Interview with DNA

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Comparing the cultural phenomenon of Religion with folk superstitions is not fair.

Says who?

Can you not see the hypocracy of complaining about dismissing one form of supernatural belief while at the same time you are dismissing another.

At least I'm dismissing all equally, you are saying some supernatural beliefs are valid and important and some are not. I fail to see the logic behind that? As Samb asked, how many people have to believe in something before you consider it a valid concept? 1000 years ago everyone believed in dragons

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You have, indirectly, most coming from psychology, history and biology. Basically we have a pretty good understanding of why and how humans would invent the concept of a "god". Tie that in with the fact that we have no observations that "god" exists at all.

If you have too explinations for something, and one is backed by science logic and understanding and the other is backed by nothing except human imagination, then I tend to side with the one backed by science.

Its the reason why I accept evolution over the competting idea of 6,000 year old Earth created by God in the Bible. We have no direct observable proof that God didn't change everything around to make it look like the world is billions of years old (as some cretionists claim he would), but then again why would we accept that as a possibility in the first place?

In other words, we don't actually have any observations that there is no God. What we do have is a competing naturalistic 'theory' that fits the 'psychological profile' of the victim. However, this is not based on evidence, either, but is in turn based on other theories - it represents a synthesis of various psychological theories, none of which are proven.

I don't see that we have any evidence from history or biology....although I would certainly consider that the evidence from those fields would go against the specifically Judeo-Christian (really, fundamentalist Protestant) God. Do you think there's enough evidence in there to dismiss all possible gods, or are you specifically a Christian atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Says who?

Can you not see the hypocracy of complaining about dismissing one form of supernatural belief while at the same time you are dismissing another.

At least I'm dismissing all equally, you are saying some supernatural beliefs are valid and important and some are not. I fail to see the logic behind that? As Samb asked, how many people have to believe in something before you consider it a valid concept? 1000 years ago everyone believed in dragons

There is no hypocrisy on my part. Unfounded folk superstition such as dragons and fairies cannot be compared to a documented and world changing set of events as laid out in the bible. Whatever way you want to look at it the bible is a historical document, probably one of the best we have. Something happened in the middle east about 2000 years ago that changed the world they lived in and the world we live in. Something people willingly laid down their lives for over and over again because they believed in it so much. How can you compare that to stories about dragons and fairies ... can you not see how silly that is?

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Do you think there's enough evidence in there to dismiss all possible gods, or are you specifically a Christian atheist?

That just reminded me of a good comment I've heard - atheists just believe in one less god than Christians (or any monotheist for that matter).

robindch

> atheists just believe in one less god than Christians

That's something that Dawkins has produced from time to time. The full quote's something like:

With the exception of their own deity or deities, religious people deny the existence of all the gods that have ever been said to exist in human culture. All I do is to go one step further and suggest that their specific one or ones may not exist either

CodeMonkey

Playboy wrote:

There is no hypocrisy on my part. Unfounded folk superstition such as dragons and fairies cannot be compared to a documented and world changing set of events as laid out in the bible. Whatever way you want to look at it the bible is a historical document, probably one of the best we have. Something happened in the middle east about 2000 years ago that changed the world they lived in and the world we live in. Something people willingly laid down their lives for over and over again because they believed in it so much. How can you compare that to stories about dragons and fairies ... can you not see how silly that is?

I'd argue that as a historical document, the bible is probably the worst you can have. It's self contradictory, full of stories and not facts, it's vague and open to intepretations and it's been translated and mistranslated hundreds of times. The bible at best contains references to something that happened 2000 years ago with a lot of insight into ancient cultures.

Playboy

CodeMonkey wrote:

I'd argue that as a historical document, the bible is probably the worst you can have. It's self contradictory, full of stories and not facts, it's vague and open to intepretations and it's been translated and mistranslated hundreds of times. The bible at best contains references to something that happened 2000 years ago with a lot of insight into ancient cultures.

According to Christians the bible is not self contradictory at all if you have the proper understanding of Christian theology. As for it being full of stories and not facts well I would presume that it would be hard to verify the authenticity of any 'facts' in ancient documents.

Yossie

robindch wrote:

> atheists just believe in one less god than Christians

That's something that Dawkins has produced from time to time. The full quote's something like:

This guy claims he's the originator of ...

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts

He gives a history of the qoute here.
http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm

Either way it's a nice little quote.:D

coffee_cake

The bible does mention unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices, and giants...

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Whatever way you want to look at it the bible is a historical document, probably one of the best we have.

Actually the Bible is one of the worst documents we have, from a historical point of view.

The New Testemant was a propaganda piece for a small religion (which at the time was a small cult) which was written decades (if not a hundred years) after the events it attempts to describe, and also from at least 4 different view points.

We can see from the problems of the spread of mis-information (asylum seekers with BMWs, aliens landing in Texas, etc) in this technologically advanced age that 2000 years ago the effects would have been much greater.

It would be very foolish to take anything in the Bible alone as historically accurate in any form.

Playboy wrote:

Something happened in the middle east about 2000 years ago that changed the world they lived in and the world we live in.

Something "happens" that changes the world every day. The reasons for the spread and eventual world wide popularity of Christianity are long and complicated, but also very much grounded in real world events, such as the conversion of the Roman empire, the spread of Europe etc. It is not a sign of any significance. Before Chritianity the Roman and Greek religions had spread through out the world. Not to mention the Asian ones.

Playboy wrote:

Something people willingly laid down their lives for over and over again because they believed in it so much.

Thats great Playboy but it has no bearing on the validity of the belief. People were/are willing to execute children because they believed they were possessed by the devil or have turned into witches. Does that mean they probably were?

Playboy wrote:

How can you compare that to stories about dragons and fairies ... can you not see how silly that is?

As i said, there was a time when people took the concept of witches, dragons, fairies etc very very seriously. We don't now, put in parts of the world they still do. Hell Christian fundamentalists in the USA want Harry Potter banned because it promotes the black arts.

You would probably say that is nonsense. But what is the difference? I think what is in the Bible is nonsense, despite the fact millions believe it is true. But then there was a time when millions believed in witch craft, and dragons.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

That just reminded me of a good comment I've heard - atheists just believe in one less god than Christians (or any monotheist for that matter).

Its a good point, and something I wonder do agnostics seriously consider.

If someone is not prepared to say they are atheist with relation to the Judo/Christian concept of a single divine entity, are they also not prepared to say they are atheist in relation to the idea of Zeus living at the top of mount olympus with his extended family of gods demi-gods and giants who constantly meddle in the affairs of mortals?

I think people should ask themselves why they even consider some human ideas of the concept of God as valid, but not others.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

That just reminded me of a good comment I've heard - atheists just believe in one less god than Christians (or any monotheist for that matter).

On the other hand, we believe in a whole load less gods than Hindus! Except of course at the more esoteric levels of Hinduism, where it becomes monotheism again.

The only Creator I have any difficulty in dismissing as either ridiculous or at least unworshippable is the Sun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Actually the Bible is one of the worst documents we have, from a historical point of view.

The New Testemant was a propaganda piece for a small religion (which at the time was a small cult) which was written decades (if not a hundred years) after the events it attempts to describe, and also from at least 4 different view points.

We can see from the problems of the spread of mis-information (asylum seekers with BMWs, aliens landing in Texas, etc) in this technologically advanced age that 2000 years ago the effects would have been much greater.

It would be very foolish to take anything in the Bible alone as historically accurate in any form.

In your opinion Wicknight. The historical accuracy of the bible is huge and widely debated issue and afaik most historians do consider the bible to be a very important historical document whether they are Biblical maximalists or Biblical minimalists.

Wicknight wrote:

Something "happens" that changes the world every day. The reasons for the spread and eventual world wide popularity of Christianity are long and complicated, but also very much grounded in real world events, such as the conversion of the Roman empire, the spread of Europe etc. It is not a sign of any significance. Before Chritianity the Roman and Greek religions had spread through out the world. Not to mention the Asian ones.

If you take a closer look at the spread of christianity in the middle east and into the roman empire you will see that it is a very unusual event. From the conviction of peoples beliefs and their willingless to die for their beliefs to eventual adoption of it as a state religion in the roman empire, christianity was an extremely significant event in comparison to other religions. Other religions co-existed side by side in the roman empire for hundreds of years and none of them had the influence Christianity had.

Wicknight wrote:

Thats great Playboy but it has no bearing on the validity of the belief. People were/are willing to execute children because they believed they were possessed by the devil or have turned into witches. Does that mean they probably were?

Wicknight how many christians willingly died for the beliefs in the roman empire? Ask yourself why? People can very easily kill other people when they believe they are possessed by devils or withces but it is quite unusual for people to sacrifice themselves on such a scale.

Wicknight wrote:

You would probably say that is nonsense. But what is the difference? I think what is in the Bible is nonsense, despite the fact millions believe it is true. But then there was a time when millions believed in witch craft, and dragons.

A belief system is not the same as a superstition. People are superstitous and can be frightened into believing in fairies etc. Religions are large, organised, and meaningful systems which people devote their entire lives to. There is a huge gulf between those 2 concepts. Whether they are both figments of peoples imagination is irrelevant .. you cannot treat them the same if you want to interact with religious people and get them to see a different point of view. My whole point is that if you are a serious atheist or agnostic and you want to really change peoples minds about what you consider the falsity of their beliefs then you have to engage with them on their level and show a certain amount of respect for the beliefs or else you will get no where. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of what I am talking about. He is much too aggressive and is too dismissive of peoples beliefs. If he understood theology and tried to engage with people respectfully in order to change their minds then maybe he might achieve something. Instead all he does is drive a wedge between 2 camps with people slinging mud at each other. There is never any progress made. The last thing we should want in the western secular world is for someone puting out the message that science and religion are mutually exclusive, nevermind that person being the professor for the public understanding of science at one of the best universities in the world. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive and we should be trying to bring people together instead of driving them apart

Anyway thats just my 2c .. I have study to do.

Scofflaw

Whether they are both figments of peoples imagination is irrelevant .. you cannot treat them the same if you want to interact with religious people and get them to see a different point of view. My whole point is that if you are a serious atheist or agnostic and you want to really change peoples minds about what you consider the falsity of their beliefs then you have to engage with them on their level and show a certain amount of respect for the beliefs or else you will get no where. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of what I am talking about. He is much too aggressive and is too dismissive of peoples beliefs. If he understood theology and tried to engage with people respectfully in order to change their minds then maybe he might achieve something. Instead all he does is drive a wedge between 2 camps with people slinging mud at each other. There is never any progress made. The last thing we should want in the western secular world is for someone puting out the message that science and religion are mutually exclusive, nevermind that person being the professor for the public understanding of science at one of the best universities in the world. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive and we should be trying to bring people together instead of driving them apart

Good point. On the other hand, I've never yet come across a situation in which I would feel like changing a theist's mind. Why on earth would one?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

afaik most historians do consider the bible to be a very important historical document whether they are Biblical maximalists or Biblical minimalists

It is a very important document, but that doesn't mean it is in any way accurate, and there are far more accurate documents from that time. AFAIK there are offical Roman records describing the execution of Christ, which would be far more trust worthy (not 100% about this, it was just something we were told in school).

Playboy wrote:

From the conviction of peoples beliefs and their willingless to die for their beliefs to eventual adoption of it as a state religion in the roman empire, christianity was an extremely significant event in comparison to other religions.

Not really sure where you are getting this from Playboy. Buddiest monks were prepared to set themselves on fire during the Vietnam war in protest. Modern day Islamic martyrs are prepared to kill themselves a long with a lot of others, for there religion, seemingly at a whim. I see very little in the history of Christianity that makes it stand out with regard the willingness of the followers to die or kill for their beliefs.

Every religion, from the small cults to the large modern religions have people prepared to die from it.

Playboy wrote:

A belief system is not the same as a superstition.

True, but Christianity is a belief system based on superstition. Read any passage of the Old Testement to see an example. It may give moral codes but these moral codes are based on rather accient superstitions and myths that were used to control and justify the moral code.

Playboy wrote:

My whole point is that if you are a serious atheist or agnostic and you want to really change peoples minds about what you consider the falsity of their beliefs then you have to engage with them on their level and show a certain amount of respect for the beliefs or else you will get no where.

A - I don't have any desire to change anyones minds with regard to theism

B - It is a bit of a contraction to say that to change a theist mind about something I have to take their supernatural beliefs seriously. If I did that i would probably be a theist myself.

pH

Playboy wrote:

A belief system is not the same as a superstition. People are superstitous and can be frightened into believing in fairies etc. Religions are large, organised, and meaningful systems which people devote their entire lives to. There is a huge gulf between those 2 concepts. Whether they are both figments of peoples imagination is irrelevant ..

Large and organised maybe, but you can't just chuck 'meaningful' in there. On the whole people are frightened and bullied into conforming and 'believing' just like a superstition.

Wicknight how many christians willingly died for the beliefs in the roman empire? Ask yourself why? People can very easily kill other people when they believe they are possessed by devils or withces but it is quite unusual for people to sacrifice themselves on such a scale.

By that reckoning (in % terms) Jim Jones must have been the true messiah, he managed to get almost 100% of his followers to sacrifice themselves. Heavens Gate was probably the 3rd coming?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540209.stm

Dades

Playboy, I agree with the responsibility to respect beliefs in a debate And I also agree that Dawkins has a somewhat in your face style of getting his message across.

But there is only one place a debate between atheists and theists will end up. You can toss softballs back and forth but ultimately the debate will turn to belief in an invisible being, at which point analogys and comparisons will be made. The possibility that comparisons with unicorns etc. may be perceived as insulting isn't a reason to mute them. They fact that they sound ridiculous doesn't mean believe in religion is ridiculous - its the history or fact behind the belief that's relevant to the comparison.

Scofflaw

Belief in ghosts would be a better analogy. Many theists will say "I have experienced God", and what does the atheist say then? "Sorry, mate, you're deluded" is about our best riposte, but it's not one that's going to win any friends, is it?

Comparisons with dragons and unicorns are absurd, because you are not going to meet someone on the street who says they've personally experienced them (and if you did, you'd probably be backing away slowly, so as not to alarm them). On the other hand, chuck a brick in any major shopping street and there's a decent chance you'll hit a theist who has "personally experienced God", or someone who's "seen a ghost", or knows someone who has.

The whole dragons/unicorns thing is too obviously ridiculous (more's the pity) to be useful. I for one find it really tedious, and the same goes for the ruddy teapot. All it shows is that you can regurgitate someone else's thought.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

The possibility that comparisons with unicorns etc. may be perceived as insulting isn't a reason to mute them.

Agreed

And ironically it is only insulting because the thesist believes one is worthy of serious respect and consideration and the other is ridiculous. Which, as I pointed out before, is hypocritical.

At least the naturalist/Atheist is being consistent. From the point of view of an atheist both ideas are ridiculous. That doesn't change just because a million people belive in one and not the other.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

The whole dragons/unicorns thing is too obviously ridiculous (more's the pity) to be useful. I for one find it really tedious, and the same goes for the ruddy teapot. All it shows is that you can regurgitate someone else's thought.

But these trotted out analogys are the very essence of when atheist do not believe. Be it unicorns or ghosts, or the orbiting teapot. There is no rule that says new reasons to disbelieve must be produced every time. If the comparisions were addressed as opposed to beng called ridiculous then they could be put to bed.

People don't believe now dragons exist for the exact same reason atheists don't believe in gods.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The whole dragons/unicorns thing is too obviously ridiculous (more's the pity) to be useful.

Thats the point, it supposed to be obviously ridiculous.

For the point to be made you have to pick something that the vast vast majority of people no longer take seriously or believe in.

If you attempted to do it with something like Ghosts, as you say you are going to run into the problem that a lot of people still believe in ghosts, so using that as an example of something someone should know is not real is going to run into trouble.

If, instead of saying "You can be certain a dragon isn't going to fall on your head" I said "You can be certain a ghost isn't about to walk up to you" a lot of people would actually say "Well hold on a minute, I believe in ghosts, it might walk up to me" and then you are straight back to square one.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

People don't believe now dragons exist for the exact same reason atheists don't believe in gods.

And, more importantly for this discussion, most people are not agnostic about dragons. Most know/are certain they don't exist, even though no observable scientific proof has ever been presented that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that dragons don't exist.

So the question is for people who know dragons don't exist (atheists when it comes to dragons) but are agnostic about gods. Why one but not the other?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Thats the point, it supposed to be obviously ridiculous.

For the point to be made you have to pick something that the vast vast majority of people no longer take seriously or believe in.

If you attempted to do it with something like Ghosts, as you say you are going to run into the problem that a lot of people still believe in ghosts, so using that as an example of something someone should know is not real is going to run into trouble.

If, instead of saying "You can be certain a dragon isn't going to fall on your head" I said "You can be certain a ghost isn't about to walk up to you" a lot of people would actually say "Well hold on a minute, I believe in ghosts, it might walk up to me" and then you are straight back to square one.

So you pick something that virtually on-one believes in (dragons) to contrast with something that, in fact, most people believe in (God), to illustrate the folly of their belief. Unfortunately, no-one who believes in God will see the comparison there - and judging by this thread, neither will a lot of atheists and agnostics.

You avoid the comparison between two things that most people believe in, both of which are equally irrational (ghosts and God), because this "weakens" your argument, when your argument is supposed to be that belief in God is irrational, no matter what "personal experience of God" someone may have.

I'm sorry - you can't just pick something out of a hat and say "this is unlikely, therefore you should not believe in God", unless that something actually relates to the likelihood of the existence of God, which dragons don't (and ghosts do, in most people's eyes). On top of this, you'll have a much harder time demonstrating the non-existence of dragons than you will debunking the apparent existence of ghosts - you can say "you believe in ghosts, but pick a 'ghost' that's been investigated and you'll find that it's been disproven, or that there's a scientific explanation - oh, and by the way, the same is true for God and Creationism".

That the argument from dragons is ridiculous makes it less useful, not more. It only works on those who already consider the existence of God ridiculous.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

You avoid the comparison between two things that most people believe in, both of which are equally irrational (ghosts and God)

But there is little point trying to contrast a common belief with another commonly held belief, even if I believe they are both irrational beliefs.

The only way to point out the irrationality or challange the rational of one belief is to compare it with a similar belief that most people now accept is irrational. It is only then will you get people comparing the two and challanging why they believe one is rational and the other is not.

I accept that you probably aren't going to get anywhere with someone who thinks they have a "connection" with God, where as they have never seen a dragon. But then I think someone like that is probably a lost cause when trying to have a serious discussion about the rationality of God and atheism, and as I said before I have no interest in trying to concert theists.

I am basically waiting for an agnostic or theist to attempt to explain in rational terms why they are sure there are no such thing as dragons but not sure there are no such thing as gods.

If someone wants to explain why they are sure there are no such things as ghosts but not sure there are no gods that will work too, but people in general are a lot less sure there are no ghosts than they are sure there are no dragons.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm sorry - you can't just pick something out of a hat and say "this is unlikely, therefore you should not believe in God", unless that something actually relates to the likelihood of the existence of God, which dragons don't (and ghosts do, in most people's eyes).

The point isn't that dragons relate to the existance of God. I am not attempting to show There are no dragons therefore there is no God

It is not the dragon itself that is important. It is the logic and reasoning that a person uses to determine that dragons aren't real. You know a dragon isn't about to fall on your head. You don't have proof for this, but you are still certain of that fact. How can that be? Why are you not an agnostic when it comes to dragons falling from the sky? (directing that as a general question Scofflaw, not necessarily for you but for any agnostic or theist reading)

The point is that dragons are a supernatural/fantasy entity from the human imagination, that the vast majority of people no longer accept are real, where as at one point in time they did.

And the real point is that "proof" that dragons are not real did not come along to change peoples opinions. Peoples opinions changed without this "proof"

The agnostics and theists on this board keep challanging the athiests with the line that no one can know for certain that there isn't a God, so without this proof the logical response is that we really should keep an open mind and at least accept that possibility that God might exist. That in my view is nonsense reasoning.

We (most people) don't accept the possibility that dragons exist, despite the fact that no one has ever proved, or even attempted to prove, that they don't and despite the fact that a few hundred years ago everyone accepted dragons existed. Why?

The point of the dragons is to try and get people to see why no one no longer accepts dragons are a plausable possibility, and to get them to challange why they cling on to the idea that gods might be a plausable possibility.

Scofflaw wrote:

On top of this, you'll have a much harder time demonstrating the non-existence of dragons than you will debunking the apparent existence of ghosts

Not really. You only have to go onto the paranormal board to see that a lot of people believe and accept the existance of ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

I know of no one who seriously accepts the existance of dragons as a possibiilty, except for a few mis-guided D&D nerds. Therefore, for this point, a dragon is a much better example to use than something like a ghost.

Scofflaw

Sure. I accept a lot of what you're saying. Still, though: I don't meet people every day who believe in dragons; there aren't great big dragon-worshipping (or dragon-proof) buildings in every city, town, and village across the planet; there isn't anyone on these boards arguing vehemently about whether those who don't believe in dragons will by punished eternally or just for a bit until they get better; and, perhaps more to the point, there never were. I don't think anyone in the West ever accepted dragons the way that people accept God, so the analogy just doesn't make sense to most people.

Plus a comparison between a great big fire-breathing reptile and a compassionate Creator is always going to look a bit odd.

regards,
Scofflaw

Playboy

I really dont have time for this but I will indulge you for a minute Wicknight.

Reason why people believe in God/Gods.

1. Historical Evidence

2. Emotional Evidence

3. God as an Explantion for the cause and complexity for life

4. God as an explantion for human consciousness and morality

5. God as hope for an after life

6. General Consensus of peers

7. God as a reason for existence.

8. God as an explantion of infinity.


Now the list could go on and on Wicknight and I'm not interested in a rebuttal of those reason as I am already well aware of them myself. The point is that people have these reasons for believing and many more. There is no reason for anybody to believe in Dragons. The analogy is redundant. God is used by religious people as an explanatory hypothesis .. dragons are not. Science cant answer all the questions of our existence and until it can people will use God as an explanation for those unanwsered questions. What type of God is irrelevant .. start seeing God as a tool used by people in order to fufill some need in their lives. That is why he has existed and still exists in many different forms all accross the world. You will find as I stated earlier that most agnostics are not sitting on the fence in regards to any specific God. Agnostic arose as a term that described people who believed that you could never know the reason/cause of existence.

Dades

Playboy, we're aware of those reasons for belief, and many of them are 'understandable', but they have little place in logical discussion.

At the risk of getting even more insulting (that really isn't my intention) the child and santa claus is probably the better analogy. The child believes because they are told he exists, it explains where the mystery gifts come from, and because they want to. But there comes a point where logic prevails and it becomes clear that santa is creation to get you to be good. Don't forget - he's gonna find out if you're naughty or nice. How can he deliver presents to every house in one night? And why is there a different santa in every shopping centre?

I think atheism to some is about that moment of admitting to yourself what you secretly suspected for a time.

Jeez I've really torn it now.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think anyone in the West ever accepted dragons the way that people accept God, so the analogy just doesn't make sense to most people.

Well thats not true. Dragons appear in nearly all western cultures dating back thousands of years. They were important creatures in many western religions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons#Dragons_in_world_mythology

But thats getting off the point. The point is people don't believe in them now. Why? What changed? When one understands that one will understand how an atheist can stand up and say he is certain there are no gods

Zombrex

I know perfectly well why people believing gods/dragons. The reasons are the same Playboy. The same reason why people believe in say the Judo/Christian god is the same reasons why people 1000 years ago believed in dragons, because it explains concepts in the world that we don't have proper explinations for. The reasons are exactly the same.

Playboy wrote:

The point is that people have these reasons for believing and many more. There is no reason for anybody to believe in Dragons.

So people only believe in something if they get something out of it. And people don't get anything out of believing in dragons any more, no explination for the natural world or pay off emtionally, so it doesn't make sense to believe in an illogical imaginatary entity any more since there is no reward or explination to be gained.

Thats fine Playboy, I totally understand why people believe in God. But, as I've said, it is not evidence or validity for the concept itself.

People used to believe in dragons. When that view of the world became increasingly illogical and nonsensical, and when people realised that they got nothing out of believing or fearing dragons anymore, they stopped.

Eventually I would imagine the same thing will happen with the idea of gods.

Playboy wrote:

God is used by religious people as an explanatory hypothesis .. dragons are not.

As I said, they were. They explained something that eventually no longer needed explaining. So people stopped believing in them. The same thing is happening with religion as a whole and specifically the concept of "gods". People are being to realise that wait a minute, things can be explained without gods, just as things could be explained without dragons.

Playboy wrote:

Science cant answer all the questions of our existence and until it can people will use God as an explanation for those unanwsered questions.

I have no doubt. But then that doesn't mean the explination is valid.

People seek easy "answers" (your term, not mine) to issues. They seek answers that make sense to them and their world view. A thousand years ago the concept of dragons explained a lot of things that people of the time did not understand. To some "God" explains things they don't understand or don't want to understand. But that is not evidence. It is not real. It is imagination.

Instead of thinking "umm, what caused this, i don't know" we think "ummm, something must have caused that, it must have been a God/ghost/fairy/dragon". We don't like not knowing or understanding so if we have a concept, no matter how illogical or invalid, that explains something we don't understand we fit it in. Its like bashing a jig-saw puzzle together without matching up the pieces. We end up with a picture, and the satisfaction that we have finished the jig-saw. But if you stand back you see the picture is in fact nonsense.

Playboy wrote:

Agnostic arose as a term that described people who believed that you could never know the reason/cause of existence.

We probably will never know the cause of something like the big bang. But then why is "god" being brought into it. You seem to be saying that agnostiscs are taking the open mind approach. But they aren't really, because they are keeping at the side lines an totally unjustifed and invalid explination. They are giving specially treatment to one illogical concept, when in fact nothing suggests there actually is a god, and logically the more we find out about biology and evolution and physics etc the more it suggests there is not a god or intelligence behind the universe (or if there is he is pretty stupid- i mean create life on earth, wait 4 billions years till we evolve into humans who spend most of their time killing each other. why on earth do that?)

There is a difference (a BIG, HUGE! difference) between saying "We don't know what caused this" and saying "We don't know what caused this, it might have been a god"

pH

Playboy wrote:

I really dont have time for this but I will indulge you for a minute Wicknight.

Reason why people believe in God/Gods.

1. Historical Evidence

2. Emotional Evidence

3. God as an Explantion for the cause and complexity for life

4. God as an explantion for human consciousness and morality

5. God as hope for an after life

6. General Consensus of peers

7. God as a reason for existence.

8. God as an explantion of infinity.


Now the list could go on and on Wicknight and I'm not interested in a rebuttal of those reason as I am already well aware of them myself. The point is that people have these reasons for believing and many more. There is no reason for anybody to believe in Dragons. The analogy is redundant.

Yea that dragon analogy is totally overused and redundant alright :

Theist : I believe in God because there is good historical evidence for his existance

Atheist : OMG Dude Dragons don't exist!

Theist : I believe in God because I can't believe that this life is all we have, there must be something more - an afterlife

Atheist : Surely you don't believe in Dragons (snigger)

I could go on ......

Let's be really clear here the 'Dragon Story' was used as a way of thinking about how to evaluate claims and the consideration of evidence.