NationStates Jolt Archive

Not a philosopher! So why must he try and extend his expertese around philosophy. Constantly waisting his time trying to disprove God using very ammature philosophy which is very ancient, so ancient that most of it is addressed by Thomas aquinas in the 12th century and made pointless. Another part of his time is waisted when he tries to ridiculre religion using his very very scewed, and I mean scewed, understanding of theology using taken out of context quotes and misinterpretations to support his weak arguments of banning religion etc...

I also think he is one of the most arrogant and hypocritical men on the planet, and represents what is wrong with militant atheism.

Anyone agree?

almost everyone is a philosopher. weres your degree saying you have any right to have an opinion?

I'll agree to that when pastors/preists/imams/rabbis shut up about everything but religion.

But as long as the are pushing the ID, he has every right to mock their foolishness.

I'll agree to that when pastors/preists/imams/rabbis shut up about everything but religion.

But as long as the are pushing the ID, he has every right to mock their foolishness.

This is hardly about ID in the slightest though. More about when he attempts at cosmological arguments, which are of course good, but not good enough to give him such authority and arrogance.

Seconded. Dawkins needs to stick to his area of expertise, not one he has no experience or education in.

I've been pretty vocal on this board in my criticism of Dawkins; he's venturing in to places that are not his expertise with arguments that are neither particularly strong nor based upon a deep knowledge of theology, and setting up what are effectively strawmen to attack religious belief. His antireligious crusade is doing nothing but dividing and driving off religious people who support science while giving the fundamentalists ammunition for their attacks on the "religion" of science.

He is hurting the fight against ID, not helping it. And his attacks on religion are not particularly convincing and have been hit pretty hard by theologians, hurting his standing and making him a less influential voice than he could have been.

Constantly waisting his time trying to disprove God using very ammature philosophy which is very ancient, so ancient that most of it is addressed by Thomas aquinas in the 12th century and made pointless.
Only because most theistic arguments were made by Thomas Aquinas back in the 12th century.
Another part of his time is waisted when he tries to ridiculre religion using his very very scewed, and I mean scewed, understanding of theology using taken out of context quotes and misinterpretations to support his weak arguments of banning religion etc...

Prove it.

I also think he is one of the most arrogant and hypocritical men on the planet, and represents what is wrong with militant atheism.

Dawkins is nowhere near as bad as Pat Robertson. Trust me on this, saying religion is evil with some sort of weakish evidence isn't good. but saying that teh gheys will run into churchs and throw blood around(he did actually say that) with no evidence at all, not even his own holy book, is far, far worse.

This is hardly about ID in the slightest though. More about when he attempts at cosmological arguments, which are of course good, but not good enough to give him such authority and arrogance.

I'll bet he knows more about the physical universe than Thomas Aquinas.

Seconded. Dawkins needs to stick to his area of expertise, not one he has no experience or education in.

I've been pretty vocal on this board in my criticism of Dawkins; he's venturing in to places that are not his expertise with arguments that are neither particularly strong nor based upon a deep knowledge of theology, and setting up what are effectively strawmen to attack religious belief. His antireligious crusade is doing nothing but dividing and driving off religious people who support science while giving the fundamentalists ammunition for their attacks on the "religion" of science.

He is hurting the fight against ID, not helping it. And his attacks on religion are not particularly convincing and have been hit pretty hard by theologians, hurting his standing and making him a less influential voice than he could have been.

QFT x 100!: :fluffle:

I'll bet he knows more about the physical universe than Thomas Aquinas.

Considering Aquinas had never even HEARD of evolution, relativity, or even that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around, you're probably right.

Not a philosopher! So why must he try and his expertese around philosophy. Constantly waisting his time trying to disprove God using very ammature philosophy which is very ancient, so ancient that most of it is addressed by Thomas aquinas in the 12th century and made pointless.

of course, aquinas' arguments are pretty much crap. rehashed prime mover bullshit and the like.

Considering Aquinas had never even HEARD of evolution, relativity, or even that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around, you're probably right.

The makeup of the universe, and evolution are not really used at all in his arguments.

In his latest book, his main argument is "but but but what caused the causer/designer", which is thousands of years old and missing the point of the uncaused causer.

QFT x 100!: :fluffle:

I mean, his biology work is absolutely brilliant and yet he squanders his talents by fighting his allies within the world's religions rather than fighting the real enemies.

of course, aquinas' arguments are pretty much crap. rehashed prime mover bullshit and the like.

He is influenced by greek philosophy yes, but that doesn't mean to say his arguments are flawed. Have you ever read Aquinas's one of many huge books, he first does a a chapter on the most convincing reasons why there isn't a God including many of Dawkins arguments. Then refutes them or makes them loose their significance in the next chapter. He is a good philosopher and is highly respected among many modern philosphers and scientists. As he actually encouraged science, to "unlock the mysteries of the universe". Though I will accept his ethical theories are fucked up.

Seconded. Dawkins needs to stick to his area of expertise, not one he has no experience or education in.


Why does that only apply to scientists? Maybe Al Gore should drink a big cup of STFU about global warming then. After all, he's just a law school drop out.

And while we are at it, unless you have an actual hard science degree, (not some pansy soft science like pyschology or sociology) there should be no opining about the nature of the physical world.

In return, non theologians will stop talking about god.

Why does that only apply to scientists? Maybe Al Gore should drink a big cup of STFU about global warming then. After all, he's just a law school drop out.


Yes he probably should but I don't mind. He isn't arrogant in the same way Dawkins is.


And while we are at it, unless you have an actual hard science degree, (not some pansy soft science like pyschology or sociology) there should be no opining about the nature of the physical world.


I'm not saying Dawkins can't have an opinion, I'm saying he should stop waisting his time writing massive books propagating his lame arguments as if they were the ultimate truth to the younger generation and not even attempt to debate. He shouldn't be regarded as such a great philosopher either.


In return, non theologians will stop talking about god.

Same as before.

He is influenced by greek philosophy yes, but that doesn't mean to say his arguments are flawed.

the fact that they are crap is what makes them flawed, not the fact that they were crap when aristotle (or, even worse, anselm) said them first.

Have you ever read Aquinas's one of many huge books, he first does a a chapter on the most convincing reasons why there isn't a God including many of Dawkins arguments. Then refutes them or makes them loose their significance in the next chapter.

i'm currently looking at the relevant part of the summa right now, actually - it's still sitting next to my desk from a paper i wrote last week.

almost everyone is a philosopher

not very good ones

the fact that they are crap is what makes them flawed, not the fact that they were crap when aristotle (or, even worse, anselm) said them first.



i'm currently looking at the relevant part of the summa right now, actually - it's still sitting next to my desk from a paper i wrote last week.

Well you are a very rare kind. Not many people would regard Aquinas' arguments as simply crap, otherwise exam boards and university courses wouldn't have a Aquinas as a main part of a philosophy course.

by the same logic of the op, no one on the forum should post an opinion, unless they have recieve a "well-ground-view-on-reality" certificate from me.

by the same logic of the op, no one on the forum should post an opinion, unless they have recieve a "well-ground-view-on-reality" certificate from me.

Just to reiterate. I don't mean it that way, I don't care what people think. But I do care when people are given shuch massive respect and held in such high regard for such old and feeble arguments.

Well you are a very rare kind. Not many people would regard Aquinas' arguments as simply crap, otherwise exam boards and university courses wouldn't have a Aquinas as a main part of a philosophy course.

philosophy is full of crap arguments. otherwise there'd be nothing to talk about. the trick is to be wrong in interesting ways.

philosophy is full of crap arguments. otherwise there'd be nothing to talk about. the trick is to be wrong in interesting ways.

in your opinion.

in your opinion.

let's put it this way - philosophy courses covering the topic will often cover both aquinas' arguments for god and hume and kant's demolishing of those arguments. clearly both sides cannot be right. therefore at least one of them is crap.

Seconded. Dawkins needs to stick to his area of expertise, not one he has no experience or education in.

I've been pretty vocal on this board in my criticism of Dawkins; he's venturing in to places that are not his expertise with arguments that are neither particularly strong nor based upon a deep knowledge of theology, and setting up what are effectively strawmen to attack religious belief. His antireligious crusade is doing nothing but dividing and driving off religious people who support science while giving the fundamentalists ammunition for their attacks on the "religion" of science.

He is hurting the fight against ID, not helping it. And his attacks on religion are not particularly convincing and have been hit pretty hard by theologians, hurting his standing and making him a less influential voice than he could have been.

My thoughts, thanks for saving me keystrokes.

In his latest book, his main argument is "but but but what caused the causer/designer", which is thousands of years old
So?
and missing the point of the uncaused causer.

No, YOU'RE missing the point of HIS argument.
It goes like this:
If God is the solution to the problem of "how can we have a causer without a cause?" then we still don't know what made God.
He doesn't need a cause? Then the universe doesn't need a cause either by this logic and we can cut God out with Occam's Razor.
He was caused by something? That defeats the point of the argument, because then you have who made God's father and who made God's grandfather and so on.
Either way, it disproves the idea of God as the uncaused causer nicely.

Why does that only apply to scientists? Maybe Al Gore should drink a big cup of STFU about global warming then. After all, he's just a law school drop out.

Al Gore isn't arrogant and condescending towards people when he talks about global warming. He doesn't compare ideas to "mental viruses".

And while we are at it, unless you have an actual hard science degree, (not some pansy soft science like pyschology or sociology) there should be no opining about the nature of the physical world.

You can opine about whatever you want; that doesn't make you correct, and it definitely doesn't justify you acting condescending and arrogant towards people who don't share your beliefs.

In return, non theologians will stop talking about god.

I don't care if he talks about God, but he's not doing a good job of it by any stretch of the imagination.

So?


No, YOU'RE missing the point of HIS argument.
It goes like this:
If God is the solution to the problem of "how can we have a causer without a cause?" then we still don't know what made God.
He doesn't need a cause? Then the universe doesn't need a cause either by this logic and we can cut God out with Occam's Razor.
He was caused by something? That defeats the point of the argument, because then you have who made God's father and who made God's grandfather and so on.
Either way, it disproves the idea of God as the uncaused causer nicely.

I believe the basis of the argument is that the universe is mundane, god is not mundane, and as such, the same rules don't apply to either party.

Anyway, he could always not be condescending towards those who believe differently than he. Decency goes a long way in my book.

I don't care if he talks about God, but he's not doing a good job of it by any stretch of the imagination.

I think he's doing an excellent job. So do many others.

So?
Either way, it disproves the idea of God as the uncaused causer nicely.

No, it fails entirely because it falsely assumes God is bound to the same laws of the universe, and vice versa. That assumption is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of the world's theistic religions and so is not useful in any kind of "proof" against God other than perhaps a straw man God set up to argue against.

It's easy to disprove God if you make up the attributes you want to argue against.

I think he's doing an excellent job. So do many others.

And a lot of people think he's doing a terrible job.

So he's a drunk.

No, it fails entirely because it falsely assumes God is bound to the same laws of the universe, and vice versa. That assumption is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of the world's theistic religions and so is not useful in any kind of "proof" against God other than perhaps a straw man God set up to argue against.

It's easy to disprove God if you make up the attributes you want to argue against.

what they probably meant to say was that it shows that you cannot conclude 'therefore god exists' from the cosmological argument. and if we define god as the necessary uncaused causer, then the cosmological argument merely reduces to the ontological argument, which is even worse.

what they probably meant to say was that it shows that you cannot conclude 'therefore god exists' from the cosmological argument. and if we define god as the necessary uncaused causer, then the cosmological argument merely reduces to the ontological argument, which is even worse.

Logical arguments for and against God are pretty weak; it really comes down to whether you see the existence of the universe and life as proof of God or not. And that boils down primarily to interpretation.

It's sort of pointless to declare what the universe "needs" since our knowledge of it will always be incomplete.

What strikes me is rich is that it is okay to point the finger at dawkins and calling him arrogant and such, yet typically there is extreme deference shown to fellow co-religionists when there are the inevitable internecine struggles about allah/jehova/god rear their ugly head. Doubly so since those are usually conducted in a far more arrogant, rude and violent fashion.

Maybe that's why dawkins stopped being so mellow.

No, it fails entirely because it falsely assumes God is bound to the same laws of the universe, and vice versa. That assumption is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of the world's theistic religions and so is not useful in any kind of "proof" against God other than perhaps a straw man God set up to argue against.

Going "God is magical! The rules don't apply to him because we say so" is ridiculous and in no way absolves them from the logical hypocrisy they've gotten themselves in.

"The universe is so complex it needs a creator." The logical conclusion of that is that the creator is more complex than (or at least as complex as) the universe itself and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the creator must need a creator as well, because if something complex cannot be uncaused, then the complex causer needs a causer as well.

What you're saying is "logic doesn't apply! We get to make up anything we want about the creator - anything at all - and thus the logical incongruence doesn't exist because we can use our imagination to pretend it away."

Dawkins aptly calls that the bullshit nonsense and pointlessness that it is because the reasoning is completely stupid.

What strikes me is rich is that it is okay to point the finger at dawkins and calling him arrogant and such, yet typically there is extreme deference shown to fellow co-religionists when there are the inevitable internecine struggles about allah/jehova/god rear their ugly head. Doubly so since those are usually conducted in a far more arrogant, rude and violent fashion.

Being arrogant and dismissive of others' ideas is always wrong, no matter what you believe. It is a corruption of free thought and the very foundations of human thought itself...it's a barrier to progress, no matter who does it. It's inherently unproductive and enhances nobody's understanding of our world or the ideas that comprise it.

Maybe that's why dawkins stopped being so mellow.

I figured he just reached the end of his rope battling creationists...

Maybe that's why dawkins stopped being so mellow.

Dawkins is right in the end - the time of entertaining such ludicrous notions as religion has come to an end. It's time to combat it like we've most other ignorance.

Going "God is magical! The rules don't apply to him because we say so" is ridiculous and in no way absolves them from the logical hypocrisy they've gotten themselves in.

But the contrary is also true: Why do the rules have to apply?

"The universe is so complex it needs a creator." The logical conclusion of that is that the creator is more complex than (or at least as complex as) the universe itself and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the creator must need a creator as well, because if something complex cannot be uncaused, then the complex causer needs a causer as well.

Unless the creator is eternal and outside of his creation. Of course, it's also possible that God appeared spontaneously, like the Chaos of Greek mythology, and then created the universe.

Or God didn't create the universe at all and is just another part of it.

What you're saying is "logic doesn't apply! We get to make up anything we want about the creator - anything at all - and thus the logical incongruence doesn't exist because we can use our imagination to pretend it away."

And that's why it doesn't really matter whether you can "prove" God exists or not. It's entirely up to you.

Dawkins aptly calls that the bullshit nonsense and pointlessness that it is because the reasoning is completely stupid.

Dawkins attacks one interpretation of God and uses it to argue against the concept.

But the contrary is also true: Why do the rules have to apply?

That, my dear, is the zero hypothesis.

Unless the creator is eternal and outside of his creation. Of course, it's also possible that God appeared spontaneously, like the Chaos of Greek mythology, and then created the universe.

Or God didn't create the universe at all and is just another part of it.

As I said: "Well, we can imagine this! And then we can imagine that! And then we can pretend it is so! And thus we counter accusations of nonsense with more nonsense!"

And that's why it doesn't really matter whether you can "prove" God exists or not. It's entirely up to you.

No, that's why this creator, god or whatever, is complete bullshit no one need even consider because the consideration of those who claim its existence is bullshit, and theirs is the stance that violates the zero hypothesis, so they don't get to go "but, but we can pretend!".

Dawkins attacks one interpretation of God and uses it to argue against the concept.

He argues against them all, as all reasoning as to confirm the existence of the supernatural is nonsensical because the notion of something being supernatural is nonsensical; that's why everything around it is pretended and imagined. Sure, those who play pretend would like to think it makes sense, but it truly doesn't since it is nonsensical.

If god exists in the manner described by monotheistic religions, then he is uncaused by definition.

Meh!

Many theologians think they are scientists so I don't see much of a problem.....

He argues against them all, as all reasoning as to confirm the existence of the supernatural is nonsensical because the notion of something being supernatural is nonsensical; that's why everything around it is pretended and imagined. Sure, those who play pretend would like to think it makes sense, but it truly doesn't since it is nonsensical.

So, let's reduce this argument to it's logical equivalent:

S= supernatural
N= nonsensical

According to me S is N
Therefore S is N.

Not exactly a smackdown argument. You say it is nonsensical, but you just throw out the word without providing the reason why it is nonsensical. And then you go through this meaningless circular argument that claims that the supernatural is non-sensical because the supernatural is nonsensical.

If god exists in the manner described by monotheistic religions, then he is uncaused by definition.

though even if you could show the necessity of some uncaused thing, that won't get you god.

Not exactly a smackdown argument. You say it is nonsensical, but you just throw out the word without providing the reason why it is nonsensical. And then you go through this meaningless circular argument that claims that the supernatural is non-sensical because the supernatural is nonsensical.

The very definition of supernatural defines it as something which is nonsensical: something outside of the natural world. The very notion is as loony as claiming that black is a colour - it makes no sense -> it is nonsensical.

though even if you could show the necessity of some uncaused thing, that won't get you god.

That's what's so illogical about it: imagining something more complex than, or at least as complex as, the universe in claiming that the universe needs a causer and then claiming that the causer doesn't need a cause. It immediately erodes the imagined claim that the universe needs a causer. It simply makes no sense.

though even if you could show the necessity of some uncaused thing, that won't get you god.

That was in response to the argument that if god existed as the primary cause, then it would too need a cause. That argument seems flimsy to me since it disregards the definition of god being used in the argument.

I am thinking about this.

If it was discovered that we had to have had a primary causer, then wouldn't that primary causer be close to the concept of god?

If not, what would it be?

EDIT:
when I say 'concept of god' I am merely thinking of a higher power being-- the supernatural-- and not necessarily the benevolent monotheistic god.

The very definition of supernatural defines it as something which is nonsensical: something outside of the natural world. The very notion is as loony as claiming that black is a colour - it makes no sense -> it is nonsensical.

Supernatural: of or relating to existence outside the natural world. It's definition does not equate to 'nonsensical'.

You are completely, 100% positive that nothing exists outside of the natural universe. I find that position to be 'nonsensical' since it assumes something it has no experience with. Even scientists hypothesize the existence of alternate universes, which may or may not follow the natural laws ocurring in our universe.

Your analogy is interesting since it is completely false. When asked, "What is your favorite colour?" kids are allowed to respond "black". This says to me, that by the social definition of a colour, black is, in fact, a colour. If you ask me to define it industrially, I would certainly say that black is a pigment, a colour of dye, and that black is thus a color. If you ask me to define it scientifically I would say that it absorbs all the lightwaves in the visible spectrum, strictly speaking, producing the color known as black. If you ask me to define it with a definition, I will provide one: Black: Being of the color black, producing or reflecting comparatively little light and having no predominant hue.

That's what's so illogical about it: imagining something more complex than, or at least as complex as, the universe in claiming that the universe needs a causer and then claiming that the causer doesn't need a cause. It immediately erodes the imagined claim that the universe needs a causer. It simply makes no sense.

Again, you ignore the definition of god as all-powerful. The universe is not all-powerful. Thus, you compare two unlike objects, and claim they should have the same characteristics.

Furthermore, simply because something does not make sense according to your current understanding does not make that something any less possible to be true.

Once upon a time, man could not fathom the idea that the heavenly bodies moved in elliptical orbits. This was preposterous! This was unfathomable! This was nonsensical!

And yet, the planets moved in elliptical orbits, none-the-less.

As I said: "Well, we can imagine this! And then we can imagine that! And then we can pretend it is so! And thus we counter accusations of nonsense with more nonsense!"

Nonsense to you. To them, it makes perfect sense.

No, that's why this creator, god or whatever, is complete bullshit no one need even consider because the consideration of those who claim its existence is bullshit, and theirs is the stance that violates the zero hypothesis, so they don't get to go "but, but we can pretend!".

The problem is, there is no real hypothesis to begin with. Hell, the term "God" contains so many different ideas that it's pretty much an abstraction rather than a useful term.

He argues against them all, as all reasoning as to confirm the existence of the supernatural is nonsensical because the notion of something being supernatural is nonsensical; that's why everything around it is pretended and imagined. Sure, those who play pretend would like to think it makes sense, but it truly doesn't since it is nonsensical.

What's nonsensical about it? It's plausible to me that there might be things outside of our perception of reality; it's as nonsensical as string theory, special relativitiy or quantum physics or any kind of weirdness in our universe. If those kinds of things can happen in the physical world, I don't consider the concept of the supernatural to be all that impossible.

Now, I say this as somebody who throuroughly enjoyed The God Delusion, so I may be a bit biased.

First of all, I think his argument is fairly sound. I know there's no numbers involved, and that it'll sound somewhat... silly, but to make the point, I shall use them.
Creationists: The Universe has a complexity level of 1 million! Something that complex MUST have a creator!
Dawkins: Ah, but to be able to create something complex, you must be complex yourself. Therefore, God must be, at the very least, at that same complexity level. Therefore, God requires a designer, according to your logic.
Creatonists: No! The rules don't apply!
Dawkins: Saying the rules don't apply is a cop out. (I especially agree with him on this part, by the way.)

Also, I don't see how you can deny the logic he uses in showing why, say, we don't need religion to give us morality.

Though, again, I might be a bit biased, as I am one of those who chose rationality over religion.

Dawkins: Saying the rules don't apply is a cop out. (I especially agree with him on this part, by the way.)

Well, the problem is: Why do the rules have to apply?

Nobody has ever said that, and if we really wanted to get technical the rules don't always apply; that's why we have three completely different systems of physics to explain the utter breakdown of classical mechanics at scales larger and smaller than our own.

There is no Theory of Everything, which automatically places the idea that everything has to follow the same rules in to doubt, and that's just within the universe as it is.

What's shocking is how the religious groups have turned screaming criticizing atheists in general because of the actions of Dawkins who is one man while ignoring the literal millions on the religious side who are every bit as bad as he is.

Not a philosopher! So why must he try and extend his expertese around philosophy. Constantly waisting his time trying to disprove God using very ammature philosophy which is very ancient, so ancient that most of it is addressed by Thomas aquinas in the 12th century and made pointless. Another part of his time is waisted when he tries to ridiculre religion using his very very scewed, and I mean scewed, understanding of theology using taken out of context quotes and misinterpretations to support his weak arguments of banning religion etc...

I also think he is one of the most arrogant and hypocritical men on the planet, and represents what is wrong with militant atheism.

Anyone agree?

Dawkins? Is he that guy in the wheelchair who can't talk?

Well, the problem is: Why do the rules have to apply?

Nobody has ever said that, and if we really wanted to get technical the rules don't always apply; that's why we have three completely different systems of physics to explain the utter breakdown of classical mechanics at scales larger and smaller than our own.

There is no Theory of Everything, which automatically places the idea that everything has to follow the same rules in to doubt, and that's just within the universe as it is.

Well, by that assumption. Why do the rules have to apply at the beginning of the Universe? Technically, since it didn't exist, it had no rules in place to begin with. It very well could have appeared out of nothing, with no creator involved what so ever.

Dawkins? Is he that guy in the wheelchair who can't talk?

That would be Hawkings.

Well, by that assumption. Why do the rules have to apply at the beginning of the Universe? Technically, since it didn't exist, it had no rules in place to begin with. It very well could have appeared out of nothing, with no creator involved what so ever.

It could have, or it could have been created, or God could have been randomly generated and then created the universe. We can't know objectively what happened which is why any position on the matter is your belief and nothing more.

That would be Hawkings.

That would be Hawking. ;)

that's why we have three completely different systems of physics to explain the utter breakdown of classical mechanics at scales larger and smaller than our own.


Well, that's just because we haven't properly figured out physics yet, not because the natural laws of the universe contradict each other.

Anyway, why is the burden of proof on those disproving religion? That seems silly to me. It should be on the religion if they are to be taken seriously.

That would be Hawking. ;)

I stand corrected.

Now, I say this as somebody who throuroughly enjoyed The God Delusion, so I may be a bit biased.

First of all, I think his argument is fairly sound. I know there's no numbers involved, and that it'll sound somewhat... silly, but to make the point, I shall use them.
Creationists: The Universe has a complexity level of 1 million! Something that complex MUST have a creator!
Dawkins: Ah, but to be able to create something complex, you must be complex yourself. Therefore, God must be, at the very least, at that same complexity level. Therefore, God requires a designer, according to your logic.
Creatonists: No! The rules don't apply!
Dawkins: Saying the rules don't apply is a cop out. (I especially agree with him on this part, by the way.)

Also, I don't see how you can deny the logic he uses in showing why, say, we don't need religion to give us morality.

Though, again, I might be a bit biased, as I am one of those who chose rationality over religion.

Thanks for providing that breakdown! Very nice summation of the argument.

When Creationists say that the rules don't apply to god, they are saying that the very concept of what a god is means that it does not require it to conform to the rules.

Rationalist: Saying the rules don't apply to god is a cop-out!
Theist: No. God, to be god, is omnipotent.
Rationalist: Omnipotent? Now, isn't that convenient for god
Theist: Yup, sure is. It means that god is more powerful than anything else in existence, even the 'rules'.
Rationalist: Um... well, yes, that is the definition of omnipotent, but... um... oh yeah... You believe in god and therefore I do not have to listen to anything you say. lalalalalalala

Well, that's just because we haven't properly figured out physics yet, not because the natural laws of the universe contradict each other.

And that assumes that we will figure it out, which requires a faith in itself, especially given that we really aren't appreciably closer to the Theory of Everything than we were 50 years ago. According to Dawkins' argument, saying "science will figure it out" is a total cop-out just like saying "the rules don't apply to God" is a cop-out. Both of them simply use that as an excuse for why they are correct even though they can't answer the question.

That's pretty much saying "we don't know, and can't explain it, yet we will undoubtedly figure it out, well, just because it's science and science figures everything out". There is absolutely no evidence either way on the issue.

Anyway, why is the burden of proof on those disproving religion? That seems silly to me. It should be on the religion if they are to be taken seriously.

It's on both sides, since they're both making a definitive statement about the idea and believe that their side is the correct one.

That would be Hawkings.

Ahh. Many thanks, my friend! One mystery of the universe cleared up!

(Dawkins...Hawkings...bah, I'll never get it right)

Well, that's just because we haven't properly figured out physics yet, not because the natural laws of the universe contradict each other.

Anyway, why is the burden of proof on those disproving religion? That seems silly to me. It should be on the religion if they are to be taken seriously.

It is on them, but since they outnumber the atheists, they insist on twisting it around on us. But the only sensible starting point in this debate is that God does not exist, and that anyone claiming one does must provide positive proof of said existence.

And that assumes that we will figure it out, which requires a faith in itself, especially given that we really aren't appreciably closer to the Theory of Everything than we were 50 years ago. According to Dawkins' argument, saying "science will figure it out" is a total cop-out just like saying "the rules don't apply to God" is a cop-out. Both of them simply use that as an excuse for why they are correct even though they can't answer the question.

That's pretty much saying "we don't know, and can't explain it, yet we will undoubtedly figure it out, well, just because it's science and science figures everything out". There is absolutely no evidence either way on the issue.



It's on both sides, since they're both making a definitive statement about the idea and believe that their side is the correct one.

Yes, but one actully attempts to prove their theory, while the other sits on their duffs and continues to say we're right, no matter what anyone else says.

Thanks for providing that breakdown! Very nice summation of the argument.

When Creationists say that the rules don't apply to god, they are saying that the very concept of what a god is means that it does not require it to conform to the rules.

Rationalist: Saying the rules don't apply to god is a cop-out!
Theist: No. God, to be god, is omnipotent.
Rationalist: Omnipotent? Now, isn't that convenient for god
Theist: Yup, sure is. It means that god is more powerful than anything else in existence, even the 'rules'.
Rationalist: Um... well, yes, that is the definition of omnipotent, but... um... oh yeah... You believe in god and therefore I do not have to listen to anything you say. lalalalalalala

You have to admit it is a copout since you have this nice unexplainable thing that you don't have to defend since it doesn't have any rules.

Bring up the flying spaghetti monster and the thiest will dismiss it.

And that assumes that we will figure it out, which requires a faith in itself, especially given that we really aren't appreciably closer to the Theory of Everything than we were 50 years ago. According to Dawkins' argument, saying "science will figure it out" is a total cop-out

How is that a cop out? Science is self-correcting. Prove a theory is false and guess what happens?...

And that assumes that we will figure it out, which requires a faith in itself, especially given that we really aren't appreciably closer to the Theory of Everything than we were 50 years ago. According to Dawkins' argument, saying "science will figure it out" is a total cop-out just like saying "the rules don't apply to God" is a cop-out. Both of them simply use that as an excuse for why they are correct even though they can't answer the question.

That's pretty much saying "we don't know, and can't explain it, yet we will undoubtedly figure it out, well, just because it's science and science figures everything out". There is absolutely no evidence either way on the issue.


Actually, I don't think anybody thinks that science will figure everything out. My point was that we hadn't figured physics out properly at this point. We may never properly figure physics out. However, I still maintain that it's a cop-out to say. "Well the rules do not apply to God, because he's God!" Well, how convenient for God, but that still shows that there is no evidence for the existence of God. It is more probable that he was invented by us than we by him. Indeed, you can trace religions back and see how they draw upon ideas from other religions, exactly as you would expect if they were invented.
Admittedly, many of the arguments Dawkins makes rely on a belief in rationality to accept. But rationality has accomplished much more than superstition, so I'm willing to bet it's the better approach.

Actually the big question I have for Dawkins is why does he care if people believe in God or not. So long as it isn't harmful in anyway and doesn't impede on science, I say live and let live. Who cares.

How is that a cop out? Science is self-correcting. Prove a theory is false and guess what happens?...

Well, if you're saying "that's not a problem because we'll figure it out someday", you're using a cop-out to dodge the fact that at present your argument has a problem in it.

Actually the big question I have for Dawkins is why does he care if people believe in God or not. So long as it isn't harmful in anyway and doesn't impede on science, I say live and let live. Who cares.

But see, it no longer stays it's respectful distance away and observes. There would be no problem if God was kept to Churches and homes. But the thing is, they feel the need to put forth their own "scientific theories" such as intelligent design. Add to the the fact that they feel they have the right to bar research in a field if they don't condone it, and you start having problems.

Actually the big question I have for Dawkins is why does he care if people believe in God or not. So long as it isn't harmful in anyway and doesn't impede on science, I say live and let live. Who cares.

The thing is, it does cause problems. Ever hear of the Intelligent Design debate? They're trying to teach people God's existence in a science classroom. Brainwashing! Religion is the enslavement of the mind.
While I don't go as far to say "All wars are caused by religion!" as some do, as religion is usually just the excuse, but do you honestly think that religion isn't the main cause of the Middle Eastern violence?

Well, if you're saying "that's not a problem because we'll figure it out someday", you're using a cop-out to dodge the fact that at present your argument has a problem in it.

That message isn't saying "We'll have it someday", that message says, we're working on it.

You have to admit it is a copout since you have this nice unexplainable thing that you don't have to defend since it doesn't have any rules.

Bring up the flying spaghetti monster and the thiest will dismiss it.


Flying spaghetti monster is just another form of the concept of god. I'm thinking of god in the most stripped down basic terms. All that I'm using to define god is omnipotent. If your spaghetti monster is omnipotent, than, yeah, he.. she... er... it is immune to the rules too.

Mmm. Analogies.

Let's define spaghetti as a pasta with tomato sauce. Tomato sauce is inherent to the concept of spaghetti.

Now, someone comes and says that macaroni and cheese is a pasta that requires cheese. Since mac-and-cheese requires cheese, they say, so does spaghetti, since it is also a pasta!

But the spaghetti chefs reply, no, spaghetti is something completely different. It has tomato sauce, but does not require cheese.

The mac-n'-cheesers scoff: Ha! Cop outs! You just are trying to weasle out of this dilemna.

Meanwhile, spaghetti chefs are scratching their heads, and wondering why it is a cop-out to define spaghetti as a pasta with tomato sauce.

Flying spaghetti monster is just another form of the concept of god. I'm thinking of god in the most stripped down basic terms. All that I'm using to define god is omnipotent. If your spaghetti monster is omnipotent, than, yeah, he.. she... er... it is immune to the rules too.

Mmm. Analogies.

Let's define spaghetti as a pasta with tomato sauce. Tomato sauce is inherent to the concept of spaghetti.

Now, someone comes and says that macaroni and cheese is a pasta that requires cheese. Since mac-and-cheese requires cheese, they say, so does spaghetti, since it is also a pasta!

But the spaghetti chefs reply, no, spaghetti is something completely different. It has tomato sauce, but does not require cheese.

The mac-n'-cheesers scoff: Ha! Cop outs! You just are trying to weasle out of this dilemna.

Meanwhile, spaghetti chefs are scratching their heads, and wondering why it is a cop-out to define spaghetti as a pasta with tomato sauce.

Ah, but at the same they are not requiring that spaghetti in all it's form is absolutely NECESARY for the creation of mac-n'-cheese.

The thing is, it does cause problems. Ever hear of the Intelligent Design debate? They're trying to teach people God's existence in a science classroom. Brainwashing! Religion is the enslavement of the mind.
While I don't go as far to say "All wars are caused by religion!" as some do, as religion is usually just the excuse, but do you honestly think that religion isn't the main cause of the Middle Eastern violence?

who is "they"? people who believe in god, or proponents of Intelligent Design? because, believing in god doesn't mean you reject evolution. perhaps instead of combating religion, you should combat ... CREATIONISM. but nah, be a dick to all religious people. that's what dawkins loves to do.

dawkins doesn't only criticize organized religion and fundies, he also has no problems picking fights with liberal christians and believers who accept evolution, the big bang, who don't support violence as means. why? that's what this thread is criticizing: Dawkins is a dick to all religious people, not just the ones who deserve it.

Debating the existence of the supernatural is one of the most pointless debates possible. Debating religious principles? That's fine. Debating the validity of religious claims in science (creationism, miracles, etc.)? That's fine as well. But what point does debating the mere existence of the supernatural serve? It's just a circular argument from both sides, and it boils down to personal beliefs, nothing more.

Flying spaghetti monster is just another form of the concept of god. I'm thinking of god in the most stripped down basic terms. All that I'm using to define god is omnipotent. If your spaghetti monster is omnipotent, than, yeah, he.. she... er... it is immune to the rules too.

Mmm. Analogies.

Let's define spaghetti as a pasta with tomato sauce. Tomato sauce is inherent to the concept of spaghetti.

Now, someone comes and says that macaroni and cheese is a pasta that requires cheese. Since mac-and-cheese requires cheese, they say, so does spaghetti, since it is also a pasta!

But the spaghetti chefs reply, no, spaghetti is something completely different. It has tomato sauce, but does not require cheese.

The mac-n'-cheesers scoff: Ha! Cop outs! You just are trying to weasle out of this dilemna.

Meanwhile, spaghetti chefs are scratching their heads, and wondering why it is a cop-out to define spaghetti as a pasta with tomato sauce.

For an analogy to be proper it has to in some way have some resemblance to the circumstances, and this really...doesn't.

The more proper example would be someone stating "all birds can fly". At which point someone observes "but the penguin doesn't fly, and it's a bird".

At which point the argument becomes "oh, but the rule that all birds can fly doesn't apply to penguins" which leads the rest of us going "well...why not?" and, most importantly, if the rule "all birds fly" doesn't apply to penguins, why doesn't it apply to other birds?

If god doesn't need a creator, why would the universe?

If god doesn't need a creator, why would the universe?

The converse can be stated as well: if the universe doesn't need a creator, why does god? in the end...it boils down to personal beliefs. both sides need to realize that an infinite entity can exist whether it be the universe or the supernatural.

Actually the big question I have for Dawkins is why does he care if people believe in God or not. So long as it isn't harmful in anyway and doesn't impede on science, I say live and let live. Who cares.

True, but theists have a nasty habit of fighting each other and trying to save everyone. Religion is not science, they can always just say "god did that" to get out of anything, but why do they seem a bit louder in teh evolutionary debate or others talking about the roots of anything? Simply put, once a theory like evolution gains mass acceptance, orthodox fundamentalist religion will die. When Galileo was under house arrest by the Inquisition he still held to that Catholic faith, he had given his own daughter to the Church. But the orthodox feel threatened because they take their documents literally, if the cede too much ground they lose their existence. More as more posts make me think a bit further.

The converse can be stated as well: if the universe doesn't need a creator, why does god?

Because if the universe doesn't have a creator, there isn't a god.

Technically that logic is flawed, even if the universe doensn't have a creator, doesn't mean there can't be a... why am I giving the theists argument for them?

For an analogy to be proper it has to in some way have some resemblance to the circumstances, and this really...doesn't.

The more proper example would be someone stating "all birds can fly". At which point someone observes "but the penguin doesn't fly, and it's a bird".

At which point the argument becomes "oh, but the rule that all birds can fly doesn't apply to penguins" which leads the rest of us going "well...why not?" and, most importantly, if the rule "all birds fly" doesn't apply to penguins, why doesn't it apply to other birds?

If god doesn't need a creator, why would the universe?

You missed the point of the analogy.

The point is that the mac-'n-cheese proponents were hoisting a characteristic of the mac-'n-cheese upon the spaghetti.

The mac-'n-cheese still needs the cheese to be mac-'n-cheese. However, the spaghetti does not need the cheese to be spaghetti.

Technically that logic is flawed, even if the universe doensn't have a creator, doesn't mean there can't be a... why am I giving the theists argument for them?

it depends on what we define as "god"

if god is "an all powerful all present being" then yes there can be god

If god is "an all powerful all present being THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE" then if the universe wasn't created, there can't be god.

You missed the point of the analogy.

The point is that the mac-'n-cheese proponents were hoisting a characteristic of the mac-'n-cheese upon the spaghetti.

The mac-'n-cheese still needs the cheese to be mac-'n-cheese. However, the spaghetti does not need the cheese to be spaghetti.

Yes it does, the parmesian, otherwise it's just bland and tasteless and no good to anyone.

*Feels like being a smartass for some reason*

You missed the point of the analogy.

No, you just made a shit analogy.

The point is that the mac-'n-cheese proponents were hoisting a characteristic of the mac-'n-cheese upon the spaghetti.

The mac-'n-cheese still needs the cheese to be mac-'n-cheese. However, the spaghetti does not need the cheese to be spaghetti.

The problem is that the type of sause is not a shared characteristic of spaghetti and mac and cheese. However existance is (presumably) a shared characteristic between the universe, and god.

While it's true that, in your case, the characteristic of the sause is not the same between sphaghetti and mac n cheese, they are, however, both pastas.

Therefore since the one shared characteristic between "spaghetti" and "mac n cheese" is that they are both pasta, then the rules that apply to pastas apply to both.

Therefore since the one shared characteristic between "god" and "the universe" is that they both exist, then the rules that apply to existance apply to both.

And if the rule is "that which exists must have been created" well...you run into an issue.

My reasoning is that it will take close to an eternity(hyperbole) for science to fully understand the universe, until then whatever religions that survive will continue to pick at all the chinks in the theories and laws. Since their belief is an absolute truth, they won't admit defeat until science is the same, the battle between science ans religion is like addin apples and oranges, they do not speak on the same terms.

No, you just made a shit analogy.



The problem is that the type of sause is not a shared characteristic of spaghetti and mac and cheese. However existance is (presumably) a shared characteristic between the universe, and god.

While it's true that, in your case, the characteristic of the sause is not the same between sphaghetti and mac n cheese, they are, however, both pastas.

Therefore since the one shared characteristic between "spaghetti" and "mac n cheese" is that they are both pasta, then the rules that apply to pastas apply to both.

Therefore since the one shared characteristic between "god" and "the universe" is that they both exist, then the rules that apply to existance apply to both.

And if the rule is "that which exists must have been created" well...you run into an issue.


You are over-stepping the bounds of the analogy. It was not meant to depict the entire scope of this issue.

It was merely meant to show a single aspect of the argument presented, namely, the unreasonable transferance of characteristics. The concept of god requires omnipotence, and omnipotence means all powerful, which negates the need for a creator. Omnipotence is the spaghetti sauce.

Non-omnipotence is the cheese.

Because if the universe doesn't have a creator, there isn't a god.

that wasn't the argument I was addressing. the argument stems from the atheist saying to the theist: "well... who created god?" and the theist replying "god has always existed." the atheist then dismisses this argument as fallacious, while in the same light is able to conceive "the universe has always existed" DESPITE rejecting a similar argument from the theist. if you want to accept the possibility of the universe existing infinitely, then you should be able to conceive the possibility of the supernatural entity existing infinitely. and vice versa.

True, but theists have a nasty habit of fighting each other and trying to save everyone.

you confuse theists (believers in god/gods) with religion (an organization of people). I agree mostly about the harmful effects CERTAIN religions can have on people. I feel religion should mostly be a personal thing, rather than something that is to be imposed on others.

I hate it as much as you do when people try to "save" me. I'm agnostic, and I don't feel any need to adhere to religion or a belief in god. But I'm also able to understand why some people do believe in god.

Religion is not science, they can always just say "god did that" to get out of anything, but why do they seem a bit louder in teh evolutionary debate or others talking about the roots of anything?

Correct, religion is not science. The same goes for any other political or moral philosophy, really. And the evolutionary debate exists mainly in America, where we still have morons who can't reconcile their religion with evolution. Where in evolutionary theory it precludes the existence of a god, I don't know, but they must be very thick-headed people.

Simply put, once a theory like evolution gains mass acceptance, orthodox fundamentalist religion will die.

I doubt it, but I wouldn't mind it either. In fact, I'd welcome the demise of fundamentalism (which should more appropriately be called extremism).

But the orthodox feel threatened because they take their documents literally, if the cede too much ground they lose their existence.

I don't know what their problem is. That may very well be the reason for some; similar to those white nationalists who get antsy over the "white" race disappearing (or, more accurately put, the typical arrangement of alleles of the genes which control melanin will be much more mixed, instead of straight across "white" -- in essence, it would simply be a shift in allele frequencies in humans...).

I agree a lot with atheism and agnosticism. I have no problem satirizing religion at all. But when people like Dawkins feel the need to attack the good people on religion, it pisses me off, and gives the impression of an intolerant asshole dickhead.

The concept of god requires omnipotence, and omnipotence means all powerful, which negates the need for a creator.

Why?

Therefore since the one shared characteristic between "god" and "the universe" is that they both exist, then the rules that apply to existance apply to both.

And if the rule is "that which exists must have been created" well...you run into an issue.

How can god be god if it is not omnipotent? And how can it be omnipotent if it is subject to regulations? Just answer that.

Why?

What specifically are you asking?

Why does god have to be omnipotent?
Because there would be no reason to for it to be called god then. If something was more powerful then it, then that thing would be called god.

Why does an omnipotent being not have a creator?
Because this introduces a being more powerful than the omnipotent being.

How can god be god if it is not omnipotent?

Omnipotent means "all powerful" or "infinitly powerful" right? So how much power is required to create the universe? Is it infinite, or substantial but less than infinite? Since we can't quantify that in the freaking slightests, saying that a creator of the universe must be ALL powerful and not just "really freaking powerful" is a tad disingenuous.

And how can it be omnipotent if it is subject to regulations? Just answer that.

Once it becomes omnipotent, it can not. However were it not always omnipotent it could be subject to those regulations prior to becoming omnipotent. If it was omnipotent from the moment it came into existance, then its creation could also be subject to regulations, as prior to its existance, it wasn't omnipotent.

How can god be god if it is not omnipotent? And how can it be omnipotent if it is subject to regulations? Just answer that.

Where does the omnipotent come in at all? Once again, we come to the fact that since God is unknowable, you can assign any characteristic you want to him/her/it.

Saying God is omnipotent is exatcly what we're argueing against, by saying that you can't be wrong, because since God is for all intents and purposes, imaginary, said god is capable of having any and all traits that would make it impossible to disprove said god.

I believe Moosle just prooved my statement that science and religion do not speak on equal terms.

For a whacked-out in your face religion look at Catholicism, they hold to the idea that you need to go through clerics(and the Pope)to get to god, that is NOT a personal belief system, and because of its inherent social structure, tends to cause nasty things. There are other religions, the RCC just came to mind first, being so big and all.

What specifically are you asking?


why does being all powerful negate the need for a creator? Because you suggest it would require something to be "more" than all powerful.

Which I thus ask, why can't a creator create a creation superior to the creator?

That message isn't saying "We'll have it someday", that message says, we're working on it.

And so therefore there is no problem with your argument?

What he's saying is that you can disregard the fact that our scientific knowledge is incomplete and that certain aspects violate the rules of others because we're working on it, and it will therefore be solved in the future. That's a cop-out that dodges our incomplete scientific knowledge to justify an argument that is flawed.

For a whacked-out in your face religion look at Catholicism, they hold to the idea that you need to go through clerics(and the Pope)to get to god, that is NOT a personal belief system, and because of its inherent social structure, tends to cause nasty things. There are other religions, the RCC just came to mind first, being so big and all.

And there's something wrong with that? I'd say it works pretty well, given that the RCC has been pretty durable as a political and religious entity.

Omnipotent means "all powerful" or "infinitly powerful" right? So how much power is required to create the universe? Is it infinite, or substantial but less than infinite? Since we can't quantify that in the freaking slightests, saying that a creator of the universe must be ALL powerful and not just "really freaking powerful" is a tad disingenuous.

I just thought of this. God doesn’t have to be all-powerful. Just most powerful. Thanks, for helping me see something, and forcing me to debate from a modified angle.

Alright. So this entire argument is about whether the universe needed to be created by god or not? Correct.

So, god existed before the universe, within this argument.

If god existed before the universe, then the universe was not in existence.

If the universe was not in existence, then the rules governing the universe were also not yet in existence.

So, god's existence predates any rules regulating that existence.

Furthermore, if god created the universe, then it also created the rules of that universe. If it is the originator of those rules, then that means it is also more powerful than those rules.

Once it becomes omnipotent, it can not. However were it not always omnipotent it could be subject to those regulations prior to becoming omnipotent. If it was omnipotent from the moment it came into existance, then its creation could also be subject to regulations, as prior to its existance, it wasn't omnipotent.

This assumes the regulations were there prior to god's existence. If the regulations exist within the framework of this universe, and the universe is not created until god 'poofs' it into existence, then neither do those regulations exist until that moment of 'poofing'.

Nobody has ever said that, and if we really wanted to get technical the rules don't always apply; that's why we have three completely different systems of physics to explain the utter breakdown of classical mechanics at scales larger and smaller than our own.

That's not entirely true. Newtonian physics doesn't break down because there is a scale it does not apply to: it breaks down because it is wrong. In normal situations the difference is so small it doesn't matter however, so people stick with it because it is easy to use.

Quantum physics is something else again.

There is no Theory of Everything, which automatically places the idea that everything has to follow the same rules in to doubt, and that's just within the universe as it is.

Even if there is no theory of everything the rules of the universe as we observe them are still universal, i.e. they apply everywhere and have done so for the entire history of the universe. Very small things always behave the same way wherever they are located in the observed universe - allowing for local conditions; and very large things behave the same way wherever they are located - again allowing for local conditions. Nothing breaks the laws of physics, there simply are no trangressions.

That's not to say that sometimes observations can't change our theories. But if repeatable observations are at odds with the results predicted by the theory, then theory gets changed. It's not that any rules were broken, it's just that no-one knew what they really were.

The point is there is no evidence whatsoever for the supernatural; and there is no evidence to suppose that anything supernatural has ever occurred in the entire fifteen billion odd year history of the entire universe either.

And there is a massive wealth of actual observed and recorded evidence to support this position.(That the whole of the time space continuum is homogenous in respect to the 'laws' of physics). Simply saying that just because quantum physics can't be reconciled with relativistic physics and therefore there must be things that don't always have to obey physical laws isn't really a valid objection at all. And it goes against a literal mountain of actual hard evidence that states otherwise.

This is stuff that we actually know. And in that light Dawkins argument makes perfect sense.

But frankly, even if one were to undecided about the superfluity of a prime cause in light of all that - which I am not -, concluding that there was a prime cause still doesn't make it god. (At least not god as humans understand it. I believe Taoists have a prime cause, but it is nonsentient, uncaring and most definitely not a god). Moreover, the picture of the universe that science has painstakingly constructed over the past several centuries virtually precludes any of the traditional monetheist scriptures and their portrayal of a personal god from being anything like true. (I suspect this is true of all scripture, but I can't be bothered to find out). The god that is described is at complete odds with what we actually know about how the universe really works. There is simply no room for it.

And there's something wrong with that? I'd say it works pretty well, given that the RCC has been pretty durable as a political and religious entity.
If not corrupt and racist, at least the RCC is capable of change, even if it is just to stay in power as a religious faith, or to remain socially acceptable as what that means changes.

I just thought of this. God doesn’t have to be all-powerful. Just most powerful. Thanks, for helping me see something, and forcing me to debate from a modified angle.

Alright. So this entire argument is about whether the universe needed to be created by god or not? Correct.

So, god existed before the universe, within this argument.

If god existed before the universe, then the universe was not in existence.

If the universe was not in existence, then the rules governing the universe were also not yet in existence.

So, god's existence predates any rules regulating that existence.

Furthermore, if god created the universe, then it also created the rules of that universe. If it is the originator of those rules, then that means it is also more powerful than those rules.



This assumes the regulations were there prior to god's existence. If the regulations exist within the framework of this universe, and the universe is not created until god 'poofs' it into existence, then neither do those regulations exist until that moment of 'poofing'.


This is a decent argument. To paraphrase, if I understand, it is: "The rule that the created needs a creator is a rule of this universe. God (whether all powerful or not) as the creator, existed before this universe. Since god existed before the universe, and the rule that the created needs a creator is a rule of this universe, it doesn't necessarily apply to anything that was created before this universe, since the laws of the universe don't apply outside the universe."

OK, fine, that's a good argument. Obviously you can't apply universal rules to things that existed prior to the universe, you can't say "god needs a creator just because things in this universe require a creator".

The problem with that is a glaring one. What existed prior to the universe? By the very definition of this argument, the rule "the created needs a creator" doesn't have to apply to the universe because the universe, in which that law exists, didn't exist to apply itself to the universe at the time of its own creation.

To make it simple, if god isn't bound by the rules of the universe which requires a creator because god was created outside of the universe, then the universe is not bound by the rule that requires a creator because the universe was created outside of the universe.

See the problem?

mmmmm... multi-dimensional religion.... yum.

Where does the omnipotent come in at all? Once again, we come to the fact that since God is unknowable, you can assign any characteristic you want to him/her/it.

Saying God is omnipotent is exatcly what we're argueing against, by saying that you can't be wrong, because since God is for all intents and purposes, imaginary, said god is capable of having any and all traits that would make it impossible to disprove said god.

Huh. This is something I honestly did not expect. I was not trying to create something incapable of being 'disproven'. I was merely trying to think of the definition of god, and not some religion's idea of god. I going for the base concept of what god is. The definition of the word, in essence, rather than the definition of the being. If god was not powerful, then what is the sense of calling it god in the first place?

However, this objection does go hand-in-hand with the idea that god does not have to be omnipotent, just most powerful. This is what got me along that train of thought:

In Greek/ Roman mythology the gods were not all-powerful. But they were more powerful than regular beings. However, they were considered to be most-powerful in their specific function, or domain.

The god we are debating right now would be the god of creation. That effectively, is its domain.

If it is the god of creation, then that means it would be more powerful than anything within that creation.

Usually nowadays one used god to refer to the onmipotent god of the monotheistic religions.

If it is the god of creation, then that means it would be more powerful than anything within that creation.

That leads to an interesting question. WHY must the creator be more powerful than the creation?

The problem with that is a glaring one. What existed prior to the universe? By the very definition of this argument, the rule "the created needs a creator" doesn't have to apply to the universe because the universe, in which that law exists, didn't exist to apply itself to the universe at the time of its own creation.

To make it simple, if god isn't bound by the rules of the universe which requires a creator because god was created outside of the universe, then the universe is not bound by the rule that requires a creator because the universe was created outside of the universe.

See the problem?

I certainly do.

The only way that I could see a creationist getting around this one is by claiming that god created the rules first, and then the universe in accordance to those rules.

Huh. This is something I honestly did not expect. I was not trying to create something incapable of being 'disproven'. I was merely trying to think of the definition of god, and not some religion's idea of god. I going for the base concept of what god is. The definition of the word, in essence, rather than the definition of the being. If god was not powerful, then what is the sense of calling it god in the first place?

However, this objection does go hand-in-hand with the idea that god does not have to be omnipotent, just most powerful. This is what got me along that train of thought:

In Greek/ Roman mythology the gods were not all-powerful. But they were more powerful than regular beings. However, they were considered to be most-powerful in their specific function, or domain.

The god we are debating right now would be the god of creation. That effectively, is its domain.

If it is the god of creation, then that means it would be more powerful than anything within that creation.

This is starting to get fun.

But once again, this takes you back to the beginning of the arguement. If God isn't all-powerful, just more powerful then when he created. Then what created him? Because if essence, if all it takes to create something is the power to do so, and still be more powerful then it, you must ultimately reach a point where something is all powerful.

This brings you into a paradox, as technically, it's impossible to think of something all powerful, because then you just think of something one step above your imagined one.

Under these circumstances, it's just as plausible that the universe just popped into existence from the void.

That leads to an interesting question. WHY must the creator be more powerful than the creation?

Why, indeed? We can create computers which far surpass our ability to calculate and categorize.

I say this because, ultimately, the creator retains control over that creation. It can always change the rules when it wants. It doesn't have to subject itself to the governing system of the thing it created.

But once again, this takes you back to the beginning of the arguement. If God isn't all-powerful, just more powerful then when he created. Then what created him? Because if essence, if all it takes to create something is the power to do so, and still be more powerful then it, you must ultimately reach a point where something is all powerful.

Actually, in Greek mythology, the Gods were created spontaneously, which totally averts that problem by simply saying "yeah, it happened randomly". The Gods sprang from the primordial Chaos which was formed randomly out of the void for no other reason than chance, and from that chaos came the Titans, the universe and mankind, and eventually the Gods of Olympus (and Arcadia).

Of course, what else could you expect from the cradle of Western philosophy and logic? The Greeks were examining their beliefs logically thousands of years before us.

Computers aren't smarter, just faster.... just to urge on your extrapolating argument.

I certainly do.

The only way that I could see a creationist getting around this one is by claiming that god created the rules first, and then the universe in accordance to those rules.

The problem with the whole thing is that the arguments always go like this:

god must exist

why?

because existance requires a creator

well, why doesn't god require a creator?

Because he is god, and therefore omnipotent.

How do you know he's omnipotent?

Because an omnipotent god doesn't need a creator.

Well why does he have to be omnipotent?

Because he created the universe.

Well the watchmaker isn't omnipotent, nor the plane designer. While the universe is certainly more complicated, why would it need an omnipotent creator?

Well, that doesn't matter, because god doesn't exist in this universe, therefore he doesn't need a creator because he wasn't part of this universe.

But the universe wasn't part of this universe either. If the rule of "created requires creator" doesn't apply to god because he wasn't made in this universe, why doesn't it apply to creation?

Well...because...god is special.

Which is what it breaks down to. The universe MUST have a creator, it must be god, and god doesn't require a creator because, for no other reason, than god is special.

Which is a pretty crappy argument.

Why, indeed? We can create computers which far surpass our ability to calculate and categorize.

I say this because, ultimately, the creator retains control over that creation. It can always change the rules when it wants. It doesn't have to subject itself to the governing system of the thing it created.

so in other words, even if the creator is inferior to the created, the creator is "all powerful" vis-a-vis the creation because the creator can alter his created at whim?

Interesting. So it suggests god may not be all powerful in the abstract, but only all powerful as it pertains to this existance. He might be a scrawny nerdy kid who is not at all impressive except he has the ability to pop universes into creation and fiddle with them at will.

I know this may be a semantic distinction, but the idea of god being omnipotent in regards to the unvierse and quite impotent in regards to "everything else" is kind of amusing to me.

Computers aren't smarter, just faster.... just to urge on your extrapolating argument.

Which part is extrapolating?

I agree: computers aren't smarter than their creators (they certainly can be smarter than some humans). But to put it in context, I was using it as examples of something more powerful.

Often times, power is defined in terms of speed. The idea of machinery is to make things faster, easier, less expenditure of energy on our behalf. Is a turbine engine more powerful than a human quadricep? You betcha.


But I maintain that the control of that machinery defines the true power of the creator over the creation.

I know this may be a semantic distinction, but the idea of god being omnipotent in regards to the unvierse and quite impotent in regards to "everything else" is kind of amusing to me.


::smile:: You do have a way with words.

The problem with the whole thing is that the arguments always go like this:/ snip rest for sake of space.

Well... god... is special.

I mean, who else can spawn so much debate without ever having to exist?

That is signature worth material.

Why does god have to be omnipotent?
Because there would be no reason to for it to be called god then. If something was more powerful then it, then that thing would be called god.

that doesn't follow at all. firstly, because most gods that people have ever believed in (including christians, really) haven't been omnipotent. and secondly, because not being omnipotent doesn't mean that some more powerful being exists. god could just be the most powerful being that happens to exist.

that doesn't follow at all. firstly, because most gods that people have ever believed in (including christians, really) haven't been omnipotent. and secondly, because not being omnipotent doesn't mean that some more powerful being exists. god could just be the most powerful being that happens to exist.

Yup. I agree. If you take the time to peruse the past page or so, you will see that I came to this exact conclusion. :)

Not a philosopher! So why must he try and extend his expertese around philosophy.

Ok for a start.. he has PhD... A Doctorate of Philosophy. So he is most certainly a Philosopher... he even has the little bit of paper to prove it.

Secondly I think what he is doing is important. For too long religious thinking has been protected by its aura of respect. You are able to criticise all sorts of ideas openly and freely .. but religious criticism is not seen as fair game. Conversly people are allowed by society to criticise other ideas based on their religion. Its an unequal and wholly unjustifiable position.

I think his arguments against religion are actually very well founded. One of the main areas that religion uses to justify its existence is its monopoly on the formation of morals. I believe he does quite clearly and succinctly demonstrate that this is not a real but an imagined monopoly.

And lastly.. while his arguments against theism are perhaps a little clunky.. they are certainly not bad for an amateur.

I personally think that the idea of god is a very cool idea. Its like a logical paradox
eg

"This statement is a lie"

It hurts your brain.. its a cool idea.. but ultimately it shouldn't really effect your life.

"There is an entity that is so powerful it can do anything"

Is a similar kind of idea... its interesting but ultimately not particularly earth shattering. There is clearly no way you can disprove the statement as the entity can do "anything"

Just the same way as the paradox can't really have an answer....

but it is just that ... an interesting idea. One that you could spend a lot of time thinking about but it would be ultimately unproductive.

Philosophy is full of ideas like this.

"How do we know we exist?"

"Are we awake or just living an elaborate dream?"

They are all interesting thoughts... but not ultimately more than word games.

I think Dawkins is really trying to do us a favour in trying to get us to break our addiction to the word game that human society has been stuck playing for centuries.

Earlier this year I stopped playing a game called Star Chamber. It was an awesome little game.. and I loved playing it.. but it was eating up too much of my time, I was thouroughly addicted. It was a shame to leave it behind... but I really think that at some point you have to get serious with your life.

Dawkins is just trying to get people to snap out of it and stop playing what is ultimately a philosophical game.

Helpotistan, I think you just summed up my personal philosophy.

Helpotistan, I think you just summed up my personal philosophy.

Heh.. how did I "sum it up" I just spewed forth a train of thought for half a page and you responded with one line :p

Dawkins is just trying to get people to snap out of it and stop playing what is ultimately a philosophical game.

I think it's important to play those games sometimes, however. The goal, however, is to balance it with everything else. A person who focuses only on religion, or science, or business, or whatever will ultimately have their creative and mental development stifled.

We can learn a lot about ourselves by thinking about ideas like God, existence, and everything else; to deny our desire to think philosophically stifles our personal development. Religion and philosophy are great arts and have produced some of the most profound ideas in human history. At the same time, however, when they have preoccupied or dominated minds they are capable of incredible destruction and suffering.

The goal is balance.

Anyone agree?

Not when you are so vague, no.

"He's a scientist, not a philosopher!" is not very convincing; the notion that intelligent philosophy need be confined to professional philosophers is ridiculous, and among other things would make much of NSG, including most of this thread, illegitimate.

of course, aquinas' arguments are pretty much crap.

And Dawkins is hardly the first to point that out.

We can learn a lot about ourselves by thinking about ideas like God, existence, and everything else; to deny our desire to think philosophically stifles our personal development. Religion and philosophy are great arts and have produced some of the most profound ideas in human history. At the same time, however, when they have preoccupied or dominated minds they are capable of incredible destruction and suffering.

The goal is balance.

Well then Dawkins contribution should be welcomed. He's saying that the existence of god should be examined from the standpoint of a scientific hypothesis. It's a fresh voice in the debate.

Taking Gould's idea of non overlapping magesterium is rather stagnant and allows for exactly the kind of preoccupation you are worried about don't you think?

Heh.. how did I "sum it up" I just spewed forth a train of thought for half a page and you responded with one line :p

I am in a middle-world. I have no personal views at present; and it is through debates like this that I am defining and redefining what it is I believe and why I believe that way.

I liked how you categorized the idea of god. It is a fun, interesting- stimulating, even- concept. But will we ever come to a solid answer through debating? No, I don't think so.

The only way god's existence can be proven, is if it chooses to make itself known, blatantly, without this it-may-or-may-not-have-been god ambiguity.

The existence or non-existence of god does not effect my life upon this earth. I will still do the things I love; I will still live life to the fullest; I will still intelligently seek out answers; I will still end up believing in things that can not be proven.

I think I love philosophy simply because there is no answer, and therefore the debate goes to he who debates best-- and not necessarily to the one who has the correct answer.

It is a nice antithesis to my routine occupation; I am studying to be a microscopist. I find enjoyment in both: the precise and the unknown. The within and the without.

No, it fails entirely because it falsely assumes God is bound to the same laws of the universe, and vice versa.

But we know from the Bible that God is materially describable. He does, after all, influence the world.

So we cannot put God entirely beyond science, because clearly (if we believe the traditional texts anyway) He has done some things that are empirically verifiable. And if those things are, firstly, unsupported by the evidence, and secondly, impossible under what we know of physical laws, the God Hypothesis starts to look pretty poor.

Of course, we can say that God is beyond the material world entirely, and has never interfered at all... but then, why should we care?

If it was discovered that we had to have had a primary causer, then wouldn't that primary causer be close to the concept of god?

Of course not.

We could just as easily say that the physical laws behind the principle that nothing can be uncaused originated with the universe, in which case nothing supernatural is necessary.

Of course not.

We could just as easily say that the physical laws behind the principle that nothing can be uncaused originated with the universe, in which case nothing supernatural is necessary.

I see how that can follow, but I don't see how that could be put into effect.

If the law that nothing can be uncaused originated in the universe, then that means that everything within the universe had to have been caused, including the universe itself.

You just restated the Creationist belief, then, that the universe had to have been caused.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

If the universe has a causer (ad infinite), then that causer is the higher power behind the existence of universe. Higher power = concept of god.

EDIT:
Did you mean that the law of cause-and-effect didn't come to be until after the creation of the universe? If this is what you meant, then that's good. I understand how no higher power is needed.

That's a cop-out that dodges our incomplete scientific knowledge to justify an argument that is flawed.

No, you're missing the point.

He's arguing against the notion that there are some questions that science can never answer - and that, therefore, there is a place for religion.

I haven't read Dawkins... he could have been arguing this coherently and completely, or he could have been ignoring a whole lot of philosophy (Kant, for one). But there are good reasons for agreeing with him on this point, regardless.

the notion that intelligent philosophy need be confined to professional philosophers is ridiculous, and among other things would make much of NSG, including most of this thread, illegitimate.

though, oddly, we could still legitimately have a bunch of philosophical threads on anarchism.

including the universe itself.

Clearly not, because only after the universe came into existence did the law come into effect.

The law applies to the content of the universe - not to the universe itself.

Clearly not, because only after the universe came into existence did the law come into effect.

The law applies to the content of the universe - not to the universe itself.

::thumbs up:: That's what my edit referred to.

They are all interesting thoughts... but not ultimately more than word games.

I think whether or not I exist is a little more than a mere word game, thanks. ;)

And if you want to show that it really is just a word game, you'd need a good deal of philosophical work (perhaps meta-philosophical work, but we lump those together) to prove it.

I think Dawkins is really trying to do us a favour in trying to get us to break our addiction to the word game that human society has been stuck playing for centuries.

Clearly not, because he himself is trying to answer at least some philosophical questions from a secular perspective.

He is not attacking philosophy; he acknowledges the worth of philosophy by delving into its sphere. He is attacking religion.

I think whether or not I exist is a little more than a mere word game, thanks. ;)

Does it really matter though? I mean you are still going to live. You still get to think, move, do, love, feel, debate, etc. If you don't exist, well this is some pretty damn good non-existence.

Does it really matter though?

Yes, it does. It matters immensely to me whether or not there is a "me" at all.

I mean you are still going to live. You still get to think, move, do, love, feel, debate, etc.

How can a non-existent being do any of those things?

How can a non-existent being do any of those things?

You tell me. You are the one claiming that you don't know whether you exist or not. Yet you experience all of these things. It doesn't matter how the experience is obtained. It only matters that there is enough of a You to experience said experience.

I'm a little confused here. Dawkins has written several successful, popular and critically acclaimed philosophy books. Explain to me exactly how he doesn't qualify as a philosopher.

Yes, it does. It matters immensely to me whether or not there is a "me" at all.

To each their own.

But, I do have a question. If you do exist, then you can question whether there is a Me or not.

However if you do not exist, then there is no Me to question whether there is a Me or not.

Doesn't the question prove the existence of the Me?

This merely shows existence of something. Not necessarily the personal, individual identity you experience yourself as. But existence itself is what you said mattered.

You tell me. You are the one claiming that you don't know whether you exist or not.

I am? Where did I claim that?

I'm claiming the question is a meaningful one, and that it's ludicrous to suggest that it's not.

Yet you experience all of these things.

I do? Really? How do I know that?

It doesn't matter how the experience is obtained. It only matters that there is enough of a You to experience said experience.

But now you are delving into philosophy... you are trying to answer the question.

So you acknowledge that it is not merely a "word game."

Seconded. Dawkins needs to stick to his area of expertise, not one he has no experience or education in.

I've been pretty vocal on this board in my criticism of Dawkins; he's venturing in to places that are not his expertise with arguments that are neither particularly strong nor based upon a deep knowledge of theology, and setting up what are effectively strawmen to attack religious belief. His antireligious crusade is doing nothing but dividing and driving off religious people who support science while giving the fundamentalists ammunition for their attacks on the "religion" of science.

He is hurting the fight against ID, not helping it. And his attacks on religion are not particularly convincing and have been hit pretty hard by theologians, hurting his standing and making him a less influential voice than he could have been.

I mostly ignore this kind of stuff, since my mind's made up. Is it possible he's a plant?

I'm a little confused here. Dawkins has written several successful, popular and critically acclaimed philosophy books. Explain to me exactly how he doesn't qualify as a philosopher.

He doesn't believe in god. Therefore he's rude and shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.

Only people who believe in god should have opinions about religion.

I'm a little confused here. Dawkins has written several successful, popular and critically acclaimed philosophy books. Explain to me exactly how he doesn't qualify as a philosopher.

You already explained why. Because he writes "popular and critically acclaimed philosophy books."

He doesn't believe in god. Therefore he's rude and shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.

Only people who believe in god should have opinions about religion.

Provided they believe in the right god of course.

He doesn't believe in god. Therefore he's rude and shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.

Only people who believe in god should have opinions about religion.

LOL which one? (you're being sarcastic, right?)

You already explained why. Because he writes "popular and critically acclaimed philosophy books."

And is a Doctor of Philosophy ;)

I am? Where did I claim that?

Yes, it does. It matters immensely to me whether or not there is a "me" at all.

If it matters to you whether there is a you or whether there is not a you, then you entertain the idea that you do not exist.

If you are confident that you do exist, then the question really does not matter, since it doesn't have any bearing upon your existence. (like asking whether it is raining or not, when you are standing in the rain; the question doesn't matter. You know it is raining.)

If you are not confident that you exist, then yes, the question becomes extremely meaningful. It is meaningful to you, therefore, you are not confident that you exist.

I'm claiming the question is a meaningful one, and that it's ludicrous to suggest that it's not.

I'm claiming it isn't ludicrous, since the answer will not have any bearing upon the lives of people, and how they live. So, we don't exist? Ok, let's order some pizza now.

The mere fact of existence is rather mundane. The fact that we may be non-existent is less mundane, but after people get used to the idea that we don't exist, well, what's going to change?


I do? Really? How do I know that?
You have some form of experience. If we are merely dreaming this, then the dream itself is experience. If we are being duped by a omnipotent-evil-smiley, then our deception is experience. If we are plugged into the matrix, then we are experiencing a virtual reality.

Note that whatever way we are experiencing these things, the experience itself is not changing. We feel what we feel, regardless of how that perception is being fed to us.


But now you are delving into philosophy... you are trying to answer the question.

Philosophy comes in many guises. ::laugh:: Whether I try to answer the question; or whether I answer the question correctly; or whether I answer the question incorrectly, the question has no bearing upon my existence.

Is the robin more of a robin, simply because we gave it a name?

So you acknowledge that it is not merely a "word game."

? How has this debate effected the status of my existence? It's a word game in that only words are parried, and nothing concrete is gained.

I just read the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. He argues against the existence of an all-knowing 'creator' not against the theory of a 'bigger reality' that we are as yet, unaware of. I am an archaeologist (so an 'evolutionist' and a scientist) and also a trained anthropologist, which requires knowledge of belief and religious systems embedded within disparate cultures, and as a part of my education, had to also absorb a lot of philosophical and historical knowledge as well as extended training in ethics. I can say with much confidence, that Dawkins presents a very mature, and balanced argument, based on physical, historical, rational and scientific evidence. If his words disturb you, perhaps you should examine your faith and the reasons it can be shaken, or why another persons disbelief should affect you in any way.

The truth is, we are all born as a clean slate, not a member of any culture or religion, which are both learned through the growing process as a child is exposed to the beliefs and practices of the society around them. Right now, in the history of humanity, it may seem that the question of widely accepted 'gods' (Allah, Jehovah, Ganesh or whomever strikes your socio-cultural fancy) is blasphemous, when in reality it is no different than questioning the existence of any god, created by any culture, past or present. All are made by people. Two thousand years ago, expressing a belief in the Christian god would have landed anyone in a pot of hot water in most locales, and to disbelieve whoever was the 'god of the era' was even worse.

Whether or not there is a 'god' will never be answered and it is silly to continue, people just need to learn to respect the views of others. God or not? who cares, we are here now and can make our own solid, unquestionable existence on earth a lot nicer if we stop arguing about such innanities.

If you do believe in a god, perhaps the messages of faith, hope and acceptance should be emphasised, rather that those of control, fear and retribution: it will make you a lot more friends. :)

Zenwoody, very nice first post. I look forward to more of your ideas.

Provided they believe in the right god of course.

In my experience, not so much.

I've noticed that theists are far more likely to treat their fellow co-religionists with greater deference and respect than atheists - despite the fact that if you follow their train of thought to the logical conclusion most of them seem to think that the vast majority of their fellow man is going to hell. Nice. :rolleyes:

But don't ever point out that it all might be a crock. That's arrogant. And rude.

(Also, the whole: "well atheism is just another religion." thing. Wrong. But thanks for not paying attention to anything anybody has said for the past 3,000 years).

If it matters to you whether there is a you or whether there is not a you, then you entertain the idea that you do not exist.

If you are confident that you do exist, then the question really does not matter, since it doesn't have any bearing upon your existence. (like asking whether it is raining or not, when you are standing in the rain; the question doesn't matter. You know it is raining.)

But in order to justify to myself that it is raining I must first ask the question, "Is it raining?"

What epistemology searches for is the justification. And in some cases, the justification is very hard to find.

If you are not confident that you exist, then yes, the question becomes extremely meaningful.

But I cannot be confident that I exist until I ask the question, "Do I exist?"

I'm claiming it isn't ludicrous, since the answer will not have any bearing upon the lives of people, and how they live. So, we don't exist? Ok, let's order some pizza now.

Those people clearly believe that they exist. They almost certainly would care if they were genuinely convinced that they did not.

You have some form of experience. If we are merely dreaming this, then the dream itself is experience. If we are being duped by a omnipotent-evil-smiley, then our deception is experience. If we are plugged into the matrix, then we are experiencing a virtual reality.

Or none of the above. Why are you limiting the options? How do you know that you actually experience anything?

Note that whatever way we are experiencing these things, the experience itself is not changing. We feel what we feel, regardless of how that perception is being fed to us.

Again, you're making all these assumptions. Don't just make them. Justify them.

How do we know that the experience itself is not changing? How do we know that we experience at all?

Philosophy comes in many guises. ::laugh:: Whether I try to answer the question; or whether I answer the question correctly; or whether I answer the question incorrectly, the question has no bearing upon my existence.

So? As well point out that all science has no bearing upon truth; after all, whether we are scientifically right or scientifically wrong, the truth remains the same.

The point is that while the question has no bearing on our existence (as in, whether or not we ask it, our existence state remains the same), we seek the knowledge of whether or not we exist because it matters to us, for quite obvious reasons.

How has this debate effected the status of my existence?

It hasn't. No search for knowledge affects the status of truth. But that doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't matter.

First off, I think you said something brilliant here: "No search for knowledge affects the status of truth. But that doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't matter."

I do agree.

But in order to justify to myself that it is raining I must first ask the question, "Is it raining?"
What epistemology searches for is the justification. And in some cases, the justification is very hard to find.
But I cannot be confident that I exist until I ask the question, "Do I exist?"

I understand the concept of justification, but I do not understand how vocalizing the question justifies it.

The justification of knowledge? I suppose I see knowledge as a tool to be used-- not something to be merely polished and shelved.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this justification.

So, knowledge of whether you exist or not is only obtainable by asking whether you exist or not? What of people who never ask? They continue to exist, even without asking the question.

How has the knowledge that you exist changed your life?


Those people clearly believe that they exist. They almost certainly would care if they were genuinely convinced that they did not.

Why? If they could eat, drink, and be merry by non-existing, why swap it for something that may or may not be better?


Or none of the above. Why are you limiting the options? How do you know that you actually experience anything?

I realize that was a limited amount of options; my mind is not limitless. I know that I experience things because I am, this very second, experiencing something. Maybe this second is replaying over and over again, but that does not negate the fact that I am experiencing that second.

*I am using "I" very loosely here. I do not presume that the 'I" I think of as myself must exist in that state.


Again, you're making all these assumptions. Don't just make them. Justify them.

I do not know how you want me to justify them. I can't use past experience, since experience is exactly what is being debated.

The only thing I can say is that experience is very broad, and that what I am experiencing at this very moment justifies my assumption that I experience things.

For, even if I'm dreaming, is not the dream an experience too?


How do we know that the experience itself is not changing? How do we know that we experience at all?
We don't know whether experience changes or not. The only constant is experience itself.

How do you argue that this debate- or the illusion thereof-- is not an experience?

We seek the knowledge of whether or not we exist because it matters to us, for quite obvious reasons.

Knowledge in and of itself is not useful. It is only useful when applied.

I do not see your obvious reasons, since I do not see how this knowledge would be applied.



I would love to stay up and talk some more, since you have greatly piqued my interest, but I have two finals tomorrow, and it is already past 2 in the morning. Good night/ morning/ afternoon/ evening, and I'll return to this thread later!

Clearly not, because he himself is trying to answer at least some philosophical questions from a secular perspective.

He is not attacking philosophy; he acknowledges the worth of philosophy by delving into its sphere. He is attacking religion.

Dawkins isn't attacking philosophy so much as the attachment that some people place on the results of the philosophical debate.

Its the fact that a lot of people round the world take it so seriously and yet consider it so little that has got him so worked up.

I imagine his attitude has a lot to do with arguing with creationists for so long. That would be enough to make anyone fed up. Its would be like beating your head against a brick wall. So while it may not be the most productive attitude.. its certainly very understandable.

I also wasn't suggesting for a second that philosphical thought was useless ... just that people shouldn't be so hung up on the answer ...

Religions tend to be so uptight about people asking the really basic questions... because they are afraid that people may come to a different conclusion to them.. and that stiffles philosophical thought.. not encourages it.

As for his attack on religion rather than Philosophy:

I think Dawkins has got very "in your face" partially due to his exasperation at people not even considering the idea that religion is a human construct. There is a lot of cicumstancial "evidence" for this hypothesis and very little (ie none as far as I am aware) against it... and yet it is dismissed out of hand.

Along this vein I think that Pastafarianism is an excellent example of this kind of idea. I am very glad that it is around, and I think that Dawkins had a lot to do with making it possible.

Dawkins is was and will probably remain an ass, any one else who wants to take a semi scientific stand against religion would be okay with someone saying 'granted, it doesn't change the scientific facts as we understand them, but that doesn't mean somewhere behind it all is an ineffable god."
Nope, he has to go and try to disprove god all together, not only is he out of his league (as the OP mentioned, God's fan club has several thousands of years experience on Dawkins) but he's just generally an ass.

God's fan club has several thousands of years experience on Dawkins

and significant other portions of god's fan club have repeatedly pointed out just how bad all their arguments are and recommend instead a policy of clapping louder

Dawkins is was and will probably remain an ass, any one else who wants to take a semi scientific stand against religion would be okay with someone saying 'granted, it doesn't change the scientific facts as we understand them, but that doesn't mean somewhere behind it all is an ineffable god."
Nope, he has to go and try to disprove god all together, not only is he out of his league (as the OP mentioned, God's fan club has several thousands of years experience on Dawkins) but he's just generally an ass.

They have several thousands of years experience playing the game.

Dawkins is saying its just a game.

Knowing the rules of the game doesn't help when you aren't playing the game.

No one likes it when someone says "Its just a game"

I know when I tell my friend not to get so worked up about WoW it doesn't make me very popular.

If I beat one of my friends at chess it usually doesn't help if I say .. its just a game... it may even make me an ass...

it doesn't however make it any less true.

Theism is a thought experiment. (You know those things that the ancient greeks were really into.)It hasn't been demonstrated.. its just been thought about (thought about a lot I might add)

So far Maths is about the only useful thing to have come from thought experiments.. well at least that I can think of.

Dawkins.. having spent a lot of his time looking at evidence based experiments and the advatages over thought based experiments is trying to share his philosophical insights with other people.

They generally haven't been recieved very well.. Not I feel because they aren't very valid.. just because people are very attached to the old thought experiments that they have put 1000s of years of thought into.

People were well into the 4 elements thought experiment of achemedes.. mostly cause he made a lot of other stuff that was pretty cool... it made making any progress difficult though because we were stuck on the thought experiment.

I think what Dawkins is excited about what kind of progress society would make if we moved on from the thought experiment of religion and started doing some evidence based research in the area.

What if we could find a "better" set of morals for running a society because we gave up on the old idea of theistic belief?? And we all lived in peace and happiness (unlikely I know.. but what if??) What if by "only through me shall you know heaven" the big fella meant that you had to go through Him as an idea and pass out onto the other side (leaving that idea behind) in order to reach utopia?? Hows that for an idea.... a pie in the sky idea.. but at least its a nice idea ;)

Dawkins isn't attacking philosophy so much as the attachment that some people place on the results of the philosophical debate.

Considering the passion with which he enters that "philosophical debate," I doubt it.

So far Maths is about the only useful thing to have come from thought experiments.. well at least that I can think of.


Special relativity?

Nope, he has to go and try to disprove god all together

That's not what he's doing. He's simply saying that the existence of god should be treated like any other scientific hypothesis.

Special relativity?

Hasn't Special relativity been shown using experimental evidence?

I appreciate that the idea was originally a thought. But it was a thought that could be tested .. hence moved out of the realm of thought experiment into the realm of hypothesis.

The Dawkins video amused me. I'd heard the arguments before, but he presented them again with such wit- well, he was a bit rough on the audiences' beliefs, more rough than I'd dare to be, when sober at any rate.

I was also surprised how much resistance he met from the audience- but then I went- 'eh, it's the United States' -plus it makes things all the more entertaining.

But at any rate: let's face it, if you drill to the core of anyone's belief in God you will come to one of to ultimate ends:

(1) The believer confesses that their belief in God is irrational, compartmentalized with Santa Claus and others, a part of make believe, and they know full well He doesn't exist except in the stories we tell of Him.

(2) The believer seriously believes God exists, that being a member of the NRA and Pro-Life are compatible views, false is true, true is false, black is white, and white is black. In short, they believe seven impossible things before breakfast, and only met Reason once in passing, and never really understood the fellow.

Don't believe me?

Let's look at God- a massive self-contradiction.
- omniscient
- omnipotent
- beneficent
- intelligent
- omnipresent
- infallible
- 3 in 1
- 1 in 3
- etc.

Here are just a *few* of the problems with believing there is a God:

(1) If God is good, then why do good people suffer? (The problem of evil)

(2) If God is omnipotent, can He make a stone too heavy for Him to lift? (The paradox of omnipotence)

(3) If God is omnipotent and omniscient then when confronted with any problem, God will know the answer and be able to act upon it. Thus, God does not need to think about it. It is unnecessary to presume that God thinks, considers, or engages in problem solving algorithms. In short, God cannot be intelligent.

Yeah. Problems.
God- as here defined- doesn't exist folks! It is impossible for God to exist, as God is a contradiction in terms.

Hasn't Special relativity been shown using experimental evidence?

I appreciate that the idea was originally a thought. But it was a thought that could be tested .. hence moved out of the realm of thought experiment into the realm of hypothesis.

Yes it has. But the maths that einstein used to derive it were based upon postulates he arrived at from thought experiments long before there was any experimental evidence for it.

Well, the problem is: Why do the rules have to apply?Because they were assumed by the person that says God exists. They provide evidence, in the form of complex things like the universe, to which they say is so interesting as to require a designer. The next thing they do is put forth an extremely complex being, who by their own reasoning would require a designer. Why are the rules no longer followed for this when they worked so well thinking up the idea?

Nobody has ever said that, and if we really wanted to get technical the rules don't always apply; that's why we have three completely different systems of physics to explain the utter breakdown of classical mechanics at scales larger and smaller than our own.

There is no Theory of Everything, which automatically places the idea that everything has to follow the same rules in to doubt, and that's just within the universe as it is.No, there isn't. Of course, if you'd like to doubt any knowledge gained through science, be my guest. It doesn't provide anything other than a model for the world as we see it. Since arguing that physics etc doesn't apply based on admittedly incomplete information is simply wrong, you only have the possibility of it being true or not. Can you provide evidence to support the supposition that some kind of basic rules are not followed? Because there's no other reason to believe that they aren't - I mean, in every other system we've come across (except for the concept of God), there are rules. Rationally, why would you ditch the entirety of your experiences to save this argument?

I realize that I am assuming that things in the past will occur in the future. However - this behavior seems to be an accurate description of the laws of the universe, and they apparently apply to everyone and everything the same way. I am more comfortable with this assumption than saying that rules don't need to apply to any given entity. I can see how you could make the argument, but it doesn't necessarily make sense in relation to all prior experience. Usually bad things happen when you don't listen to experience, so I'm not inclined to toss out mine.

Dawkins needs to only attack things which directly relate to religion attacking science. Going theological on everyone is totally useless.

This is all very good with the cosmological discussion, but what about the other point.

They are good points, but his arguments are mediocre, completely unoriginal and not particularly clever. They are no better then any of the arguments you would get from NSG.

Do you agree that he has no right to act so condescending and arrogant to everyone, not debating and riduculing his oponenents as juvinile etc.. even when they are top colledge professors who have probably studied his 2000 year old arguments most of their life?

I think not.

almost everyone is a philosopher. weres your degree saying you have any right to have an opinion?

philosopher = bullshit artist

Do you agree that he has no right to act so condescending and arrogant to everyone, not debating and riduculing his oponenents as juvinile etc.. even when they are top colledge professors who have probably studied his 2000 year old arguments most of their life?

No, I don't agree with that.

One thing I've learned from years of working in the sciences is that even very smart, very educated, very brilliant people will sometimes do or say profoundly stupid things. In science, being a respected authority on a topic will get you a certain degree of respect, but only so much.

If your idea is crap, other scientists are going to tell you it is crap, no matter how respected you are. If you are a brilliant person posing a stupid argument, scientists are going to tell you that your argument is stupid no matter how brilliant you may be.

Superstitious "theories" like Creationism are juvenile and pathetic. They are sloppy, lazy thinking. It is completely appropriate for them to be identified as such.

This is all very good with the cosmological discussion, but what about the other point.

They are good points, but his arguments are mediocre, completely unoriginal and not particularly clever. They are no better then any of the arguments you would get from NSG.

Do you agree that he has no right to act so condescending and arrogant to everyone, not debating and riduculing his oponenents as juvinile etc.. even when they are top colledge professors who have probably studied his 2000 year old arguments most of their life?

I think not.


Why not?

If, as you suggest, his opposition have been studying his arguments for over 2000 years and yet STILL cannot write a slam-dunk, smack-down, uncontestable counter that shuts him down cold - then shouldn't we point and laugh at them..... just a little?

Or, of course, you might just have to consider the possibility that *gasp* Dawkins might be right. Arrogant and abrasive too, but there are people of that ilk on both sides of the argument, so I'm not inlcined to tell only one side to be all sweet about things without an equal dose of condemnation of the asshats on the other side of the debate too.

No, I don't agree with that.

One thing I've learned from years of working in the sciences is that even very smart, very educated, very brilliant people will sometimes do or say profoundly stupid things. In science, being a respected authority on a topic will get you a certain degree of respect, but only so much.

If your idea is crap, other scientists are going to tell you it is crap, no matter how respected you are. If you are a brilliant person posing a stupid argument, scientists are going to tell you that your argument is stupid no matter how brilliant you may be.

Superstitious "theories" like Creationism are juvenile and pathetic. They are sloppy, lazy thinking. It is completely appropriate for them to be identified as such.

What a rubish response. It is possible to attack scientific ideas if you are a scientist. But it's retarded to attack philosophical ideas using extremely amature philosophy when you are not a philosopher and know nothing about what you are talking about.

You're argument is pointless as it basicly does the same thing as Dawkins, if I insult ideas about God and offend as many people as I can that will make me correct and give me that right to offend people.

What a rubish response. It is possible to attack scientific ideas if you are a scientist. But it's retarded to attack philosophical ideas using extremely amature philosophy when you are not a philosopher and know nothing about what you are talking about.

I'd say Dawkins knows as much about the subject of religion and superstition as the rest of us do, and more than most. I don't see why being a scientist renders him less qualified to discuss the merit (or lack thereof) of superstitious arguments that pertain to scientific topics.


You're argument is pointless as it basicly does the same thing as Dawkins, if I insult ideas about God and offend as many people as I can that will make me correct and give me that right to offend people.
You don't appear to have read what I posted, if that is what you conclude. Perhaps you should read it again?

Why not?

If, as you suggest, his opposition have been studying his arguments for over 2000 years and yet STILL cannot write a slam-dunk, smack-down, uncontestable counter that shuts him down cold - then shouldn't we point and laugh at them..... just a little?

Or, of course, you might just have to consider the possibility that *gasp* Dawkins might be right. Arrogant and abrasive too, but there are people of that ilk on both sides of the argument, so I'm not inlcined to tell only one side to be all sweet about things without an equal dose of condemnation of the asshats on the other side of the debate too.

Many peolpe have made his arguments irrellivent already, his arguments are pure plagerism. He has not proven anything and has not been able to proove anything he says therefor he cannot kown to be correct or not. Therefore he has no right to act in the way he does.

Why not?

If, as you suggest, his opposition have been studying his arguments for over 2000 years and yet STILL cannot write a slam-dunk, smack-down, uncontestable counter that shuts him down cold - then shouldn't we point and laugh at them..... just a little?

Okay!

Personally, I would like to see a comprehensive list of these 2000-years-old arguments and the responses that have supposedly answered them. Instead of yammering about how Dawkins is full of shit (which may very well be true), how about some specifics?


Or, of course, you might just have to consider the possibility that *gasp* Dawkins might be right. Arrogant and abrasive too, but there are people of that ilk on both sides of the argument, so I'm not inlcined to tell only one side to be all sweet about things without an equal dose of condemnation of the asshats on the other side of the debate too.
Could be.

Being rude doesn't necessarily mean somebody is wrong. Doesn't necessarily make them right, either. It's as stupid to assume the first as it is to assume the second.

Many peolpe have made his arguments irrellivent already, his arguments are pure plagerism.

It's not "plagerism" to present established arguments on the subject of religion and superstition, any more than it is "plagerism" to argue that the world is probably round. Yes, somebody in the past has made that argument. No, you are not "plagerizing" them when you say the world is round.


He has not proven anything and has not been able to proove anything he says therefor he cannot be correct.

Religious leaders have never, in the history of the human race, been able to even prove that God exists, let alone that God matches up with the descriptions they provide. So it looks like Dawkins is in good company.


Therefor he has no right to act in the way he does.He's got as much right to act the way he does as you have to act the way you do. Get over it.

Sure, you don't LIKE it. You may think it's counterproductive, or offensive, or just plain mean. You may think it makes him look stupid. You may think it's unfair. But none of that changes the fact that he's totally within his rights to act that way.

Many peolpe have made his arguments irrellivent already, his arguments are pure plagerism. He has not proven anything and has not been able to proove anything he says therefor he cannot be correct. Therefor he has no right to act in the way he does.

I hadn't heard that civil liberties were done away with in the UK. Dawkins could write a 500-page book saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything and if he could get it published, that's his right. It is over on this side of the pond, anyway. Being incorrect does not abrogate your right to publish your views or even to be a militant advocate for them. If that were so, how many "commentators" that we have now cluttering up the airwaves and the print media would be on the dole?

Oh, and if Dawkins has plagarized anyone - used text or ideas without giving proper credit - please provide examples. I'm sure his publisher would be very interested, too.

I hadn't heard that civil liberties were done away with in the UK. Dawkins could write a 500-page book saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything and if he could get it published, that's his right. It is over on this side of the pond, anyway. Being incorrect does not abrogate your right to publish your views or even to be a militant advocate for them. If that were so, how many "commentators" that we have now cluttering up the airwaves and the print media would be on the dole?

Yes it's his right, but I also have the right to criticize what he does.

Many peolpe have made his arguments irrellivent already, his arguments are pure plagerism. He has not proven anything and has not been able to proove anything he says therefor he cannot be correct. Therefor he has no right to act in the way he does.


He has exactly the same right to be contemptuously dismissive of the ideas of others that you seem to reserve for yourself. Refer one post up to your response to Bottle:

What a rubish response. It is possible to attack scientific ideas if you are a scientist. But it's retarded to attack philosophical ideas using extremely amature philosophy when you are not a philosopher and know nothing about what you are talking about.

You're argument is pointless as it basicly does the same thing as Dawkins, if I insult ideas about God and offend as many people as I can that will make me correct and give me that right to offend people.


You just don't like Dawkin's ideas. That's all this is about. Because clearly you have no problem emulating his style.... yet it is his style that you are complaining about.


Kinda makes you a hypocrite.

Actually, no "kinda" about it.

You ARE a hypocrite.

Many peolpe have made his arguments irrellivent already, his arguments are pure plagerism. He has not proven anything and has not been able to proove anything he says therefor he cannot kown to be correct or not. Therefore he has no right to act in the way he does.

Is there a connection between not being able to spell and holding religious beliefs? Can certainly see an evolutionary reason as to why that should be.

Yes it's his right, but I also have the right to criticize what he does.
Yup, you do. And, amazingly, Dawkins is not arguing that you don't have the right to criticize his beliefs, even though YOU are arguing that he doesn't have the right to criticize yours.

It's not "plagerism" to present established arguments on the subject of religion and superstition, any more than it is "plagerism" to argue that the world is probably round. Yes, somebody in the past has made that argument. No, you are not "plagerizing" them when you say the world is round.


Yes but he hasn't really added anything new at all, he just rips off other ideas. It may not be plagerism, but he doesn't deserve so much respect.


Religious leaders have never, in the history of the human race, been able to even prove that God exists, let alone that God matches up with the descriptions they provide. So it looks like Dawkins is in good company.


I never said they have, though that does not make him better then they are.


He's got as much right to act the way he does as you have to act the way you do. Get over it.


I know he does but I have the right to criticize what he does, just like people have the right to criticize Phelps, or Bush.


Sure, you don't LIKE it. You may think it's counterproductive, or offensive, or just plain mean. You may think it makes him look stupid. You may think it's unfair. But none of that changes the fact that he's totally within his rights to act that way.

I agree.

Yes it's his right, but I also have the right to criticize what he does.

Absolutely, but you shouldn't throw around accusations of plagarism without proof, and saying "he has no right" is a little ... harsh.

Is there a connection between not being able to spell and holding religious beliefs? Can certainly see an evolutionary reason as to why that should be.

:rolleyes: I type fast.

Nice way to not add anything useful to the discussion. But act like an ass instead.

:rolleyes: I type fast.

Nice way to not add anything useful to the discussion. But act like an ass instead.

Ooh we are touchy

Absolutely, but you shouldn't throw around accusations of plagarism without proof, and saying "he has no right" is a little ... harsh.

When I say "he has no right" doesn't literally mean "I think the government should restrict him from doing what he does", I just think what he is doing is wrong.

When I call him a plagerist, I don't literally mean he has actually copied another book or text and used it in his book.

Yes but he hasn't really added anything new at all, he just rips off other ideas. It may not be plagerism, but he doesn't deserve so much respect.

That's a matter of taste, then, I suppose.


I never said they have, though that does not make him better then they are.

Well, if you're going to whine about how Dawkins deserves no respect because his ideas are recycled, then you'd better be equally prepared to say the same about the religious leaders who do exactly the same thing.


I know he does but I have the right to criticize what he does, just like people have the right to criticize Phelps, or Bush.

Darling, let me say it one more time, really clearly:

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE DAWKINS.

What people are pointing out is that a lot of your claims and reasoning are flawed. That doesn't mean you can't still hold your opinions. You can hold as many goofy opinions as you want. That's your right. Nobody's trying to take that away from you.

But if you choose to post your opinions in a public forum, people may just end up responding to you. They may disagree. They may point out places where you've got your head up your ass. That's not oppressing you, that's not taking away your rights, and it's not infringing on your freedom of speech.

Yup, you do. And, amazingly, Dawkins is not arguing that you don't have the right to criticize his beliefs, even though YOU are arguing that he doesn't have the right to criticize yours.

He has every right to criticize any belief as much as he wants. It still doesn't mean he should act like the biggest, most arrogant snob in the universe and be respected as such a great philosopher when he doesn't think of anything original.

When I say "he has no right" doesn't literally mean "I think the government should restrict him from doing what he does", I just think what he is doing is wrong.

When I call him a plagerist, I don't literally mean he has actually copied another book or text and used it in his book.

Then type a little more slowly and think about what you're saying. "Plagarize" has a very specific meaning. And you've been around NSG long enough to know that the minute you say someone has no right to do something, people will jump all over you. If you wanted a discussion of Dawkins' militant atheism, perhaps the OP and your subsequent responses could have been a bit less confrontational.

Well, if you're going to whine about how Dawkins deserves no respect because his ideas are recycled, then you'd better be equally prepared to say the same about the religious leaders who do exactly the same thing.


I would, but none of them get the same amount of respect that Dawkins does.


Darling, let me say it one more time, really clearly:

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE DAWKINS.

What people are pointing out is that a lot of your claims and reasoning are flawed. That doesn't mean you can't still hold your opinions. You can hold as many goofy opinions as you want. That's your right. Nobody's trying to take that away from you.

But if you choose to post your opinions in a public forum, people may just end up responding to you. They may disagree. They may point out places where you've got your head up your ass. That's not oppressing you, that's not taking away your rights, and it's not infringing on your freedom of speech.

No I don't care if people criticize what I say. I do care however if they call me a hypocrit for criticizing Dawkins as thats apparently the samething he is doing.

He might be an arsehole about it, and what he is doing might be totally counterproductive in terms of getting people on his side, but the thing is children, he's completely right :D.

And no, he's not a philosopher, but so what? It's hardly a field you'd need expertise in, like say, evolutionary biology, to be able to speak about.

I would, but none of them get the same amount of respect that Dawkins does.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*Wipes away tear of mirth*

Whew.

Wait, no, still not done...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, Dawkins gets more respect than all the religious and superstitious leaders in the world. Like the Pope, for instance. He gets no freaking respect, I tell you! And all those ministers and priests and rabbis...they all just have to sit at the back of the bus while Dawkins gets all the props!

Our culture just gives too damn much respect to atheists, I tell you what!


No I don't care if people criticize what I say. I do care however if they call me a hypocrit for criticizing Dawkins as thats apparently the samething he is doing.
Your actions are hypocritical, on this thread. If you don't like being called a hypocrite, best not to act like one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*Wipes away tear of mirth*

Whew.

Wait, no, still not done...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, Dawkins gets more respect than all the religious and superstitious leaders in the world. Like the Pope, for instance. He gets no freaking respect, I tell you! And all those ministers and priests and rabbis...they all just have to sit at the back of the bus while Dawkins gets all the props!

Our culture just gives too damn much respect to atheists, I tell you what!


Wait, so you actually think the only reason people like the Pope gets respect are for the apparent philisophical arguments he produces, if he even does.
:rolleyes:


Your actions are hypocritical, on this thread.

How?

And no, he's not a philosopher, but so what? It's hardly a field you'd need expertise in, like say, evolutionary biology, to be able to speak about.

As stated before in this thread: Dawkins actually IS a philosopher as well as a biologist. He has more than one academic title.

Wait, so you actually think the only reason people like the Pope gets respect are for the apparent philisophical arguments he produces, if he even does.
:rolleyes:

You said Dawkins doesn't deserve respect because his arguments are recycled. Given that the Catholic church has been recycling the same material for significantly longer than Richard Dawkins, I'd say your priorities are a tad out of whack.

You said Dawkins doesn't deserve respect because his arguments are recycled. Given that the Catholic church has been recycling the same material for significantly longer than Richard Dawkins, I'd say your priorities are a tad out of whack.

Firstly I do criticize the amount of respect the Pope gets. Secondly he does not get respect for recycling ideas, he gets respect because he is the head of the catholic church, the good works he does and the apparent divineship he has.

Thirdly, how does this stop Dawkins from being a complete arsehole? Just because some other people may be doing the samething that Dawkins does, does not mean Dawkins is now suddenly allowed to gain respect again.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist......



heheh i thought this thread was going to be some form of dirty lymeric!

Firstly I do criticize the amount of respect the Pope gets. Secondly he does not get respect for recycling ideas, he gets respect because he is the head of the catholic church, the good works he does and the apparent divineship he has.

Bwahahahaha... and so forth.

Thirdly, how does this stop Dawkins from being a complete arsehole? Just because some other people may be doing the samething that Dawkins does, does not mean Dawkins is now suddenly allowed to gain respect again.

Dawkins is best off without the "respect" of your ilk.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist......



heheh i thought this thread was going to be some form of dirty lymeric!

I thought it was going to be a list of people and their occupations

John Kettley is a weatherman....

Yes it has. But the maths that einstein used to derive it were based upon postulates he arrived at from thought experiments long before there was any experimental evidence for it.

But they were still falsifiable.

Thirdly, how does this stop Dawkins from being a complete arsehole?

It doesn't.
It does however also not mean that he does not have a point.

Bwahahahaha... and so forth.


I didn't say it was true, just why people respect him

Firstly I do criticize the amount of respect the Pope gets. Secondly he does not get respect for recycling ideas, he gets respect because he is the head of the catholic church, the good works he does and the apparent divineship he has.

Thirdly, how does this stop Dawkins from being a complete arsehole? Just because some other people may be doing the samething that Dawkins does, does not mean Dawkins is now suddenly allowed to gain respect again.

Why can't he be a respected arsehole?

It doesn't.
It does however also not mean that he does not have a point.

A point which has probably cropped up thousands of times by students on NSG before his book.

Firstly I do criticize the amount of respect the Pope gets. Secondly he does not get respect for recycling ideas, he gets respect because he is the head of the catholic church, the good works he does and the apparent divineship he has.

Thirdly, how does this stop Dawkins from being a complete arsehole? Just because some other people may be doing the samething that Dawkins does, does not mean Dawkins is now suddenly allowed to gain respect again.

At least he is a scientific arsehole, much preferable to all the religious arseholes.

Why can't he be a respected arsehole?

I respect him for his scientific work but thats it.

A point which has probably cropped up thousands of times by students on NSG before his book.

True. And it is indeed a pity that the man gets so much more attention than the point.

A point which has probably cropped up thousands of times by students on NSG before his book.

So what again, is your exact complaint with him?

You agree that the has the right to his opinions.

You agree that there are contemptuous, arrogant people who espouse all manner of ideas.

You note that the whole philosophical debate has been ongoing for millenia, and that both sides have some fairly well-established arguments.

So why are you being an arrogant, contemptuous ass yourself in your comments here while complaining about this particular arrogant, contemptuous ass?

Just because he has people that agree with him?


What - You're jealous?

Because thus far your revolving points (and unproven contentions both to as to the historical provenance of his talking points as well as to any historical, firm refutations therof) boil down to...... well, nothing really.

Besides the obnoxious repetition of a petulant whine that I more commonly associate with what comes out of my kid's mouths if they don't get things there way.

Now, can you articulate firmly why exactly Mr. Dawkins should be the sole person in this debate held to a given standard?

A standard which you prove yourself unwilling to follow yourself?

So why are you being an arrogant, contemptuous ass yourself in your comments here while complaining about this particular arrogant, contemptuous ass?


How am I? And I wouldn't care as much if he was just an arrogant contemptuous ass. What I do care about is that he is not just that, he is also respected by everyone basicly because he is that and nothing else.


Just because he has people that agree with him?


no


What - You're jealous?


:rolleyes:


Because thus far your revolving points (and unproven contentions both to as to the historical provenance of his talking points as well as to any historical, firm refutations therof) boil down to...... well, nothing really.


They show that he is an arogant bastard who gets respect for nothing and abuses his position to be even more arrogant.


Now, can you articulate firmly why exactly Mr. Dawkins should be the sole person in this debate held to a given standard?

A standard which you prove yourself unwilling to follow yourself?

I have already told you 100000 times.

I thought it was going to be a list of people and their occupations

John Kettley is a weatherman....

Hahah 'And sooooo is Michel Fiiiiiishhhh-a!';)

They show that he is an arogant bastard who gets respect for nothing and abuses his position to be even more arrogant.

You have shown no such thing. You've claimed it - as petulantly as the poster you were responding to aptly stated - but you haven't shown it. At all. You've just whined.

You have shown no such thing. You've claimed it - as petulantly as the poster you were responding to aptly stated - but you haven't shown it. At all. You've just whined.

I have shown this because

Most people on this thread agrees that his points are unoriginal, not new.

They agree that he acts like an arrogant asshole.

Therefore, you can see that he shouldn't deserve the respect and position he does.

I have shown this because

Nope.

Most people on this thread agrees that his points are unoriginal, not new.

Nothing under the sun is new, not even your whining.

They agree that he acts like an arrogant asshole.

Which has been agreed upon to be a completely irrelevant ad hominem on your part.

Therefore, you can see that he shouldn't deserve the respect and position he does.

Nope, you've shown no such thing. And as this post shows, you claiming and whining about it doesn't make it so.

Nothing under the sun is new, not even your whining.


I do not make millions of pounds and get respected by huge amounts of people.


Which has been agreed upon to be a completely irrelevant ad hominem on your part.


No it is completely relevent to the discussion, which is basicly about how much of an arrogant areshole he is.


Nope, you've shown no such thing. And as this post shows, you claiming and whining about it doesn't make it so.

Do you think an arrogant areshole who writes a rubbish book where his points are old recycled crap should be respected as much as Dawkins is?

Therefore, you can see that he shouldn't deserve the respect and position he does.


Yeah, looking at his bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), it is Soooooooooooooooooooooooo obvious why this person gets no repect regarding his opinions on philosophy.

[edit] Awards and recognition
Dawkins holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Westminster, the University of Durham[52] and University of Hull, and is honorary doctor of the Open University.[5] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and Royal Society in 2001.[5] He is vice-president of the British Humanist Association and honorary patron of the Trinity College University Philosophical Society.

Other awards he has won include the Royal Society of Literature Award (1987), Los Angeles Times Literary Prize (1987), Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Michael Faraday Award (1990), Nakayama Prize (1994), Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), Kistler Prize (2001), Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), and the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002).[5] In 2005 the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him their Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge".[53]

Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up.[54]



Clearly a man with no credentials nor validation from his peers to give any inclination that maybe he has a highly regarded intelect....

I agree that he has his problems, though considering what he's up against, I think it is understandable, if not necessarily justified. With today's brand of religious fundamentalism, I'm not sure holding back and hoping things will get better is really a good idea.

Do you think an arrogant areshole who writes a rubbish book where his points are old recycled crap should be respected as much as Dawkins is?

Objection Your Honour! Implies facts not in evidence...


Maybe he gets the recognition because, unlike you, he knows how to establish the groundwork for a solid position from which to debate.


You, on the other hand, call people names.


Someday perhaps you'll understand the difference....

Objection Your Honour! Implies facts not in evidence...


Maybe he gets the recognition because, unlike you, he knows how to establish the groundwork for a solid position from which to debate.


You, on the other hand, call people names.


Someday perhaps you'll understand the difference....

He has a good ground work on science, and I respect him for his scientific work. Thats it.

I do not make millions of pounds and get respected by huge amounts of people.

And we can all see why...

No it is completely relevent to the discussion, which is basicly about how much of an arrogant areshole he is.

So, you've nothing better than an irrelevant ad hominem? No wonder you can't even go into specifics about him; you're just here to attempt to smear someone. Hypocrite.

Do you think an arrogant areshole who writes a rubbish book where his points are old recycled crap should be respected as much as Dawkins is?

You've not shown it to be either rubbish or recycled nor that Dawkins being an ass hole (your opinion, not fact) is in any way relevant to his claims or respectability. You just keep whining that you don't like him. That's all there is to your posts here. A childish invocation of the whaaambulance.

So, you've nothing better than an irrelevant ad hominem? No wonder you can't even go into specifics about him; you're just here to attempt to smear someone. Hypocrite.


So you have nothing better to do then call the most relevant thing and the point of the discussion irrelavant. Irrelavant to what?


You've not shown it to be either rubbish or recycled nor that Dawkins being an ass hole (your opinion, not fact) is in any way relevant to his claims or respectability. You just keep whining that you don't like him. That's all there is to your posts here. A childish invocation of the whaaambulance.

I have and it has been demonstrated to others way back in the forum.

Do you think an arrogant areshole who writes a rubbish book where his points are old recycled crap should be respected as much as Dawkins is?

*resists the urge to compare Dawkins book to another Book that "borrows" quite alot without referencing*.

To answer your question: no I do not think he should. But that is because I would prefer a world in which his points would not need to be presented over and over and over again before they get some attention.

In this less perfect world he does deserve respect.

So you have nothing better to do then call the most relevant thing and the point of the discussion irrelavant. Irrelavant to what?

Irrelevant to Dawkins' claims and respectability. No, honey, going on and on and on and on that you don't like him in no way affects his claims and respectability.

I have and it has been demonstrated to others way back in the forum.

http://my.fit.edu/~jbobosky/BBS/Whambulance.jpg

Yup, just what this thread needs.

So you have nothing better to do then call the most relevant thing and the point of the discussion irrelavant. Irrelavant to what?

I don't think how much you dislike him and think he's an arsehole is relevant to anything really.

I don't think how much you dislike him and think he's an arsehole is relevant to anything really.

Exactly.

I don't think how much you dislike him and think he's an arsehole is relevant to anything really.

For the 9999999999999999999999999999999999999th time. It's not how much I dislike him, it's more about how much I dislike the unjustified huge amount of respect he gets for his philosiphical views.

For the 9999999999999999999999999999999999999th time. It's not how much I dislike him, it's more about how much I dislike the unjustified huge amount of respect he gets for his philosiphical views.

Which has so far been a bunch of whining showing nothing but the whining itself.

For the 9999999999999999999999999999999999999th time. It's not how much I dislike him, it's more about how much I dislike the unjustified huge amount of respect he gets for his philosiphical views.

Then why do you keep bringing up how he's an arsehole and all that?

For the 9999999999999999999999999999999999999th time. It's not how much I dislike him, it's more about how much I dislike the unjustified huge amount of respect he gets for his philosiphical views.

Fine. Good.

Can we let this go now? You, too, Fass. This is starting to sound like a couple of seven-year-olds going "He is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!"

It's boring and if I'm going to be doing this instead of work, at least, I beseech you, make it more interesting. :rolleyes:

Which has so far been a bunch of whining showing nothing but the whining itself.

And whats your whining suppost to be showing?

For the 9999999999999999999999999999999999999th time. It's not how much I dislike him, it's more about how much I dislike the unjustified huge amount of respect he gets for his philosiphical views.

And if many people admire him as an intellectual, agree with his views on this matter and feel that he has articulated them in a rhetorically appealing fashion, why should they not respect him?

Any time a scientist claims to be able to investigate or disprove the supernatural (the truly supernatural, not just the as-yet-unknown natural) with science, I have to wonder at his expertise. Making such a claim requires a lack of understanding of the scientific method, its uses, and its limitations.

I haven't seen much of Dawkins' actual science, and I am practically a biologist. It could simply be a matter of his investigations being separate enough from my own that I haven't seen his scientific publications. It also could be that he spends so much time pursuing a militant atheist cause that is essentially no different from a militant and fundamentalist religious person's.

The attacks that such militant fundamentalists make upon science and its usefulness certainly must be dealt with, but there is no reason to, in turn, attack *all* people who happen to be religious. As others said early on in the thread, all he does is lose credibility when he becomes that which he is supposedly trying to fight against - a fundamentalist - in this case, a militant atheist bent not only on removing religion from science (where it should not be), but removing it altogether.

At least he is a scientific arsehole, much preferable to all the religious arseholes.

I don't get the impression that Hydesland or anyone else here objects to his scientific work. It is his speculation outside of science - which he tries to present as being science itself - that holds the problem.

And whats your whining suppost to be showing?

Sorry, honey, but pointing out the complete failure of your thread to discredit Dawkins in any way isn't whining. It's stating the obvious. Same thing when pointing out your whining.

That's not what he's doing. He's simply saying that the existence of god should be treated like any other scientific hypothesis.

...which is a ridiculous statement unless the "god" being talked about is presumed to be part of the universe, rather than its creator. The methods of science are limited to the universe - the natural. Anything supernatural, if it exists, is outside the realm of science.


Dawkins needs to only attack things which directly relate to religion attacking science. Going theological on everyone is totally useless.

Pretty much. In fact, his seeming obsession with trying to use science to investigate and disprove the supernatural makes all of his scientific work, in my opinion, at risk. I have to wonder what else he's been doing outside the scientific method, and how it might have affected his work. In this point, he is no different from a "Creation scientist" trying to use "science" to demonstrate the existence of God. They're both misusing it.

Just because this is a fun post...

The Dawkins video amused me. I'd heard the arguments before, but he presented them again with such wit- well, he was a bit rough on the audiences' beliefs, more rough than I'd dare to be, when sober at any rate.

I was also surprised how much resistance he met from the audience- but then I went- 'eh, it's the United States' -plus it makes things all the more entertaining.

Dawkins' behavior does not amuse me. His philosophy is interesting, his attempt to educate folks about the non-scientific nature of ID laudable, and he's probably just a decent guy trying to do what he thinks is right like any other fella. But still, the way he's going about attacking other views is not constructive and not likely to do anything but cause more anti-scientific sentiment (we hardly need more of that).

But at any rate: let's face it, if you drill to the core of anyone's belief in God you will come to one of to ultimate ends:

(1) The believer confesses that their belief in God is irrational, compartmentalized with Santa Claus and others, a part of make believe, and they know full well He doesn't exist except in the stories we tell of Him.

(2) The believer seriously believes God exists, that being a member of the NRA and Pro-Life are compatible views, false is true, true is false, black is white, and white is black. In short, they believe seven impossible things before breakfast, and only met Reason once in passing, and never really understood the fellow.

Let's face it, you've just posed a false dilemma and articulated a gross oversimplification laced with stereotypes for a bonus. Awfully similar qualities to what are so often found in religious arguments.

Don't believe me?

Let's look at God- a massive self-contradiction.
- omniscient
- omnipotent
- beneficent
- intelligent
- omnipresent
- infallible
- 3 in 1
- 1 in 3
- etc.

Here are just a *few* of the problems with believing there is a God:

(1) If God is good, then why do good people suffer? (The problem of evil)

(2) If God is omnipotent, can He make a stone too heavy for Him to lift? (The paradox of omnipotence)

(3) If God is omnipotent and omniscient then when confronted with any problem, God will know the answer and be able to act upon it. Thus, God does not need to think about it. It is unnecessary to presume that God thinks, considers, or engages in problem solving algorithms. In short, God cannot be intelligent.

(1) Redefinition of good and evil takes care of that one nicely.

(2) If God is omnipotent, he can also make any logical contradictions disappear easily enough.

(3) Only a problem for IDers, not theists in general.

Yeah. Problems.

God- as here defined- doesn't exist folks! It is impossible for God to exist, as God is a contradiction in terms.

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that the God-concept you've articulated is a contradiction in terms. Of course, you have yet to demonstrate that either your terms or your notion of contradiction would apply to such a being if it does exist, or that a variety of other God-concepts would be inherently self-contradictory.

Sounds like you have a ways to go.

Any time a scientist claims to be able to investigate or disprove the supernatural (the truly supernatural, not just the as-yet-unknown natural) with science, I have to wonder at his expertise. Making such a claim requires a lack of understanding of the scientific method, its uses, and its limitations.

I haven't seen much of Dawkins' actual science, and I am practically a biologist. It could simply be a matter of his investigations being separate enough from my own that I haven't seen his scientific publications. It also could be that he spends so much time pursuing a militant atheist cause that is essentially no different from a militant and fundamentalist religious person's.

The attacks that such militant fundamentalists make upon science and its usefulness certainly must be dealt with, but there is no reason to, in turn, attack *all* people who happen to be religious. As others said early on in the thread, all he does is lose credibility when he becomes that which he is supposedly trying to fight against - a fundamentalist - in this case, a militant atheist bent not only on removing religion from science (where it should not be), but removing it altogether.

Everyone attacking aggressive atheism by accusing it of being no better that fundamentalism would be well of considering the fact there is a stark difference between atheism and any religion, that being whilst a theist might make a lot of (unsubstantiated) claims about the nature of life, all an atheist will ever say is "that's wrong" (and question the dangers of the population of the world largely believing something that is untrue - but that isn't actually atheism itself, so you can ignore that). They're poles apart.

Everyone attacking aggressive atheism by accusing it of being no better that fundamentalism would be well of considering the fact there is a stark difference between atheism and any religion, that being whilst a theist might make a lot of (unsubstantiated) claims about the nature of life, all an atheist will ever say is "that's wrong" (and question the dangers of the population of the world largely believing something that is untrue - but that isn't actually atheism itself, so you can ignore that). They're poles apart.

If militant atheism isn't a religion (emphasis on that to avoid painting other atheists with the same brush...this is reserved for the evangelicals like Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris), why do they feel compelled to try and convert others to it using arguments that are just like the ones the theists use for God? As far as I know, you don't convert people to "lack of belief"; I would say being an atheist entails a "live and let live" position as long as others' beliefs don't harm others. And, for that matter, claiming that someone's religion is false and that belief in God is pointless is pretty damn unsubstantiated if you ask me.

Evangelism is evangelism no matter who does it; the militant atheists don't get a free pass because they're "rational" or whatever bullshit justification they use for their religious beliefs in order to give themselves the same self-righteous superiority that is oddly similar to many religions' belief that they are the "one, true faith". Atheist evangelism is no diffferent than Muslim, Christian, Bah'ai or any other religious evangelism on Earth and should be treated no differently by opponents to religious evangelism.

And what the hell gives them the authority to be the arbiters of truth? I've never seen any proof that religion is "untrue"; for that matter, I also don't see enough evidence to convince me that it is true. As far as I know, those atheists' beliefs are just as unsubstantiated as the theists, and their arguments just as weak.

Everyone attacking aggressive atheism by accusing it of being no better that fundamentalism would be well of considering the fact there is a stark difference between atheism and any religion,

Yes, there is a stark difference between atheism and theism - the difference in belief (or lack thereof) regarding the existence of the divine. However, that difference is irrelevant in the comparison. The problem with religious fundamentalists is not that they believe in the divine or that they characterize the divine. Instead, it is the attitude they take towards those beliefs, and towards others who do not share them. Militant atheists have the same attitude towards their beliefs (militant athiests are rarely, if ever, implicit atheists) and towards others who do not share them, making them much the same as a religious fundamentalist.

that being whilst a theist might make a lot of (unsubstantiated) claims about the nature of life, all an atheist will ever say is "that's wrong" (and question the dangers of the population of the world largely believing something that is untrue - but that isn't actually atheism itself, so you can ignore that). They're poles apart.

No, that isn't all an atheist will ever do. That's all an atheist should ever do. Militant atheists, on the other hand, do quite a bit more. When you really look at fundamentalist religous people vs. militant atheists, you see a lot of the same symptoms. Both think that they are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with them is simply stupid. Both tend to think that their beliefs should be essentially forced upon all others - often trying to get them placed in the law or taught in school or who knows what else. Both will often claim that those who disagree with them cannot be moral people. Both will often irrationally claim to be able to *prove* their beliefs or disprove all other beliefs through scientific means. And so on.

Note that I'm not talking about atheists in general. As with most religious people, most atheists are fairly rational people, willing to think that they are right and others are wrong - but also willing to admit that they just might be wrong. Most atheists aren't looking to have all other viewpoints wiped out, made illegal, or claiming to have actually disproven (or to have the ability to do so) the existence of the divine. But there are those who are much more militant. And they truly are, philosophically, right on par with religious fundamentalism.

Everyone attacking aggressive atheism by accusing it of being no better that fundamentalism would be well of considering the fact there is a stark difference between atheism and any religion, that being whilst a theist might make a lot of (unsubstantiated) claims about the nature of life, all an atheist will ever say is "that's wrong" (and question the dangers of the population of the world largely believing something that is untrue - but that isn't actually atheism itself, so you can ignore that). They're poles apart.

There being a stark difference between atheism and any religion is hardly a point forgotten by religious folks, nor is it relevant to claims that militant atheists behave in just as fundamentalistic a fashion as militant religious folks.

There being a stark difference between atheism and any religion is hardly a point forgotten by religious folks, nor is it relevant to claims that militant atheists behave in just as fundamentalistic a fashion as militant religious folks.

All atheists are "fundamentalists" because atheism has but one criterion. One "fundamental." This clumsy redefinition of "fundamentalism" into a bland synonym for "bad" or even just "being an arse" that we see going on lately (and not just here, but in society in general) is rather sad.

If atheism isn't a religion, why do they feel compelled to try and convert others to it using arguments that are just like the ones the theists use for God? Claiming that someone's religion is false and that belief in God is pointless is pretty damn unsubstantiated if you ask me. In my experience, most atheists don't try to convert others. The rise of militant atheism is a relatively new one, led by Dawkins among others--interesting article on them in a recent issue of Wired--and the writer of the piece, an atheist himself, comes out of it feeling quite uncomfortable with the evangelical nature of militant atheism. So watch how wide a brush you paint atheists with--a lot of us don't like it.

Evangelism is evangelism no matter who does it; the militant atheists don't get a free pass because they're "rational" or whatever bullshit justification they use for their religious beliefs in order to give themselves the same self-righteous superiority that is oddly similar to many religions' belief that they are the "one, true faith". Atheist evangelism is no different than Muslim, Christian, Bah'ai or any other religious evangelism on Earth and should be treated no differently by opponents to religious evangelism.
I'm really tired of this, especially coming from someone as sensible as you are on other subjects. There is a significant difference between even the most evangelical of atheists and the groups you name above. There's no organization of atheists out there attempting to impose their lack of belief on others. There's no diocese of atheists directing some worldwide push toward greater secularism, so to compare atheism to evangelical groups is foolish at best, ignorant at worst.


And what the hell gives them the authority to be the arbiters of truth? I've never seen any proof that religion is "untrue"; for that matter, I also don't see enough evidence to convince me that it is true. As far as I know, those atheists' beliefs are just as unsubstantiated as the theists, and their arguments just as weak.
Atheists don't deal with truth when it comes to the question of the existence of god or gods--that's a philosophical construct. We deal in fact, and there's a significant difference between the two. But too many people use those two words as synonyms for each other, and while they're close, they're not exactly the same. And that, I believe, is a significant part of the problem.

All atheists are "fundamentalists" because atheism has but one criterion. One "fundamental." This clumsy redefinition of "fundamentalism" into a bland synonym for "bad" or even just "being an arse" that we see going on lately (and not just here, but in society in general) is rather sad.

Indeed. I've known some quite pleasant fundamentalists, and there are some very nice fundamentalistic sects (ie. the Amish or Jain Buddhists). That's why I prefer the term "militant", or "evangelical" if I'm going for an accurate but ironic term.

In my experience, most atheists don't try to convert others. The rise of militant atheism is a relatively new one, led by Dawkins among others--interesting article on them in a recent issue of Wired--and the writer of the piece, an atheist himself, comes out of it feeling quite uncomfortable with the evangelical nature of militant atheism. So watch how wide a brush you paint atheists with--a lot of us don't like it.

Exactly. That's why I revised it to explain just who I'm talking about; I have absolutely no problem with the majority of atheists, just the militant, evangelical ones.

I'm really tired of this, especially coming from someone as sensible as you are on other subjects. There is a significant difference between even the most evangelical of atheists and the groups you name above. There's no organization of atheists out there attempting to impose their lack of belief on others. There's no diocese of atheists directing some worldwide push toward greater secularism, so to compare atheism to evangelical groups is foolish at best, ignorant at worst.

It's moving down that path. There are evangelical atheist organizations that have formed and which promote spreading atheism; they're nowhere near as strong as the religious ministries, but that is a very disturbing trend that does not bode well for atheists in the future. That's mainly because once you get involved in evangelism, you're going to be thrown in to the same fight as other religions.

The rise of militant beliefs in any system is a dangerous sign. It hurts the credibility of most atheists in order to benefit the few militants.

Atheists don't deal with truth when it comes to the question of the existence of god or gods--that's a philosophical construct. We deal in fact, and there's a significant difference between the two. But too many people use those two words as synonyms for each other, and while they're close, they're not exactly the same. And that, I believe, is a significant part of the problem.

No, they don't and shouldn't. The problem is, the line between "truth" and "fact" has become very blurred and people on both sides are making the mistake of declaring a lack of facts to mean that the nonexistence of God is true and is a belief of atheists. There's simply no factual evidence for God, which means to the atheist that there is no reason to have a belief in his existence. Not that he doesn't exist or that religion is false, but that it is not supported by factual data.

I'm really tired of this, especially coming from someone as sensible as you are on other subjects. There is a significant difference between even the most evangelical of atheists and the groups you name above. There's no organization of atheists out there attempting to impose their lack of belief on others. There's no diocese of atheists directing some worldwide push toward greater secularism, so to compare atheism to evangelical groups is foolish at best, ignorant at worst.

How long do you think it will take for secularism to become institutionalized to the same degree that religion has been? And frankly, you're the one making ignorant assertions if you think that a system of thought becoming fully integrated into a society necessarily means that it builds churches or has an openly-stated political agenda.

Atheists don't deal with truth when it comes to the question of the existence of god or gods--that's a philosophical construct. We deal in fact, and there's a significant difference between the two. But too many people use those two words as synonyms for each other, and while they're close, they're not exactly the same. And that, I believe, is a significant part of the problem.

What, you don't like the correspondence theory of truth or something?

Indeed. I've known some quite pleasant fundamentalists, and there are some very nice fundamentalistic sects (ie. the Amish or Jain Buddhists). That's why I prefer the term "militant", or "evangelical" if I'm going for an accurate but ironic term.

I even find "militant" to be a rather shameful hyperbole unless you've got atheists (or whoever) actually taking up arms and going to battle for their "cause", but that word has been well and truly mangled and redefined into meaninglessness for quite a while, so I suppose there's not much to be done about it now.

"Evangelical" is perhaps more accurate, if we use a very liberal definition of the term. Which is okay, I suppose, and gets the point across without mauling our language.

I agree about those fundamentalists, though. I have great admiration for Jains especially and the few I've met have been some of the most likable, generous people I've had the pleasure of meeting.

No, they don't and shouldn't. The problem is, the line between "truth" and "fact" has become very blurred and people on both sides are making the mistake of declaring a lack of facts to mean that the nonexistence of God is true and is a belief of atheists. There's simply no factual evidence for God, which means to the atheist that there is no reason to have a belief in his existence. Not that he doesn't exist or that religion is false, but that it is not supported by factual data.
What I bolded there is the reason that atheism is not a position of faith, despite what opponents of atheism say. Atheists don't believe in god(s) because there is no positive reason to believe in them. It's my personal belief that opponents of atheism try to spin atheism as a belief position because they know, subconsciously, that their logical position as believers is untenable, and the only way they can come out on top of any argument is to say the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" That's not to say that people of faith are necessarily stupid or anything--I don't believe that--but I think they'd be better off if they acknowledged the fact that faith and logic don't intermingle and just accepted it.

All atheists are "fundamentalists" because atheism has but one criterion. One "fundamental." This clumsy redefinition of "fundamentalism" into a bland synonym for "bad" or even just "being an arse" that we see going on lately (and not just here, but in society in general) is rather sad.

Sociologists have used the term "fundamentalist" for a particular approach to religion for quite some time. Perhaps it was an unfortunate term, but it stuck. It has nothing to do with "fundamentals" and everything to do with attitude and approach. Fundamentalists of a given religion are actually unlikely to know many of the "fundamentals" of their religion, its history, or much about it in general. What they do believe is that it is under attack, and they will cling to ideas that they think go along with their religion with a passion, trying to force others to adhere as well.


I'm really tired of this, especially coming from someone as sensible as you are on other subjects. There is a significant difference between even the most evangelical of atheists and the groups you name above. There's no organization of atheists out there attempting to impose their lack of belief on others. There's no diocese of atheists directing some worldwide push toward greater secularism, so to compare atheism to evangelical groups is foolish at best, ignorant at worst.

The fact that the comparison must be made on an individual, rather than on a group-wide, level doesn't destroy it completely. You already said that many atheists are uncomfortable with the evangelical and militant turn many atheists have taken. Anyone who tries to push their beliefs (or lack thereof) on others beyond a friendly discussion is being evangelical, whether they have organizational backing or not. And I've actually personally encountered more atheists in recent years claiming that "religion should be completely wiped out," than religous people claiming the same about atheism or other religions. This is most likely more of a product of who I am around, but it is still a rather disturbing trend.

Atheists don't deal with truth when it comes to the question of the existence of god or gods--that's a philosophical construct. We deal in fact, and there's a significant difference between the two. But too many people use those two words as synonyms for each other, and while they're close, they're not exactly the same. And that, I believe, is a significant part of the problem.

Now, it would seem that you are painting atheists with too wide a brush. Many atheists do go well beyond fact - and that can become a problem. I've met atheists who claim they can disprove the existence of the supernatural using physics. They have quite certainly gone beyond "facts".

Most atheists draw their viewpoint from the facts they have at hand, but many take it beyond that.

I even find "militant" to be a rather shameful hyperbole unless you've got atheists (or whoever) actually taking up arms and going to battle for their "cause", but that word has been well and truly mangled and redefined into meaninglessness for quite a while, so I suppose there's not much to be done about it now.

Yes, that's my thought on the matter as well.

"Evangelical" is perhaps more accurate, if we use a very liberal definition of the term. Which is okay, I suppose, and gets the point across without mauling our language.

Precisely. :)

I agree about those fundamentalists, though. I have great admiration for Jains especially and the few I've met have been some of the most likable, generous people I've had the pleasure of meeting.

Quite the fine example of why fundamentalism ain't always a bad thing, they are. Whenever I think of fundamentalists, I don't just see some Bible or Koran-thumping person yammering on, I also see my grandparents (both fundamentalistic Christians) who are the most loving and generous people I've ever known. That helps keep me balanced on the issue.

What I bolded there is the reason that atheism is not a position of faith, despite what opponents of atheism say. Atheists don't believe in god(s) because there is no positive reason to believe in them. It's my personal belief that opponents of atheism try to spin atheism as a belief position because they know, subconsciously, that their logical position as believers is untenable, and the only way they can come out on top of any argument is to say the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" That's not to say that people of faith are necessarily stupid or anything--I don't believe that--but I think they'd be better off if they acknowledged the fact that faith and logic don't intermingle and just accepted it.

Implicit atheists do not hold a position of faith. They are simply stating that they have no reason to believe in a deity, and thus they do not believe.

However, most militant atheists (that I have seen anyways) go beyond implicit atheism and into explicit atheism. At that point, they have moved beyond the implicit statement that they have no reason to believe and into the explicit statement that they do believe - and their belief is that there is no god. They generally end up with explanation no more rational, and often less rational, than theists for their stance and why everyone should agree with them.

As for the rest of your statement, I don't think it's true that faith and logic cannot intermingle. I do think it is true that faith and empiricism cannot intermingle. Some people equate the two, but that is a philosophical position they choose to take, not a purely logical one. My personal experiences have led me to believe that the divine exists. I fully recognize that others may not have had those experiences, or may have had them and interpreted them differently, or any number of other possibilities. This does not mean that either of us has to be irrational or illogical to come to different conclusions. It is simply a product of the fact that you cannot personally experience my life and I cannot personally experience yours.

Only because most theistic arguments were made by Thomas Aquinas back in the 12th century.

Prove it.

Dawkins is nowhere near as bad as Pat Robertson. Trust me on this, saying religion is evil with some sort of weakish evidence isn't good. but saying that teh gheys will run into churchs and throw blood around(he did actually say that) with no evidence at all, not even his own holy book, is far, far worse.

Umm..
Why is one absurd lie about a group of people worse then another?
Oh, wait--you like Dawkins and dont like Robertson. So Dawkins gets an immediate pass from you.

In my opinion they are both feebs, who embarrass their respecitive positions.

But they were still falsifiable.

No doubt. But you'd expect einstein's Gedankenexperimenten to be of higher quality than the usual dribble.

Sociologists have used the term "fundamentalist" for a particular approach to religion for quite some time. Perhaps it was an unfortunate term, but it stuck. It has nothing to do with "fundamentals" and everything to do with attitude and approach. Fundamentalists of a given religion are actually unlikely to know many of the "fundamentals" of their religion, its history, or much about it in general. What they do believe is that it is under attack, and they will cling to ideas that they think go along with their religion with a passion, trying to force others to adhere as well.


I don't really agree. The approach to religion described by "fundamentalism" that I've seen used by people using the word seriously (and not just as a glib little pejorative) is one that still has some connection to the etymology of the word. The approach to religion described by "fundamentalism" does usually tend entail (often coercive) proselytism, but only because that proselytism is (perceived as) one of the fundamentals of the religions that tend to spawn the "fundamentalists" we are most familiar with. It is a return and rigid adherence to what are considered to be the fundamental aspects of a particular religion, be they a certain moral code, a particular dogma or a literalist interpretation of scriptures. Whether others might think these particular things are fundamental is largely irrelevant.

The attitudes of Christian, Islamic and (to a lesser extent) Jewish fundamentalists have come to define the word, unfortunately and it's probably inevitable that it will become just another useless trash word. Still, if one is going to simply start using to describe groups of people in a way that essentially implies that it means "attitudes I don't like", I'd at least like to see some real justification for it.

Any time a scientist claims to be able to investigate or disprove the supernatural (the truly supernatural, not just the as-yet-unknown natural) with science, I have to wonder at his expertise. Making such a claim requires a lack of understanding of the scientific method, its uses, and its limitations.


I'm presuming you have an open mind about the following then: Pixies, unicorns, ESP, Odin, leprachauns, vampires, werewolves &c.

I'm presuming you have an open mind about the following then: Pixies, unicorns, ESP, Odin, leprachauns, vampires, werewolves &c.

Do you think she shouldn't?

Do you think she shouldn't?

Is there a positive case to be made for their existence?