The God Delusion

[Elok]

Five BC? He was a presocratic, which would put him closer to five hundred than five. And he argued...crap, I get a headache just thinking about it. Basically, by using several senses of the infinitive "to be" (to exist absolutely vs. to be [something]) interchangeably, he managed to "prove" that empiricism is a lie and the universe is really a giant homogenous ball and nothing ever changes, we only think it does. Or something like that. Basically everyone's worst stereotypical idea of a philosopher.

EDIT: Oh, fifth century. Yeah, that sounds about right.
Second Edit: http://www.elea.org/Parmenides/ contains his only extant work, "On Nature." Judge for yourself. I, along with my entire philosophy class, think it's utter nonsense.

[CrONoS]

@Elok
Ok! thanks for the info

[Berzerker]

Is it right for me to offer "The God Delusion" to them?

Of course, if nobody challenges our belief systems we remain comfortably numb and progress and reason is trumped by tradition.

But I've read enough of these people claiming to prove God doesn't exist or whatever and I'm not impressed with their work. For example, using Dawkins,

Just because Dawkins wrote a good pop-introduction to evolutionary genetics, he now thinks he is charged with dragging religious society into the Enlightenment on its ass. I went to a talk he gave, but apart from his claim that "Thunder is the sound of God's balls banging against each other," he was so childishly triumphant, as though he was the first to realize that science was a more rational system than religion, and he owed the world a big nyaah-nyaah about it.

Using such ridiculous sounding myths or religious beliefs to disprove "God" shows a lack of intellectual curiosity and an almost non-existent effort to understand religion. Its like disproving math by pointing to someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5...
But the myth doesn't sound as ridiculous when you understand metaphor and the religious belief that the celestial "God" mated with the Earth to produce life. Hell, the lightning could be seen as sperm in such a myth, it isn't supposed to be taken literally. And now we hear some astronomers believe life was transported here thru collisions. Hey, the myth aint far off now is it? What does Mr Evolutionist say about that? I'm sure there was a time he believed life "evolved" here and was not brought by some celestial object.

There's a very ancient myth from NW Europe claiming God mated with the Earth and archaeologists believe this myth explains the purpose of certain holes they've found in large boulders where the priest would "mate" with the rock as God mated with the Earth. Sounds ridiculous, and painful, but it symbolised the creation of life...

There's another myth found all over the world, that the land ("Earth") rose up out of the water after "God" appeared on the scene. In North America God sends an animal down below the surface of the water to bring up mud which is then spread out to form the land. The story varies but even the Bible describes God passing over the face of the watery depths and the appearance of the land. What does the science tell us? That plate tectonics produced land masses over time, which suggests a planet covered by water existed before plate tectonics could produce the land.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
TBH, I took the opposite approach. I once sat down and made myself intellectually embrace the idea "what if there is no God?" It took a while before I was sure I was really contemplating the idea and not just blowing it off. When I finally did, I realized the answer: "So what if there isn't?" If there is no God, the question of whether there is or isn't becomes completely irrelevant (leaving my thoughts about the foundations of morality, which came to me later, out of the picture). There's no point in knowing the material if there's not going to be a test on it, so to speak. I suppose this might be a weird variant on Pascal's Wager.

I laughed it off at the time, but honestly, why are we obligated to know truth? Obligated by/to who, or what? If our knowledge of the truth does not affect our lives, how is even the most ultimate understanding different from the most idiotic movie trivia?

You are correct that if there is no rational entity that somehow controls the universe, then thinking there is one by itself is irrelevant.

The problem comes from trying to run social policy based on that notion, because the second you take actions based on an idea, it is no longer irrelevant or meaningless. It has become something through action. That is what someone like Whaleboy decries. And for the most part, while I have never read, nor have any interest in ever reading Dawkings, or whatever the guy's name is, the issue of social policy being based on metaphysical notions of some sentientience controlling the universe has practical consequences for individuals here on our little planet.

[CrONoS]

@Berzeker

I would be really cautious by using religious material to explain historical data.(edit: i know this is not what your trying to do, you just wanted to add some shades of grey)... Maybe but maybe; some shared myth by religion across the world is better explained by the idea of the collective unconsciousness and the archetype of C. Jung.

The traditionnal tought seems to be completely different in his goal and his means, than our modern and anti-traditionnal tought process.

On this subject an anthropologist can help us; but my experience of religion and the study I have made, lead me to think, that we cannot prove historical event with religious material. Since I think, this was not the goal of these text.

[Berzerker]

The collective unconscious explanation may work with some myths, and it may not... Who knows, but I have my doubts. Is a worldwide flood myth a product of our collective unconsciousness? Nah, we now know the world has seen massive floods within a "historical" timeframe. Jungian archetypes may play a role in serpent mythology given how many people fear snakes and this fear visits them far more often than the actual snakes in the form of nightmares, but what conclusions can we draw other than a fear of snakes may be shared? The serpent religions dont leave us with that message, serpents are revered for reasons that appear unrelated to any collective consciousness.

[CrONoS]

@Berzerker

The flood seems not to be a data from the collective unconsciousness. But the myth woven within, lead me to think that yes. Dreams of flood seem to be recurrent dreams among depressive and suicidal people.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Sorry please explain? You're saying that evidence for/against changing the probability is not relevant? Do I read you correctly? Temporary agnosticism relies on the assumption of 50/50 god/no-God, so as soon as you skew those odds, atheism or theism depending on the direction becomes the most rational position.

Since you aren't making any effort to understand what I say, I am not longer going to reply to you on this subject.

Good day,
Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

While at it, I'd like Jon Miller to either retract his claim the odds are 50/50, or offer a real argument for it.

Umm? My claim is that there is no (scientific) evidence either way. If there is no evidence, then there is no information, and probability would be 50/50.

What is so hard to understand? And when I ask for evidence, Whaleboy gave me some mumble jumble which is entirely meaningless in the discussion about the existence of God or gods, and shows that he really has no idea what he is talking about.

JM

[Nostromo]

A couple of points.

- Everyone asks himself whether God exists or not, but doesn't ask himself which God or Gods exist. It seems the only live option for us, westerners, is a version or another of our God. I bet no westerner here ever asked himself, seriously, whether the Hindu gods, for example, exist. Its simply not a live option to us. (I'm using William James' terminology)

- I'm an atheist in a sense, but I also feel that Dawkings, from what I heard of him, is either a troll or a naive atheist. AFAIK, contrary to what a lot of naive atheists claim, science hasn't proven that God doesn't exist.

However, I do believe that certain claims about God have been refuted by science. We know today, for example, that God hasn't created the heaven and earth 10 000 years nor 100 000 years ago. It would also seem that if God exists, he didn't created us and the other species like it was described in the Bible. If he exists, maybe he laid down the basic laws of nature before the Big Bang and then started the whole thing. So if he exists, he created us indirectly.

[Drake Tungsten]

I bet no westerner here ever asked himself, seriously, whether the Hindu gods, for example, exist.

I've paid my respects to Hindu gods before. Fudo is the man.

[Nostromo]

I've paid my respects to Hindu gods before. Fudo is the man.

Man, I forgot all about the hippies

[MRT144]

mecha fudo is more than man

[Gatekeeper]

*sigh* How the hell can any of us truly know what God is or isn't? You have your scientists on one side, your theologians on the other and everyone else caught in the cross fire.

I find God in the faces of newborn babes. I find God in the gorgeous night skies wheeling above my home. I find God in the kind acts that people are capable of doing. I find God in the wild, untamed nature. I find God in a lot of places.

I don't find God in war. I don't find God in holding grudges. I don't find God in belittling others. I don't find God in going to church on Sundays (or Wednesdays). I don't find God in the form of a pastor/priest acting as an intermediary for me. Hell, sometimes I don't find God in God because I don't call it God. I don't find God in in a lot of places.

This, however, I do know: Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. Love without conditions. Look at each new day as a fresh start. Be a good person, not because God is watching over your shoulder, but simply because it strengthens the whole.

I could go on and on, but ... well ... what more is there to say? Faith is a very personal thing for me, and I'll be darned if I'll let some church or atheistic authority tell me to toe the line.

Gatekeeper

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Umm? My claim is that there is no (scientific) evidence either way. If there is no evidence, then there is no information, and probability would be 50/50.

Probability requires some information. "No information" isn't a valid probability distribution.