The God Delusion

[Jon Miller]

I am actually fine with honest proselytizing by atheists.. and have not been arguing against it. Want I am not happy with is hypocrisy.

JM

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It might be better just to accept that others have their faith, rather than sneering at 'immaturity', or whatever. Intolerance on one side can lead to intolerance in the other.

QFT.

This is why I think of Dawkins as no better than aggressive evangelists - he thinks people who don't believe as he does are just stupid, and need saving

[Jon Miller]

Note, I don't think that atheists are stupid (although I do think they need saving ). And I have often said that agnosticism is the most 'rational' beleif.

JM

[Whaleboy]

What you just posted. What does ID have to do with the existence of God/gods? Or a supernatural?

Indeed you can separate God from a "creator God", but that's not really satisfactory to most theists or Christian doctrine. Once you say that "God had nothing to do with the existence of life" you beg some very important questions about theodicy.

What would be the point of believing in a God who has nothing to do with you?

I get tired of all this holding up evolution as some sort of light against theism. They aren't at all related. The requirement of one or the other is a fallacy of the highest order.

Aren't they? One of the central tenets of theism is that life owes its existence to God. I think it's pretty clear that natural selection quite happily demolishes that.

Anyone who is really informed (and from reading reviews, it appears that Dawkins is not) would know that the current attack on god of the gaps is found in cosmology and physics.

Ok so we have an internationally respected and renowned professor at Oxford university, and a drunk second-rate physicist who is repeatedly proven wrong by "lay" people (i.e., people who disagree with him). To whom would you assign greater credibility?

Talk to physicists.

I'll call you out on this one, seeing as how I'm regularly in contact with physicists. Are you saying that there's a lesser incidence of atheism among physicists than "lay" people or biologists?

Biology is based on Chemistry, which is in turn based on Physics.

Plumbing is based upon physics which is based upon particle physics which is based upon mathematics. I'm still going to call out a plumber to fix my toilet rather than a mathematician.

There are areas of Biology which are almost as bad as economics!

It doesn't really justify a serious response does it?

Jon is right; demolishing ID/creationism wrecks one type of religion, but is no more an indictment of all religion than is the fact that the Sun continues to rise despite sacrifices to the Aztec gods having ceased.

This is true, but then I confess to be primarily dealing with the Abrahamic religions. Since that's what most people here are going to be dealing with, I don't see the problem.

There are even some who don't consider anything outside of the fields of particle physics and GR to be truly studying the laws of the natural world.

I think you'll find that many people within a certain field will consider that field to be the be-all-and-end-all. That doesn't mean that they are taken seriously outside of that field, nor should they.

The odd thing is is that Christianity was the first highly successful non god of the gaps religion to exist in european/mediterranean society.

Yet today so many people have it narrowed to a god in the gaps position (both atheist and Christian).

Why is that odd?

The fact that God is a creator, as well as redeemer, is important, but not the central point of Christianity. The important bit of Christianity is that Jesus Saves.

That's a good point, and not one that's very easy to defend against, and I appreciate that someone has finally produced a reasonable statement . I would counter it by saying that Jesus himself depends upon God, as it is understood in the Jewish sense (which is understandable). Would Christianity be as it is today were it not for God?

And Provost.. I and other Christians do think that we must change the world. It is just that our hearts must be changed first, and we can't do that.

My atheism does not require that others hold the same opinions. Believing to be correct =| belief that others should concur (unless you're a simplistic Kant fan). That's the whole point of this thread, where does one draw the line between expression and malicious evangelism?

And I'd avoid proselytizing if I were you, Whaleboy. Atheists and theists are just working with a whole different vocabulary. Atheists trying to "convert" me have inevitably come across as dumb arsewipes. 'Course, that might be in part because almost nobody knows the principles of my religion and just assumes I believe all the crazy crap westerners do, but who knows?

I don't think it's really a question of converting (otherwise I wouldn't have needed to start the thread to ask the question in the first place). It's more a question of communicating. Supposing one presented atheism to people one loves who are theists; is that an act that could be harmful, or beneficial? Would not doing so be harmful or beneficial?

[MRT144]

i just dont like how athiests alienate anyone who isnt aligned with their beliefs. i'm an agnostic with a penchant for christ taught ethics (or rather, I doubt the mystical aspects of christianity, and the biblical arguement that without the ressurection, the message isnt as legit, but i am down with jesus' ethical teachings)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Ok so we have an internationally respected and renowned professor at Oxford university, and a drunk second-rate physicist who is repeatedly proven wrong by "lay" people (i.e., people who disagree with him). To whom would you assign greater credibility?

How many times have I been proven wrong in physics by lay people?

JM

[Whaleboy]

he thinks people who don't believe as he does are just stupid, and need saving

Hmm that's not how he comes across in the book. He disagrees with theism and seems to want to engage with its logical underpinnings in order to destroy it. I think it would be quite easy to market theism and atheism, since most people don't question it. That's not saying that theists or atheists are stupid, merely that people are stupid. Who could possbily argue with that?

He writes with passion and anger at what he perceives to be injustice; just because we've grown used to even strong atheists tip-toeing around peoples religious sensibilities in this day and age, we shouldn't judge him to be writing with malice.

And I have often said that agnosticism is the most 'rational' beleif.

I'm still interested in a response to the earlier point I made about agnosticism being fundamentally irrational unless one can demonstrate a 50/50 change of god existing/not existing? Is my assessment there flawed?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
I've read every single one, even Lord Shiva's, who happens to be on my ignore list because of that other thread where he posted a link.

I didn't think so many people would fall for it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'll call you out on this one, seeing as how I'm regularly in contact with physicists. Are you saying that there's a lesser incidence of atheism among physicists than "lay" people or biologists?

You don't appear to have read what I wrote, which is frustrating. I said that there are many scientists (in particular physicists, as these ar ethe ones who I talk to the most) who think that there are true things in the natural world that will never be able to be experimented on..

I was saying nothing at all about atheism or theism, rather the (false) statement that only things that can be experimented on are true, and are what scientists are interested in.

The field, in particular, that I was thinking of was String Theory.

I am glad I am humble, otherwise some of your attacks could be hurtful.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm still interested in a response to the earlier point I made about agnosticism being fundamentally irrational unless one can demonstrate a 50/50 change of god existing/not existing? Is my assessment there flawed?

Yes, and I have showed it numerous times. There has been no evidence (either way) provided by you or anyone else on this subject. So, yes, my scientifically challenged freind, it is 50/50 right now.

JM

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
He disagrees with theism and seems to want to engage with its logical underpinnings in order to destroy it.

Which would be OK if he actually understood what its logical underpinnings entail, but he doesn't. He paints a very simplistic view of religion, thereby saying that all people of faith are simpletons.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Plumbing is based upon physics which is based upon particle physics which is based upon mathematics. I'm still going to call out a plumber to fix my toilet rather than a mathematician.

Umm, please think abou tthe context of my post. The statement I was disputing is that Biology is more gounded than Physics (made by yourself).

My statement was that Biology had as it's underpinnings physics, and so can't be more grounded than physics.

If you continue this blatant thoughtlessness, I will have to consider you not worth the time of my posts.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Whaleboy, I know you have a mind. Please use it is all I am asking.

JM

[Elok]

Wait, how the deuce do you determine 50/50 odds for the existence/nonexistence of God? Earlier in this thread you just made some arguments for atheism and seemed to guesstimate based on them that the odds were 50/50 for some reason. The question seems absurd to me. From our position, we have absolutely no way of knowing the "odds" of deity. What are the odds, empirically determined, that eight hundred trillion light years from here what we know as the universe ends in an ultrathick glass wall, and all of existence is just a giant snowglobe that got shaken into activity during what we know as the Big Bang?

WRT the original question, I'd leave Dawkins out of it for the moment. If LS finds him to be an insufferable jerk, chances are that a religious person would dislike him even more. If you must open this can of worms, please just try to avoid the "how can I show others how silly they're being" mindset. Just start an honest argument with an open mind and have faith in the power of reason to wind you up where you should be.

[Jon Miller]

50/50 odds can be the result of no evidence for or against. Which is my position.

Whaleboy maintains that he has evidence against. How any evidence for or against would change the region of probability isn't even relevant yet (although a good question).

Jon Miller