Do you believe in A God?

AtomicHorror

0utpost31 wrote: »

Anyone who believes in a God in the traditional sense is missing some important part of their brain. Their ma's probably smoked 40 major a day when they were pregnant.

That's a little unfair. Most of the world is religious. If you take "crazy" do be deviation from the norm, we're the nutters and not them.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

L.O.L

you suggested that you disagree with some of dawkin's arguments but won't give any examples. instead you want him to go through all of dawkin's works looking for arguments that you might be likely to disagree with and keep posting likely looking ones until he happens across one that you disagree with?

reminds me of the father ted episode where mrs. doyle spent hours trying to guess someone's name

well these dawkins fans dont like to be precise - so i thought he should work for the argument.

Tar.Aldarion

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's a little unfair. Most of the world is religious. If you take "crazy" do be deviation from the norm, we're the nutters and not them.

How about missing basic logic reasoning when it comes to belief in dieties, which is commonly ingrained from birth?

CDfm

nij wrote: »

Dawkins isn't the only mainstream atheist you know. It seems that you're trying to subtley turn the tables and make out the atheists are the ones with their heads screwed on backwards.

Certainly not.

I have no real problems with a lot of Dawkins works - in fact lots of the ideas are not new.

Something that does annoy me is that he puts forward his views on religion and philosophy and these are not fields which- and I am open to correction - that he has done any major academic work in. I have never said he is not intelligient or not qualified - just not in theology or philosophy.

I also feel that in his writings originally he used a phrase a phrase - faith deluded or something which immediately set his stall as anti-religion and belief. Whatever it was it was pejorative.

On some of his hypotheses he goes further and replaces a belief in God etc with what he calls "meme" a cultural gene of some type- has no explanation for anything before the big bang etc but can say with certainty no God. Others have said that the universe is far to complex a place to hold such certainty.

On the question of creationism - many of his supporters use creationist and its derivatives as defining mainstream christianity. I disagree with creationism. I dont know any creationists personally and to the best of my knowledge have never met one.Yet his brand of atheism targets all believers as deluded half-wits and creationists.Of course if some Christians find this a teeny bit offensive -I wonder why.

Then again, Einstein believed in God so we might be in good company there.

On Dawkins atheism etc - it seems to me that he uses it as a selling point for his books. He is a proffessor but has made another career of being a professional atheist and has made a lot of money out of it. Whats his motivation - I dont know maybe to sell more books than Hawking or to write a theory of everything (Hawking couldnt).

But then again it could be ego or when he was made Professor of Popular Science - he stops at the Popular.

MooseJam

666 posts what a coincidence

5uspect

CDfm wrote: »

Then again, Einstein believed in God so we might be in good company there.

No, he didn't.

Albert Einstein wrote:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Something that does annoy me is that he puts forward his views on religion and philosophy and these are not fields which- and I am open to correction - that he has done any major academic work in. I have never said he is not intelligient or not qualified - just not in theology or philosophy.

I have no Theological qualifications but I still expect what I say to be judged on its own merits rather than an all encompassing dismissal.

I also feel that in his writings originally he used a phrase a phrase - faith deluded or something which immediately set his stall as anti-religion and belief. Whatever it was it was pejorative.

Of course he uses perjorative words. He's not a journalist, he's got an opinion and he's forwarding that opinion.

On some of his hypotheses he goes further and replaces a belief in God etc with what he calls "meme" a cultural gene of some type

Memes are a theory by which we can explain the transmission of ideas in society. Religious beliefs being some of the most successfully transmitted ideas. He doesn't "replace" anything.

has no explanation for anything before the big bang etc but can say with certainty no God. Others have said that the universe is far to complex a place to hold such certainty.

No, he doesn't maintain that there is no God, he merely states that the existence of God is so unlikely that to believe in His existence is irrational.

Yet his brand of atheism targets all believers as deluded half-wits and creationists.

No, he targets Creationists as purveyors of anti-science and other believers as irrational. Or deluded half-wits if you like, but you used that term, not Dawkins or I.

Then again, Einstein believed in God so we might be in good company there.

No he didn't.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " - Albert Einstein

Whats his motivation - I dont know maybe to sell more books than Hawking or to write a theory of everything (Hawking couldnt).

Theory of Everything is a physicists thing, so I doubt Dawkins is going for that. His motivations are money, popularising science, and enabling religious believers and those on the fence to discard their irrational beliefs.

Zillah

Oh hell CDfm, lets just be honest here. Dawkins gives out about religion and you as a religious believer don't like that, so you'll bitch and whine about him and you don't really care what you're saying as long as you're complaining about him.

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

Hugely - my problem with Wiccans is the dancing naked in the woods or in Tara.This is Ireland and you could catch a nasty cold if ya did that.

How does a person dance in Tara ?
Never heard of anyone dancing naked on or at Tara.

Myxomatosis

Who cares what Dawkins or anybody else says.

Do people not have enough brain power to come to the conclusion all by themselves that there is nothing more than this?

No greater being, no after life, no great purpose to life. Bill Hicks put it perfectly with "We're a virus with shoes."

I feel superior and more evolved than people who believe in God

AtomicHorror

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

How about missing basic logic reasoning when it comes to belief in dieties, which is commonly ingrained from birth?

I dunno about that. Science was born in the context of religion, after all. We certainly once needed it. Perhaps we don't now, but these things don't have a quick off switch.

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

POst one and I will tell you if I agree or not.

I think it would be a far more efficient use of both my time and yours if you specify one of Dawkins' arguments with which you disagree; I'm afraid I don't have time to provide you with a synopsis of his work.

CDfm wrote: »

All I am saying if you dont believe in God and post a reason...

Very well; I don't believe in a god because there is no reliable evidence that any exist.

CDfm wrote: »

Many wont post here because they feel atheist posters are not precise enough...

This coming from someone who dismisses Dawkins' writings without actually specifying what you are actually in disagreement with.

CDfm wrote: »

well these dawkins fans dont like to be precise...

Rich coming from you. I don't recall saying I was a "Dawkins fan".

CDfm wrote: »

Something that does annoy me is that he puts forward his views on religion and philosophy and these are not fields which- and I am open to correction - that he has done any major academic work in.

I doubt many (if any) of the posters on this thread are theologians - does that invalidate their opinions?

Zillah

Myxomatosis wrote: »

I feel superior and more evolved than people who believe in God

Ironically you appear to not understand evolution.

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

Ironically you appear to not understand evolution.

Indeed. It doesn't really keep score. We're all offspring of survivors. I guess if you've had kids, you're "winning", but that's still no guarantee your genes will be around in three generations time. :pac:

Myxomatosis

Zillah wrote: »

Ironically you appear to not understand evolution.

Really, care to enlighten me?

AtomicHorror

Myxomatosis wrote: »

Really, care to enlighten me?

Basically, there's nothing in evolution that says that atheism makes anyone "superior and more evolved" than anyone else.

Myxomatosis

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Basically, there's nothing in evolution that says that atheism makes anyone "superior and more evolved" than anyone else.

Right.

I said I FEEL superior and more evolved.

Zillah

Myxomatosis wrote: »

I said I FEEL superior and more evolved.

Even though you know you're not? Also ironic; you display the religious trait of cognitive dissonance.

ChewChew

I believed untill I was 12 or something. That God dude made me one rich gal. oh and now I feel it's appropriate to thank my friends and family for contributing to my richness.

I no longer believe. But I will only once more. . . whenever, if ever, I get married. I will only accept cash gifts.

Myxomatosis

Zillah wrote: »

Even though you know you're not? Also ironic; you display the religious trait of cognitive dissonance.

It was an off the cuff remark to round off my post. You should hold back a little on the pulling of non nonsensical conclusions from your arse.

CDfm

5uspect wrote: »

No, he didn't.

I may be mistaken but I read somewhere that while he didnt believe in a personal god as such he believed in a Cosmic Power of some type. So my reason for including him was simply to be more inclusive and not to exclude anyone whatever their notion of God is. And to allow dont knows to have a say - after all this is an inclusive discussion is it not?.

SnowMonkey

we all no the truth......

jesous was a smart man who new lots of dumb people...

CDfm

Zillah -I have seen it posted else and it may not be by you but Dawkins has never denied the existence of God per se -simply deems it unlikely given the complexity of the universe- is that a correct appraisal of his position? And on the basis that it is unlikely therefore goes on to dismiss it -again is this correct. If not can you please explain.

I have responded to your comment on Einstein as it was posted by someone else also and I want to avoid duplication.

AS you can guess I am not a scientist or theologan - but the idea of "meme" is not new and is pretty much under researched. Am I missing something or is this a central issue or not to account for the belief in god developing cross cultural lines or not?

AS you can see I am relying on you to outline your position as you mentioned Dawkins and yourself together I imagine you have some kind of competance to elaborate on these points with authority.

No getting back to the other issues - I am still mystified as to why an atheist who is not a Proffessor in Theology and whose primary argumenent is with creationists address arguments to non creationists and not deal with creationists directly.I can understand that he thinks their arguments irrational but you can understand how some might feel its a hollow publicity stunt.

Also - in his journalism you accept that he is insulting to christians and people who hold any belief and you have no problem with that. I also feel that adherents take the same view on any debate that questions this approach even when their comments are gratuitous or insulting see nothing wrong with it.

Surely this stifles or fraustrates debate rather than fosters it and is more appropriate in a cult situation than in academic discussion?

5uspect

CDfm wrote: »

I may be mistaken but I read somewhere that while he didnt believe in a personal god as such he believed in a Cosmic Power of some type. So my reason for including him was simply to be more inclusive and not to exclude anyone whatever their notion of God is. And to allow dont knows to have a say - after all this is an inclusive discussion is it not?.

You could probably call Einstein Pantheistic which is more of a general awe at the structure of the cosmos, Dawkins covers it in chapter 1 of the God Delusion.

Doesn't mean Einstein was right tho.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Zillah -I have seen it posted else and it may not be by you but Dawkins has never denied the existence of God per se -simply deems it unlikely given the complexity of the universe- is that a correct appraisal of his position? And on the basis that it is unlikely therefore goes on to dismiss it -again is this correct. If not can you please explain.

I'm sure he's made comments along the lines of "God does not exist", but that would be a simplistic summary of his position. Your account above is quite accurate, he deems the existence of God to be so unlikely as to justify considering claims to the contrary to be false. In the same way you would dismiss the notion of there being Goblins in your fridge - technically we don't have 100% proof but its a perfectly rational conclusion.

AS you can guess I am not a scientist or theologan - but the idea of "meme" is not new and is pretty much under researched. Am I missing something or is this a central issue or not to account for the belief in god developing cross cultural lines or not?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking me.

No getting back to the other issues - I am still mystified as to why an atheist who is not a Proffessor in Theology and whose primary argumenent is with creationists address arguments to non creationists and not deal with creationists directly.

As an evolutionary biologist his main gripe is with Creationists. He has indeed spent a huge deal of time and effort addressing them, writing books to counter their pseudo-science, making countless talks and television appearances.

However, following on from that, he is also a very well read/educated man who believes all religious belief is irrational and has taken in upon himself to make some headway towards a secular world.

Again, I'd suggest it would only be fair to be specific as to which of his arguments you contest, as opposed to making unfairly broad dismissals based on the fact that he lacks a degree in theology.

I can understand that he thinks their arguments irrational but you can understand how some might feel its a hollow publicity stunt.

Is it really so hard to believe that he might be a concerned scientist who thinks religion is dangerous and unnecessary, and wants to do something to counter it?

Also - in his journalism

He's not a journalist.

you accept that he is insulting to christians and people who hold any belief and you have no problem with that. I also feel that adherents take the same view on any debate that questions this approach even when their comments are gratuitous or insulting see nothing wrong with it.

I believe that if something is worth saying then its worth saying, regardless of who might be upset.

Granted, one of the criticisms that has been leveled at Dawkins is that his abrasive demeanor is occasionally detrimental to his stated goals. But that said, there's only so many ways to tell someone you think their cherished lifelong belief system is a pile of lies.

Surely this stifles or fraustrates debate rather than fosters it and is more appropriate in a cult situation than in academic discussion?

One of the foundations of a successful argument is to leave your opponent with a way out that allows them to save face. So yes, under certain circumstances a more gentle approach could be more successful, but we must consider the broader context. For the first time we have a large number of respected, educated intellectuals speaking out against the very foundations of religious belief. That religious mentality has utterly dominated Western thinking for millennia. It could be argued that respect for faith/religion is so ingrained in society, that it has been so respected and privileged, that such shock tactics might be necessary in this early stage.

I for one thinks its great that people like Dawkins are making it clear that not only is it ok to not cower before religion, but to stand right up against it and give it the finger.

20goto10

CDfm wrote: »

I may be mistaken but I read somewhere that while he didnt believe in a personal god as such he believed in a Cosmic Power of some type. So my reason for including him was simply to be more inclusive and not to exclude anyone whatever their notion of God is. And to allow dont knows to have a say - after all this is an inclusive discussion is it not?.

No he didn't believe in God. Scientists would often use the word God to describe the laws of nature or the forces behind it all where a suitable name was not available. Some scientists still do but its becoming an unpopular phrase nowadays as it gets latch on to by creationists.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I'm sure he's made comments along the lines of "God does not exist", but that would be a simplistic summary of his position. Your account above is quite accurate, he deems the existence of God to be so unlikely as to justify considering claims to the contrary to be false. In the same way you would dismiss the notion of there being Goblins in your fridge - technically we don't have 100% proof but its a perfectly rational conclusion.



As an evolutionary biologist his main gripe is with Creationists. He has indeed spent a huge deal of time and effort addressing them, writing books to counter their pseudo-science, making countless talks and television appearances.


One of the foundations of a successful argument is to leave your opponent with a way out that allows them to save face. So yes, under certain circumstances a more gentle approach could be more successful,

I for one thinks its great that people like Dawkins are making it clear that not only is it ok to not cower before religion, but to stand right up against it and give it the finger.

So he doesnt dismiss the existence of God totally -thats a kind of sitting on a fence position wouldnt you think. Very Jesuit of him- I posted else where about the Doctrine of Equivocation - but I like keeping your fingered crossed behind your back a bit better.

AS far as I know Dawkins does not enter into direct dialogue with creationists - well woo hoo - lots of other people dont either. But his actions and writings seem to have done more to publisize creationism and give adherants more credibility than they would otherwise have had. There is now a creationist movement growing in the UK and a saw a letter in yesterdays Sunday Times asking for "evolutionism" to be taught in schools.

So in that sense Dawkins really is the Father of Creationism - having done more to promote it than anyone else. Nobody would have heard of creationism except for him.So you can see how some believers think of him( Dawkins) as a Wind Up Merchant.

So excuse me if I dont back away from people who take the Dawkins line because they are well scathing of mainstream beliefs and see nothing wrong with having a go.

I think everyone should slag of Dawkins at least once a day - its great fun - ordinary mainstream christians shouldnt be afraid of their arguments.It could become an adjective when some is being loud unreasonable and irrational we could say " thats a bit Dawkins" isnt it. A Dawkins joke book would be nice- I would send mine away for his autograph.

I imagine the Archbishop Of Canterburies wife says that to him when his a bit out of sorts " come on no Rowan -you are just being Dawkins"( loud and unreasonable).

A Dawkins Debate must be fun loads of people with their hands over their ears going LaLALA WE are not listening to you. Its very versatile used that way dont you think- that its also true should be embarrassing - but you dont seem to think so.

CDfm

20goto10 wrote: »

No he didn't believe in God. Scientists would often use the word God to describe the laws of nature or the forces behind it all where a suitable name was not available. Some scientists still do but its becoming an unpopular phrase nowadays as it gets latch on to by creationists.

Thats a bit clear cut statement for Einstein and you know his thoughts on it were more complex . Scientists should be afraid of having a god belief.

Einstein and his friends didnt - check this out or just Google Einstein and God

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

20goto10

CDfm wrote: »

Thats a bit clear cut statement for Einstein and you know his thoughts on it were more complex . Scientists should be afraid of having a god belief.

Einstein and his friends didnt - check this out or just Google Einstein and God

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

To be honest I find that site unreadable. And just because its on the web doesn't make it true.

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

So he doesnt dismiss the existence of God totally -thats a kind of sitting on a fence position wouldnt you think.

Not really. Stating that the possibility of a god existing and the possibility of no god existing are both equally likely would be sitting on the fence.

CDfm wrote: »

AS far as I know Dawkins does not enter into direct dialogue with creationists…

As far as I know, he has.

CDfm wrote: »

So in that sense Dawkins really is the Father of Creationism - having done more to promote it than anyone else. Nobody would have heard of creationism except for him.

If nobody had heard of Creationism before Richard Dawkins came along, then he would hardly have felt the need to address it, would he?

CDfm wrote: »

So excuse me if I dont back away from people who take the Dawkins line because they are well scathing of mainstream beliefs and see nothing wrong with having a go.

I think everyone should slag of Dawkins at least once a day - its great fun - ordinary mainstream christians shouldnt be afraid of their arguments.It could become an adjective when some is being loud unreasonable and irrational we could say " thats a bit Dawkins" isnt it. A Dawkins joke book would be nice- I would send mine away for his autograph.

I imagine the Archbishop Of Canterburies wife says that to him when his a bit out of sorts " come on no Rowan -you are just being Dawkins"( loud and unreasonable).

A Dawkins Debate must be fun loads of people with their hands over their ears going LaLALA WE are not listening to you. Its very versatile used that way dont you think- that its also true should be embarrassing - but you dont seem to think so.

Still waiting for you to highlight some statement of his with which you disagree. I’m guessing that you can’t, hence the ranting?