The Trouble With Atheism [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

john white

15-12-2007, 10:53 PM

Great documentary, nice one catfood

Its actually narrated by Rod Little, so a small point, but I fancy "bosanski titlovi" is Chech (or similar language) for "the trouble with atheism"

The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle, who advocates agnosticism. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticizing atheism, and science in general, for its perceived similarities to religion, arrogance and intolerance. The title is thus a simplification of the documentary's topic-area. Another possible confusion is that the "trouble" addressed does not include any arguments to the effect that atheism is false, but rather that there is something wrong with atheists themselves. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with American Atheists president Ellen Johnson.

octopusrex

15-12-2007, 11:06 PM

Shit, cat..

I got NUFF to think about already!

lenejento

15-12-2007, 11:23 PM

zero1

16-12-2007, 12:27 AM

That was good, OP, thanks. It didn't go very deep, but as far as mainstream shows go, it was positive. :)

edit

16-12-2007, 02:55 AM

Great doc Cat! :)

Some atheists will never be able to accept that consciousness is and will always be a mystery, yet it is still science, because it IS, it is true.

They try to explain consciousness through that which we are able to observe,for example the brain, however that which we are able to observe is only that which makes it possible for consciousness to experience this world. Consciousness and the world are intimately connected, the world can not really exist without that which observes it, but consciousness can "exist" without the world, but it doesen't really "exist" in a sense because it is no-thing, it just is, the eternal mystery of being. Consciousness itself can not really be observed, it can only be aware of itself.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/image.php?u=191&dateline=1194481630
__________________
There are neither good nor bad qualities in the self. The self is free from all quality. If there is unity then there will also be duality. The numeral one gives rise to other numbers. The truth is neither one nor two. It is as it is.
- Ramana Maharshi
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/heartflowers.gif

edit

16-12-2007, 03:07 AM

1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
...
>> (http://www.jufo.freeserve.co.uk/spiral.jpg)
>> (http://aura0.zaadz.com/photos/27/268540/large/Integral_Spiral_Developmental_Waves.jpg)
>> (http://www.benpadiah.com/basic_intro.html)
>> (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/86/250px-Milky_Way_Spiral_Arms.png)
>> (http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatrChronSpiralDtl.jpg)
>>

Yin_yang
in ones own
breath (http://www.geckostock.co.uk/thumbs/RSId3apelmof_Yin_yang_cornucopia.jpg)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/08/05/lifestyle/images/30043737-01.jpg

optimus pigpot

16-12-2007, 04:33 AM

Another retarded set of values and belief systems!!!!!!

Optimus pigpot discards atheism along with all other bullshit!!!!!!!

Next please!!!!!

hagbard_celine

17-12-2007, 06:16 PM

Brilliant film!:)

Atheists tend to see themselves as seperate from religious-type behavior, when in fact they're just another mask on the same face, as David says. An "opposame". It's a bubble that needs bursting!:cool:

adimon

13-02-2008, 04:50 PM

So what is this mysterious group of people that are left when you take away the religious and the atheistic then HC? Without the opposames, what is left? ;)

hagbard_celine

13-02-2008, 05:13 PM

So what is this mysterious group of people that are left when you take away the religious and the atheistic then HC? Without the opposames, what is left? ;)

First let me ask: Do you see religion and atheism as the only two choices on a philkosophical T-junction? Isn't there a third option?

madthumbs

13-02-2008, 06:07 PM

Atheists tend to see themselves as seperate from religious-type behavior, when in fact they're just another mask on the same face, as David says. An "opposame". It's a bubble that needs bursting!:cool:

Interesting! I've been using "oppo-extreme". They simply don't give us a label that I know of that fits my belief set (intelligent design / no religion is right). Some people think it's agnostic, but read this definition carefully:

Agnostic Ag*nos"tic, n.
One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any
knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal
Deity, a future life, etc.
[1913 Webster]

Because I know the God of the Bible to be fictitious, I cannot be agnostic.

I've seen Atheism being used to support Darwinian or Macro-Evolution (impossible hypothesis), and thus Eugenics. Agnosticism encourages ignorance of dangerous religions. All these belief systems they've given us to choose from are flawed.

angelmoon

13-02-2008, 06:14 PM

after watching this video i have come to the conclusion that it's all down to propaganda all of it , maybe it was funded by the church it self ?

then i got to thinking of how religion is pushed in to our faces and we all feel that it is acceptable for organizations such as the Jehovah's to disturb us in our homes to put there point across, i wonder what sort of outcry there would be if the atheist's came a knocking??.x x:rolleyes:

adimon

13-02-2008, 06:44 PM

First let me ask: Do you see religion and atheism as the only two choices on a philkosophical T-junction? Isn't there a third option?

This is the question I was asking you in a sarcastic way - perhaps you didn't spot my humour.

But to give my answer:-

RELIGION = belief in a power more advanced than nature - i.e. PRETERNATURAL or SUPERNATURAL forces

ATHEISM = disbelief in the above, acceptance of nature

hagbard_celine

15-02-2008, 03:16 PM

This is the question I was asking you in a sarcastic way - perhaps you didn't spot my humour.

But to give my answer:-

RELIGION = belief in a power more advanced than nature - i.e. PRETERNATURAL or SUPERNATURAL forces

ATHEISM = disbelief in the above, acceptance of nature

Oh, sorry it went over my head, Chris!:o

I'm from a Catholic family, but by their definition I'm an atheist. However I believe that the universe is alive. It has a consciousness that it is convenient to call "God", but this consciousness doesn't resemble the character called "God" by organized religions in any way.

adimon

19-03-2008, 06:24 AM

Oh, sorry it went over my head, Chris!:o

I'm from a Catholic family, but by their definition I'm an atheist. However I believe that the universe is alive. It has a consciousness that it is convenient to call "God", but this consciousness doesn't resemble the character called "God" by organized religions in any way.

Would you be happy for me to settle on pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) as a description of your position then HC? This is increasingly what I'm recognising in many of my friends. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

hagbard_celine

19-03-2008, 12:09 PM

Would you be happy for me to settle on pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) as a description of your position then HC? This is increasingly what I'm recognising in many of my friends. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Yes, that's the most accurate term I can think of to describe my spiritual beliefs. I reject the traditional religious description of God, but at the same time, I don't accept the materialist view: that the universe is just inert matter. It is alive and it has an intelligence. It's convenient to call that living intelligence "God".

eternal_spirit

19-03-2008, 01:16 PM

The Trouble With Atheism

Is the God squad and the religious fundamentalists try convert none believers, into believeing a fairytale.

thirdwave

19-03-2008, 01:22 PM

I don't think Atheists are any more enlightened or awake than religious fundamentalists...

eternal_spirit

19-03-2008, 01:34 PM

I don't think Atheists are any more enlightened or awake than religious fundamentalists...
................................

They can both be a pain. Aeithiests are free from religious dogma and can see though the faith the religionists use as a heavy disguise and don't need to consult their reliigious texts to make the next move in life. Fuck religion!

eternal_spirit

19-03-2008, 01:55 PM

All I know for sure is "I am", if I am part of God then everyone else or the whole of creation is also maybe.

If we are all part of creation and God created creation wtf does that make us God.

hagbard_celine

21-03-2008, 11:36 AM

................................

They can both be a pain. Aeithiests are free from religious dogma and can see though the faith the religionists use as a heavy disguise and don't need to consult their reliigious texts to make the next move in life. Fuck religion!

However, atheists are often (But definitely not always) left-brain worshipers. That's just as much a dogma in my view.

adimon

28-03-2008, 01:30 AM

I don't think Atheists are any more enlightened or awake than religious fundamentalists...

However, atheists are often (But definitely not always) left-brain worshipers. That's just as much a dogma in my view.

In response to TW, I'd like to say that I am happy to admit that I DO consider myself more enlightened than those who think that infidelity or apostasy should be met with murder - to name just one example.

HC - at a stretch, I can see the point you're making. But is an atheistic approach as dangerous or divisive as organised religions?

octopusrex

28-03-2008, 04:37 AM

You sleep around on your wife and you get murdered for your troubles.

Yeah. That does seem pretty damn stupid.

hagbard_celine

02-04-2008, 12:49 AM

HC - at a stretch, I can see the point you're making. But is an atheistic approach as dangerous or divisive as organised religions?

It depends on how dangerous and divisive the atheist is.

adimon

02-04-2008, 06:58 AM

It depends on how dangerous and divisive the atheist is.

Precisely. So don't label atheists with blanket descriptors, such as "trouble".

Stalin = Dangerous and divisive. But didn't kill in the name of atheism.

Dawkins = Peaceful and encourages debate in the name of rationalism.

Ahmedinejad = Dangeous and divisive in the name of religion.

Bob Dylan = Peaceful, universal, and privately practising first Judaism, then Christianity.

These are only examples, but I think they show very clearly that neither atheism nor theism is inherently dangerous or divisive, but their position in society can lead to both danger and division. A society BASED on religion polarises EVERYTHING. A secular society has not this problem.

optimus pigpot

02-04-2008, 10:48 AM

Precisely. So don't label atheists with blanket descriptors, such as "trouble".

Stalin = Dangerous and divisiveAgreed. But didn't kill in the name of atheism. But killed the vast majority who didn't agree with his point of view. They were religious, he disagreed with them through killing them, so thus by default he agreed with the aetheistic point of view, which strangely enough is yours maybe.

Dawkins = Peaceful and encourages debate in the name of rationalism.

Ahmedinejad = Dangeous and divisive in the name of religion.

Bob Dylan = Peaceful, universal, and privately practising first Judaism, then Christianity.

These are only examples, but I think they show very clearly that neither atheism nor theism is inherently dangerous or divisive, but their position in society can lead to both danger and division. A society BASED on religion polarises EVERYTHING. A secular society has not this problem.

;) End of.......

hagbard_celine

03-04-2008, 07:47 PM

Precisely. So don't label atheists with blanket descriptors, such as "trouble".

Stalin = Dangerous and divisive. But didn't kill in the name of atheism.

Dawkins = Peaceful and encourages debate in the name of rationalism.

Ahmedinejad = Dangeous and divisive in the name of religion.

Bob Dylan = Peaceful, universal, and privately practising first Judaism, then Christianity.

These are only examples, but I think they show very clearly that neither atheism nor theism is inherently dangerous or divisive, but their position in society can lead to both danger and division. A society BASED on religion polarises EVERYTHING. A secular society has not this problem.

The title of the film was not chosen by me!;)

Actually you're right in a way. most fundamentalist destruction is caused by religious belief and not atheism, but Liddle is right: Atheists can exhibit the same behavior. "What's wrong with beinbg arrogant if you're right?" is the classic line. that attitude leads to: "It doesn't matter if we oppress other people and ban their way of life... because we're right and they are wrong. Their rights to free speech are therefore worthless because they speak only nonsense."

I'd be very worried if a strictly secular movement got too powerul in this country. Secular socieites might not polarize everything, but if their self-assurance leads to intolerence, which is usually does, then we're in deep shit!

hagbard_celine

03-04-2008, 08:02 PM

BTW, Adimon. What do you think of this?;)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23493

adimon

04-04-2008, 10:06 PM

The title of the film was not chosen by me!;)

No of course not, but you have suggested that there is at least SOME problems with atheism as a starting point, and that you share some of Liddle's sentiments, which I disagree entirely with. Atheism doesnt necessitate any further beliefs. As an atheist, I can be conservative, liberal, anarchist, totalitarian etc...just as I can be happy, gloomy, funny...the list goes on.

I totally disagree with everything Liddle has said, except for his notes on the reverse sleeve of The God Delusion ;)

Actually you're right in a way. most fundamentalist destruction is caused by religious belief and not atheism, but Liddle is right: Atheists can exhibit the same behavior. "What's wrong with beinbg arrogant if you're right?" is the classic line. that attitude leads to: "It doesn't matter if we oppress other people and ban their way of life... because we're right and they are wrong. Their rights to free speech are therefore worthless because they speak only nonsense."

I don't condone arrogance, but I think it's important to establish a difference between over a hundred years of mutually-supporting scientific evidence, and 'faith'.

I still would never agree with the bold statement, and moreover have not heard any prominent atheist thinker advocate it.

I'd be very worried if a strictly secular movement got too powerul in this country. Secular socieites might not polarize everything, but if their self-assurance leads to intolerence, which is usually does, then we're in deep shit!

I'd like to hear more from you as to how secularisation leads necessarily to intolerance please. I think the reverse is true - all these children currently growing up in the UK being indoctrinated by religion and attending faith schools is sowing the seeds for future division, IMO.

BTW, Adimon. What do you think of this?;)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23493

Totally unjustified attack. Not sure what else I can say about it? :confused:

hagbard_celine

05-04-2008, 04:03 PM

I'd like to hear more from you as to how secularisation leads necessarily to intolerance please. I think the reverse is true - all these children currently growing up in the UK being indoctrinated by religion and attending faith schools is sowing the seeds for future division, IMO.

Well I've heard atheists saying that all chrches should be burned down; some even go as far as to suggest it should be done with the congregation inside at the time! I'm not saying that extremeist religion is not a bad thing; and we all know how much evil that has caused, I'm against faith-based schols too, but if extremist atheism ever got the chance for the same kind of power then it would concern me. Is there anything inhearent in atheism that makes it somehow more mature and wise than religion? Maybe, but that doesn't mean that it is entirely free of ignorance and a desire to impose. The atheists in the TV series seem to either show signs of that tendancy themselves or have a very naive view of their own community.

I don't condone arrogance, but I think it's important to establish a difference between over a hundred years of mutually-supporting scientific evidence, and 'faith'.

I still would never agree with the bold statement, and moreover have not heard any prominent atheist thinker advocate it.

As I said above. I have heard people advocate just that and worse. They're not "promionent", but they're there.

hagbard_celine

05-04-2008, 04:04 PM

Totally unjustified attack. Not sure what else I can say about it? :confused:

I'm waiting to see if the attacker has any connections to Skeptical extremeists. He seems to have behaved a bit like a "Manchurian Candidate" as well.

adimon

07-04-2008, 07:33 AM

I've seen Atheism being used to support Darwinian or Macro-Evolution (impossible hypothesis), and thus Eugenics. Agnosticism encourages ignorance of dangerous religions. All these belief systems they've given us to choose from are flawed.

Please don't lump all atheists together. Atheists have ONE thing in common - they don't believe in a god. They form their morality on precepts other than religious doctrine, and therefore very few atheists would have any positive thing to say about eugenics.

I challenge any forum member to find twenty individual atheists who advocate eugenics.

adimon

07-04-2008, 07:50 AM

Well I've heard atheists saying that all chrches should be burned down; some even go as far as to suggest it should be done with the congregation inside at the time!

Oh come off it. Don't judge the majority of sane, rational, reasonable atheists by the flippant comments of a few idiots.

I'm not saying that extremeist religion is not a bad thing; and we all know how much evil that has caused, I'm against faith-based schools too, but if extremist atheism ever got the chance for the same kind of power then it would concern me.

It's not a black and white issue. Just as there are very few atheists who would commit arson and murder, there are very few who would advocate or tolerate infringement of social liberties in general. Faith based-schools infringe upon a child's freedom to make his/her own mind up. No prominent atheist I know advocates a removal of freedom religion. We just encourage free thought and freedom FROM religion - e.g. security for apostates from Islam, rather than letting them be assassinated by death squads!

Have you read any of the chief texts of modern humanism HC? The concept of atheists doing terrible things in the name of atheism is covered very well.

I will extend my above challenge about atheism and eugenics.

I challenge any forum member to find me twenty living educated atheists who would advocate overt totalitarianism or persecution of ANY group, including religious people.

Is there anything inhearent in atheism that makes it somehow more mature and wise than religion? Maybe, but that doesn't mean that it is entirely free of ignorance and a desire to impose. The atheists in the TV series seem to either show signs of that tendancy themselves or have a very naive view of their own community.

I'd like to hear more about your background thinking to this statement.

But to answer your question (which may have been rhetorical) - in my opinion there is a relative merit of wisdom attached to rationalism as opposed to fundamentalism, because it utilises independent but mutually-supporting sources of evidence. Fundamentalism advocates blind acceptance and submission to one, controlled, primitive (obsolete) source.

As I said above. I have heard people advocate just that and worse. They're not "promionent", but they're there.

My advice HC is to ignore them. People that stupid won't ever have much influence on your life, or anyone elses, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Have a closer look at what is being said by those whom the atheist community has chosen as its spokespeople - Margaret Downey for example - and please, please, please, don't judge the vast majority of reasonable atheists by the stupid armchair commentary of the ignorant few.

Btw, I'm joining a seminar with The Bishop of Oxford fairly soon. I'll let you know how it goes.

hagbard_celine

07-04-2008, 05:08 PM

Oh come off it. Don't judge the majority of sane, rational, reasonable atheists by the flippant comments of a few idiots.

OK, so long as atheists don't judge the majority of religious believers by the comments of the extremists.;)

hagbard_celine

07-04-2008, 05:17 PM

It's not a black and white issue. Just as there are very few atheists who would commit arson and murder, there are very few who would advocate or tolerate infringement of social liberties in general. Faith based-schools infringe upon a child's freedom to make his/her own mind up. No prominent atheist I know advocates a removal of freedom religion. We just encourage free thought and freedom FROM religion - e.g. security for apostates from Islam, rather than letting them be assassinated by death squads!

I'm just concerned that intolerence will rear its ugly head again. And I don't care whether it religious or non-religious in nature; it is something that scares and repels me. It does so all the time, without people even realizing its happening. I know you don't agree, but I think Rob Liddle was right in that film. Although only one or two of his subjects showed signs of active intolerence, the others all came across as very naive and complacent. They appeared convinced that Atheism is definitively and inhearently lilly-white. It is not! Nothing is! These people may never actively opress their oponents, but would still probably unknowingly support a regime that would.

Have you read any of the chief texts of modern humanism HC? The concept of atheists doing terrible things in the name of atheism is covered very well.

Not in detail, but I'd like to.

hagbard_celine

07-04-2008, 05:23 PM

.

But to answer your question (which may have been rhetorical) - in my opinion there is a relative merit of wisdom attached to rationalism as opposed to fundamentalism, because it utilises independent but mutually-supporting sources of evidence. Fundamentalism advocates blind acceptance and submission to one, controlled, primitive (obsolete) source.

Religious fundamentalism does, yes.

I don't dispute the merits and wisdom of independent but mutually-supporting sources of evidence, but if one falls into the trap of saying "Independent but mutually-supporting sources of evidence are the one and only way to see the world, not just for me but for everyone" then it's a short hop, skip and jump to the saying: "Therefore dissent from my own cognitive system is pathological and/or immoral, ergo it should be criminalized and suppressed."

hagbard_celine

07-04-2008, 05:25 PM

Btw, I'm joining a seminar with The Bishop of Oxford fairly soon. I'll let you know how it goes.

Please do. I like Harries. He's one of the big names in a very liberal faction of the Church. If Dawkins is hanging out with him then Dawkins can't be as bad as some people, including myself in the past, have made him out to be.

hagbard_celine

09-04-2008, 07:48 PM

Oh H

I challenge any forum member to find me twenty living educated atheists who would advocate overt totalitarianism or persecution of ANY group, including religious people.

And what if the ones I met ever became prominent?:eek:

If we're living in a world where someone can be ostracized and threatened with violence for simply saying that he is proud to be a hospital porter, then do you really think atheism is immune from intolerence?

adimon

10-04-2008, 06:34 PM

OK, so long as atheists don't judge the majority of religious believers by the comments of the extremists.;)

Again, I can't speak for all atheists, but the chief thinkers, writers and organisations currently advocating a fresh round of debates do NOT judge religious moderates by the comments of the extremists. That's not to say that moderates do not contribute towards some of the problems.

To name just one example out of a great many: George Bush is a arguably a religious fundamentalist. Whilst not everyone that voted for him is a fundamentalist, by doing so they have allowed him a great deal of power. If the moderates weren't so ignorant to the dangers of the 'American Taliban' then they might have voted for a more moderate candidate. Do you think that if McCain had got in in 2000 we would have seen quite such a rise in Christian fundamentalism in the US?

I really recommend that you read some of the current humanist books available. It would be nice to have this debate again then. Nearly all the points you made are addressed directly in these books, and I think you will be pleased with the answers you will find there.

The following are essential reading:

"The God Delusion" - Richard Dawkins - obvious choice, but it remains a very compelling argument

"The End of Faith" & "Letter to a Christian Nation" - Sam Harris - simply amazing

"God is Not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything" - Christopher Hitchens

"Infidel" - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Please do. I like Harries. He's one of the big names in a very liberal faction of the Church. If Dawkins is hanging out with him then Dawkins can't be as bad as some people, including myself in the past, have made him out to be.

I wouldn't really say 'hanging out' !

And what if the ones I met ever became prominent?:eek:

If we're living in a world where someone can be ostracized and threatened with violence for simply saying that he is proud to be a hospital porter, then do you really think atheism is immune from intolerence?

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean? If you're making a reference I'm afraid I don't get it.

By the way, you are very mistaken about Dawkins and McGrath. Your assertion which I read on another thread is wrong. The opposite is true. Dawkins invited McGrath for a long time, with McGrath declining. After the release of "The God Delusion" and "The Dawkins Delusion", McGrath felt compelled to extent the same invitation, but by then Dawkins had decided (for various reasons, including time) he didnt want to engage in the formal debate format anymore.

If you look on Flurl.com you will find a video of Dawkins and McGrath debating informally in Oxford, and McGrath fails to address any of Dawkins points with any real answer.

If you're a fan of McGrath then don't take this personally, but the man winds me up to the point of furious anger. I've watched him debate Dawkins and Hitchens and he really doesn't answer questions - whether open or direct.

His tone of voice is simply ridiculous IMO.

octopusrex

10-04-2008, 07:37 PM

In Kali-Yuga, I'm not surprised if God is an Atheist(Agnostic).

catfood

10-04-2008, 09:07 PM

Another interesting documentary shows both side of the argument well, but it does link the theory to Christianity too much so try not to judge it purely on the people representing it in this doc.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5417223979145521679&hl=en

hagbard_celine

11-04-2008, 06:27 PM

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean? If you're making a reference I'm afraid I don't get it.
.

It was based on a link I put up in a previous post. Here it is again: http://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2007/12/dont-tell-em-were-porters.html

hagbard_celine

11-04-2008, 06:32 PM

By the way, you are very mistaken about Dawkins and McGrath. Your assertion which I read on another thread is wrong. The opposite is true. Dawkins invited McGrath for a long time, with McGrath declining. After the release of "The God Delusion" and "The Dawkins Delusion", McGrath felt compelled to extent the same invitation, but by then Dawkins had decided (for various reasons, including time) he didnt want to engage in the formal debate format anymore.

If you look on Flurl.com you will find a video of Dawkins and McGrath debating informally in Oxford, and McGrath fails to address any of Dawkins points with any real answer.

If you're a fan of McGrath then don't take this personally, but the man winds me up to the point of furious anger. I've watched him debate Dawkins and Hitchens and he really doesn't answer questions - whether open or direct.

His tone of voice is simply ridiculous IMO.

I've seen a debate between Dawkins and McGrath that was one of the outtakes of The Root of All Evil. I can't get to Flurl.com, but is this the one you mean? http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=dawkins+and+mcgrath&total=78&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

I cannot concur with your asessment. I think McGrath runs rings round him. but I've got a copy of The God Delusion and its on my list to read.

adimon

12-04-2008, 10:37 PM

I cannot concur with your asessment. I think McGrath runs rings round him. but I've got a copy of The God Delusion and its on my list to read.

I've never once seen McGrath respond to ANY of Dawkin's questions with ANYTHING like a proper answer. He doesn't even say whether he believes in virgin births and/or resurrection.

Enjoy the book!

hagbard_celine

13-04-2008, 05:31 PM

I've never once seen McGrath respond to ANY of Dawkin's questions with ANYTHING like a proper answer. He doesn't even say whether he believes in virgin births and/or resurrection.

Enjoy the book!

I think he answers him perfectly well. I don't share McGrath's Christian beliefs either, but I think he sounds more with it than Dawkins.

I mean, in Robert Winston's The Story of God, Dawkins totally puts his foot in it. He says of Winston's status as a practicing Jew: "I can only conclude that the reason you as a scientist practice your faith is purely out of tradition and respect for your family"!:rolleyes:

How Dawkins became the golden boy of atheism I'll never know!

hagbard_celine

13-04-2008, 05:33 PM

Here's Dawkins and Harries in discussion:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2367986806557811071&q=richard+dawkins&total=3328&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

hagbard_celine

15-04-2008, 11:22 AM

I've started The God Delusion. I hope it's better than his TV series'!

I've already got a problem with it. To begin with: One of the book's critics quoted in the reviews page is Penn Juliette! Would you describe him as a tolerant man, respectful of other people's beliefs?:rolleyes:

Interestingly I've also got a copy of Dawkins' God and The Dawkins Delusion, but I'm yet to read them. I think it was those irreverent titles that first drew me to McGrath. Last year I went to a lecture of his that was advertized on the medical school notice board at my hospital.

deliciously_fresh

15-04-2008, 11:50 AM

tazika

15-04-2008, 12:16 PM

Brilliant film!:)

Atheists tend to see themselves as seperate from religious-type behavior, when in fact they're just another mask on the same face

I am from atheistic part of Europe: Croatia, ex-Yugoslavia. Our atheism, which grew from marxisistic-leninistic, really had its strict rules, I would say it was dogmatic. It was as dogmatic as in the the times of Inquisition; older people say that you could end in prison if you said something outside of atheist dogma.
In Yugoslavia they didn't burn churches and people could go on masses, but if you were seen there you could never be on any leading position in any type of job. All this was hidden, but everyone knew that rules.
We, children of '60-ties, were just taught to watch believers "from above" and church as a thing of history.
So I can say: yes, this type of atheism is a religious-type of behaviour.
Of course there are many forms of atheism... I am talking about communistic type and its dogmas.

octopusrex

15-04-2008, 05:45 PM

I am from atheistic part of Europe: Croatia, ex-Yugoslavia. Our atheism, which grew from marxisistic-leninistic, really had its strict rules, I would say it was dogmatic. It was as dogmatic as in the the times of Inquisition; older people say that you could end in prison if you said something outside of atheist dogma.
In Yugoslavia they didn't burn churches and people could go on masses, but if you were seen there you could never be on any leading position in any type of job. All this was hidden, but everyone knew that rules.
We, children of '60-ties, were just taught to watch believers "from above" and church as a thing of history.
So I can say: yes, this type of atheism is a religious-type of behaviour.
Of course there are many forms of atheism... I am talking about communistic type and its dogmas.

Such atheism is what the Vedas call "demonic" and Lord Visnu descends to earth to put an end to it.

pilgrim

15-04-2008, 10:43 PM

Such atheism is what the Vedas call "demonic" and Lord Visnu descends to earth to put an end to it.
Bhagavad-gita 4.6-9:

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.

In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.

One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode.

http://www.asitis.com/4/index.html

hagbard_celine

16-04-2008, 11:54 AM

I am from atheistic part of Europe: Croatia, ex-Yugoslavia. Our atheism, which grew from marxisistic-leninistic, really had its strict rules, I would say it was dogmatic. It was as dogmatic as in the the times of Inquisition; older people say that you could end in prison if you said something outside of atheist dogma.
In Yugoslavia they didn't burn churches and people could go on masses, but if you were seen there you could never be on any leading position in any type of job. All this was hidden, but everyone knew that rules.
We, children of '60-ties, were just taught to watch believers "from above" and church as a thing of history.
So I can say: yes, this type of atheism is a religious-type of behaviour.
Of course there are many forms of atheism... I am talking about communistic type and its dogmas.

Yes. Millions have been murdered by non-religious dogmas. This is an example of the kinds of things atheists need to be aware of. I think some are; and I'd like to read the Humanist articles Adimon recomended that address that, but some atheists are oblivious, convinced that non-belief is lilly-white. They see themselves and fellow atheists through rose-tinted glasses.

hagbard_celine

16-04-2008, 11:56 AM

Let us know your thoughts on the book when you're done.

Will do. :)

Actually if you want an interim report: I'm a bit disappointed because I'm on chapter 2 and Dawkins has yet to say anything I strongly disagree with!

I'm concerned that when he says "superstitious beliefs" he doesn't quite understand what that means, because he then goes straight on to a quite legitimate attack on the structure of organized religion. Where do I fit into all this?:confused: I have "superstitious beliefs", but I'm not drawn to organized religion at all.

Maybe the answer will come later in the book.

adimon

16-04-2008, 02:25 PM

Will do. :)

Actually if you want an interim report: I'm a bit disappointed because I'm on chapter 2 and Dawkins has yet to say anything I strongly disagree with!

I'm concerned that when he says "superstitious beliefs" he doesn't quite understand what that means, because he then goes straight on to a quite legitimate attack on the structure of organized religion. Where do I fit into all this?:confused: I have "superstitious beliefs", but I'm not drawn to organized religion at all.

Maybe the answer will come later in the book.

By superstitious beliefs Prof. Dawkins means things that are believed purely for reasons of faith or tradition (repetition). He will certainly cover that with regard to religious faith.

Make sure you're not reading the book expecting it to answer all your questions. And while you're at it, remember to read the Harris, Hitchens and Dennett books as well, plus Dawkins earlier works on evolutionary biology.

octopusrex

16-04-2008, 04:15 PM

It's hard to look as a sunset, a flower, a bird or the ocean and remain an atheist. Agnostic i understand. But squared atheist is just too terrible to contemplate.

deliciously_fresh

18-04-2008, 01:45 PM

hagbard_celine

20-04-2008, 11:28 AM

It's hard to look as a sunset, a flower, a bird or the ocean and remain an atheist. Agnostic i understand. But squared atheist is just too terrible to contemplate.

It's actually caused by an overshot of the Enlightenment. We brought science and reason in to challenge superstitious organized religion, and that was a very good thing when you consider the damage religion was doing to our species, but the problem today is that the pendlulum has swung too far the other way! We have allowed reason to become so dominent that we have stripped the world of life. We've created a model of an inanimate universe of pure mechnaism! Ironically this is not the thing that many Enlightnment pioneers wanted. Giordano Bruno, who was one of the last heretics to be burned at the stake 1600, would have been horrifed at today's materialistic monist paradigm!

hagbard_celine

20-04-2008, 11:29 AM

By superstitious beliefs Prof. Dawkins means things that are believed purely for reasons of faith or tradition (repetition). He will certainly cover that with regard to religious faith.

Make sure you're not reading the book expecting it to answer all your questions. And while you're at it, remember to read the Harris, Hitchens and Dennett books as well, plus Dawkins earlier works on evolutionary biology.

I will do, but one thing at a time. TGD gives a good summary of his biological views anyway, enough to comment on. I'm about halfway though TGD. I'll not give any more interim reports, but I'll write a review at the end.

adimon

20-04-2008, 08:03 PM

I'll not give any more interim reports, but I'll write a review at the end.

That would be great HC. Cheers. :)

oiram

23-04-2008, 10:33 PM

I'm concerned that when he says "superstitious beliefs" he doesn't quite understand what that means, because he then goes straight on to a quite legitimate attack on the structure of organized religion. Where do I fit into all this?:confused: I have "superstitious beliefs", but I'm not drawn to organized religion at all.

Maybe the answer will come later in the book.
I just got this link today! Have a look at this there could be some good answers in here?

Deism vs. Atheism and Christianity
http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

Welcome to Deism!
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

adimon

24-04-2008, 06:31 AM

lifeofbrian

24-04-2008, 08:55 AM

However, there's not a shred of evidence for any of this...is there? :confused:

Deism, theism....it's all man-made!

Literally. Man has creative abilities.

hagbard_celine

24-04-2008, 09:33 PM

I just got this link today! Have a look at this there could be some good answers in here?

Deism vs. Atheism and Christianity
http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

Welcome to Deism!
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

Interesting that they use the truncated pyramid symbol, albeit without the eye.:confused:

hagbard_celine

24-04-2008, 09:37 PM

For sure Deism is not as damaging to relations as theism, and I much prefer the honesty of deists (in that they BELIEVE that a god created the universe, but they do not claim to KNOW THE MIND of the god).

However, there's not a shred of evidence for any of this...is there? :confused:

Deism, theism....it's all man-made!

I've only read the opening page, but it sounds a lot less phoney than religion. After all, if God does exist then how can he have made such a huge and glorious universe, but then suffer petty and ignorant idea like "chosen people", rituals, holy books and other superstitious frills?

adimon

25-04-2008, 12:12 AM

Interesting that they use the truncated pyramid symbol, albeit without the eye.:confused:

Yeah got me thinking too! :p

I've only read the opening page, but it sounds a lot less phoney than religion. After all, if God does exist then how can he have made such a huge and glorious universe, but then suffer petty and ignorant idea like "chosen people", rituals, holy books and other superstitious frills?

Ah, but of course, if god does exist, then how did he come into being? The infinite regression... ;)

oiram

25-04-2008, 06:05 PM

Interesting that they use the truncated pyramid symbol, albeit without the eye.:confused:
You absolutely right! You have the exact same question I had when I found the link!
I believe you are always keeping an opened mind?
I do; and never take anything for granted because to many manipulators all over the Internet!
So hard to sort truth from crap; as we all know the MSM is just a Propaganda tool and the Internet still has many good info but hard to find!
This Elite will screw up the Internet too; they should get banned to manipulate & use it!

But when things make logical sense I switch on!

The Deist concept somehow appeals to me in a way it's like I think before I read it!

You may have a look at this side to clear up your question!
The Eye in the Pyramid
http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Essays/eyepyr.html

But I am still sceptical not on the Deist concept that looks logic to me and they may just liked the Pyramid but without the eye.
But the Eye in the Pyramid still bothers me because in Israel they have the same Pyramid in one of there Building!

Rothschild The Israeli Supreme Court Building
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/rothschild__the_israeli_supreme.htm
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/supremecourt88.jpeg (http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/rothschild__the_israeli_supreme.htm)

hagbard_celine

27-04-2008, 07:22 PM

Yeah got me thinking too! :p

Ah, but of course, if god does exist, then how did he come into being? The infinite regression... ;)

It could be that God grew with the universe. He (She or It!) didn't create the universe, He developed as it developed. I'll be saying more on that in my review of TGD. Watch this space.

What's more: the question you posed could equally be posed to eternal universe theorists in physics, characters like Joao Mygueshu or Fred Hoyle.

hagbard_celine

27-04-2008, 07:23 PM

You absolutely right! You have the exact same question I had when I found the link!
I believe you are always keeping an opened mind?
I do; and never take anything for granted because to many manipulators all over the Internet!
So hard to sort truth from crap; as we all know the MSM is just a Propaganda tool and the Internet still has many good info but hard to find!
This Elite will screw up the Internet too; they should get banned to manipulate & use it!

But when things make logical sense I switch on!

The Deist concept somehow appeals to me in a way it's like I think before I read it!

You may have a look at this side to clear up your question!
The Eye in the Pyramid
http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Essays/eyepyr.html

But I am still sceptical not on the Deist concept that looks logic to me and they may just liked the Pyramid but without the eye.
But the Eye in the Pyramid still bothers me because in Israel they have the same Pyramid in one of there Building!

Rothschild The Israeli Supreme Court Building
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/rothschild__the_israeli_supreme.htm
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/supremecourt88.jpeg (http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/rothschild__the_israeli_supreme.htm)

Could the lack of an eye in the otherwise Eye of Horus symbol signify something fundamental about Deism?:confused:

Horus is there, but he's blind or something?

hagbard_celine

30-04-2008, 11:41 PM

Ah, but of course, if god does exist, then how did he come into being? The infinite regression... ;)

But this question is based on the assumption that time, as we know it, is universal. What if time is not the same thing everywhere and the concepts of "before" and "afterwards" are purely local ones?;):confused:

adimon

01-05-2008, 08:00 AM

It could be that God grew with the universe. He (She or It!) didn't create the universe, He developed as it developed. I'll be saying more on that in my review of TGD. Watch this space.

What's more: the question you posed could equally be posed to eternal universe theorists in physics, characters like Joao Mygueshu or Fred Hoyle.

The point is this: no-one can currently explain infinite regression either on the back of astrophysics or of religion. But, as TGD eloquently reiterates, that doesn't alter the fact that religion has no answer for the weight of mutually-supporting evidence which underlies evolutionary biology. What is always true, if not always clear, in Dawkins' work is that he approaches the subject from a standpoint of biology. In this thread, as elsewhere, criticisms are levelled at Prof Dawkins for not being an expert in theology. This is a strawman argument. He doesn't claim to be. He even says in TGD that he considers theology to be "academia without a subject" or words to that effect. What idiots like McGrath always ignore is that they cannot offer any answer to the facts of evolution as presented to them by Dawkins in the series of stunning books he has produced for the layman on this subject.

HC > Once you've finished TGD, I encourage you to also read "The Dawkins Delusion" and decide for yourself if you feel McGrath has made a relevant response. I would say not even slightly.

Speak soon

Chris

snoopsnuffleopagus

01-05-2008, 07:05 PM

hagbard_celine

01-05-2008, 11:05 PM

The point is this: no-one can currently explain infinite regression either on the back of astrophysics or of religion. But, as TGD eloquently reiterates, that doesn't alter the fact that religion has no answer for the weight of mutually-supporting evidence which underlies evolutionary biology. What is always true, if not always clear, in Dawkins' work is that he approaches the subject from a standpoint of biology. In this thread, as elsewhere, criticisms are levelled at Prof Dawkins for not being an expert in theology. This is a strawman argument. He doesn't claim to be. He even says in TGD that he considers theology to be "academia without a subject" or words to that effect. What idiots like McGrath always ignore is that they cannot offer any answer to the facts of evolution as presented to them by Dawkins in the series of stunning books he has produced for the layman on this subject.

HC > Once you've finished TGD, I encourage you to also read "The Dawkins Delusion" and decide for yourself if you feel McGrath has made a relevant response. I would say not even slightly.

Speak soon

Chris

I really can't understand why proving evolution is real disproves God's existance.

Adimon, I've written a lengthy review of TGD. Check it out. It's on this board.

The relevent points of my review are: Dawkins doesn't just not claim to be an expert on theology; he professes a distinct disdain for the subject! So he approaching the subject of God's existance or non-existance from a purely rational, scientific perspective. He even calls a chapter in the book The God Hypothesis.

So Dawkins is presenting his case in a form that fails to address the spectrum of modern and ancient philosophy and is preset to the rationalist, scientific, logical paradigm. It's impossible to dispute what he says because within the rationalist, scientific, logical paradigm there is no doubt that it's impossible to prove God's existance... But I don't operate within that paradigm alone. I believe there is more to the universe than that. Much more.

the spackler

01-05-2008, 11:56 PM

Yes. Millions have been murdered by non-religious dogmas. This is an example of the kinds of things atheists need to be aware of. I think some are; and I'd like to read the Humanist articles Adimon recomended that address that, but some atheists are oblivious, convinced that non-belief is lilly-white. They see themselves and fellow atheists through rose-tinted glasses.

ATHEISTS HAVE NO SOULS...

the spackler

02-05-2008, 12:01 AM

I really can't understand why proving evolution is real disproves God's existance.

Adimon, I've written a lengthy review of TGD. Check it out. It's on this board.

The relevent points of my review are: Dawkins doesn't just not claim to be an expert on theology; he professes a distinct disdain for the subject! So he approaching the subject of God's existance or non-existance from a purely rational, scientific perspective. He even calls a chapter in the book The God Hypothesis.

So Dawkins is presenting his case in a form that fails to address the spectrum of modern and ancient philosophy and is preset to the rationalist, scientific, logical paradigm. It's impossible to dispute what he says because within the rationalist, scientific, logical paradigm there is no doubt that it's impossible to prove God's existance... But I don't operate within that paradigm alone. I believe there is more to the universe than that. Much more.

EVOLUTION IN NO WAY DISPROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. IT REAFFIRMS IT... "GOD" FOR THE LACK OF A BETTER WORD. PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO BELEIVE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING OUT THERE THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN... OR THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THEY ARE...

adimon

02-05-2008, 12:16 AM

Hi Adimon:

I respect your position and willingness to hear 'Dissident Arguments'.

An 'Argument' for 'Intelligent Design' is made by this Gentleman, a Chemist:

"Origin of Life"

http://www.vimeo.com/415018

the second Video is Scientific Evidence of the Efficacy of Some Events in the Old Testament as Related in the Book of YHVH:

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

http://www.vimeo.com/410567/l:embed_410567

Kind Regards: Snoops

This evidence doesn't stand up to the slightest enquiry IMO. Walton talks about "stupendous odds", as if there was anything to compare them to! Yes life was unlikely, but that doesn't disprove it! Neither does it lend any credence to ID arguments! That's assuming you accept his 'scientific' reasoning on the sums involved!

As for the Egyptian Chronology...if you believe that you really will believe anything. No corroborative evidence is actually proferred, only the illusion of a case is presented!

I really can't understand why proving evolution is real disproves God's existance.

Then you haven't read the sections on complexity properly.

Adimon, I've written a lengthy review of TGD. Check it out. It's on this board.

Will do.

The relevent points of my review are: Dawkins doesn't just not claim to be an expert on theology; he professes a distinct disdain for the subject! So he approaching the subject of God's existance or non-existance from a purely rational, scientific perspective. He even calls a chapter in the book [I]The God Hypothesis.

Dawkins sees Theology as a made up subject about a man-made illusion, as do I.

So Dawkins is presenting his case in a form that fails to address the spectrum of modern and ancient philosophy and is preset to the rationalist, scientific, logical paradigm. It's impossible to dispute what he says because within the rationalist, scientific, logical paradigm there is no doubt that it's impossible to dispute God's non-existance... But I don't operate within that paradigm alone. I believe there is more to the universe than that. Much more.

There is more to the universe than logic, but that additional stuff is certainly logical in itself...IMO of course.

adimon

02-05-2008, 12:17 AM

ATHEISTS HAVE NO SOULS...

What a ridiculous idea!

Surely the whole basis of theism is that everyone has a soul, because there is more to us than just evolutionary biology. god* has a plan for each of us, does he not?

Did he plan for me to have no soul? What does this mean for my life? How can I go to hell or purgatory if there is nothing more to me than cells?

Gibberish.

[* = still refusing to capitalise]

hagbard_celine

05-05-2008, 05:09 PM

ATHEISTS HAVE NO SOULS...

What!? :eek: How do you work that out? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Don't tell me you're the bloody Messiah!:confused:

hagbard_celine

05-05-2008, 05:13 PM

Then you haven't read the sections on complexity properly.

Yes I have (Why do people always think that a difference of opinion equals lack of study:rolleyes:). I read all about the cranes and skyhooks, gentle slopes and cliffs. Dawkins has a knack for analogy that any writer would envy. Why does the fact that life could develop without God prove that there is no such thing as a God? All it does it fail to prove His existance! It doesn't prove His non-existance!

hagbard_celine

05-05-2008, 06:46 PM

Dawkins sees Theology as a made up subject about a man-made illusion, as do I.

Well then I'm sure you'll understand that that's a natural position from a logical position. But from other positions it is not. A scorn for Tholoigy is a purely rationalist vice; and therefore one I cannot share.

adimon

06-05-2008, 07:17 AM

Yes I have (Why do people always think that a difference of opinion equals lack of study:rolleyes:). I read all about the cranes and skyhooks, gentle slopes and cliffs. Dawkins has a knack for analogy that any writer would envy. Why does the fact that life could develop without God prove that there is no such thing as a God? All it does it fail to prove His existance! It doesn't prove His non-existance!

I am not saying you have a lack of study, but Dawkins does not say that evolution disproves god. It does however show that the claims made by every religion on the face of the earth (the 50-100 that I know of anyhow) are false. It shows that at best a deistic god is possibly, but a deistic god is not a god, is it?

If a 'higher power' created the world and took no further part in it, what does it matter? If praying makes no difference and there is no day of judgement etc then there is absolutely no need for religion, and EVERY reason for morality, which the religious would say is impossible without god.

However, deism is subject to an infinite regression which currently cannot be resolved.

If you disagree so strongly with The God Hypothesis, perhaps you could give me your own argument as to why god does or even just...might exist?

What Dawkins says at the beginning, and throughout TGD is that his writing constitutes a HYPOTHESIS, not an infallible and unshakeable FACT, which is what the bibble and the koranic plagiarism of it both claim to be!

Remember the anecdote about the scientist who applauded the man who proved him wrong. Can you imagine the pope doing that? Who's REALLY dogmatic in this world - a guy who writes that god is "almost certainly not real" or people that seek to push their view that he "definitely is" upon everyone else?

"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself" George Carlin.

hagbard_celine

07-05-2008, 07:30 PM

I am not saying you have a lack of study, but Dawkins does not say that evolution disproves god. It does however show that the claims made by every religion on the face of the earth (the 50-100 that I know of anyhow) are false. It shows that at best a deistic god is possibly, but a deistic god is not a god, is it?

If a 'higher power' created the world and took no further part in it, what does it matter? If praying makes no difference and there is no day of judgement etc then there is absolutely no need for religion, and EVERY reason for morality, which the religious would say is impossible without god.

However, deism is subject to an infinite regression which currently cannot be resolved.

If you disagree so strongly with The God Hypothesis, perhaps you could give me your own argument as to why god does or even just...might exist?

What Dawkins says at the beginning, and throughout TGD is that his writing constitutes a HYPOTHESIS, not an infallible and unshakeable FACT, which is what the bibble and the koranic plagiarism of it both claim to be!

Remember the anecdote about the scientist who applauded the man who proved him wrong. Can you imagine the pope doing that? Who's REALLY dogmatic in this world - a guy who writes that god is "almost certainly not real" or people that seek to push their view that he "definitely is" upon everyone else?

"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself" George Carlin.

I don't follow any established religion at all so I don't agree with any of the creation stories anyway. The same goes with the idea that God exists because some scripture says He does. My own reason for believing in God is complex. For a start, I don't believe in God as a person or object at all. I just the very strong intuitive feeling that there is life and consciousness to the universe; and that consciousness is what I find convenient to call "God".

hagbard_celine

08-05-2008, 06:38 PM

However, deism is subject to an infinite regression which currently cannot be resolved.

The very obvious question: "If God made everything, who made God?" is based on the assumption that time, as we know it, is universal. What if time is not the same thing everywhere and the concepts of "before" and "afterwards" are purely local ones?

hagbard_celine

08-05-2008, 06:43 PM

element

08-05-2008, 07:04 PM

Even many scientists, who are putting them self on the opposite chair of religions, view god in the traditional way. So funny.

God is the divine consciousness that is within everything and everyone. People who walk their spiritual path come closer to realizing this. The soul is the divine piece that is within each of us, you come closer to realising the soul that is within you, you come closer to understanding the universe. The ego, materialistic animal body and the rational thoughts and mind are the ones that try to keep us away from achieving that goal. They're the ''devils'' symbolically.

We're all one.

hagbard_celine

08-05-2008, 07:07 PM

adimon

10-05-2008, 02:55 PM

My own reason for believing in God is complex. For a start, I don't believe in God as a person or object at all. I just the very strong intuitive feeling that there is life and consciousness to the universe; and that consciousness is what I find convenient to call "God".

I'm afraid I don't understand at all. Could you expand on this at all? You could do so via PM if you don't want to go off topic? Or do so on your Dawkins thread? I would be highly appreciative.

The very obvious question: "If God made everything, who made God?" is based on the assumption that time, as we know it, is universal. What if time is not the same thing everywhere and the concepts of "before" and "afterwards" are purely local ones?

I'm afraid the argument doesn't even need to get that far in my opinion. Not a single believer has ever managed to explain how the contents of their head suggest the presence of a higher being. Although I don't understand your brief description above, it sounds to be that you're more of a pantheist than anything else. Why then criticise Dawkin's incredible challenge to theists to explain how they have come to know the mind of god? If you believe you are a theist, then I would ask you to address Hitchens' point about why god watches with folded arms?

But just because the universe doesn't need God doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I don't need a metal scourer because I use a plastic one, but does this mean that metal scourers don't exist?

No offence, but that's a straw man argument, actually quite reminiscent (to me, at least) of the arguments on pages 107-109 of TGD.

My main point is this: on all these type of threads, the believers NEVER seem to state reasons for why they believe it, other than numinous cognitive experiences, and 'intuition', as you have suggested. There's nothing wrong with your choice to take that as foundation for your own life, but why should anyone choose to extend that beyond themselves and affect the lives of others...is that kind of belief not inherently personal?

Why should the civilised world have to worry about what Ahmedinnerjacket does because of the 'teachings' of the '12th Imam' ???

Dawkins doesn't focus on this issue in TGD - Hitchens and Harris DO in their respective books.

Your thoughts on these HC, plus any further thoughts on Dawkins/TGD, are, as always, welcome and appreciated. :)

hagbard_celine

11-05-2008, 09:43 PM

I'm afraid I don't understand at all. Could you expand on this at all? You could do so via PM if you don't want to go off topic? Or do so on your Dawkins thread? I would be highly appreciative.

I'm afraid the argument doesn't even need to get that far in my opinion. Not a single believer has ever managed to explain how the contents of their head suggest the presence of a higher being. Although I don't understand your brief description above, it sounds to be that you're more of a pantheist than anything else. Why then criticise Dawkin's incredible challenge to theists to explain how they have come to know the mind of god? If you believe you are a theist, then I would ask you to address Hitchens' point about why god watches with folded arms?

No offence, but that's a straw man argument, actually quite reminiscent (to me, at least) of the arguments on pages 107-109 of TGD.

My main point is this: on all these type of threads, the believers NEVER seem to state reasons for why they believe it, other than numinous cognitive experiences, and 'intuition', as you have suggested. There's nothing wrong with your choice to take that as foundation for your own life, but why should anyone choose to extend that beyond themselves and affect the lives of others...is that kind of belief not inherently personal?

Why should the civilised world have to worry about what Ahmedinnerjacket does because of the 'teachings' of the '12th Imam' ???

Dawkins doesn't focus on this issue in TGD - Hitchens and Harris DO in their respective books.

Your thoughts on these HC, plus any further thoughts on Dawkins/TGD, are, as always, welcome and appreciated. :)

Thanks, mate:), but I'm not sure how to respond to most of your points. One thing I will say is that I never let my views effect the lives of others. I never try to convert anyone or do anything beyond expressing myself.

hagbard_celine

11-05-2008, 09:48 PM

I'm afraid the argument doesn't even need to get that far in my opinion. Not a single believer has ever managed to explain how the contents of their head suggest the presence of a higher being. Although I don't understand your brief description above, it sounds to be that you're more of a pantheist than anything else. Why then criticise Dawkin's incredible challenge to theists to explain how they have come to know the mind of god?

If Dawkins' challenge to them is to prove that God exists, rationally and empircally then I have no criticism. The only thing is that I don't see rationalism and emprical thought as the only tools in the box. We evolved a mind for more than just working things out with logic using data from our 5 physical senses.

jmmk

30-06-2008, 06:52 PM

duckingdafta

30-06-2008, 07:06 PM

I just recently self de-programmed from the Catholic(Illuminati) faith, and had to use an economy size package of mental floss.

congratulations!;)

jmmk

30-06-2008, 07:32 PM

Yes, and my family thinks I'm bonkers. They don't realize that you're born into this world
an infant with no mental abilities or choices, then you're forced to go to church and
accept their views without question. When you hear of other views later in your life
and simply talk to them about it(not forcing them to believe), they get angry and feel
insulted,then question your mind when all you are doing is reading a book and making
your own choices.

hagbard_celine

02-07-2008, 10:58 PM

There is no such thing as Atheism. You can't label the not-doing of something.
I just recently self de-programmed from the Catholic(Illuminati) faith, and had
to use an economy size package of mental floss.

I'm from a Catholic family too, so I know it's not easy!:o My challenge was understanding that materialism was not the only alternative to organized religion.

adimon

04-07-2008, 07:14 PM

There is no such thing as Atheism. You can't label the not-doing of something.
I just recently self de-programmed from the Catholic(Illuminati) faith, and had
to use an economy size package of mental floss.

Yes, and my family thinks I'm bonkers. They don't realize that you're born into this world
an infant with no mental abilities or choices, then you're forced to go to church and
accept their views without question. When you hear of other views later in your life
and simply talk to them about it(not forcing them to believe), they get angry and feel
insulted,then question your mind when all you are doing is reading a book and making
your own choices.

Congrats jmmk!

How are things going for you on this issue now?

Have you seen "The Virus of Faith" ??