The GOD Delusion: Dawkins' Atheist Handbook

[Cyrus]

What we can say is that "for all intents and purposes, we may proceed as if he does not exist". We may also personally believe that he does not exist. But we have no basis to say that "in reality" it has been shown that he does not exist.

No we may not say that. We will proceed that he does not exist until you can show otherwise that he does exist. Until that point, its nothing but crackpot wish-thinking. Or do you also believe in dragons, bigfoot, and the tooth fairy, until it can be 'proven' they don't exist either? As Dawkings says, this is intellectual dishonesty; and, as Arildno put it, 'mental masterbation'.

That's a bit of a tangent anyway. My point was simply that, there are conceivable circumstances that, if they occurred, we could categorically state that God has been proven to exist. Contrarily, there are NO conceivable circumstances that, no matter how they occur, we could categorically state that God does NOT exist. There is no test, even in principle, that could prove the non-existence of God.

Yes, there are according to the way religion works, i.e. miracles. They are acts of God, yet double blind tests show that miracles simply DONT happen. Its all hogwash.


If you are going to state God exists, then YOU have to prove it to ME. NOT the other way around. If you can't do that, then your no different than the bum on the street who says jesus is talking to him.

 

[Cyrus]

I can't believe that this thread still lives even just about everything has been said and repeated after that with a slightly different choice of words.

My two cents, it's about the only thing Karl Marx was right about: "Religion is opium for the people". Humans may be the only species aware of its own mortality and the -all prevailing- instinct for survival makes it necesary to invent eternal live or reincarnation or something like that, something that can only be arranged by a almighty deity.

If you're too rational to fall for that, that makes you an atheist by definition but that doesn't mean that it's required to crusade against religion. Perhaps study http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4 .

You have the luxury of living in Europe where the majority of people are not religious nutjobs like in my country. I envy that.

Actually, I find religion itself a reason to crusade against it. I don't mind people believing in god; however, I have a strong distaste for organized religion.

 

[drankin]

God cannot be scientifically proven to exist. If God could be proven, then people would not require faith to believe. What is a religion without faith?

 

[Cyrus]

God cannot be scientifically proven to exist. If God could be proven, then people would not require faith to believe. What is a religion without faith?

Why not? What do you base this on? Anything that requires faith without evidence is bunk. Are you to say that I can't use a logical and reasoned approach to prove the existence of something?

Im wondering what religion is period, other than a social gathering.

Im just starting chapter 3, "arguments for the existence of god", and am looking forward to it. So far, Dawkins has stated that you can use probablity to show that the likelyhood of an existence of god is less than 50%. Much like you can use probability in the drake equation to show the existence of extraterrestrial life.

 

[waht]

You guys should see "Jesus Camp," and see how they brainwash kids. I don't have the stomach to watch this anymore.

 

[Cyrus]

Eughhhhhh, I've seen that. Its f'in horrible! WHITE POWER! Eugh, that makes me sick to watch kids wallowing for forgiveness to something that's not even real.

 

[drankin]

Well, it's a Jesus thing. You can't be saved unless you have faith. What faith can you have on something that is scientifically proven? It's like saying you can't be saved unless that you believe in water. That's too easy! LOL Faith is required when you believe in something you cannot see. I take that to mean theoretically as well, (like seeing an atom or a black hole). Science will never prove that God exists.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, it's a Jesus thing. You can't be saved unless you have faith. What faith can you have on something that is scientifically proven? It's like saying you can't be saved unless that you believe in water. That's too easy! LOL Faith is required when you believe in something you cannot see. I take that to mean theoretically as well, (like seeing an atom or a black hole). Science will never prove that God exists.

Seriously, all you are giving me is that 'its a Jesus thing'? Please try harder to make a point. And saved from what? I did not know I was in need of any saving. What you wrote just proves my point on religion. Its a total lack of logic or any common sense. We don't need to 'see' an atom to know it exists, because we detect the effects of its existence. The same can't be said of any God. (Prayer has been disproven time and again as crackpot science, and BTW, when was the last time you saw an angel?).

PS, were not going to go off on a wild tangent about your 'faith' or the thread will be locked. If you can provide any evidence of god, feel free.

 

[Astronuc]

What is a religion without faith?

Nothing more than a set of moral and ethical principles by which one would conduct an honorable and meaningful life. A belief in a deity or a faith in the supernatural is not a necessary condition to be a good, or moral and ethical person. To have a purpose in life does not require a belief in a god or gods.

An atheist can certainly be religious, i.e. atheism does not preclude religion.

One can have faith in the future, in humanity, in one's family and friends, and/or in onself without believing in a deity.

 

[waht]

Faith is just an emotion. What really separates mammals from other animals is that they have some levels of emotions too.

And what is an emotion? A certain state of your brain that preps your body for different tasks. If you are in fear, brain will cause the release of various hormones into your blood stream so that you could run a marathon to escape danger. If you are in love, different hormones will be released, along with other changes such that you are ready to mate. You might feel butterflies in your stomach, physically that is the nervous system pulling blood from you stomach.

Hope is the same thing. When you see there is no other way, you will imagine there is, and that sets up your brain chemistry differently. Faith is even worst, you get addicted to the brain chemistry, and crave more release of different chemicals into your blood stream which induce a pleasurable feeling.

There is nothing holy about emotions. What is funny is that you can alter the brain chemistry by taking different drugs. Will make you feel euphoric. It's nothing but brain chemistry.

Americans Indians are know to congregate in their tipis by the fire and smoked pipe. They reported visions from the great spirit. Wonder why?

 

[drankin]

Seriously, all you are giving me is that 'its a Jesus thing'? Please try harder to make a point. And saved from what? I did not know I was in need of any saving. What you wrote just proves my point on religion. Its a total lack of logic or any common sense. We don't need to 'see' an atom to know it exists, because we detect the effects of its existence. The same can't be said of any God. (Prayer has been disproven time and again as crackpot science, and BTW, when was the last time you saw an angel?).

PS, were not going to go off on a wild tangent about your 'faith' or the thread will be locked. If you can provide any evidence of god, feel free.

First off, I'm not talking about MY faith so don't put words in my mouth. This is simply a discussion of what faith is in the Christain "faith".

You guys are reading more into what I'm saying here. All I'm saying is that from a Christian theoligical standpoint, faith is required based on Jesus's teaching. If science could prove the existence of God then Christians would not have anything to have faith in. Everyone, including you, would have to believe in God if you require your beliefs to have a scientific foundation. It will never happen of course, but if it did, the Christain faith would no longer be a faith at all.

An atom exists, nuclear power is proof enough for a layman. It is something that is theoretically seen, therefore does not require faith. To believe in God requires a faith.

 

[mheslep]

I can't believe that this thread still lives even just about everything has been said and repeated after that with a slightly different choice of words.

My two cents, it's about the only thing Karl Marx was right about: "Religion is opium for the people".

Thanks, that opens a nice segue to a more interesting question on Dawkins' book, to those who've read it or its display case cousins: What's new here? Is Dawkins improving on the pillars of rationalist literature: Ockham, Hobbes' Leviathan, Hume's Treatise of Human Nature, Descartes, Marx, Russel's http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm" :

Despite the many flashes of brilliance in this book, Dawkins’s failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience.

 

[out of whack]

God exists without any doubt, you will find it at the start of this sentence. There, proven.

But those who are actually interested in the existence of something that the word represents had better provide a definition. There are plenty of definitions for God. A lot of them are provably false by virtue of being self-contradictory or otherwise impossible. A clever deist can surely come up with wording that cannot be shown false, but then I would have to wonder if it shows true faith or just language ability.

 

[Cyrus]

First off, I'm not talking about MY faith so don't put words in my mouth. This is simply a discussion of what faith is in the Christain "faith".

You guys are reading more into what I'm saying here. All I'm saying is that from a Christian theoligical standpoint, faith is required based on Jesus's teaching. If science could prove the existence of God then Christians would not have anything to have faith in. Everyone, including you, would have to believe in God if you require your beliefs to have a scientific foundation. It will never happen of course, but if it did, the Christain faith would no longer be a faith at all.

An atom exists, nuclear power is proof enough for a layman. It is something that is theoretically seen, therefore does not require faith. To believe in God requires a faith.

Do you want to talk circles until your tounge is tied? I'm just curious. -I don't speak in tounges.

 

[drankin]

Define the circle that I'm talking and I'll answer your question.

 

[Cyrus]

First off, I'm not talking about MY faith so don't put words in my mouth. This is simply a discussion of what faith is in the Christain "faith".

Okay, sorry. It came off reading as your view. So anyways...

You guys are reading more into what I'm saying here. All I'm saying is that from a Christian theoligical standpoint, faith is required based on Jesus's teaching.

And that is absolutely meaningless. You can go a few pages back on that matter where I talked about the tooth fairy or bigfoot on why. Having 'faith' is a meanginless proposition for any sane, rational person.

If science could prove the existence of God then Christians would not have anything to have faith in.

What? No, absolutely NOT, NO. Their faith would simply be affirmed by scientific proof. Thats almost akin to Swinburnes quote: "There is quite a lot of evidence anyway of God's existence, and too much might not be good for us". -LAUGH RIOT

Everyone, including you, would have to believe in God if you require your beliefs to have a scientific foundation.

If there were undoubted proof, scientifically that God existed, then EVERY athiest would believe in god. This is a no brainer.

It will never happen of course, but if it did, the Christain faith would no longer be a faith at all.

Because faith is not a meaninful criteria by any measure on any scale.

An atom exists, nuclear power is proof enough for a layman. It is something that is theoretically seen, therefore does not require faith. To believe in God requires a faith.

So why did you just say a moment ago no one has seen any atom. Thats intellecually dishonest rhetoric with falsely negative connotations.

So again, are you going to sit there and say for the 10th time, 'god requires faith'? Must we really go round and round like this? Or will you do as I required of you, and provide examples of proof? The burden still lies on your shoulders... the meanwhile, myself, moridin, and arildno are providing evidence to the contrary. We are still waiting for any evidence on your side of the argument. Miracles were arleady thrown out via double-blind experiments. Surely, faith can't be the one and only straw the religious cling to?

 

[drankin]

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are taking the stance that I'm some religious fanatic defending my faith. I don't need to prove to anybody that my faith has any scientific, reasonable, logical explanation. Because it doesn't have one. You seem to believe that faith requires logic. Anyone who bases their faith on science, or even logic, really doesn't have faith at all, IMO. Because there is nothing one can prove.

There is no burden on my shoulders. I have nothing (literally) I can prove to anyone.

You obviously do not get what I'm saying to you.

 

[Cyrus]

A nice verse in the book by Karen Owens:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

 

[drankin]

Now, who is talking (quoting) circles! LOL

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are taking the stance that I'm some religious fanatic defending my faith.

The belief in something without evidence or proof, but mere 'faith', is by my book fanatical.

You seem to believe that faith requires logic.

If its something your going to base on how to live your life by, then a big fat YES! It sure does require it, in fact it must DEMAND it.

There is no burden on my shoulders.

If you claim god is real, yes. It is.

Gotta run, be back later, if not tomorrow with more read on chapter 3.

 

[drankin]

gnight

 

[drankin]

"If its something your going to base on how to live your life by, then a big fat YES! It sure does require it, in fact it must DEMAND it. "

I understand where you are coming from but billions of people on this planet have faith in a god they cannot see nor prove exists. That obviously defies logic. But, none-the-less, they do anyway. So I conclude that faith does not require logic.

 

[DaveC426913]

No we may not say that. We will proceed that he does not exist until you can show otherwise that he does exist.

Sigh. I don't know why this is doomed to be continually repeated, surely in The Book of Rational Thought that everyone gets, in the first chapter it says thus:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Look I don't believe God is out there either. I don't. I'm an atheist. But I'm not so arrogant as to believe that it's proven. In fact, being a rational being, I have no choice but to acknowledge the limitation that I cannot - even in principle - be sure that I know there isn't a God out there. (Though I can conduct my life with supreme confidence that I'm right.)

It doesn't mean proving or disproving the parting or the Red Sea or the Ascension of Jesus. The fact is, I have absolutely no test whatsoever that a supreme bieng did not, in fact, create the entire universe with the snap of its fingers - and then take a nap for the next 10 billion years. It may have done absolutely nothing, else; it may never show his face to humans again.

More to the point: you cannot conduct any test whatsoever that demonstrates that there is no God.
Note: this is not the same as saying he does exist.


And because of that alone, you must acknowledge that you cannot prove God did not create the world - or you must show yourself a hypocrite against your own rational thought.

Yes, there are according to the way religion works, i.e. miracles. They are acts of God, yet double blind tests show that miracles simply DONT happen. Its all hogwash.

Falsifying miracles does not prove God does not exist. You could falsify everything in the bible and it still would not prove God does not exist.

If you are going to state God exists, then YOU have to prove it to ME. NOT the other way around.

I accuse you of building and beating straw man. I am not, nor have I ever stated that God exists (nor, I would surmise, has anyone else in this thread.). That is not the discussion at hand.

Refute the argument put forth, not the argument you want to fight.

 

[DaveC426913]

Note: this is not a debate about whether or not a Suipreme being exists; it is a debate about the limits of what rational people can "know" to be true or false.

 

[drankin]

Note: this is not a debate about whether or not a Suipreme being exists; it is a debate about the limits of what rational people can "know" to be true or false.

Fair enough, rational people can know definitively one way or the other. It's the proving of it that is in question.

 

[DaveC426913]

Fair enough, rational people can know definitively one way or the other.

What? No they can't. Unless you mean "know" as in "personally know" (which is simply an unquestioned belief.)

 

[Cyrus]

But I'm not so arrogant as to believe that it's proven. In fact, being a rational being, I have no choice but to acknowledge the limitation that I cannot - even in principle - be sure that I know there isn't a God out there. (Though I can conduct my life with supreme confidence that I'm right.)

I never said that I know there isn't a god out there. I said you first have to show evidence that there is if you want to make that claim. So don't call me arrogant: learn to read what I write. Fair?

It doesn't mean proving or disproving the parting or the Red Sea or the Ascension of Jesus. The fact is, I have absolutely no test whatsoever that a supreme bieng did not, in fact, create the entire universe with the snap of its fingers - and then take a nap for the next 10 billion years. It may have done absolutely nothing, else; it may never show his face to humans again.

Maybe I should make it clear what Dawking and I are referring to then. By God, he means an omnipresent god that listens to and answers prayers and looks over every single thing you do in your life. If the bible is the word of god (which many consider it to be), then the contents of it should be as real as any valid body of work. If its full of incorrect facts, contradictions, etc, then there exists a clear problem with it being the 'word of god', or even more so for that matter there being any credible god associated with that bible.

More to the point: you cannot conduct any test whatsoever that demonstrates that there is no God.
Note: this is not the same as saying he does exist.

Why not? This seems more like your own opinion than anything else.

And because of that alone, you must acknowledge that you cannot prove God did not create the world - or you must show yourself a hypocrite against your own rational thought.

I said nothing hypocritical. For the last time, I said if you want to claim he did create the world, then back it up. Until then I can't take what you said as a truth. This is probably the what, 15th time I've said it in this thread, at least?

Falsifying miracles does not prove God does not exist. You could falsify everything in the bible and it still would not prove God does not exist.

Its one step in the right direction of showing its nothing but bunk. In fact, I would love someone to falsify everything in the bible, as I think most of it is probably total junk anyways with no historical backing to prove most of it, but rather a twist on the facts and events. If I could disprove ~80% of what's in the bible as wrong. Then I am VERY confident that the god associated with that particular bible is probably a man made invention and has nothing to support its validity.

I accuse you of building and beating straw man. I am not, nor have I ever stated that God exists (nor, I would surmise, has anyone else in this thread.). That is not the discussion at hand.

Did you read the book? Because if you did you would follow along with the discussion.

 

[drankin]

What? No they can't. Unless you mean "know" as in "personally know" (which is simply an unquestioned belief.)

If someone says they "know" something intangible to you, how are you to say he doesn't? When you yourself do even know what he is talking about??

 

[Cyrus]

You said,

Who said the existence of God couldn't be proven? It is certainly possible in principle.

And I said, with that argument, anything is possible in principle. But that does NOT make it true. And until you can show its possible, I am taking it as NOT being true. Why? Because its a man made invention and I am not going to give it undserved respect. I bet if we took every religion in the world, we would have a few hundred gods, at the very least, that are all possible in principle. This means next to nothing about the existence of any of them, and considering how most of them consider their god as the 'only' god, actually makes them all the weaker an argument as a whole.

See I put in the word UNTIL just to make you happy.

If you were paying attention, you would have read that I said to drankin. If the existence of god were to be proven, then every atheist would instantly believe in that god, without hesistation. Thats inherent in being an athiest. So I don't know why you keep saying I know there is 100% NOT a god. Perhaps I was not clear on this point.

 

[DaveC426913]

I never said that I know there isn't a god out there.

I guess I misunderstood the strength of your claim.

Me:"What we can say is that "for all intents and purposes, we may proceed as if he does not exist". "
You: "No we may not say that. We will proceed that he does not exist until you can show otherwise that he does exist. "

I interpreted your statement as explicitly stronger than mine. I got the impression that "proceeding with the assumption that he does not exist" was not good enough for you. But I don't see anything in between these two "we will proceed under the assumption that he doesn't exist" and "we will proceed with the knowledge that he doesn't exist". To me, they're different but adjacent.

So don't call me arrogant

I didn't mean this to be a label applied to you specifically. I meant it in a "royal we" sense. "We would be arrogant to think such and such..."

My bad.

I said if you want to claim he did create the world, then back it up. Until then I can't take what you said as a truth. This is probably the what, 15th time I've said it in this thread, at least?

I know, but that's not my argument, which is why it's falling on deaf ears. I never claimed that God made the Earth, nor do you have to take anything I said as truth. I'm simply stating that you can't be sure God doesn't exist.

Its one step in the right direction of showing its nothing but bunk.

It's one step in the direction of being sure it's very probably nothing but bunk, but that's not proof. A million UFO sightings don't conivnce me there are UFOs, but if a mere one landed on my front lawn, then they exist. The corollary is that a million false UFO sightings don't prove that UFOs don't exist.

I would love someone to falsify everything in the bible, as I think most of it is probably total junk anyways with no historical backing to prove most of it, but rather a twist on the facts and events. If I could disprove ~80% of what's in the bible as wrong.

You reveal yourself as someone who has lost his objectivity on the matter.

Did you read the book? Because if you did you would follow along with the discussion.

Agreed. I am guilty of pursuing a side discussion, which is distinctly different from Dawkins' argument about the traditional God. I have been pursuing an argument about a generic Supreme Being.

Since this thread is open only as long as it remains about the book, I must concede on a technicality.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess I misunderstood the strength of your claim.

Me:"What we can say is that "for all intents and purposes, we may proceed as if he does not exist". "
You: "No we may not say that. We will proceed that he does not exist until you can show otherwise that he does exist.


I interpreted your statement as explicitly stronger than mine. I got the impression that "proceeding with the assumption that he does not exist" was not good enough for you. But I don't see anything in between these two "we will proceed under the assumption that he doesn't exist" and "we will proceed with the knowledge that he doesn't exist". To me, they're different but adjacent.

Based on this, yes. Id say we are in agreement.

I didn't mean this to be a label applied to you specifically. I meant it in a "royal we" sense. "We would be arrogant to think such and such..."

My bad.

No worries. Sorry if my response was too brash.

I know, but that's not my argument, which is why it's falling on deaf ears. I never claimed that God made the Earth, nor do you have to take anything I said as truth. I'm simply stating that you can't be sure God doesn't exist.

I will concede to that point.

It's one step in the direction of being sure it's very probably nothing but bunk, but that's not proof. A million UFO sightings don't conivnce me there are UFOs, but if a mere one landed on my front lawn, then they exist. The corollary is that a million false UFO sightings don't prove that UFOs don't exist.

You reveal yourself as someone who has lost his objectivity on the matter.

Id readily admit I probably have. Its a product of being around too many religious people that are so god damn certain they know a personal god. It gets under my skin that they act as if they know this 'special' truth and that its so 'silly' for me to say there's no god. They chuckle as if its the 'craziest thing they ever heard'. I think seeing people of religion has made me run away from it, because they scare me - and I am not exaggerating. They are by far the most ignorant and closed minded people I have ever met in my life. I am talking college level engineering students that think evolution is still a 'theory' and 'satan' makes us do bad things. This is going way beyond even the debate of god. I would expect this from a drunk guy on the street, not a scientist!

Agreed. I am guilty of pursuing a side discussion, which is distinctly different from Dawkins' argument about the traditional God. I have been pursuing an argument about a generic Supreme Being.

That is something that is possible. I won't argue against that. But this god that talks to you and answers your prayers, that's something I will say is NOT true because in that case we do have prayer tests that show in fact no one is listening or answering those prayers. Its all in their heads.

Mark my words. You think religion in America is bad now, give it a few years. I fear we have seen just the start of what's to come. I see way too many religious people in school. I know one girl who thinks the bible is the literal word of god. Really nice person, but that scares the bejesus out of me.

Dont believe me, this is from one of them:

We believe the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.

Sound like were in Tehran, Iran.

Anyways, back to the book.

 

[wildman]

I think this discussion is really in violation of the rules of this forum, but it seems that the rules only apply when a mentor objects so I am going to put my two bits in anyway until Evo decides to cut us off...Science (and the math which is its foundation) is very powerful. If anyone is using a computer to read this post and doesn’t believe that then they are foolish. However it isn’t everything. This Universe is filled with illogic. An example would be the statement: “This statement is false.” Logic cannot solve this statement. Godel proved that there are such loops in any consistent mathematical system.

Yes, Christianity is in many ways illogical, but as I said above, logic isn’t everything. Dawkins can build a very pretty logical argument but it doesn’t change the power that people experience. It is illogical, it doesn’t make sense but it changes people’s lives. I have experienced it and seen it in others.

To reject this ancient knowledge and power out of hand is as foolish (in my lowly opinion) as to believe that the World was created 6000 years ago in six days.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think this discussion is really in violation of the rules of this forum, but it seems that the rules only apply when a mentor objects so I am going to put my two bits in anyway until Evo decides to cut us off...

True. And as a major contributor to the derailment, I'll withdraw so it does not get locked.

An example would be the statement: “This statement is false.” Logic cannot solve this statement.

Yes it can, but point made.

logic isn’t everything.

True. We address this by generally agreeing that "matters of faith are outside the scope of science". That doesn't make them outside the scope of humanity.

I stirred the pot by claiming that God's non-existence is inside the scope of scientific thought. i.e. lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence - a rational argument.


Anyway, may the thread resume.

 

[drankin]

This thread has digressed. I say we lock it.

It's turned into, "God's not real, dummies!", "How do you know? dummy!", "Prove it!", "No, you prove it!"

 

[Cyrus]

Well, I still don't agree with you that "matters of faith are outside the scope of science".

I see no reason why matters of faith are outside the scope of science when they regularly make scientific claims due to the supernatural.

"I stirred the pot by claiming that God's non-existence is inside the scope of scientific thought. i.e. lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence - a rational argument."

Again, I don't like the way you word this. It really just does not sit well with me. If something is to be true, then evidence has to be provided to show that it is true. I hope we can both agree on that. So I would say that all claims of god are NOT true, UNTIL which point evidence can be shown that it is infact true.

When you say something is 'probable' its giving it undue credit IMO, because anything far fetched can be 'probable'. But its really a meaningless statement.

 

[Cyrus]

This thread has digressed. I say we lock it.

It's turned into, "God's not real, dummies!", "How do you know? dummy!", "Prove it!", "No, you prove it!"

Or, you could get a copy of the book and read it and contribute. As red foxx would say, 'you big dummy'.

Actually, its more like, 'you say god is real, then please show evidence'
Other side: Crickettttttttttttt. (well, its possible, possible )

 

[Math Is Hard]

I tend to agree with drankin (and others). There's just no way to confine this to a discussion of the book, and we're stuck with the "thread that never ends".

Sorry, Cyrus. If another mentor wants to reopen it and babysit it, that's fine, but it keeps straying outside the guidelines, and I don't know how it can be kept on track to meet with your intentions.