed. No surprise there. Nice try, but no cigar. As anybody who reads the opening post of the thread in question will see. I wonder how he is with "Stepinfetchit." But he might want to actually start thinking before hitting "send". Would be a pleasant change. Just a friendly suggestion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: VirginiaTam Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:41 AM Right on Mauvepink Suibhne - your last post is the first time I was able to understand every single bit of what you were saying. What's more, I agree with it, at least at this stage of my learning journey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:33 AM Last para from the bottom of my last should red "Probably no God could also mean there could probably be one too?" if a Mudcat magician can change it and then delete this is may be useful Thanks :-) mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:28 AM There's a lot more to existence than humans Everything you mention we understand in human terms; names, concepts, taxonomy, our whole understanding of the natural world is entirely human. It is this understanding that has given us Atheism. Indeed, we sacrificed our very naturalness for cognition, language & culture - things that set us apart from the natural world which enable us to understand, celebrate and exploit it in terms of either Spiritual delusion or scientific classification. I'm not so sure about certain scientific concepts such as homocentricity, but otherwise I see what you're getting at, just the Universe is ours in terms of concept and actuality - thus is the Large Hardon Collider the Stonehenge of our day and Green Notions of Ecology all too prone to as much small minded Religiosity as Christianity and Folk Music. I think David Bellamy is saying some interesting things right now, especially in the light of certain Orthodoxies - the human tendancy to Orthodoxy & Compliance scares me to be honest, but I accept humanity mostly in terms of its imperfection - likewise my own - which is I don't think we're ready for Atheism just yet, just as we're not ready for Anarchy. God knows I've never met anything so restrictive and conservative as so called alternative Hippy Ideology which rests on a greater compliance to a restrictively Orthodox norm than anything you find in so-called straight society. But as Kipling says, the people, Lord, thy people... - and we're getting there. Meanwhile, back to reading the latest Fortean Times whilst listening to field recordings of Tibetan Buddhist temple music. Sweet! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:26 AM Atheism does not deal in certainties, Ron. Dawkins will admit that he can't be certain that there is no God. What he will tell you is that any "evidence" for God's existence falls way below his minimum requirements for evidence. All he can try to do is to show you that those requirements are reasonable (I tried to demonstrate that in my last post). Atheists live their lives quite happily with a disregard for God. Agnostics have more serious doubts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mauvepink Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:20 AM I used to have a great deal of respect for Dawkins. In some scientific areas I still do. I have all his books and found the first three or four extremely facinating and wonderful. After Darwin he was the nearest thing I had to a biological master. Then it started. What used to be the occasional comment or explanation why religion and God cannot be became almost a battlecry in his books. He harped on and on in order to to 'prove' there was no God. At the time I was happily calling myself an agnostic and had no God in my life. All was well with the world if I put no God in charge of things. If I allowed evolutions to take it's randon course I could explain all things (except those first microseconds of the beginning of time/the universe we know today). I was satisfied with my lot. Something happened that deeply upset all my thinking. Someone I loved dearly died and it became important to me for me to find she had a chance to be 'alive' somewhere and having a better life than she had here. I started looking toward religion for some answers, while remaining open minded on God and trying to find answers I could sit comfy with scientifically and spiritually. I had a wonderful mentor who had the patience of a saint and he was so helpful in assisting me along my own path to try and find answers. I attended an Alpha course. This was a wonderful experience but I came away with more questions than answers. I became what I call a Christian Agnostic. Emotionally I am spiritual but academically I am skeptical. I started getting splinters in my bottom from the fence I was sitting on. Once I started putting an all powerful, micromanaging God in charge of the world, I became unsettled and unhappy. Putting God in charge of everything threw me, as I then had to explain how he could be so cruel and power crazy. I sought to not go along with orthodox doctrine and teaching. If I was to have God in some way in my life I had to make hime a kind God. Jesus I have no trouble with. I could happily go along with his teaching and his ways. He seemed such a well balanced guy, considering his parent, and I so believe in the values that it is said he handed down. I was finding a balance and an equilibrium. The Dawkins got involved with the adverts on the buses "There is PROBABLY no God" and I was sunk. Here was a man who I had listened to, respected, put on a pedestal, and I had put up with him calling agnostics as he did for sitting on fences. Then he happily subscribes to the word PROBABLY. Where was.is his certainty all of a sudden. Then I saw that he is just as much extreme in his thinking as some religious extremists are. It is also dangerous to be spreading what appears to me to be an anti-Muslim ethic. They get blamed for all iniquitous things these days. it is WE (al of us humans) who are responible throughout history, for the wars and carnage. Our interpretation of whatever faith we follow can be as bad as the next persons... or as good. My respect for Dawkins has gone. My wanting to get to know God better is gone (though I have not given up on wanting to find out answers). I have not given up a kind of belief in Christ's teachings. I remain agnostic but with a deep spiritual quest allowable. I do not believe in God... but I do not NOT believe in him. I still await proff of one thing or the other. For those who have faith and belief I almost envy them their comforts. Not the extreme versions but the ones just wending their way through their lives who are trying to follow something they believe in. They are not a danger to me. The ones with true open minds, even with faith, are not the dangers. What is a danger is people who preach the message of hate, in one form or another, and get you believing in their message only to find later thet have changed they tack again and are not so solid as it first seemed. Intellectually I believe true science (I use true to define it from false science) will find us the answers eventually to our beginnings: our roots. Spiritually I find I need a Jesus as much as he needs me. I am hoping to find my way along this path and still keep an open mind as to what I may find art the end. Answers or just more questions? Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too? Hope this in some way helps the debate and my own personal stance. In the end we have to make decisions based on our own personal stance. Ww need to learn to allow others to do it there own way too. Doctrine and Dogma aside, power and possesions removed, it is not religion that is the threat. It is our interpreations of what is given us by the men at the top. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: bobad Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:18 AM Leading scientists still reject God Originally appeared in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total. http://www.freethoughtpedia.org/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:17 AM Gee, it seems atheists might possibly not like being described as "a gaggle of dyspeptic old geese honking madly..." ( And setting up straw men--mind you, these are very talented geese.) Can't understand why they would object to that depiction. But if they in fact object, perhaps they might start to appreciate how the religious feel when their beliefs are caricatured with terms like "imaginary friend" and the like. By the way, atheists, don't try to crawl away. If you call yourself an atheist, you buy the whole ball of wax. After all that's your attitude to Christians. Unless you prefer to identify with the Red Queen, words mean something. There is a difference between atheism and agnosticism. On Mudcat the difference appears to primarily manifest itself in the fact that atheists feel free to ridicule the beliefs of the religious. Agnostics do not. And why is this? It seems that it's because atheists feel a degree of certainty on the question of God's existence which agnostics do not. Sure enough, my dictionary defines agnosticism as follows: 'believing that the human mind cannot know if there is a God or an ultimate cause or anything beyond natural phenomena". Dictionary on atheism: "the belief that there is no God or denial that God or gods exist." If words mean anything there is a clear difference in degree between the two on the question of God's existence. Agnostics are rather more humble--admitting they don't know. Atheists are not so humble on the question--as we have richly seen on Mudcat. And on Mudcat the difference seems to manifest itself in the attitude of the writer. It seems blazingly clear which of the two is the more sensible position for any thinking person. It ain't atheism. To be continued |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:04 AM I suffer from this delusion. I tend to believe in a "magic fairy in the sky" as Foolestroupe likes to call the deity. I say "tend" because my faith is shaky. I have doubts. Most people of faith, apart from the fanatics, also have doubts. I am amazed at the arrogant certainty expressed by many here. Remember that many, most even, of the greatest intellectual giants our species has produced have had some form of faith. That is true still today and includes great scientists and cosmologists. That does not make us right, but it should make you ponder. What great insight do you have that a lifetime's consideration failed to give them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:47 AM OK, mousethief. Never mind the hat. This is more like it. I drop into your local and proclaim to you that the Large Blue isn't extinct in Cornwall after all, contrary to all received wisdom. Now which of the following would you accept as evidence from me? (a) I saw it written in a book. (b) I claim I saw one fluttering around in my garden. (c) I claim I dreamed about them flying over the clifftops at Newquay. (d) I claim I'd had a vision that it had returned in great numbers. (e) I tell you that a bloke had told me his granny had seen one. (f) I show you a dead specimen in a jar. (g) I claim it had to be back because I'd seen one of its food plants nibbled. (h) I show you a close-up photo of a Large Blue I'd taken. (i) I show you a set of dated digital photos clearly showing the butterfly in an appropriate habitat and showing that the habitat in question was located in Cornwall. If you didn't know me you'd accept (i) only, and then only provisionally. You can fake photos. You'd ask me to take you to the place to see for yourself and confirm my sightings and take your own photos (there's your link with evidence in the scientific sense). I could hardly accuse you of being unreasonable/treading on my beliefs. Once several people have done that you could start to build on the evidence - you look for appropriate food plants and for colonies of the ant that the Large Blue needs for its life-cycle and you might look for the caterpillars in the ants' nests. If you knew me well and trusted me you might just take (b), (f) and (h) as supporting evidence, sufficient even for you to go to take a look for yourself (with little real expectation at best, perhaps) but you would never accept them on their own. If you did, and you went around telling people that the Large Blue was back just on my say-so, you could very well end up looking a fool. We all know about people who build up trust in others then betray them (like teachers building trust in kids in faith schools then teaching God to them as truth). With religion you can never get past the level of (e). Because of this, religion resorts to reliance on faith. Now that faith, based on (a) to (e), is pretty well all faith and nothing remotely resembling reliable, repeatable, corroboratable evidence. Everyone of religion accepts their God on the basis of nothing more than this, because there is nothing more than this, and they are quite happy to pass this faith on robustly, expressed as spurious certainties, to their children. "Our Father who art in heaven..." is not "Our Father, if he or she (!) actually exists, who may or may not be in heaven, if there is a heaven at all..." Thank goodness atheists don't deal in such certainties, not even Dawkins. The atheist is like you in the pub. You demand a certain level of evidence before you'll even agree to take me seriously. Religion can never reach that minimum level of evidence, because what it comes up with isn't evidence in any real sense at all. Oh, and I forgot that last resort of the believer. We could call it (j). "Just go outside, look at the sky, the trees, feel the wind and the sun...what more evidence do you need!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:27 AM "Human Dimension is all there is, ..." My immediate reaction to that, Suibhne, is: "Oh no it isn't!" There's a lot more to existence than humans, and if we don't start acknowledging that soon we'll all be well and truly scundered! Besides us (and our petty concerns) there's various classes of micro-organisms, plants, fungi, molluscs, crustaceans, insects (countless thousands of beetles, for example), birds and mammals (plus loads of stuff I've missed). There's the various components of the Earth's interior and plate techtonics and volcanoes and oceans, rivers and lakes. There's weather, clouds and thunder and lightning and various other atmospheric phenomena. There's the Sun (an on-going thermonuclear explosion held together by gravity) and planets, moons, asteroids and comets, the Oort Cloud and the complex boundaries of the Solar System. There are the terrifying gulfs of interstellar space and other suns (at least 100 billion of them in our galaxy alone); these include red and brown dwarfs and blue and red giants giants and it appears now that many of these have planets - some of which could be earth-like; I believe that there are suns that are so big that it would take a modern jet airliner several thousand years to circumnavigate them. There are black holes - collapsed stars with such intense gravitational fields that they swallow light. There is the galaxy itself: a vast, lens-shaped conglomeration of stars around 100,000 light years in diameter. There are the even more terrifying gulfs of intergalactic space and countless billions of other galaxies. Finally there is the Universe itself: I one saw a representation of it which looked like a 3-dimensional filigree or net - with inconceivably vast, empty 'cells' between the skeins of galaxies. And all of this is composed 'stuff' we call 'matter' which has a complex structure on a sub-microscopic scale governed by the outre laws of quantum mechanics. Where do you and I fit into all of this? Do you know, I haven't got the faintest clue! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:15 AM "Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you." Atheism is not an absence of anything other than the inane belief in the supernatural; it is a celebration of the infinite wonders of what is rather than the somewhat warped fantasies of what, most evidently, isn't. Atheism is about life and reality; it rejects hocus-pocus and spirtuality as being, at best, Folklore and treats them accordingly. The comforts of Atheism, therefore, are not effected by absence of God, Sprituality, Funny hats, Hoo-Hah, Tarot, Astrology, Ley lines, Elightenment, Nirvana, Karma, Holy Toast, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Fairies, Jungian Archeytypes, Rosary Beads, Prayer Wheels, Reincarnation, and other such arcticles of faith, rather they are enriched by the presence of a far greater and more meaningful material reality. In my case the list is endless - Frank Zappa, M R James, The Marx Brothers, sex, food, Folk Song, Fiddles, Organology, Sun Ra, Don Cherry, Bitches Brew, Jordi Savall, Rene Zosso, Phil Rickman, Liverpool, Manchester, the AA, the Trafford Centre, Studio Ghibli, Beat Takeshi, Kraftwerk, New Order, Tim Westwood, Subway, McDonalds, Davie Stewart, Edgar Allen Poe, Friedrich Nietzsche, IKEA, ASDA, Morrisons, Wetherspoons, penguins, Larry David, Godzilla, Willie Scott, canals, Thelonius Monk, ducks, Becks, vintage pornography, Peter Bellamy, pigs, jelly fish, The Fall, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, Top Cat, Vic Reeves, Rolf Harris, clouds, hedgerows, Green Men, Misericords, Magma, Will Hay, Jim Eldon, the Herefordshire School of Romanesque Sculture, the Soft Machine, Art Tatum, Rahsaan Rold Kirk and, of course, Duke Ellington. Real Life is all the comfort I need, and in my experience the Cosmic Debris of Religion just gets in the way of living so I reject it. The Human Dimension is all there is, so believe whatever you like, just don't go telling me it's a) real b) true or c) worth killing or dying for. The universe is so much bigger than religion; I tell you ASDA is bigger than religion, and Life really is too short for doing anything else but living it. As for Death - I was Dead once upon a tie; before my birth I didn't exist. Non-existense didn't bother me then so I doubt very much it'll bother me again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Aug 10 - 02:36 AM Yeah, but there's a difference between evidence and proof. The word evidence has a rather broad spectrum of meaning. I'd say that in general, evidence is information or something observable or palpable that leads one to assume, believe, conclude, or prove something. But proof is a logical and incontrovertible conclusion based on a body of evidence. I acknowledge that there are many believers who want to "prove" the correctness of what they believe, but I see very few Mudcatters who seek to prove their beliefs. They see their beliefs as more....intuitive. They acknowledge some element of doubt and uncertainty in what they believe - but they believe nonetheless, and wish only to be free to believe unmolested. Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here. I don't think I have ever seen a post here that shows disrespect to Native American beliefs, legends, stories, rituals, and traditions. People seem to be able to grasp that although these elements of Native American belief may not be "factually" true, they can often lead to profound truth and insight. Well, I think that the same can hold true for the beliefs, legends, stories, rituals, and traditions of a wide variety of other belief systems, from Christianity to Zen. By keeping an open mind, I have learned wonderful things from a wide variety of religious and philosophical traditions, not only from my own tradition. These traditions may not always be rational or logical or "factual," but they can be good and true if they open people to a deeper understanding and respect for that which surrounds us. If they lead people to closed minds and intolerance and exclusionism, then I think they can be harmful or dangerous. And despite all the good and sacredness in the elements Native American beliefs, there are other Native American belief elements that can lead people to closed minds and intolerance and exclusionism; and yes, even to violence. So, what I ask for is tolerance and respect for all that can lead people to openness and generosity and wisdom - even to people who do not share your particular ideology. And yes, even legend and myth can lead people to openness and generosity and wisdom. Stringsinger, you said something that I don't completely understand:
and sometimes people impose their religious views on others here and you don't object to that. This is a double standard. I wonder if you could explain that more, because I don't completely understand what you're saying. Mudcat has a policy of generally allowing people to say what they say, as long as it isn't a direct and personal attack on another Mudcatter. We expect people to express their secular views and their religious views without restriction, and I think we're pretty good at adhering to that free-speech policy. Now, as far as my personal views, I admit that I myself may have a double standard. I expect nonbelievers to be rational and tolerant and respectful, because they usually are. And yes, when they are disrespectful or when they paint a condemnation with too broad a brush, I object. On the other hand, I do NOT expect religious fanatics to be rational or tolerant or respectful, because they usually aren't. I usually don't object to what they say, because I do not believe they are capable of rational discussion. I just keep quiet and hope they go away, and I've found they're more likely to leave if people don't respond to them. But yet, as a moderator I feel bound to allow what they say because we have a free-speech policy. In general, I respect nonbelievers, but I do not respect religious fanatics. I have profound respect for you and for most of the values you say you hold dear, and I espouse almost all the same values you claim as your own. But I am a religious person, and you are not - so if you condemn my beliefs when I think we share mostly the same values, it hurts. I ask only that you respect my beliefs as sacred to me, even though you do not hold those beliefs. That, I believe, is tolerance - if we respect a person, then we must also respect (but not necessarily espouse) what that person holds sacred. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:13 AM I think what most atheists or at least agnostics require is empirical evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM MT has the rights of the matter--what constitutes evidence varies with the kind of knowing and the context being treated. Law, physics, social science and mysticism all use the word to suit their fields. But it is foolhardy to grab the scientific use and misapply it, for example, to the theory of evolution. Anyone who has touched the infinite wind of creation knows about the aspect of existence people call God whether they bother buying a brand or not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mousethief Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:31 AM The word evidence is the thing. A word, sadly, usurped by religion (religion loves to usurp) to mean, well, things that ain't evidence. Like writings in an ancient book with loads of authors, dodgy translators and even more "editors." Like witness statements (Bernadette for example). Like people who say they've had visions/prayers answered/miracle cures that were nothing of the sort. Like "look around you at the wonders of nature! What more evidence do you need!" I hate it when religion talks of evidence. There isn't the slightest scrap of evidence for the existence of God and there never will be. There's faith and there's evidence. The twain cannot meet in a religious context, ever. If, at 5:00 in the afternoon, I come into the house and my wife's hat, which she wore to work this morning, is on the table, it's evidence she's home. If you don't agree than you are using "evidence" in a very specific way and it's no wonder you don't recognize "writings in an ancient book" as evidence. How do you know the visions/prayers/whatever were nothing of the sort? Because there's no God so those things don't happen? That's arguing in a circle. Witness statements sure are evidence in a court of law! There are a lot of meanings to the word "evidence". You don't get to outlaw all the uses you don't like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:45 PM So true Art, thank you my friend |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Art Thieme Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:11 PM Dan, Try to stay out of the way of the stuff when it's flying all around you. I wish us all luck in doing that. Also: Center on here and now and the details thereof. Thinking too much will do ya in. With admiration--mostly. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM ah, Dan, my friend...men have always been in the picture. From all those thousands of years ago, cowering in caves and wondering about the lightning and thunder to Popes and Imams issuing edicts to frighten the 'flock', men have both 'believed' and manipulated the belief of others in order to suit an agenda. Whether any of them stumbled on bits of the 'truth' in the process is hard to know. We have, at least, the freedom to glean from the heaps of 'wisdom' something to suit almost every taste. I see beauty and goodness... as well as sadness and hate ...in the paths various people have chosen from the 'tower of Babel'.....which is about all we can hope for, I guess. It is comforting to read about those who have found happy & pleasant pieces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM And Native Americans NATIVE AMERICAN SPIRITUALITY Robert Staffanson Executive Director, American Indian Institute While Native American spirituality is not easily defined, it has several defining characteristics: a) Recognition of the interconnectedness of all Creation, and the responsibility of human beings to use their intelligence in protecting that inter- connectedness. That applies particularly to the lifegiving elements: water, air and soil. b) A belief that all life is equal, and that the presence of the life spark implies a degree of spirituality whether in humans, animals or plants. In their view the species of animals and birds, as well as forests and other plant life, have as much "right" to existence as human beings, and should not be damaged or destroyed. That does not mean that they cannot be used but that use has limitations. c) Their primary concern is with the long-term welfare of life rather than with short-term expediency or comfort. They consider all issues and actions in relationship to their long-term effect on all life, not just human life. d) Their spirituality is undergirded by thankfulness to the Creator. Prayer, ceremonies, meditation and fasting are an important part of their lives. But they ask for nothing. They give thanks: for all forms of life and for all the elements that make life possible, and they are concerned with the continuation of that life and the ingredients upon which it depends. ~~ excerpted from http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/sbcr072 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:33 PM The Buddhist faith has some beautiful passages .. I remember one that reads to forgive rather than to hurt . all life is sacred and cannot be replaced. Muslim faith and Jewish faith same ... But when men enter the picture .. corruption, hatred, death .. amazing to me |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:24 PM You are correct Amos and each faith has their own version but it is all pretty much consistent on a personal level. That is where the leaders all start to corrupt, they will interpret for you .. toss in their opinions .. then it all goes down the tubes into some evil abyss. I confront these guys with the bible they profess to understand and it is amazing how the topic changes back to gay bashing or something else .. Then I quote the least of my brethren and then subject is changed again .. That is what a professed leader does to it. In centuries past, the Catholic church outlawed bible ownership to anyone but the priest. Why, exact reason, they would lose power had people been able to read the message themselves and question why the church acted like it did at that time frame since it was a political organization controlling all land and wealth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM Theory ...(many definitions...see why it is difficult to debate these things?) 1: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena 2:A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"; "a scientific possibility that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" 3:A belief that can guide behavior 4:An unproven conjecture. 5: (logic) A set of axioms together with all statements derivable from them. A theory is consistent if it has a model. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:13 PM Dude, that is the heart of some faiths; the essence of Faith as a condition of person does not depend on mandates or names. I have to distinguish between the spiritual state of faith as a unique mode of consciousness, and the targeted faith each religion holds about its own vocabulary and cast of characters. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM The very heart of faith is this: One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:47 PM I always find it so hard to understand. I see all of the people following a guy like Hagee, he stands there spewing hate at gays and Catholics and atheists and pretty much everyone else and calls himself minister and has this big following of "fellow Christians" when you open up the New Testament and read "That which you do to the least of my brothers you do to me" and then you read the post I did earlier about what love is .. and then how they wanted to stone a woman for adultry and he said "let you with no sin throw the first stone" and they walked away and he tell her anyone left to condemn you and she answers no one. And he says nor do I go and sin nomore .. What don't they get .. why would you follow those guys and turn your back on God if you are a Christian.. so far from faith that it makes those of us who do believe cry. |
