The GOD Delusion: Dawkins' Atheist Handbook

[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.