The God Delusion
discussion
agnostic: the way to go.
Daniel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "And if I may inject a little of my own arrogant assery now. Look at where we are? discussing...."Not for nothing, but if you had said "ass-hattery" you would have received double p..."
:-D
Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "I would understand his not using "intelligence" to avoid the fundamentalists argument, but haven't really read anything he has written on this subject of late. Do you have a recommenda..."Has he looked into biological Emergence, or brain morphology? I have been reading a lot on that subject of late also.
Shanna wrote: "Mike wrote: "The replies of those like Beu and Shanna would only serve to entrench my "former understanding" further as no "discussion" was taking place, just (what I felt as) animosity. "
How could anything I posted in recent times contribute to to further entrenching your former understanding? ..."
Oh I don't know, judgement of a personality trait that is appearance only may have something to do with it.
Not knowing how much, and with how much detail I analyze things, the conclusion that I wasn't moving forward was made. Actually, very little in this discussion has "changed my mind", excepting the suggestion that I re-examine the text.
That alone, once I did so from my new pov (that I have gotten over the years) forced me to see things in a different light. I am appreciative for Daniel's patience in "waiting" for me to work it out (without having to reference things outside the discussion itself, like his opinion of how I was acting. I don't respond to emotional rejoinders well. :-)
"Shanna wrote: "And if I may inject a little of my own arrogant assery now. Look at where we are? discussing...."Shanna, for specific comments, I was avoiding answering you directly. Hazel, Daniel, and myself are the only ones I had considered "discussing" the subject. If that has changed, I appreciate it. But describing imagined behavior will not advance anyone's understanding of the subject, but will only serve an inflammatory purpose. I really am very pragmatic, and describe what I see, but rarely comment on supposed intent, except for my own.
Mike wrote: "Has he looked into biological Emergence, or brain morphology? I have been reading a lot on that subject of late also. "Not sure. He's written a lot and I've only read some. If you add papers to journals the list gets even longer.
At present (other then the book we're discussing) I have The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. One of my favorite books from Gould is: The Lying Stones of Marrakech. I think the next one I shall read, even though I don't need "convincing" about evolution, will be: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
What I find humorous is if Dawkins doesn't use "intelligence" for fear of misunderstanding, why would he go and refer to himself as "a cultural Christian" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/po...
Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.
"This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims."
agnostic: the way to go. Yes most definitely, if you are not Christian.
'Atheists' are unable to be proper atheists. Even Dawkins admits that there could be a God. So really there is no such thing as a true atheist.
I use the term atheist loosely. I have found that when I say agnostic people think that it means that I don't know. Even by Dawkins' scale agnostic is a 50-50 split. This means that most people begin to try and convince me that there is a God since they feel that I am so close to believing anyways. This is my problem and is why I state atheist. It clears up that notion and yes I don't 100% know that there isn't a God I am certain that the evidence right now leans that way. Thus I myself am at a 85-15 split. I also agree with Dawkins that no one can truly be a sure footed atheist...even Christopher Hitchens.
Kevin wrote: "I use the term atheist loosely. I have found that when I say agnostic people think that it means that I don't know. Even by Dawkins' scale agnostic is a 50-50 split. This means that most people beg..."I also agree with Dawkins that no one can truly be a sure footed atheis
The God Delusion seems to be a misleading title then.
cs wrote: "agnostic: the way to go. Yes most definitely, if you are not Christian.
'Atheists' are unable to be proper atheists. Even Dawkins admits that there could be a God. So really there is no such th..."
What rubbish. Does that mean if a christian once said there might not be a god then there can be no such thing as proper christians?
I think the problem lies with the religious that deny atheism, seems they are uncomfortable with the fact some people feel 100% certain there is no god. I am an atheist, I am 100% sure there is no god, can I prove it? no, does that make me any less sure? no. I believe we need oxygen to breathe, it seems to be an established scientific fact, but has it been tested in every oxygen free environment in the universe? no, does that make you uncertain of your need for oxygen? I doubt it. If one day I was proved wrong I would accept it but I fully believe it is not going to happen and I will maintain my conviction that (a) there is no god and (b) humans require oxygen to breathe.
Gary wrote: " but I fully believe ..."not to nick pick but I hear an awful lot from most atheists in that they don't "believe" anything. I am not contending there are no true atheists nor that most obviously misuse the term agnostic....I just saw this and felt compelled to make note of it :-)
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "agnostic: the way to go. Yes most definitely, if you are not Christian.
'Atheists' are unable to be proper atheists. Even Dawkins admits that there could be a God. So really there is..."
The evidence solely supports you in that there is not a god. And (laughing) the evidence also supports the idea that humans require oxygen to breathe for 4 out of 5 doctors agree that breathing is good for your health. http://www.unnecessaryknowledge.com/?...
Mike wrote: "Gary wrote: " but I fully believe ..."not to nick pick but I hear an awful lot from most atheists in that they don't "believe" anything. I am not contending there are no true atheists nor that ..."
The beauty of the English language is that you can twist almost anything anybody says in order to fit your position, the word believe is not exclusive to a religious context, yet atheists who believe nothing are clearly referring to belief within that context. If you know something to be true then technically you also believe it to be true and therefore believe something.
cs wrote: "agnostic: the way to go. Yes most definitely, if you are not Christian.
'Atheists' are unable to be proper atheists. Even Dawkins admits that there could be a God. So really there is no such th..."
You still don't seem to understand what the word means. It's probably why you think it's the same as a religion. Atheists would never claim to be absolutely certain about anything. They aren't stupid.
Agnosticism is a position of inherent intellectual dishonesty.
Atheism is the absence of belief in a god, generally absent due to a total lack of evidence.
Mike wrote: "What I find humorous is if Dawkins doesn't use "intelligence" for fear of misunderstanding, why would he go and refer to himself as "a cultural Christian" "I think this is him doing what people say he should do, which is to find some common ground with people.
cs wrote: "The God Delusion seems to be a misleading title then. "How so? Being reasonable doesn't mean that you can't recognize when people are deluded.
Gary wrote: "The beauty of the English language is that you can twist almost anything anybody says in order to fit your position, the word believe is not exclusive to a religious context, yet atheists who believe nothing are clearly referring to belief within that context. If you know something to be true then technically you also believe it to be true and therefore believe something."I agree. It's the same type of semantic situation that allows you to say you are 100% sure, then follow it by saying you'd change your mind with evidence.
Kevin wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "agnostic: the way to go. Yes most definitely, if you are not Christian.
'Atheists' are unable to be proper atheists. Even Dawkins admits that there could be a God. So re..."
Breathing keeps you alive, but it's not so good for your health.
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "agnostic: the way to go. Yes most definitely, if you are not Christian.
'Atheists' are unable to be proper atheists. Even Dawkins admits that there could be a God. So really there is..."
I am an atheist, I am 100% sure there is no god, can I prove it? no,
I am a Christian, I am 100% sure there is a God, can I prove it, no.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The God Delusion seems to be a misleading title then. "How so? Being reasonable doesn't mean that you can't recognize when people are deluded."
Dawkins is unable to say 100% that there is no God, yet the title suggests that there is no God.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "agnostic: the way to go. Yes most definitely, if you are not Christian.
'Atheists' are unable to be proper atheists. Even Dawkins admits that there could be a God. So really there is..."
An atheist is someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist.
Also in response to message 580, my point was that atheists can actually be proper atheists in spite of your obvious discomfort with that. Unfortunately my (and Dawkins) rational approach means I/we have to accept that if something doesn't exist then I/we can't actually prove that it doesn't. Replace the word god with something you know for sure not to exist then prove beyond doubt that it doesn't.
Gary wrote: "Also in response to message 580, my point was that atheists can actually be proper atheists in spite of your obvious discomfort with that. Unfortunately my (and Dawkins) rational approach means I/w..."I/we have to accept that if something doesn't exist then I/we can't actually prove that it doesn't.
So therefore it could exist.
cs wrote: "I/we have to accept that if something doesn't exist then I/we can't actually prove that it doesn't. So therefore it could exist. "ANYTHING could exist, but that doesn't mean we should act as if it does. It certainly doesn't mean we should claim it does.
Just because there could be (no one can prove absolutely that there isn't) imperceptible purple dragons that live in our noses does not mean that one would not be a fool for thinking there is.
There is no more evidence for god than there is for imperceptible purple dragons. Do you understand why that knowledge matters?
cs wrote: "Dawkins is unable to say 100% that there is no God, yet the title suggests that there is no God. "No, the title suggests that a person is deluded if they think there is based on the complete lack of evidence for a god and the massive evidence for other explanations for the things people credit god with.
cs wrote: "I am a Christian, I am 100% sure there is a God, can I prove it, no."If you don't understand why this is not the same thing as the atheist position, I'm just not sure what to tell you. You seem to be unwilling to actually think about the issue.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I/we have to accept that if something doesn't exist then I/we can't actually prove that it doesn't. So therefore it could exist. "ANYTHING could exist, but that doesn't mean we should ..."
You don't think that there is any more evidence for god than there is for imperceptible purple dragons, but others might.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I am a Christian, I am 100% sure there is a God, can I prove it, no."If you don't understand why this is not the same thing as the atheist position, I'm just not sure what to tell you...."
This is where the atheist feels he/she is going around in circles; a bit like a robot that has been given a command that will not compute.
I know some atheists who do not believe in god but don't know why they don't believe in god. It just seems more logical to them that there is not a god. Maybe their mind was on other things during RE in school. Anyway, they are atheists but don't want to get into a debate about in, they would rather talk football or TV. Like many who believe in God but are not really interested in atheists reasons why they don't believe.
Forums differ a bit. I believe in God and don't mind a bit of a debate. But most atheists on forums are the sort that are more philosophical in their ways.
You can tell this because they all have the same sort of 'off pat' questions but very little answers. And they don't grasp the word 'believe' the way someone who believes in a god does.
It's not even that an atheist does not believe in a god, it's that he/she needs proof, then they say they will believe. They are always asking for proof and that seems illogical if they know there is no god.
Also the big debate for atheist revolves around religion and god being connected and they can't think out of their philosophical box that you can have one without the other.
cs wrote: "I/we have to accept that if something doesn't exist then I/we can't actually prove that it doesn't. So therefore it could exist. "
could doesn't mean does
Also, an atheist asking a believer for proof of god is a response to a believer expecting their views to be taken seriously when we know they hold some irrational and ridiculous beliefs that impact on their perspective and views.
cs wrote: "Also the big debate for atheist revolves around religion and god being connected and they can't think out of their philosophical box that you can have one without the other."
Actually this makes no difference whatsoever, atheists don't believe in any deity weather connected to a religion or not.
Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "What I find humorous is if Dawkins doesn't use "intelligence" for fear of misunderstanding, why would he go and refer to himself as "a cultural Christian" "I think this is him doing what people say he should do, which is to find some common ground with people.
..."
I was looking for a little consistancy that was all. Both "terms" (i.e. intellegence in the realm of organized chaos and "christian") can cause severe confusion. ;-)
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I/we have to accept that if something doesn't exist then I/we can't actually prove that it doesn't. So therefore it could exist. "
could doesn't mean does
Also, an atheist asking a be..."
an atheist asking a believer for proof of god is a response to a believer expecting their views to be taken seriously
Not at all.
If someone says that they believe in God why should their views be taken seriously, even if you don't hold the same views yourself.
Actually this makes no difference whatsoever, atheists don't believe in any deity weather connected to a religion or not.
It seems to make a difference to some atheists when a Christian can seperate the two. This is something some atheists can't get their head around.
cs wrote: "It seems to make a difference to some atheists when a Christian can seperate the two. This is something some atheists can't get their head around."I'm going to address this again, and for the last time. We understand that god can hypothetically exist without religion, and that religion can exist without there being a god (in fact, it does). However, you cannot claim that a belief in god can exist without religion, as the most basic definition of religion is a belief in a deity or higher power of some kind. Thus, if you got rid of religion, it would also get rid of belief in god, as that belief is the very basis of religion. Also, until there is proof god (or any given deity) exists, there is no reason to assume that god does exist as anything but a concept created by religious people.
Its you who seems to have an issue with understanding the subtleties of this distinction.
One thing I will take away from this book as an affirmation of my own beliefs is this idea: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" -Douglas Adams
If we could just set aside our notions of some omnipotent male authority figure that has a hand in everything we do, then maybe we have a chance at some intelligent discussion about the state of our planet and our true place in it.
Michael wrote: "One thing I will take away from this book as an affirmation of my own beliefs is this idea: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at ..."
If we could just set aside our notions of some omnipotent male authority figure that has a hand in everything we do, then maybe we have a chance at some intelligent discussion about the state of our planet and our true place in it.
I have tried to have a discussion about what 2012 would have been like if there was never religion. And even if we never believed in a god. We would have a society much much worse than we have today. Money would rule and the poor and sick would not survive for long.
And don't you think even a beautiful garden would be improved with a fairy at the bottom of it.
A real fairy that is. :)
cs wrote: "You don't think that there is any more evidence for god than there is for imperceptible purple dragons, but others might. "Other might tell themselves there is more evidence for it, but there is objectively, no more evidence for it. But you're right, I cannot prevent people from hallucinating and calling it evidence (as one example).
cs wrote: "Also the big debate for atheist revolves around religion and god being connected and they can't think out of their philosophical box that you can have one without the other."Being that your commenting on a thread related to a book that does just that, I find your comments amusing. Yes, he uses example from christianity, but the actual arguments are not arguments related to religion being bad. They are arguments that god does not exist.
I agree that someone can't think their way out of a box, but it's clearly not who you think it is.
But what should I expect from someone who insists that their opinion of words is more accurate than dictionary definitions and is entirely incapable of admitting when they are wrong about something regardless of how incontrovertible the evidence is?
Mike wrote: "I was looking for a little consistancy that was all. Both "terms" (i.e. intellegence in the realm of organized chaos and "christian") can cause severe confusion. ;-) "It's true and I see where the confusion comes from. I suppose he finds himself in a bit of a trap. If he doesn't take steps toward people then people accuse him of being too standoffish and unreasonable and mean. If he does, they argue that he must be more on their side than he claims.
Not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just trying to be aware of what happens.
cs wrote: "I have tried to have a discussion about what 2012 would have been like if there was never religion. And even if we never believed in a god. We would have a society much much worse than we have today. Money would rule and the poor and sick would not survive for long.And don't you think even a beautiful garden would be improved with a fairy at the bottom of it.
A real fairy that is. :) "
But you don't have any basis for saying it would be worse. It could be a much better. You claiming it would be worse does not mean it would.
Here's the thing: I admit it could be worse, but can you admit that it could be better?
Not that it matters because whether things would be better or worse if people believed in god or had religion is actually not in any way relevant to the question of whether or not there is a god.
Do you understand why this is true? Do you get why making the distinction is important?
You're missing the point on the fairy question. The question is whether or not there actually are fairies and why we have to make them up in order to enjoy something that is already, as it is, very beautiful. It doesn't need any magic or imaginary figures.
I suspect differences like this come down to priorities. Some people prioritize the truth and some people prioritize what they want to be true over what is actually true.
Something can be both true and distasteful, can't it?
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I have tried to have a discussion about what 2012 would have been like if there was never religion. And even if we never believed in a god. We would have a society much much worse than w..."Here's the thing: I admit it could be worse, but can you admit that it could be better?
Yes, all I am doing is giving my option. But if life was just this short time on earth and then nothing I think more people would value their own life more and others less. I could see a society that finds it to expensive to keep the old and sick and disabled alive and priority would be given to the fitter and more productive. It is happening now in a small way under the Tory governments and without the moral compass of Christianity it would be worse.
But I'm sure you could tell me how it would have been better without the Christian religion.
Not that it matters because whether things would be better or worse if people believed in god or had religion is actually not in any way relevant to the question of whether or not there is a god.
I agree, you are correct but you I guess, are in an atheist minority.
I suspect differences like this come down to priorities. Some people prioritize the truth and some people prioritize what they want to be true over what is actually true.
Again you are correct.
what is actually true
I believe and you don't know.
I did get the fairy bit and people do believe in fairies.
cs wrote: " Some people prioritize the truth and some people prioritize what they want to be true over what is actually true.Again you are correct.
what is actually true
I believe and you don't know."
So your argument is that you want to believe despite all reason and rationality, despite the complete lack of evidence for your position, despite the mountains of evidence for alternative explanations. You believe because you want to. The truth is not really important to you.
That's your right. I just wanted to make sure I understood. I'm glad I brought up the priorities thing otherwise we could have wasted time going round and round with me assuming you care about what is true.
cs I've got to ask, did you actually read the book or did you just rate it 1 star based on its name? You talk about the 'moral compass of christianity' like you completely skipped over chapter 6 where Dawkins explores the roots of morality and effectively debunks the idea morality comes from religion. I'm also pretty sure most christians would be insulted that you assume they would be self important scum bags if they didn't have religion, are you saying you're only a good person because you fear god?
Daniel wrote: "If he doesn't take steps toward people then people accuse him of being too standoffish and unreasonable and mean. If he does, they argue that he must be more on their side than he claims.Not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just trying to be aware of what happens.
..."
I am about being consistant as much as possible, even if it is "consistance improvement", i.e. learning more, and leaving the old behind. I'd love the new idea of emergence and how it helps explain some of he weirdness of the human brain function, as can be compared to ants or fireflies, etc. I eliminates the "supreme operator at the controls" and allows the "system" to be intelligent. That's cool.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: " Some people prioritize the truth and some people prioritize what they want to be true over what is actually true.Again you are correct.
what is actually true
I believe and you don'..."
So your argument is that you want to believe despite all reason and rationality, despite the complete lack of evidence for your position,
Yes I do, because I am not able to hang around until science can prove me wrong, we don't have that much time. I think there is some evidence if you believe Jesus was who he claims to be.
despite the mountains of evidence for alternative explanations.
Others have tried and failed to prove that point, but why don't you have a go. I'm interested.
Gary wrote: "cs I've got to ask, did you actually read the book or did you just rate it 1 star based on its name? You talk about the 'moral compass of christianity' like you completely skipped over chapter 6 wh..."I have said before that I did read the book and I did admit that some of it I skip read, because at the time I read it Dawkins was on tv, radio, internet doing interviews and in most cases he did not come across very well.
I just happen not to agree with what he says, in most cases.
It was a well written and I guess well researched book that sold very well and I would like to have written it myself, that or the Da Vinci Code, if only to reap the rewards. But I rated it 1 star because I done agree with the contents. I could have given it 3 stars but that would look as though i agreed with the content.
cs wrote: "Yes I do, because I am not able to hang around until science can prove me wrong, we don't have that much time. I think there is some evidence if you believe Jesus was who he claims to be."Pascal's Wager then?
cs wrote: "I have said before that I did read the book and I did admit that some of it I skip read, because at the time I read it Dawkins was on tv, radio, internet doing interviews and in most cases he did not come across very well.I just happen not to agree with what he says, in most cases.
It was a well written and I guess well researched book that sold very well and I would like to have written it myself, that or the Da Vinci Code, if only to reap the rewards. But I rated it 1 star because I done agree with the contents. I could have given it 3 stars but that would look as though i agreed with the content. "
Having seen numerous interviews etc with him he comes across as intelligent, well researched and well spoken, so I can only assume that what you mean by "did not come across very well" is that you found him to be to confrontational. The thing is, all he is doing is informing you of some well researched inconvenient truths that you would clearly rather remain ignorant of.
As for your 1 star rating, obviously it is your choice how you rate a book, just seems a harsh rating considering you didn't actually read it all properly and what you did read you found to be well written. I recently read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, ideologically speaking I'm about as opposite as you can get from her 'objectivism' philosophy but I gave it 4 stars and only a couple of flaws (the philosophy aside) stopped me giving it 5, the reason being it was well written and made me re examine my own views even though in the end they didn't change.
Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Yes I do, because I am not able to hang around until science can prove me wrong, we don't have that much time. I think there is some evidence if you believe Jesus was who he claims to be..."....and what do you think I would gain that you would not by assuming Pascal's Wager?
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I have said before that I did read the book and I did admit that some of it I skip read, because at the time I read it Dawkins was on tv, radio, internet doing interviews and in most cas..."....not confrontational, more second best.
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, ideologically speaking I'm about as opposite as you can get from her 'objectivism' philosophy but I gave it 4 stars and only a couple of flaws (the philosophy aside) stopped me giving it 5
Star rating is not a very good way of rating stuff for this very reason.
One of my favorite fiction authors I would give a five star rating to 9 of his 10 books. But some of the nine are better than others so how do I differentiate between them without lowering the score.
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)
Not for nothing, but if you had said "ass-hattery" you would have received double points.