group discussion
topic:
RELIGIONS >
Nothing pisses off fundamentalists quite like atheism
date
newest »
newest »
Forgive me if I reiterate points made by others and for coming late to the table.The irony that lies behind this discussion is that had Dawkins written a book about his belief in Jesus, or Buddha, or zoroastrianism, no one would raise an eyebrow. Anyone who writes about his or her atheism immediately provokes a response as if somehow his non-belief (for that’s what it really is despite all the hoopla about atheism being a faith, etc.) is a personal attack on believers. Does Dawkins have faith in science? Of course, because it’s a process for defining and providing solutions to problems and predicting outcomes. No religion does that. Is that a faith similar to faith in God? Absolutely not, because faith in a supernatural, by definition, is undemonstrable and permits one to believe basically anything you want. Science is the opposite.
Religion, as Dawkins and Harris demonstrate, permits adherents to define a set of values that require no demonstrable proof of their value. That’s a huge difference. A religious person can always fall back on, “well, God told me so,” and therefore you must believe what I say and/or do. From reading Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, that’s a basic message – and danger – that lies behind their antagonism to any religious belief system
From reading several of the posts, it’s also apparent that the respondents have not read Dawkins’ book. My father, a theologian, by the way, always used to say, and rightly so, “if you haven’t read the book you have no business talking about it.”
Trevor wrote: "I think atheism is only indefensible if the rules of the game are set up so that those claiming to be atheist are required to prove god does not in fact exist. But atheism becomes a fairly obvious..."
By all means explain to us the existence of the cosmos and all existence. Explain life, which is anti-entropic as opposed to all other energy.
I can't wait to find out how this fragment of flotsam in an infinite sea has found the truth.
I guess the word is MAGIC!!
"By all means explain to us the existence of the cosmos and all existence. Explain life, which is anti-entropic as opposed to all other energy. "Is that really the opposite of a belief in god? Is that the only way one can not believe in god? If they can explain the existence of the cosmos and all existence?
As for life - it is hardly anti-entropic, as we are all destined to find out one day. I'm afraid it is even worse, I don't think life is actually an 'energy'. But I will be keen to hear you explain how it is.
William, what do you mean by: "life, which is anti-entropic as opposed to all other energy.">
Is that really the opposite of a belief in god? I..."
What is 'god'? A white haired old man on a throne in another dimension? The point is how can someone sit on this rock we call Earth and determine all of the possibilities throughout the cosmos to any degree of certainty?
As to entropy. Turn on a lamp to read by. Touch the bulb ... it will be hot to your hand. You can read near the lamp. Now go two miles away from the lamp ... when you reach out your hand will you feel the heat? Can you read by the light? Entropy has difused the energy by the inverse square law (approximately). Now take a simple bacteria and provided it with food ... via fission it will reproduce until the food supply runs out or it's own by products poison it ... this is how wine is made.
Existence was malleable, reality alterable. The Universe was a total phenomena, interconnected, mass was energy, energy was mass, but life was special; connected and wholly dependant on the attributes of energy and mass, yet it was something which denied chaos, built upon order, oriented towards complexity. Life adjusted the inanimate to suit its needs … its wants.
He got up and walked over to the port, dilated the shutters, and looked out to the Earth gliding by below, the blue sky above, and high in the sky a brilliant orb of energy, too bright to look at directly. Death, non-existence, oblivion, chaos is pervasive across all of creation he fully grasped for the first time … even matter and energy themselves are not immune. Entropy rules ruthlessly; is the common enemy of all order.
Life is a form of energy that does not follow the rules of entropy ... you die your offspring go on. The organism becomes more complex.
What else is Life? Magic?
A curious anecdote: When Columbus ‘discovered’ the new world he could not imagine other races beyond those he was familiar with … thus those that inhabited the new world were ‘Indians’. His philosophy was unprepared to deal with that which he had never seen or imagined. Such is the same for those on this rock called Earth who think that the wherewithal of the universe rests here in their mind.
This seems an utter confusion to me, William. I guess you know what you mean and I'm sure that is a good thing. Life obeys the laws of thermodynamics, just as everything else does. Otherwise we would have no need to eat. But if you think you have found a way around this most ruthless of laws - then good on you.
"Nothing pisses off fundamentalists quite like atheism"
I think that other "heretical" fundamentalists probably piss them off more. Certainly been a few wars on this basis. Ah, interpretation of scriptures...
Trevor wrote: "This seems an utter confusion to me, William. I guess you know what you mean and I'm sure that is a good thing.
Life obeys the laws of thermodynamics, just as everything else does. Otherwise we..."
Well of course there are no 'laws of thermodynamics'. Reality is not bound by human conjecture. And many living things do not 'eat' ... they directly convert sunlight to growth ... unless you consider energy consumption 'eating'. If so how much 'eating' is done by life today as compared to its origin? More or less?
Of course I did not invent 'life', so I have not found a way around entropy. However, if you have a light bulb no matter how long it is on and how much its source watts are the energy dissipates with the distance from the bulb. Take the first living microbes and measure the energy they put off .. their living 'heat' if you will. What is the ratio of that level of energy to the energy now put off by all the living things on this planet? More or less? Entropy says (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). So is life at a uniform temperature (heat death) now compared with the temperature when life began?
Plus life need not end ... this is simply a function of the DNA program. The first amoeba is still around, so to speak, because it continues via fission. What other source of energy do you know that increases?
William, you appear to be saying several different contradictory things. I am very confused by what your point is. You seem very angry as well as trying to provoke people. You first say atheism is indefensible and that agnosticism is almost the same thing and then you put down religion. I am not sure what your point is at all. But I must ask you to please be nicer in your posts and less attacking. I respect your right to an opinion but not where it infringes the rights of others to an opinion as well. We are trying to have a peaceful dialog here. So far everyone is doing a pretty good job of disagreeing but still being civil. Let's keep it that way. Thank you!
