The God Delusion
discussion
agnostic: the way to go.
I don't see the hang-up on the need to explain everything. People don't believe in God for explanatory purposes; "God did it" is as much of an explanation as "It happened". It is more of the need for an agent once an activity has already occurred and a need for an independent non-biased source of morality and purpose.Science is a bit different: it seeks the ability to predict events with well-defined levels of accuracy. Science doesn't suffer from a need to explain everything either; scientists "have faith" only in consistency of physical events. A belief in a God that can participate in physical events contradicts this consistency.
atheism is simple and satisfying. am quite comfortable in my belief that there is no god. also soon to be an ethics teacher at my local school so kids can do something other that religious classes.The God Delusion actually bored me a bit as i was reading pages and pages of an argument i already agreed with
hey RonaldI think the reason why some atheists and most religious fanatics hate agnostics is because we don't have the need to have answers for everything.
What some science fans can't deal with is the fact that we are limited beings and that it is impossible for us to know everything.
It's clearly because Dan is a nazi....or maybe he just found the reading to be interesting.
Ok guys... I'm out.I don't see the point in keeping this going.
God bless you all
(ja!)
I'm not an Atheist - I find Atheism ignorant and intolerant. My view is that there is a God and that someones faith is something you shouldn't question. I am not sitting on the fence as an agnostic either.After a lot of deliberating I think its best to reject organised religion all together but not look at it as if it was inferior.
Religion is the oldest belief/practice in the world and is a mixture of art, good story telling and morals. My view is that Religion is Romantic and such Romanticism derives from Art.
Art cannot be defined, you can only apply an opinion to it. I believe its the same with regards to Religion. It cannot and should not be defined.
You shouldn't apply any rationalism, academia or science to 'Why people believe' or try and figure out why people believe in something that commands us all.
The Almighty cannot be defined.
If you look down at a colony of arts - do you care what the ants are doing? They could be doing any number of things but you do care if they get squished.
Why would a being (that is omnipresent and omnipotant that stretches the cosmos and beyond) care if you went to a building on a Sunday.
This is why I believe that God and your religion should be personal to you - If God made us all separately or kicked the ball that started rolling (evolution) etc.
God would want it that way, a hotline to them.
The point of the bible was to provide a moral code for uneducated people to live by (then of course Politics and Religion and wealth got intertwined and it was subverted, because knowledge is power)
The core of it is essentially a guide for being a decent person - I would say now that Religion is the foundations of Civilisation but we have so much more to maintain us.
If you are an intelligent person you shouldn't reject anything.
I believe in God because I can pray to stop me worrying about things that are completely out of my control. Something no Science could solve.
To sum it up, i'm not a christian/muslim or subscribe to any other Religion because I feel to define something so powerful would be an insult and that mankind should step back from organised Religion and let individuals do their own thing (With regards to God)
Jason wrote: "My view is that there is a God and that someones faith is something you shouldn't question."So, if someone's personal belief was that God told them to rape or kill someone, this is okay with you? We should totally not question their belief that their God told them to do this. It doesn't matter what YOU think God tells you here, it only matters what they think. You are essentially saying that anything goes.
If you look down at a colony of ants - do you care what the ants are doing?
Of course I do, they could be doing something very fascinating.
If you are an intelligent person you shouldn't reject anything.
In a defined ordered number field that states 4 < 5 and not equal, I reject the notion of 2 + 2 = 5.
If you are an intelligent person, you will reject nonsense.
Adam wrote: "Jason wrote: "My view is that there is a God and that someones faith is something you shouldn't question."So, if someone's personal belief was that God told them to rape or kill someone, this is ..."
Anything does go, within the Law. Any phycological instability would be the result of their environment/living conditions.
It is not nonsense that someone would perceive 2+2 = 5, Its just completely proven, tried and tested.
Also, if you were God, you would know what the ants would be doing before you even considered what they would be doing at present - so in theory you would only be interested in them as individual 'minds' (applying it back to humans)
Its in mankind's interest to be empirical thats what I meant by we shouldn't reject anything but my argument was against the intolerance of atheism and the need for Science/mankind to HAVE to explain 'God' 'belief' and faith. We don't need to.
JulieLaLa wrote: "I liked this book. It finally confirmed that I had been an atheist for a long time. I feel so much freer in my non-belief. I pass no judgements on those who do believe.I find one of the comments q..."
Sorry but the definition of Atheism is the theory or belief that God does not exist.
Thats intolerant in its nature because it is an absolute.
Dariosk wrote: "hey RonaldI think the reason why some atheists and most religious fanatics hate agnostics is because we don't have the need to have answers for everything.
What some science fans can't deal with is the fact that we are limited beings and that it is impossible for us to know everything."
Based on what? Why is it "Impossible"?
Jason wrote: "You shouldn't apply any rationalism, academia or science to 'Why people believe' or try and figure out why people believe in something that commands us all."Who are you to say what people shouldn't do? For someone who is arguing that "intelligent people shouldn't reject anything", it's odd that you're rejecting the idea that people should try to learn more, understand more, be more.
Daniel wrote: "Jason wrote: "You shouldn't apply any rationalism, academia or science to 'Why people believe' or try and figure out why people believe in something that commands us all."Who are you to say what ..."
My point was that some things cannot be understood, like Art and all that emotion all the romanticism of faith and belief cannot and should not be defined by any Academia or any organised religion.
Jason, I dont think you understand atheism very well at all. A theory or belief?Atheism not believing in any gods. How is that intolerant? Does that now make you intolerant for not believing Zeus? Or Muhammad? How is that any different?
Nothing about being an atheist is intolerant. Intolerance comes from how someone treats another person. So far, you are the most intolerant person on this thread.
Dan wrote: "Jason, I dont think you understand atheism very well at all. A theory or belief?Atheism not believing in any gods. How is that intolerant? Does that now make you intolerant for not believing Zeus..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
'The rejection of..'
Its not 'The acceptance to believe there is no god'
It is a statement that there is no such thing as God, and intolerance to believe in one.
You can't call me intolerant for speaking my opinion. The Wikipedia entry for what Atheism is - is incredibly negative and tends to be an umbrella argument for all that is contained in Religion. Most Atheists (as an example) I know would reject even church stain glass windows regardless how ornately made or nice they are because they have images of the bible on them.
Its a judgement and also a state of mind.
i guess you cant argue with stupid.atheism isnt a judgement or state of mind. its simply saying i do not believe in god(s). simple and to the point.
the simple fact you get your sources from wikipedia shows you are not sure what you are talking about.
i can call you intolerant because you came in here to claim that atheists are intolerant.
so its not intolerant for a christian to say atheists are intolerant. but for me to say you lack logic for believing in an imaginary deity is intolerant.
you cant have it both ways. your belief offers you no special privilege.
It is not intolerant to oppose your view. Maybe you should wikipedia that too.
You may hurl insults at me and say that i'm intolerant to Atheism(i don't mind if you're atheist, it doesn't bother me) but my statement still stands by the fact you cannot define what faith is. I'm not a Christian and it is intolerant to say that God doesn't exist by rejecting the entire system by saying its imaginary. You don't accept the fact i believe what i believe.
My point is logic has no place when discussing religion.
Give me a logical poem. Or a logical tragedy. Or a logical Romance...?
I can have it whichever way I like, I can reject organised Religion - Religion to me is just me and my god.
Jason wrote: "JulieLaLa wrote: "I liked this book. It finally confirmed that I had been an atheist for a long time. I feel so much freer in my non-belief. I pass no judgements on those who do believe.I find one..."
Isn't you saying a god does exist just as intolerant because it's an absolute?
indeed, stating that god exists is an absolute, thus by your logic Jason, it is intolerant in its very nature. Which god do you mean by the way? Do you believe in all gods, in order to be as tolerant as possible, or do you disregard thousands in favour of one? Is that not, by its very nature, intolerant?
I can define what faith is, it is belief in something without any evidence for the object of belief.
What moral code in the bible incest, slavery, subjugation of women, stoning/bear mauling of cheeky children, wholesale genocide of neighbouring tribes unto the livestock, ect ect.
Jason, we accept the fact that you beleive what you believe, but that doesn't make what you believe in any more real. If you cannot provide evidence of for somethings existence, then why believe it exists? Did you know there is a dragon that lives in your garage, but if you go look, it will disappear, and only reappear when you're gone. Go on, prove to me it doesn't exist. If you can't, then you must completely accept its existence.
Jason wrote "You can't call me intolerant for speaking my opinion."No, (the act of speaking isn't intolerant), but we can say your opinion is intolerant (the content of the speech can be classified).
Of course logic can be applied to religion, many theologians and philosophers (within in the confines of faith and with out) have done so and continue to do so. The fact that in the face of logic, religion suffers, is no fault of logic and is no reason not to apply it.
Jason wrote: "You may hurl insults at me and say that i'm intolerant to Atheism(i don't mind if you're atheist, it doesn't bother me) but my statement still stands by the fact you cannot define what faith is. ..."
You should consider studying logic before you start talking about it. If you had, you'd know that your making "absolutes" as others have pointed out here.
A logical tragedy? Perhaps "Flatland"?
Jason wrote "Anything does go, within the LawSo your god's wishes, whims and plans a subject to human law? Or is your god a reasonable god who wouldn't abrogate human law?
I pretty much agree with all John just said, with one thing I'd change, and that is that religion/theism doesn't make scientific claims about the world, it does make claims about the world, but they're not scientific, and if someone claims that creationism is scientific, it is not, it does not fulfil the requirements needed to be considered scientific, and at the very best is pseudoscientific.John is correct, religion is completely open to investigation, because it claims such moral authority, and because it makes claims about the world that are so blatently opposed by the actual evidence. And also because, at the very least, when people base their lives on these beliefs, they should have the integrity to ensure that these beliefs are based on fact, and we should hold as many true, and as few false beliefs as possible, The only way to ensure this is to investigate each religious claim individually.
:)I generally find in such debates as this that religious people get very upset when they cannot defend their beliefs or claims. They are faced with logical and reasoned debate, and cannot stand up to it, thus making them worry that their beliefs cannot stand up to any real scrutiny.
Jason demands that religion be above investigation because he knows that when subjected to it, religion and god will not pass muster. Knowing this, he refuses to even consider the idea that it should be investigated, as he knows his stance is untenable.
He may not know this consciously, but he does know it, otherwise he wouldn't get so angry and defensive. It is indicative of an internal struggle (whether he's aware of it not) over the veracity of his faith. As, if he was strong in his faith, then he would not fear it being investigated and being subject to scrutiny.
I dont know how you can say Atheism is ignorant and intolerant, you have only to look back at History to see how intolerant religion is.Even today most conflict is because of intolerance to other religious sects or different tribal loyalties.As an Atheist I accept that some people have deep religious beliefs and if is what they choose,then so be it.
Jason wrote: "Religion is the oldest belief/practice in the world and is a mixture of art, good story telling and morals..."I thought something else was older...mind that may have been a proffesion.
Jason wrote: "My view is that Religion is Romantic and such Romanticism derives from Art. Art cannot be defined, you can only apply an opinion to it. I believe its the same with regards to Religion. It cannot and should not be defined..."
Yet so much of art is fasion, different schools looking down on others, new stylees being sneered at by the old guard, schisms between schools...oh, wait...you may be right...
Maybe there are holes in my argument, i'm not an Oxford professor with years of experience in the field studying Religion or Atheism. I read a book that is incredibly slapdash but has some points but also has things i'm conflicted with. But my general conclusion after a few years of thinking was to leave organised religion to backing Presidents and being an umbrella for Occupy Protestors.If you took Organised religion out of the equation (of life) I think everyone would be slightly happier in believing there is some 'hands off' Divine Being there for you when you need them.
But to ask you die hard atheists - what would happen if you won? You disproved all that people had faith in to support there lives. So they now have a hole... what do people turn to then?
I think some people need Religion and to totally dehumanise it with academia is wrong. Its just my opinion.
I was merely being cheeky...Not trying to make any big points.
But here's a question for Jason:
You mention organised religion and say you reject it. What does that leave? A religious belief certainly, but in what? If the beliefs aren't from organised religion what are your ref points?
I'm not trying to pin you down for a complex arguement, just curious.
I'm not religious...there, cards on table.
But I think most trouble with those "of faith" tends to come from the organised and dogmatic side of things. So I agree with you there.
However, without organisation and structure in religion you don't have many of the community/psychological support based benefits (?) that it provides...which is pretty much the state you seem to be saying atheism would cause if it "won".
Community support, I getcha. I think thats a little silly. Yeah, i'll agree to disagree. We all know now not even the church can really be called into account to put its history on trial.
But I mean like not even Dawkins would want the title "The man who killed God"
I don't think it is true - I never said I believe the bible. They don't call it the greatest story ever told just for name sake. Thats why i believe it has more in common with Art, because Religion is terribly Romanticised.
I guess I reject everything about Religion aside that I believe there is a Divine being out there just called 'God'
Faith, Religion just shouldn't be collective, because then its dangerous (as history and the present prove so)
Shame.
Jason wrote: "Community support, I getcha. I think thats a little silly..."How so?
A hypothetical on if religion didn't exist is difficult for me to quantify. On one hand I see a world of very intelligent beings able to tackle many complicated problems. The issue I see is on the other hand we are still a very superstitious bunch. God aside, how many people still throw salt over their left shoulder? Astrology is still prevalent in many of my friends. Believe me I am adamantly atheist and catch myself on many nights pondering a world without religion. I do feel it would be a more 'responsible' world, at least I hope that it would be, but I just can't see it happening. Not with psychics and ghost hunters still preaching the same demon stories to a public that nods their heads in agreement. Christ compels you was a great line from a movie but too many people still think that is the answer to the paranormal.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Jason wrote: "Community support, I getcha. I think thats a little silly..."How so?"
Well, I believe that emotional instability, poverty, criminality are products of your environment and the choices you have made. So if you turn to a bible group to give you more support than just a book (that remember wasn't written based around modern problems and issues) it lacks credibility.
I mean it has a lot of scope but its just a template on a base level how to live your life.
Reduce it to its base qualities and its just a group of people meeting up to reflect on their issues and delving into a textbook to try and fix them.
But i do not pity a person who has to turn to god, but i believe they should do it late at night - when its just them, their thoughts and their God.
Jason...are you trolling?
No, i think you might be!
No.I'm just wondering about what your definition of religion is. You note above: "...but i believe they should do it late at night - when its just them, their thoughts and their God." You imply your not a fan of organised religion...and you seem (I may have picked you up wrong) to be saying that people should just keep their faith to themselves and not bother anyone.
Fair enough.
But is that all religion provides? Someone to talk to in the dark?
As someone who isn't religious I can see how an organised religion can (at best) provide a potential social network. But sitting in the dark alone whispering prayers to a deity...I'm unsure of the point.
In the modern world is there anything that organised religion provides that nothing else does?
Jason wrote: "In the modern world is there anything that organised religion provides that nothing else does?"I agree.
A secular organisation can provide a service without exclusion based on faith.
I also think that people can get their social needs fulfilled through hobbies, other social activities and family without recourse to religion.
That wasn't what I was trying to understand.
I'm interested to know what the version of religion you have mentioned adds to things, to someone who is religious in a non-organised, non-church type of way.
Maybe i just don't need organised religion and its community to believe? i don't know.Most organised religions are incredibly oppressive if you look at the popular ones' history and looking at that point and that point alone, how can they be that way in the name of something so pure and all powerful and good? its hypocritical.
So i reject them and all their practices and think that if i'm a good person nonetheless its as good as Gods grace.
Aye, I get all the stuff about organised religions.I'm just interested in what's left after you take that out of the equation.
What is "Gods grace" for instance? I don't know.
i think what barbar is saying is that if you reject organised religion, does that mean you reject all their definitions of what god is as well? and as such, if you've rejected those definitions, what does that leave you with? Have you constructed your own definition, from what I assume would be whole cloth, as I assume that god itself hasn't appeared to you and explained something that its keeping from everyone else.Or it may be that thats just what I've been wondering, and as such have attached it in with barbars line of thinking.
Whats left when you remove all the practice of Religion minus prayer? You living your life and suffering the consequences of doing bad deeds and the benefits of happiness/luck/success etc for being a good person. Good in the sense of what society has pre-constructed as being good. Thats what i meant by Gods grace or blessing.
The only word that comes to hand is the loose definition of Karma.
so, you abide by the secular laws of the society, and this makes you good?
Jason wrote: "I'm not an Atheist - I find Atheism ignorant and intolerant. My view is that there is a God and that someones faith is something you shouldn't question... "That's an astonishing position, and frankly, an untenable one.
You believe there is a God, and so you must surely question anyone who has faith in more than one god (eg Hinduism), or anyone who has faith but not in god (eg some Buddhists)
Similarly, if you are Christian, do you not question the beliefs of Jews and Muslims? Or, if you are a self guided spiritualist who believes in a god but not in a religion, surely that must lead you to question the faiths of anyone that requires the strictures and trappings of religion in order to worship.
Jason wrote: "My point was that some things cannot be understood, like Art and all that emotion all the romanticism of faith and belief cannot and should not be defined by any Academia or any organised religion. "Based on what? Why can it not be understood? I understand you saying that we don't understand it all now, but why would you leap to saying that it "cannot be understood" as if it's impossible to ever understand?
Jason wrote: "My point is logic has no place when discussing religion...."
Why? Why are reason and logic not allowed near religion?
John wrote: "The idea that atheists have a faith is atheism or science is not entirely wrong unfortunately. Many atheists are as dogmatically committed to atheism as religious types are to religion. ."This hasn't been my experience at all. In fact, I've yet to meet a single atheist who would not change their position if faced with incontrovertible evidence. The fact that no such evidence exists does not mean that if it did, positions would not change.
There are, however, anti-theists, which means that even if there were a god, it would not be a morally good beingand they would be against it. Of course, that says nothing about whether they would acknowledge real evidence if it ever occurred.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Victor: A Novel Based on the Life of the Savage of Aveyron (other topics)The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
He simply states in this book, and I feel from you comments here and elsewhere you may not have even read it, that there is no need for a god, no need for a deity. Science can explain most things, and it can be greatly assumed, in time, science will find a way to explain almost everything. It may not happen in our lifetime, but that doesnt mean it cant happen.
Everyone is agnostic in some way, but again, as stated in the book, Dawkins goes to atheism, because the probability of a God is so small, that being agnostic doesnt go far enough to support his thoughts. Atheism says "i do not believe in a god" where agnostic says "i dont know, there might be, there might not be". Yes, the truth is, we dont know, but given the evidence to support how the earth, universe and life came to be, the probability of a God is so small, us atheist can say with much conviction, no, there is probably no god. we choose not to believe or entertain the idea.
Or, as Stephen Colbert once jokingly put it, "arent agnostics just atheists without balls?"