Richard Dawkins

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

I was saying what he said isn't true.

No you weren't, you argued against something similar to, but not the same as, what he said.

While science can accept particles in the universe and spontaneous pop into existance (according to probability0 which isn't the same as "something out of nothing" it cant say anything at all but anything before the Planck time.

I'm not being smart, honestly, but is your first language English ?

Given mathematics is only a language used to formally describe scientific theories then mathematics can't either!

Wow, I'm sure there are many mathematicians who will be surprised to hear that.

Oh and please never say 'mathematics is only' again. Mathematics is the most important field of study we have, our civilisation owes its existence to mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics wrote:

Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.

There is debate over whether mathematical objects such as numbers and points exist naturally or are human creations. The mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions". Albert Einstein, on the other hand, stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

And I said we DON'T! We only can use mathematics to explain how it is possible to explain it for particles in the existing universe and not for the universe as a whole before the Planck time.

Maths can't explain something not in our existing universe ? Please see above.

I know about a time before which the universe can't be described by science and about a time zero before which the universe didn't exist.

How do you know it didn't exist ?

Seaneh

This thread has gone so far off topic I fully suspect a lot of you have forgotten what it was about.

I've read the God Delusion and I found it an extremely tiresome, self serving and entirely flawed collection of mis-logic and half truths.

Dawkins is a small man with a chip on his shoulder about something who mocks Christians for blindly having faith with one hand while being on the opposite side of the same spectrum himself. He does not listen to arguments which show holes in his philosophy and point out that his "science" does not always stand true to real science. He forces his opinion on the reader trying to bring them in a round about way to the same conclusion as himself with blatant miss-truths and fuzzy logic while offering no sound reason or argument for doing so.


Worthless literature and in no way fact based or scientific in approach or delivery.

His works are a collection of his opinions he presents as facts with no evidence.

Osgoodisgood

Seaneh wrote: »

This thread has gone so far off topic I fully suspect a lot of you have forgotten what it was about.

I've read the God Delusion and I found it an extremely tiresome, self serving and entirely flawed collection of mis-logic and half truths.

Dawkins is a small man with a chip on his shoulder about something who mocks Christians for blindly having faith with one hand while being on the opposite side of the same spectrum himself. He does not listen to arguments which show holes in his philosophy and point out that his "science" does not always stand true to real science. He forces his opinion on the reader trying to bring them in a round about way to the same conclusion as himself with blatant miss-truths and fuzzy logic while offering no sound reason or argument for doing so.


Worthless literature and in no way fact based or scientific in approach or delivery.

His works are a collection of his opinions he presents as facts with no evidence.

Did you read "the Greatest Show on Earth"?

Do your views above hold true in the case of this book as well?

Zulu

Seaneh wrote: »

This thread has gone so far off topic I fully suspect a lot of you have forgotten what it was about.

...a quality example of thread terrorism: hijacked!

krudler

His works are a collection of his opinions he presents as facts with no evidence.

Reminds me of another book, cant think of the title, think it begins with B, I'll look it up

thebaldsoprano

monosharp wrote: »

And who are you to dare suggest that my god, the almighty teapot, can't make universes ?

You didn't state that either:

a) that your teapot was a god
b) that it can make universes

I went with the reasonable assumption that teapots don't do these things. If you change the terms of the debate in an ad hoc manner like this, it becomes rather difficult to have a meaningful debate at all.

monosharp wrote: »

...

These are not the points.

The point is that someone is claiming that there is a supernatural omnipotent being that exists outside of our universe, that created our universe and that controls this universe.

Okay, that was point b, which I covered.

monosharp wrote: »

And that is no different regarding evidence or proof then me suggesting that there is a supernatural/natural omnipotent/stupid teapot/dog/unicorn/fairy/beach ball that exists outside our universe/somewhere very far away/somewhere we can't see them/detect them.

They're different to the extent in which we can approach the problem using probability. Just to clarify, I initially commented on Dawkins' use of Russel's Teapot, which is a bit more specific than the article you posted. It can be found in chapter 2 of 'The God Delusion'.

monosharp wrote: »

...
a) the universe spontaneously popped into existence -> is making an argument based on nothing. Its many times worse then saying "I don't know" because now your actually saying "I know without any evidence whatsoever".
b) God did it -> Same as above.

Okay, I did mention that there's a burden of proof for both options, not really sure what you're trying to say here. Although, the use of 'Big Bang' would've been a bit clearer on my part.

monosharp wrote: »

Most educated people who don't have a religion would say "I don't know how the Universe started, I don't even know if it had a beginning".

Maybe, but I'd guess at least some of them have read something about the Big Bang.

monosharp wrote: »

And not for a ?

thebaldsoprano wrote:

so I'd argue that that places a burden of proof on people putting forward idea a.

You included this quote as well, but obviously didn't read it. If you want to re-write your reply I'll gladly answer it, but there doesn't seem to be much point continuing with this one.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

No we don't! current mathematical interpretations can say nothing about anything before the planck time.

Yes, but it doesn't require to say anything before the planck time

If we were saying anything before the planck time we would be explaining what caused the random quantum fluctuation and the universe to pop into existence.

Which we aren't (cause it was GOD!! :P)

monosharp

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

You didn't state that either:

a) that your teapot was a god
b) that it can make universes

Whether the almighty teapot, may he pour forth life from his teapotty goodness, can create universes or not is not the point.

whether my teapot is a god or not is not the point.

We are talking about proof of its existence. You think that the existence of god is more 'probable' then a teapot floating in space ? Please explain why ?

I went with the reasonable assumption that teapots don't do these things.

Not the point.

If you change the terms of the debate in an ad hoc manner like this, it becomes rather difficult to have a meaningful debate at all.

I didn't mean to change it at all. Lets stick to Russells teapot then. Please explain why it is more/less improbable then a god or gods?

They're different to the extent in which we can approach the problem using probability.

How so ?

Okay, I did mention that there's a burden of proof for both options, not really sure what you're trying to say here. Although, the use of 'Big Bang' would've been a bit clearer on my part.

I think you need to read up on the big bang. The big bang doesn't claim to explain how the Universe started, the big bang explains how the universe evolved to the state its currently in from another state we currently don't know about.

Wiki wrote:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.

Maybe, but I'd guess at least some of them have read something about the Big Bang.

Which doesn't say the universe just popped into existence. The Big Bang Theory says nothing about the origin of the universe.

Thats just as wrong as trying to suggest evolution explains the origin of life. It does no such thing nor does it try to.



You included this quote as well, but obviously didn't read it. If you want to re-write your reply I'll gladly answer it, but there doesn't seem to be much point continuing with this one.[/QUOTE]

Fanny Cradock

Can we talk about teapots and Planks in another thread, please?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can we talk about teapots and Planks in another thread, please?

Sorry

Good article on Dawkins and why his perceived arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing.

Arrogant or not, as a matter of fact Dawkins and company have done a great service to the cause of atheism: they have significantly shifted the Overton Window. That’s the notion, borrowed from public-policy debates, of the spectrum of “acceptable opinion” on an issue. At any given time, on any particular question, the public discourse will implicitly deem certain positions to be respectable and worthy of civilized debate, and other positions to be crazy and laughable. The crucial part of this idea is that the window can be shifted by vigorous advocacy of positions on one extreme. And that’s just what Dawkins has done.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/14/thank-you-richard-dawkins/

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry

Good article on Dawkins and why his perceived arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/02/14/thank-you-richard-dawkins/

I'd agree with that, unfortunately he moved the window from one extreme to another. He now has his own version of what makes someone crazy and laughable. There's a happy centre where debate is welcomed and fruitful. Richard Dawkins isn't in it.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I'd agree with that, unfortunately he moved the window from one extreme to another. He now has his own version of what makes someone crazy and laughable. There's a happy centre where debate is welcomed and fruitful. Richard Dawkins isn't in it.

Can you give me an example of something he said that you deemed unacceptable, why you deemed it unacceptable and what you feel he should have said instead?

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

I'd agree with that, unfortunately he moved the window from one extreme to another. He now has his own version of what makes someone crazy and laughable. There's a happy centre where debate is welcomed and fruitful. Richard Dawkins isn't in it.

I would agree with that some what, Dawkins seems to have come to the conclusion that humoring theology arguments is ultimately futile as as far as he sees it theology has spent the last millennium building up walls that prevent debate on a level* he thinks the debate should be at.

If Dawkins has a flaw it is lack of patience.

He expects people to be at the same level as him and very quickly loses patience with those who aren't, rather than explaining why they should be at his level

This, in my opinion, is some what understandable, as if you are not sharing common initial ground debate is going to be some what pointless. How many times do Christians role their eyes on this forum when people come on saying something like God hates homosexuals. Such a statement is not only wrong according to mainstream Christian teaching, but it is inaccurate from a number of levels down, so clearly the person who says it is not on the same level of Christian understand, and to explain why it is wrong involves bringing that person up a couple of levels so you can actually discuss the initial assertion. Often people just don't bother and simply say "No he doesn't, go away and read this", which could be seen as arrogant.

So he dismisses rather than explains, which again I guess can be seen as arrogant.

(*by level I mean accepting certain epistemology arguments that stem from science philosophy)

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you give me an example of something he said that you deemed unacceptable, why you deemed it unacceptable and what you feel he should have said instead?

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."- Richard Dawkins, unacceptable because it's wrong.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."- Richard Dawkins, unacceptable because it's wrong.

Not from the position of atheism.

If God doesn't exist then having faith that things happen because God does them is not understanding the world (since if God doesn't exist then that is obviously not the reason things happen)

A good example of this is morality.

Where do morals come from? A common theism position is that they come from God, which isn't true if God doesn't exist. So the question remains.

We already have famous theist scientists such as Francis Collins saying that morality can only be understood in terms of a creator. To Dawkins (and other atheists) that fits his quote some what perfectly. It is not understanding, but obviously Collins finds it satisfactory.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."- Richard Dawkins, unacceptable because it's wrong.

As wicknight says, it's not wrong from a position of atheism. "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding. Whenever a topic like this comes up I get the distinct impression that religious people seem to find the position of atheism inherently arrogant/offensive/closed minded so it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to have a debate where an atheist gives his honest position without offending someone. To quote someone over on A&A a few weeks ago: "It's very hard to not come across as condescending when you are essentially telling someone that their cherished beliefs are ridiculous and that the only reason they believe them is because their brain has failed".

Sam Vimes

prinz, having been involved in the Lisbon debates a good bit I'm sure you will have seen how people on the yes side were constantly being branded as arrogant for "not respecting" the no side. Since you were on the yes side I'm sure you saw that what was really happening was that whatever bits of "evidence" the no supporters had could easily be shown to be false and when this was pointed out to them, instead of acknowledging their mistake and changing their position, they got angry and started insulting the person who had shown them to be wrong because they still had a "gut feeling" of treaty=bad that had been deliberately implanted by the no campaign and it was just easier to find some excuse to dismiss what we were saying than to actually think about it and realise their "gut feeling" was wrong.

Can you see any parallels.............?


Basically something I've found in all debates, not just religious ones, that people who have a solid foundation and rational basis for their position, those who can defend their position, do so and those who don't have a sold basis, those who have a position based on something like a "gut feeling" and really only find the arguments used to support their position convincing because they're already convinced and they're looking for something to support a decision already made, brand their opponents as arrogant and forget about them

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you clarify this? You appear to be saying on the one hand that the formation is spontaneous (there is no law governing it). On other hand you seem to be saying that it 'appears' the formation is spontaneous (with the possibilty that it's not - and is governed by an as yet unknown law)

The second seems safer (given that I can't figure how anyone could say there is no unknown law)

Aside:There are spontaneous phenomena in physics, however they are still accurately described by physical law (namely quantum mechanics). E.g. the behaviour of electrons in a molecules is probabilistic in many ways, but quantum mechanics still gives us an accurate account of energy levels etc. related to the electrons. A description of the beginning of the universe will undoubtedly be framed in such laws, but it won't be a case of "The universe randomly came into existence.", as there is still an inherent quantum structure to these events.

The problem regarding the universe is essentially what is the cart and what is the horse. Is the universe an entity embedded in "eternal" natural laws? Or are natural laws descriptions embedded within the universe? I generally feel the latter is the case, as it is more consistent with our current science. It's also why I feel the universe "coming into existence" is somewhat of a contradiction.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Not from the position of atheism..

Can you point out anywhere in say because of the forum, Christianity, that that tells us not to investigate the world around us? Not to try to understand what it is our humanly power to do?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As wicknight says, it's not wrong from a position of atheism. "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding...

As above. You could possibly argue that God adds nothing to our understanding, but that is not what Dawkins said. A belief in God does not inhibit or prohibit the quest for understanding. Nowhere was I ever told that if I proclaim a belief in God, that was it for me and the rest of the world, that everything else had to be put down to God's will and nothing else.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Whenever a topic like this comes up I get the distinct impression that religious people seem to find the position of atheism inherently arrogant/offensive/closed minded so it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to have a debate where an atheist gives his honest position without offending someone..

I don't find the vast majority of atheists in the least bit arrogant. I respect people who come to a conclusion about the world. I would like the same respect back. I have no problem with someone who says I have no need for a belief/I don't believe in x,y or z. Stating their opinion, no problem. I do have a problem with this..

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To quote someone over on A&A a few weeks ago: "It's very hard to not come across as condescending when you are essentially telling someone that their cherished beliefs are ridiculous and that the only reason they believe them is because their brain has failed".

My brain has not 'failed'. The assumption that it has is arrogance. I saw somewhere on one of the threads somebody mention a spiritual/religious section of the brain. I'd like to look into that further now that you reminded me.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

prinz, having been involved in the Lisbon debates a good bit I'm sure you will have seen how people on the yes side were constantly being branded as arrogant for "not respecting" the no side. Since you were on the yes side I'm sure you saw that what was really happening was that whatever bits of "evidence" the no supporters had could easily be shown to be false and when this was pointed out to them, instead of acknowledging their mistake and changing their position, they got angry and started insulting the person who had shown them to be wrong because they still had a "gut feeling" of treaty=bad that had been deliberately implanted by the no campaign and it was just easier to find some excuse to dismiss what we were saying than to actually think about it and realise their "gut feeling" was wrong.
Can you see any parallels.............?

Indeed I can. Those people could quite clearly be shown to be mistaken, in black and white terms. You cannot show me I am wrong if I believe a godhead exists. Personally for me I have found a way to connect with that godhead via Christianity.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

You could possibly argue that God adds nothing to our understanding, but that is not what Dawkins said. A belief in God does not inhibit or prohibit the quest for understanding.

Of course it does, because you already think you have the answer, and that the answer precludes further investigation.

Which, from the point of view of atheism, you don't.

If you don't believe me perhaps you would like to explain what God did when he created the universe, or just how we would go about finding this out?

Doesn't have to be created the universe. How about how we find out how God resurrects people? I imagine most if not all Christians are satisfied know that he does without understanding how he does.

prinz wrote: »

Nowhere was I ever told that if I proclaim a belief in God, that was it for me and the rest of the world, that everything else had to be put down to God's will and nothing else.

See above.

prinz wrote: »

My brain has not 'failed'. The assumption that it has is arrogance. I saw somewhere on one of the threads somebody mention a spiritual/religious section of the brain. I'd like to look into that further now that you reminded me.

While I wouldn't classify it as "failed" (the brain is doing what it has evolved to do), it has failed in the context of accurately modeling the world.

Or at least that is the most likely scientific explanation, give what we know about how the brain works and how it works in relation to structuring the world.

Saying this is no more arrogant that saying anything else about the brain.

prinz wrote: »

Indeed I can. Those people could quite clearly be shown to be mistaken, in black and white terms. You cannot show me I am wrong if I believe a godhead exists. Personally for me I have found a way to connect with that godhead via Christianity.

You some how think that you can't be demonstrated wrong is a good thing?

If you can't be demonstrated wrong how do you know you aren't wrong?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not from the position of atheism.

Some of the discussions I've witnessed on these boards have sometimes made me wonder if some atheists feel they are inhabiting a different planet with different rules of logic and language. This is a case in hand.

Prinz pointed out a false statement made by Dawkins, namely that religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Now Dawkins statement is either true or false, that truth or falsehood holds true whatever 'position' you approach it from. Is the atheist 'position' so dogmatic that it permits you to make untrue statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever, but the statement is deemed as 'true' because it comes from the 'atheist position'?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it does, because you already think you have the answer, and that the answer precludes further investigation.

This is well OT, however, most problems are solved by making an assumption of the answer.
It's a fundamental principle of algebra.

Which, from the point of view of atheism, you don't.

You do if you are trying to actually find an answer, and not waste your time.

You may also be making a very poor & inaccurate assumption that because one believes in a god, they'd automatically assume that they have the answer. They may well believe in a god, but not believe that their god is the answer they seek.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it does, because you already think you have the answer, and that the answer precludes further investigation.

What answer do I have? You're thinking in terms of one question - the creator of the universe etc etc. Dawkins comment was 'understanding the world' i.e. and everything in it. I don't have answers. I don't know how lots of things work. One of my favourite shows on TV is How is it made? and Mythbusters. I don't have all the answers. Very far from it. Again nothing in religion stops me or instructs me not to look for those answers to questions that I have. I don't understand some diseases and illnesses. Does Christianity instruct Christian doctors not to bother invesitgating.. looking for a cure? To just give it up as God's will and why would us mere mortals try to understand?

Wicknight wrote: »

If you don't believe me perhaps you would like to explain what God did when he created the universe, or just how we would go about finding this out?

Maybe God opened the lunchbox. I don't know, but IIRC the people over at CERN are doing their level best to find out, and more power to them.

Wicknight wrote: »

While I wouldn't classify it as "failed" (the brain is doing what it has evolved to do), it has failed in the context of accurately modeling the world.

It has evolved to fail? You could say the brain has evolved to question. For me religion is also about questioning, questioning people, societies, the human race..

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying this is no more arrogant that saying anything else about the brain..

Nope. Feel free.

Wicknight wrote: »

You some how think that you can't be demonstrated wrong is a good thing?

Good. Bad. Indifferent. Which brings me back to Dawkins who preempts his whole spiel with an anouncement that religious folk are wrong. Not might me, not probably, not could be but I can't demonstrate it.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you can't be demonstrated wrong how do you know you aren't wrong?

Maybe I am. That's where faith comes in. Can't remember who said it but remember a quote like 'I'd rather believe in God, and find out after death that there isn't one, than not believe and find out that there is.'

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Can you point out anywhere in say because of the forum, Christianity, that that tells us not to investigate the world around us? Not to try to understand what it is our humanly power to do?

As above. You could possibly argue that God adds nothing to our understanding, but that is not what Dawkins said. A belief in God does not inhibit or prohibit the quest for understanding. Nowhere was I ever told that if I proclaim a belief in God, that was it for me and the rest of the world, that everything else had to be put down to God's will and nothing else.

Sure it does. Just think of all the things that we used to use "god did it" to explain that we don't anymore and look at how some religious people such as creationists actively fight against scientific explanations encroaching on things they like to believe are magical. And then think of how many religious people still have the idea that the universe is “fine tuned” as if it couldn’t be the way it was without a god and how things like morality are explained with “god did it” with the implication and often the expressed opinion that morality could not have arisen without divine intervention. Saying “god did it” declares that we can never possibly hope to understand how something works so we shouldn’t even try.

prinz wrote: »

I don't find the vast majority of atheists in the least bit arrogant. I respect people who come to a conclusion about the world. I would like the same respect back. I have no problem with someone who says I have no need for a belief/I don't believe in x,y or z. Stating their opinion, no problem. I do have a problem with this..

What I find is that people don’t have a problem with atheists until they actually start talking about atheism and make clear just what their opinions are.

prinz wrote: »

My brain has not 'failed'. The assumption that it has is arrogance. I saw somewhere on one of the threads somebody mention a spiritual/religious section of the brain. I'd like to look into that further now that you reminded me.

The thing is that it’s very very difficult for me to arrive at my position without the opinion that your “brain has failed”. How else could so many possibly believe in something that I consider to ridiculous? Being of the opinion that believers “brains have failed” is pretty much a requirement of atheism. This goes back to what I said above, that people don’t mind atheists until they start talking about atheism

prinz wrote: »

Indeed I can. Those people could quite clearly be shown to be mistaken, in black and white terms. You cannot show me I am wrong if I believe a godhead exists. Personally for me I have found a way to connect with that godhead via Christianity.

The problem there is that not every religious debate is about the existence of the god head. The fact that I cannot show that you’re wrong about that does not mean that it is not possible to show that you are wrong about anything in your beliefs. Take for example a very commonly put forward statement “You can’t prove god doesn’t exist”. An example from a few months ago that was put to me: “let me just be blatant and ask the question can you prove there is no creator? Your answer no doubt will be a resounding NO...therefore your belief is as infantile as a child's belief in santa claus.”

That.position.is.ridiculous. The idea that an inability to absolutely disprove something is enough of a reason to believe in it is inane. There are an infinite number of things that cannot be disproved that we nevertheless don’t believe in because in the real world we believe in things because there is a reason to believe in them, not because they cannot be absolutely disproved. The purpose of the flying spaghetti monster/celestial teapot/invisible pink unicorn is to show how ridiculous this position is. So, while I cannot totally disprove the existence of the god head, it is trivial to show that a great many arguments that are used to argue for the existence of god are devoid of merit. And of course, when the position of “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist therefore you should believe in him” is shown to be ridiculous, instead of realising how ridiculous it is and refraining from giving that argument in future, the religious person gets angry and brands the atheist as arrogant........

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Some of the discussions I've witnessed on these boards have sometimes made me wonder if some atheists feel they are inhabiting a different planet with different rules of logic and language. This is a case in hand.

Prinz pointed out a false statement made by Dawkins, namely that religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Now Dawkins statement is either true or false, that truth or falsehood holds true whatever 'position' you approach it from. Is the atheist 'position' so dogmatic that it permits you to make untrue statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever, but the statement is deemed as 'true' because it comes from the 'atheist position'?

Do you agree that if you hold to a false explanation of something then you don't understand the thing that the explanation is attempting to explain?

But you may well be satisfied with the false explanation, you may believe it is true and perfectly reasonable?

Thus you are satisfied with not understand the thing?

The ultimate point of Dawkins quote though is that Goddunit is an end point. You don't go any further because you can't (how do you find to what God did). Yet people are satisfied with this.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

This is well OT, however, most problems are solved by making an assumption of the answer.
It's a fundamental principle of algebra.

Not following, you are going to have to expand on that. What do you mean "assumption of the answer"

Zulu wrote: »

You may also be making a very poor & inaccurate assumption that because one believes in a god, they'd automatically assume that they have the answer. They may well believe in a god, but not believe that their god is the answer they seek.

Not really. I'm not supposing that Christians answer everything in Trivial Pursuit with "Er, God?" ("Pepsi?" .. "Partial Credit!")

But you got to admit that answer a lot of questions, and most fundamental ones, with Goddunit

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. I'm not supposing that Christians answer everything in Trivial Pursuit with "Er, God?" ("Pepsi?" .. "Partial Credit!")

Tut tut tut. A much more appropriate Simpsons reference would have been:

Mrs. Krabappel: And who can tell me where thunder and lightning come from?
Yes, Bart?
Bart: The Leader, ma'am.
Mrs. Krabappel: Very good, Bart! And who invented Morse Code?
Bart: Oh, I should know this one... the.. the Leader?
Mrs. Krabappel: Ah, correct again!
-- Movementarian class, "The Joy of Sect"

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sure it does. Just think of all the things that we used to use "god did it" to explain that we don't anymore and look at how some religious people such as creationists actively fight against scientific explanations encroaching on things they like to believe are magical.

No, no. You won't get away with that here.

Dawkins made a blanket statement about religion in general. You can't support that statement by citing a minority group of people within one religion (creationists).

And then think of how many religious people still have the idea that the universe is “fine tuned” as if it couldn’t be the way it was without a god and how things like morality are explained with “god did it” with the implication and often the expressed opinion that morality could not have arisen without divine intervention. Saying “god did it” declares that we can never possibly hope to understand how something works so we shouldn’t even try.

You have just made a massive leap of logic.

You can be of the opinion that 'God did it' makes more sense than other explanations and still be passionately interested in finding out how something works. There are plenty of Christian scientists who do just that every day. They may believe that God did it - but they want to discover how God did it. That, in fact, was the motivation that drove many scientific pioneers such as Newton, Copernicus and Galileo.

The thing is that it’s very very difficult for me to arrive at my position without the opinion that your “brain has failed”. How else could so many possibly believe in something that I consider to ridiculous? Being of the opinion that believers “brains have failed” is pretty much a requirement of atheism.

That is untrue, because many atheists are reasonable people rather than patronising arrogant fundamentalists. I have encountered numerous atheists who, rather than thinking my brain has failed, are able to acknowledge that intelligent people can reach different conclusions on these matters.

Btw, we have some patronising arrogant fundamentalists on the Christian side who think that atheists brains have failed. Both sets of people IMHO are equally unpleasant.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sure it does. Just think of all the things that we used to use "god did it" to explain that we don't anymore and look at how some religious people such as creationists actively fight against scientific explanations encroaching on things they like to believe are magical. And then think of how many religious people still have the idea that the universe is “fine tuned” as if it couldn’t be the way it was without a god and how things like morality are explained with “god did it” with the implication and often the expressed opinion that morality could not have arisen without divine intervention. Saying “god did it” declares that we can never possibly hope to understand how something works so we shouldn’t even try.

In the last couple of years exploring Christianity no one has ever answered any questions I have asked with 'God did it, and that's that'. Never.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that it’s very very difficult for me to arrive at my position without the opinion that your “brain has failed”.

Why is it so difficult for you... surely that is the atheist equivalent of saying 'God did it'... i.e. it's very difficult for me to arrive at positions on the creation of the world without the opinion that God did it..

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That.position.is.ridiculous. The idea that an inability to absolutely disprove something is enough of a reason to believe in it is inane.

It's not enough of a reason to believe in it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The purpose of the flying spaghetti monster/celestial teapot/invisible pink unicorn is to show how ridiculous this position is. So, while I cannot totally disprove the existence of the god head, it is trivial to show that a great many arguments that are used to argue for the existence of god are devoid of merit..

Perhaps invisible pink unicorns do exist...

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And of course, when the position of “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist therefore you should believe in him” is shown to be ridiculous, instead of realising how ridiculous it is and refraining from giving that argument in future, the religious person gets angry and brands the atheist as arrogant........

Nope. I never told anyone what they should believe in. It's what I believe in that matters to me. If you want to believe in the orbiting tea pot, that's fine by me, as long as it improves your life and the lives of those around you.

equivariant

mathematically possible

Are we reduced to the level of footbal pundits?:(

Something is either possible or impossible. "mathematically possible" only applies to football (where it means extremely unlikely) - as in 'it is mathematically possible for Portsmouth to avoid relegation'.