Atheism will eat itself

[witch]

My point is that 'atheism' (being a belief in no God) requires faith.

 

Not believing in God is not the same thing as believing in no God.

And no, I am not splitting hairs, the meanings are quite different.

[MkII]

Not believing in God is not the same thing as believing in no God.

And no, I am not splitting hairs, the meanings are quite different.

Thankyou for the correction

 

'atheism' (to be certain there is no God) requires faith.

 

How's that?

Edited January 10, 2009 by MkII

[MkII]

Equally Atheism is not responsible for Dawkins actions!

Touche'

 

I just see Christianity as a reflection of some parts of society but a part that must be closed to certain ideas - for example, multiple gods. The rest of us are free to use and information from any source without a bias towards the Bible.

You're talking from a very conditioned perspective tho' I believe. In reality all people are at liberty to think what they like, and the Christianity I know promotes questioning.

 

I don't believe Christianity was a soley negative influence on science and knowledge - it had many positive influences infact. I just don't think Christianity deserves the credit anymore that Atheism deserves the credit if an atheist makes a discovery. In every case it is the people we should thank.

I think you colour history very unfairly. Plus we aren't talking individuals, were talking creating the environment.

 

You experience God - don't you?

Not in a provable way. That would be impossible.

 

Also, isn't that a little closed-minded? What if the Bible got it wrong at there is a visible, all powerful creator and he pops back to Earth to see how we're getting on? I'm not being facetious!

Not closed minded - but worked out. Rational conclusions. From the beginning up, a coherent model.

 

Quick clarification of definitions.

Thankyou

 

God is the one true God. The Judao-Christian trinity. All-everything. Timeless. Personal. Creator. Here and now.

 

god(s) is any deity. Can be a personal god if you don't agree that it fits the definition of Him, the one true God.

You're saying 'my God' isn't the first one??

 

I don't think it's thinly defined, I think God's attributes are very well defined but that definition isn't helpful. Every desirable human quality was simply made perfect or infinite and it has made them all meaningless.

hmmm.. I do see your point. From your perspective this isn't a rationalized model, so it doesn't make sense. To me those attributes aren't just human characteristics maxxed. It's a limited definition in that it's designed from human reference. People draw similarities with super heroes. Superman, for example, is thought to be modelled on Jesus.

 

I think that your personal god is a very different creature than God - I think that makes it much greater than the God of Genesis since it was defined and created (in my opinion) by you for you.

Nah. My God doesn't fit your (unqualified?) idea.

 

I can certainly give examples where it is doing good and negative things. That's evidence enough for me that it isn't special.

I was talking about fundamentalism, but nevermind... For me it's all positive, but I don't take other people's word for it. If I did, perhaps I'd be a Catholic after Mother Theresa, or a Hindu after Ghandi.

 

If I do something good do we credit atheism? Religion should have no claim over the good works of followers.

Precisely. Clanging bells 'n all that

 

It is responsible for things like discouraging the use of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa - because it could change it's stance (I blame the C Church btw).

A Catholic, anti Christ-like ruling.

 

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. - Steven Weinberg

An ignorant statement.

 

In practical terms I am without-god (a-theist) as well as being unable to prove either way that He exists. Interestingly God would find himself having the same problem. In 'Old Harry's Game' (Radio 4 comedy) 'The Professor' asks God, "How can a god be certain He is the one true God, it's a fascinating question" (which it is)

I think to make it simple, you could just say you're an agnostic . It is a fascinating question, yes, requiring an assumption. An illogical question as well when making another assumption.

 

Philosophy of language is very interesting.

 

I will cite Russell and Dawkins to answer this.

 

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

 

- Bertrand Russell

 

 

"Nobody but a lunatic would say "Well, I'm prepared to believe in the teapot because I cannot disprove it" Maybe we have to be technically and strictly agnostic but in practice we are all teapot-atheists" - Richard Dawkins

I think that's rubbish. It substitutes an item of ridicule in the place of a sustainable theory. Swap that into a scientific statement and you may see an equally preposterous suggestion.

 

Belgian? Do I have to put hot tea in it?

No snobby muck here please! Galaxy with PG Tips K?

 

Dawkins first book explicitly about religion is "The God Delusion" - shock title but very calm and considered writing. I think if you flick through it you'd actually enjoy it and find that you agree with him about most things.

I've read most of it and that's what my opinion is based on. I respect that he can write. That's it. The content is a constant annoyance. Ill informed prejudice without any solid reference. A spitting image puppet to equal Brian Sewell (if you know anything about Art). I agree with him about nothing, except his contractions.

 

He thinks that religion is a product of belief based on faith and that this is dangerous. Personal gods do not give people the conviction to do evil things in the name of religion - Dawkins, like me, is frustrated when he looks around the world by the damage that can be done when large numbers believe, 100%, that they have all the truth. I don't need to give examples.

He thinks his twisted take on Catholicism applies to everyone else too. He's obviously dedicated a lot of time considering the subject yet remains stubbornly ignorant of some very basic facts. He seeks to trash and destroy what he doesn't understand, and revealingly, go on national television publicly decrying the ravings of the weak minded that write to him. A true telly-evangelist.

 

No one should want to know about such shallow negativism. Atheism fuels this abomination.

[SYNACK]

You're talking from a very conditioned perspective tho' I believe. In reality all people are at liberty to think what they like, and the Christianity I know promotes questioning.

How far does it promote this questioning though, if you were to actually be continuously questioning to the preist and others would they not doubt your faith or at the very least get irritated?

I think you colour history very unfairly. Plus we aren't talking individuals, were talking creating the environment.

In which case how come there was so much development beforehand and after without the help of that particular religion. So much stuff was discovered and invented by others outside the sphere of this religion that its direct effects are not special or unique.

Not in a provable way. That would be impossible.

 

You're saying 'my God' isn't the first one??

Asked and answered, you can't possible 'know' as you admitted earlier you can have faith that your god is 'God' but you can not possibly know.

I was talking about fundamentalism, but nevermind... For me it's all positive, but I don't take other people's word for it. If I did, perhaps I'd be a Catholic after Mother Theresa, or a Hindu after Ghandi.

 

Precisely. Clanging bells 'n all that

 

A Catholic, anti Christ-like ruling.

Wow another shining example of the tollerance that is toughted by christianity, lets hear some hate for the other religions as well. Is it denial or ignorance that convinces you that you can't possibly be wrong? Aditionally how can you possibly know for certain what the others that appear to ascribe to to your view really feel and beleive deep down, you would need abilities not unlike God to be sure.

I think that's rubbish. It substitutes an item of ridicule in the place of a sustainable theory. Swap that into a scientific statement and you may see an equally preposterous suggestion.

Thats the point, it substitutes an item not sheilded by thousands of years worth of acceptance - in certain circles - to show both what it looks like from the outside and to try and get people to consider the issue without getting tied up in years worth of prior beleif. It is interesting to hear that you think that it is preposterous.

He thinks his twisted take on Catholicism applies to everyone else too. He's obviously dedicated a lot of time considering the subject yet remains stubbornly ignorant of some very basic facts. He seeks to trash and destroy what he doesn't understand, and revealingly, go on national television publicly decrying the ravings of the weak minded that write to him. A true telly-evangelist.

 

No one should want to know about such shallow negativism. Atheism fuels this abomination.

'Facts' again I'm sure we've been over the burden of proof for facts - invisible dragon in the garage anyone.

 

Interesting statment given your previous ones about not blaming religion for the actions of its followers. Christianity would equally fuel the denial of science and choice in the US if we use the same reasoning.

Edited January 10, 2009 by SYNACK

[localzuk]

Thankyou for the correction

 

'atheism' (to be certain there is no God) requires faith.

 

How's that?

 

But as people have said, that is only one small definition of atheism. You're ignoring the other definitions.

[GrumbleDook]

A very interesting thread, full of carefully thought points on all sides seeking to established an idea, a theory or factual 'laws'.

 

Is there really much difference between what we do here and what philosophers of bygone ages did? Religious tenets, lack of those tenets or denial of them does not preclude developments of scientific theory either via logic or empirical research. One thing we should not forget that politics and religion / atheism are virtually impossible separate and *this* is why there have been a variety of schisms over the years. This does happen in atheism too in more simplistic terms with things like people creating their own forum because they don't like they the direction of the existing site. Although Dawkins does not title himself as the leader of atheism neither did Martin Luther say 'I have all the answers'.

 

Politics and schisms are part of human nature and the developments in science due to investments by the church can be seen as politics rather than religion. It mattered little whether the scientists believed in God or not ... as long as the results where vetted by the person with power.

Do I think this was a good thing? No, but I do tend to also believe that power corrupts and this has been the case you are in a theocracy, a democracy or a tyranny.

The thing I do believe in is individual and collective responsibility. That you are in control of your own actions and you can affect others through them. I also *believe* that I am answerable for my actions to everyone, including fellow humans, the world in general and to God. The last bit is probably one of the few differences between me and Dawkins. I like his work, feel that he does what every philosopher and scientist does (fit words into discourse in such a manner to promote his points) and that this is based on available evidence and logic or lack of available evidence or logic.

 

An interesting one about the teapot in space though. Science can often base theory around the probability of what is possible actually happening and then they do what they can to take the probability of it as close to 100% as possible. There is a level of probability that the teapot exists by a random collection of molecules. We could say that the existence of God or Gods has not, for atheists or agnostics, had the probability sufficiently raised to 100% due to not accepting the same evidence that theists do. Do I think all evidence should be put forward? Yes ... But if you are working on the fact that atheists believe their evidence (or lack of theist evidence) is sufficiently strong then basing an upbringing within any religion should be ok as atheists can 'convert' you at any time. The counter argument is that indoctrination is hard to change. The same could be said of morality though. If I brought up a child to see that it is ok to kill other children in order to get food then what right do others have to challenge my actions as they are based on the environment I may live in and we are following the actions of others (animals) in the area. This was a question raised to a group I was in to provoke discussion about the rights of missionaries to change the actions of a few selected South American tribes.

No matter what your point of view on God or Gods, atheism has a following the same way that theism does. Some are active protagonists and go out there to 'sell' their view. Others are happy to sit back and just think their own private thoughts. This applies to all sides really, theism ... atheism ... agnosticism. We are all a lot more alike than some might think and this is why we get the views that atheism is as close to a belief system as you get without bring religion, remembering that not everyone follows hierarchical religions.

Edited January 10, 2009 by GrumbleDook
cleaning up the english

[MkII]

Thanks for some good points SYNACK

 

How far does it promote this questioning though, if you were to actually be continuously questioning to the preist and others would they not doubt your faith or at the very least get irritated?

It clearly promotes questioning in the rule book. I wouldn't be in a church that goes against that. Catholicism makes the mistake of placing priests as intermediaries for God - something totally abhorrent to biblical principles. But I assume you were picking the title randomly.

 

In which case how come there was so much development beforehand and after without the help of that particular religion. So much stuff was discovered and invented by others outside the sphere of this religion that its direct effects are not special or unique.

No one is dismissing other avenues.

 

(Not in a provable way. That would be impossible.) Asked and answered, you can't possible 'know' as you admitted earlier you can have faith that your god is 'God' but you can not possibly know.

Sorry, 'provable is too limited an answer. No, I can't know in a way that can be proved empirically, it's a different thing. You seek to deny logic limiting yourself like that.

 

Wow another shining example of the tollerance that is toughted by christianity, lets hear some hate for the other religions as well. Is it denial or ignorance that convinces you that you can't possibly be wrong? Aditionally how can you possibly know for certain what the others that appear to ascribe to to your view really feel and beleive deep down, you would need abilities not unlike God to be sure.

LOL Catholicism clearly breaks the biblical stance there. What am I supposed to say? That's ok?? Their position is counter logical. I don't hate them, I consider them fellow Christians.

It's knowledge of facts, the few that I do remember, that makes me sure. Not denial or ignorance. Some things are debatable, and some believe firmly things I don't understand. All of them I tolerate and accept.

 

(the chocolate teapot is ridiculous) Thats the point, it substitutes an item not sheilded by thousands of years worth of acceptance - in certain circles - to show both what it looks like from the outside and to try and get people to consider the issue without getting tied up in years worth of prior beleif. It is interesting to hear that you think that it is preposterous.

If it were a viable concept, as God is, it would be totally believable. Personally I could dismiss all of history as the concept itself is strong enough to stand alone, unlike the completely ridiculous teapot. The substitution idea is good, the substitute is an antagonistic extreme opposite. What if your fingers were made of jelly in an alternate reality. why wouldn't they be functional? It's a ridiculous proposal.

 

'Facts' again I'm sure we've been over the burden of proof for facts - invisible dragon in the garage anyone.

No, Dawkins doesn't back up his ideas with anything concrete. We're not talking fairies. Or perhaps we are!

 

Interesting statment given your previous ones about not blaming religion for the actions of its followers. Christianity would equally fuel the denial of science and choice in the US if we use the same reasoning.

Granted. Although atheism has only destructive aims that I can see. Liberation from ignorance wiping out everything good in it's path along the way. Mimicking the God of the old testament. Poetical!

[MkII]

But as people have said, that is only one small definition of atheism. You're ignoring the other definitions.

Yes.

 

I feel confident in assuming that the definition I understand to be commonly accepted is actually.

[GrumbleDook]

But as people have said, that is only one small definition of atheism. You're ignoring the other definitions.

 

Many people define God / Gods in a variety of ways yet atheists insist on using a single description. Non-existent. Surely that is an example of ignoring other descriptions ;-)

[gwendes]

@ mark

 

Just a quicky...

 

I really want to understand something.

 

You say that you know that God exists.

 

You live your life on that assumption but with no empirical proof. Since empirical proof includes evidence from experience are you saying that you having experienced God in any way? It sometimes sounds like you are hopeful that there is a God and live you life on that assumption but you're not sure.

 

If you're sure - why? If not, how do you deal with the part of your brain that asks "What if God is a creation of my mind?"

 

Do you understand what I'm asking... not sure the question has come out exactly as I wanted!

[gwendes]

Many people define God / Gods in a variety of ways yet atheists insist on using a single description. Non-existent. Surely that is an example of ignoring other descriptions ;-)

 

God is the singular Judao-Christian God. God has a fixed list of attributes - anything other than that is not God, it is a god or gods. 'Gods' cannot ever be correctly used.

 

These are not the definitions of atheists.

 

I am an atheist and do not describe God as non-existent. I don't think that God exists and I live my life on the assumption that He doesn't. To understand my position consider the following: we are all atheist (in real terms) to almost ever God that has ever been created (however, strictly speaking, we are agnostic).

[GrumbleDook]

God is traditionally used to represent any deity within a monotheistic religion, including Christianity with actually has a trinity as its singular deity, Judaism and Islam, amongst others.

 

The use of 'Gods' rather than gods to make reference to deities within polytheistic religions is not common and is contested, but within interfaith discussions it is seen as a nominal way to remove some of the issues with certain faiths being seen as more important even by something as simple as the capitalisation of the word god, no matter whether we are talking about one or many.

 

I can fully understand why this is confusing and I know that certain faith leaders do not like this and it may fall out of use ... but this is down to politics more than semantics. I also accept that people will not agree with this and that is fine be me ...

 

The difficulty in describing the difference between thinking God does not exist and saying God is non-existant is that, without putting it into context, there is little or no difference to most people when they read the sentence.

 

As to not believing in other gods/Gods and so being atheist / agnostic ... perhaps all Gods/gods are all representations of the same supreme being and that we just don't realise it yet and this is also something that gets discussed a lot in religious moot courts, the same way that some scientists will discuss different theories based around the same or similar empirical evidence in the hope of unifying certain theories.

 

When it comes to thinking about whether God purely exists in my own mind (relating to your question to Mark) and whether it is personal experience that has developed this belief, then yes ... you could put me in the same position too.

 

The existence of anything outside of your own mind is another long winded philosophical discussion that have been passed back and forth over the years. The difference between Sartre and Marcel is an example who the same area (existentialism) can have connotations for both atheism and theism (in Marcel's case, a Christian view of it).

 

I have to admit some lacking in my reading around some of this area as it just gets both dry and is prone to circular discussions. I always keep meaning to come back to it ... but things get in the way. My nephew has reassured me that it is an interesting area and that he is happy to spend many hours in the bar with fellow students talking about it. The fact that they take turns in discussing the different view points make me think the bar is the most important thing. Students ...

[MkII]

Thanks for the question gwendes. Let me have a go...

 

I know that God exists on balance of probability given conclusions I've drawn. I keep using the word empirical, but understand that this definition too isn't so precise. The way it works is that belief cannot be without question, or it'd cease to be a belief and be a certainty instead. Once you accept a belief you can hang your coat on the peg. I think it's very important to remember the frailty of the decision. It can be very easy to forget that the line you stepped over is crossable. I don't do things that might reinforce my views/ make me more sure. I don't take part in any communal worship, or meet with like minded people much at all. That's the way I like it/ think is right for me. Maybe I'm a little masochistic.

 

For God to be a creation of my mind, I'd think I'd have to have come up with the idea independently. I didn't. I accept a common idea. I understand it in my own unique way, as everyone would. I don't think it is meant to be easy. I love the question. Before I used this system I wasn't able to explore the subject so completely. There are also the company benefits.. happiness, joy, peace, positivity, a walk over of a boss that lets you get away with murder... if I thought God wanted me to be scared, unfulfilled and miserable I don't think I'd believe. I'd take my chances. Does that sound bad?

[MkII]

I don't think that God exists and I live my life on the assumption that He doesn't.

I wonder how different yours and my life actually are. I'd be very interested to compare. I wonder if there'd be any difference at all.

[duncane]

Re-write who's rules? Jehovah, Buddha, Jupiter, or some other deity?

 

I've no real interest in the (very long) thread - I finally gave into tempation and read it anyway - but I did want to comment on this. The Buddha is not a deity, so shouldn't be included in your list.

[MkII]

I've no real interest in the (very long) thread - I finally gave into tempation and read it anyway

Did you mean this one or the Scientology thread??

[fafster]

If it were a viable concept, as God is, it would be totally believable.

 

I don't believe the idea of a god is a viable concept. Therefore to me, the teapot analogy isn't all that preposterous.

[gwendes]

I know that God exists on balance of probability given conclusions I've drawn. I keep using the word empirical, but understand that this definition too isn't so precise. The way it works is that belief cannot be without question, or it'd cease to be a belief and be a certainty instead. Once you accept a belief you can hang your coat on the peg. I think it's very important to remember the frailty of the decision. It can be very easy to forget that the line you stepped over is crossable. I don't do things that might reinforce my views/ make me more sure. I don't take part in any communal worship, or meet with like minded people much at all. That's the way I like it/ think is right for me. Maybe I'm a little masochistic.

 

For God to be a creation of my mind, I'd think I'd have to have come up with the idea independently. I didn't. I accept a common idea. I understand it in my own unique way, as everyone would. I don't think it is meant to be easy. I love the question. Before I used this system I wasn't able to explore the subject so completely. There are also the company benefits.. happiness, joy, peace, positivity, a walk over of a boss that lets you get away with murder... if I thought God wanted me to be scared, unfulfilled and miserable I don't think I'd believe. I'd take my chances. Does that sound bad?

 

 

Thanks mark. I think I understand a little better.

 

You don't know there is a God either and so technically speaking you are also agnostic. Due to the way the word is generally used to describe fence-sitting 50/50 probability types you would rather, in real terms, be Christian.

 

I think there probably isn't a God and live my life on the assumption that there isn't.

 

You think there probably is a God and live your life on the asssumption that there is.

 

I think the interesting thing to find out would be why this is the case. Was there for you, at any point, empirical evidence that God exists?

 

I don't think you need to come up with an idea independently for it to be a construct of your mind. Of course it isn't easy but I don't think that it's meant to be easy because I don't think there is, or ever was an intention that the question would or should be asked. I don't think it's very useful to look at the universe and ask 'why?'. I don't think that the universe is for anything. I don't think we are either.

 

Let's assume that you're correct and there is a God. Now, to you He doesn't just exist He actually has intentions for you personally - God wants good things for you and doesn't want bad things. This is what you think without basing it on knowledge - you look at the world and think it is the creation of a good and just God.

 

Now it's easy to ask questions about the nature of God and just answer with 'mysterious ways' but do you really look at the world and see perfection? God has had nearly 14 billion years to manipulate the universe as an all powerful force for good... doesn't every example of imperfection, suffering, extinction point to a God that doesn't have the qualities of imminence, omnibenevolence and omnipotence? At least not all three?

 

I wonder how different yours and my life actually are. I'd be very interested to compare. I wonder if there'd be any difference at all.

 

 

In what terms? I'm sure we like different things, have different tastes in music etc but my guess is that we share things that all humans do. We like doing some things, dislike others. We experience pain and pleasure, happiness and sadness. The fascinating thing is based on very similar experiences you choose to have a God and I don't have a God (I don't think mine is a decision because I don't think I could believe if I just tried really hard!)

 

I see science as a force for good - improving our understanding of the universe, making life easier, safer and actually having an effect in real terms (improving health, quantity of leisure time, life expectancy etc). With empirical evidence like this and science also being prepared to accept anything that has repeatable results into the realm of science I remain suspicious of religion and those that control it. Afterall, who is God hiding from?

[MkII]

I don't believe the idea of a god is a viable concept. Therefore to me, the teapot analogy isn't all that preposterous.

 

Great point. Although I find it hard to believe it doesn't register with you at all. I suspect your talking about specific child like notions of God (I don't mean to offend there, just those arguments are what are commonly quoted in such discussions). Dawkins, I imagine, dismisses the concept for other reasons, and doesn't want to know about it, so trivialises it. Intentional ignorance.

[gwendes]

Great point. Although I find it hard to believe it doesn't register with you at all. I suspect your talking about specific child like notions of God (I don't mean to offend there, just those arguments are what are commonly quoted in such discussions). Dawkins, I imagine, dismisses the concept for other reasons, and doesn't want to know about it, so trivialises it. Intentional ignorance.

 

Much like your ignorance to almost every deity mankind has worshipped?

 

Dawkins was rasied CoE and I think that makes his opinion on the religion that was forced upon him very important. He already knows what religion did to him and can observe the rest of the humanity and the effects of religion worldwide. If the Bible had mentioned evolution I'm sure an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins would never have felt the need to mention the problems. How would you feel if alternative-IT was invading our subject area? I think it wouldn't be long before a few of us stood up and talked against crystal healing for computers? Do you?

 

To discuss God you need to define God. God is a poor explanation since, by definition, God needs to be immensely complicated (much like the universe) but without a creator - and therefore nothing has been solved!

 

Religion goes further and makes us the subjects of God's concern - God cares. Science says that we are not special, but we are complicated, the Sun doesn't revolve around us but we are capable of that knowledge. God doesn't actually succeed in giving any solutions or answers - only doubt does.

Edited January 12, 2009 by gwendes

[fafster]

Great point. Although I find it hard to believe it doesn't register with you at all. I suspect your talking about specific child like notions of God (I don't mean to offend there, just those arguments are what are commonly quoted in such discussions). Dawkins, I imagine, dismisses the concept for other reasons, and doesn't want to know about it, so trivialises it. Intentional ignorance.

 

No, I mean any kind of god, be it a personal one or general notions of godlikednessability (I'd kick your arse at scrabble, that's for sure) that people subscribe to.

 

I'm paraphrasing a quote here, but the universe is beautiful enough as it is without having to create fantastical solutions to arguments from ignorance. Let's face it, the more advanced we progress as a society, the less is attributed to deities.

[MkII]

No, I mean any kind of god, be it a personal one or general notions of godlikednessability (I'd kick your arse at scrabble, that's for sure) that people subscribe to.

Well John Lennon is god, so is Peter Norton. Like I said, those definitions don't help with the serious question. If you want to narrow it down a bit that'd help

 

I'm paraphrasing a quote here, but the universe is beautiful enough as it is without having to create fantastical solutions to arguments from ignorance. Let's face it, the more advanced we progress as a society, the less is attributed to deities.

Baloney (to your last statement). Of course the universe is beautiful enough. It'd be childish to attribute to God stuff that should be explained elsewhere. Hence my point.

[MkII]

You don't know there is a God either and so technically speaking you are also agnostic.

 

Due to the way the word is generally used to describe fence-sitting 50/50 probability types you would rather, in real terms, be Christian.

Did I say that!?

 

I think the interesting thing to find out would be why this is the case. Was there for you, at any point, empirical evidence that God exists?

1. *looks around* Where's that clue bat?

 

2. No

 

I don't think you need to come up with an idea independently for it to be a construct of your mind. Of course it isn't easy but I don't think that it's meant to be easy because I don't think there is, or ever was an intention that the question would or should be asked. I don't think it's very useful to look at the universe and ask 'why?'. I don't think that the universe is for anything. I don't think we are either.

I'm for doing the dishes. I'm also for reproducing, but only when my other god says so.

 

In my yoof, and still now, I come up with thousands of ideas to explain stuff I don't know. Where do dead people go? Is there anything more to coincidences? What are dreams all about? The exploration potential is huge, and a natural instinct to explore I think.

 

Maybe it spoils it having a religion told to you at an early age. I had very little serious religious influence. A few crackpot ideas from my Mum, plus sunday school that made less than no sense...

 

Let's assume that you're correct and there is a God. Now, to you He doesn't just exist He actually has intentions for you personally - God wants good things for you and doesn't want bad things. This is what you think without basing it on knowledge - you look at the world and think it is the creation of a good and just God.

That's what I think basing it on accepted knowledge (to me) and not physical proof, yes.

 

Creation.. that's a very wooly/ generalistic understanding you state there. I'd have far stronger ideas from science that would take higher precedence than that statement, but generally speaking, I think it's true.

 

Now it's easy to ask questions about the nature of God and just answer with 'mysterious ways' but do you really look at the world and see perfection? God has had nearly 14 billion years to manipulate the universe as an all powerful force for good... doesn't every example of imperfection, suffering, extinction point to a God that doesn't have the qualities of imminence, omnibenevolence and omnipotence? At least not all three?

That's a very simplistic/ limiting idea of God (I'd suggest). I see perfection in the same way that fafster is saying - ie it's beautiful. I think you do too? Like I think I've said, to me the laws of physics are beautiful. If anything was created, they were. Everything follows that. So yes, I'm still in awe at God's creation.

 

In what terms?

terms that would be influenced by a God of course dummy!

 

...morality, well being, motivation, charity... etc

 

The fascinating thing is based on very similar experiences you choose to have a God and I don't have a God (I don't think mine is a decision because I don't think I could believe if I just tried really hard!)

Am I pre-disposed? Looking at the interest you have in the subject I'd say you think about it more than I do. After that it's just circumstance that leads to any affiliation, which I think is immaterial.

 

I see science as a force for good - improving our understanding of the universe, making life easier, safer and actually having an effect in real terms (improving health, quantity of leisure time, life expectancy etc). With empirical evidence like this and science also being prepared to accept anything that has repeatable results into the realm of science

I agree.

 

I remain suspicious of religion and those that control it.

Amen to that

[MkII]

Much like your ignorance to almost every deity mankind has worshipped?

Handbags @ dawn mr gwendes?

 

Dawkins was rasied CoE and I think that makes his opinion on the religion that was forced upon him very important. He already knows what religion did to him and can observe the rest of the humanity and the effects of religion worldwide.

He had a bad experience of some offthe wall thinking and that gives him the right to go whoop on people's asses. I don't think so.

 

the Bible had mentioned evolution I'm sure an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins would never have felt the need to mention the problems. How would you feel if alternative-IT was invading our subject area? I think it wouldn't be long before a few of us stood up and talked against crystal healing for computers? Do you?

I agree with countering crackpot ideas. Dawkins ignorantly takes it further and condemns all IT Professionals as well. Are you incensed? ARE YOU!!!

 

To discuss God you need to define God. God is a poor explanation since, by definition, God needs to be immensely complicated (much like the universe) but without a creator - and therefore nothing has been solved!

 

Religion goes further and makes us the subjects of God's concern - God cares. Science says that we are not special, but we are complicated, the Sun doesn't revolve around us but we are capable of that knowledge.

I have no problem with any of that.

 

God doesn't actually succeed in giving any solutions or answers - only doubt does.

1. Yes he does.

2. only doubt does?

[fafster]

Baloney (to your last statement). Of course the universe is beautiful enough. It'd be childish to attribute to God stuff that should be explained elsewhere. Hence my point.

 

But that's entirely my point. Any natural phenomenon that couldn't be explained would be described as an act of god. As our understanding of our universe grows, via various methodologies, we attribute less of it to some heavenly creator.

 

Have a quick search for 'God of the gap' to see what I mean.