# The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins



## Mattayus (Nov 5, 2008)

Anyone read this?

I've just started it, and it's a book I've been meaning to read for some time.

I don't know about you, but I find his writing style a bit too erratic to get into straight away. Like, you really have to persist past the ins and outs before you settle down, but once you're away it's a good read.

I also find him a bit naive at times. I mean, I AM an atheist in every sense of the word, but I oftentimes find Dawkins' reasoning and logic to be a bit obvious, a bit tongue in cheek, and sometimes it gets to the point where I think "hmm... now I'm sure you've only said that to ruffle a few feathers".

He does challenge belief in a way I like as well though, and also I feel much more grounded in my beliefs since starting to read it. If anything else, he helps you put into context what you already believe so it's easier to put forward to someone.

I think this book is a must whatever your religious standpoint. But if you're an atheist it's even better!


----------



## hairychris (Nov 7, 2008)

That book is a bit irritating, but I think that it's probably because it's deliberately pretty non-technical which allows his dislike of irrationality to get the better of him. His earlier books are a better read if you've already put some thought into the subject. Admittedly the only other ones I have are The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow which are more focused on evolution, genetics and biology...

It's quite hard to find anyone who manages to combine the scientific & philosophical arguments at the same time. A book I enjoyed reading was "Atheism - The Case Against God" by George H Smith. More philosophy and less polemic.  Hawking's Brief History of Time is fun to gget your teeth in to, if only to illustrate that there's enough weird shit in the universe without and supernatural beings!


----------



## Metal Ken (Nov 7, 2008)

I've read about 3 chapters, but i got sidetracked by some novels, and had to return it to a friend of mine. I'm going to pick it up before the end of the year for sure.


----------



## Pauly (Nov 7, 2008)

Solid read, Hitchen's 'God is not Great' is also a good one too, along with Russell's 'Why I Am Not A Christian (and other essays)'.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Nov 7, 2008)

im up to about chapter 6 i think.
it is indeed pretty hard to read, becasue of the style it is written in, however it is very witty and thought envoking imo. great so far


----------



## Blackrg (Nov 13, 2008)

I just saw the show on Ch 4. I enjoyed it, there are some freakin crazy believers out there and he meets most of em.

Dawkins himself seemed quite a sad fuck to me.

The funny thing is, believers in religions might be deluded, but they seemed altogether happier than him.

I'm more in the gnostic camp myself. 

I'd recommend Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Universe as an antidote to all this 'either or' shit


----------



## Leec (Nov 13, 2008)

Richard Dawkins is a great writer, I think. He writes with clarity and a great turn of phrase. The only downside I found to the book is the self-checking he is forced to do along the way; he has to ram each point home way beyond what you'd reasonably expect because at every step, pedantic and misled Creationists might try to reinterpret what he's saying. And because he's battling against one of the few things that it's still just so darned OK to be close minded about.

And the ruffling of feathers you mean, I didn't find anything unnecessary in the book. However, if there is, it's most likely in the name of raising awareness, in the same way Feminists would demand that documents contain "he/she" instead of just "he".

If you've not read him before, it's not a bad idea to ground it in some of his earlier stuff, like The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable and Unweaving the Rainbow. And Pauly's right; check out Why I Am Not A Christian. Another entertaining read. Sam Harris's End of Faith is an equally great read.

And BlackRG, Dawkins is certainly not a sad fuck. I can only guess you think that because of the TV show. But you have to think, he was coming up against some ridiculously close minded people (and some who seem to lean their head out into the sunlight of rational ways of thinking, only to run back to the shade when questioned deeper) who would not listen to reason at all. I find that incredibly irritating myself, so for such a lucid man, it must be difficult not to let it be all consuming. He conducted himself pretty well, I thought.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 13, 2008)

Blackrg said:


> I just saw the show on Ch 4. I enjoyed it, there are some freakin crazy believers out there and he meets most of em.
> 
> Dawkins himself seemed quite a sad fuck to me.
> 
> ...



Historically, Gnosticism - as in the sect - is ultimately theistic with the knowledge of the transcendent deity passed to adherents directly, so to speak. Is this what you mean?

I may check that book out as I've read some of his stuff & it's quite interesting.

Anyway, *a*gnosticism doesn't have anything to do with belief, it's about knowledge.

If someone asks 'do you *believe* in deities/transcendental gods/etc' saying 'I don't *know*' isn't an option because that wasn't the question. Atheism is defined as the lack of theistic belief, nothing more or less, so any answer to that question that isn't a 'yes' makes you an atheist. 

Not being obtuse, but that's the definition. I'll hazard to say that many atheists are agnostic too - I know that I am although there is a philosophical position that because the supernatural is, by definition, unable to be defined in our natural universe, any call to that makes an arguement logically worthless.

On the other hand, if you think that the 'supernatural' can ultimately be understood but we just don't have the tools yet, this is no longer supernatural as the knowledge will bring it in to the natural realm!

  

The philosophy that I _have_ read makes my brain hurt.  The point is that either/or reflects personal belief, yes/no/maybe/wtf defines our _gnosis_.

Just picking up the comment you made about happy believers... that may be the case although you miss the point about whether the belief is actually true! I could spend my life happy in the knowledge that my invisible unicorn guards me in my sleep... anyway... I think that you know where those arguments lead. Anway, on a more practical level, if some 'happy' believer thinks it's within his rights to restrict mine, or kill me for his 'happy' god then, well, that matters. Fuckloads. I don't want some halfwit to use an unproven sky-daddy* as an excuse to inflict their will on me or anyone else.

Moderate religionists are the sea in which the extremists swim, that's my problem. It would be great to be able to slap down the loonies, but wait! Everyone else in that religion shares virtually identical beliefs but with varying degrees of intensity.

I do think that Dawkins has absolutely the right idea but will admit that he can really come off looking like he's being deliberately provocative. Entertaining, yes, and taking the fight to believers, yeah, but can be a bit irritating! Good author, although his more blatantly scientific books are a better read then 'The God Delusion' IMO.

* Assuming the Abrahamic god here. The pissed-off, genocidal, toy-out-of-pram-on-a-regular-basis, god of the desert of the Old Testament who, quite frankly, I'm glad is unlikely to exist because he would be an absolute bastard. I haven't made it on to the New Testament yet because I need gallons of mind-bleach to numb the experience of reading the preamble!!

These guys are my heros:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJxCFa8YmbQ


----------



## Blackrg (Nov 13, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Historically, Gnosticism - as in the sect -
> ]



No not the ancient sect, more the neo-Gnosticism as discussed by Carl Jung. very interesting studies in 'meta religion'

Yes, the RAW book is great ...mind blowing in fact


----------



## TonalArchitect (Nov 13, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Just picking up the comment you made about happy believers... that may be the case although you miss the point about whether the belief is actually true! I could spend my life happy in the knowledge that my invisible unicorn guards me in my sleep... anyway... I think that you know where those arguments lead. Anway, on a more practical level, if some 'happy' believer thinks it's within his rights to restrict mine, or kill me for his 'happy' god then, well, that matters. Fuckloads. I don't want some halfwit to use an unproven sky-daddy* as an excuse to inflict their will on me or anyone else.
> 
> Moderate religionists are the sea in which the extremists swim, that's my problem. It would be great to be able to slap down the loonies, but wait! Everyone else in that religion shares virtually identical beliefs but with varying degrees of intensity.
> 
> * Assuming the Abrahamic god here. The pissed-off, genocidal, toy-out-of-pram-on-a-regular-basis, god of the desert of the Old Testament who, quite frankly, I'm glad is unlikely to exist because he would be an absolute bastard. I haven't made it on to the New Testament yet because I need gallons of mind-bleach to numb the experience of reading the preamble!!


----------



## hairychris (Nov 13, 2008)

Blackrg said:


> No not the ancient sect, more the neo-Gnosticism as discussed by Carl Jung. very interesting studies in 'meta religion'
> 
> Yes, the RAW book is great ...mind blowing in fact



Yah. OK then:

Do you believe in (a) god(s)?


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 13, 2008)

I generally cannot stand religious text. It doest really phase me whether it is for, or against religion, i just feel like all the writers on both sides are trying to sway (scare) me into doing what they want. 

I enjoy _writing_ about religion, or religious ideals, because i get to make up my own mind about everything, so its less infuriating. 

As for the OP, i hear its supposed to be quite a good book, and so far as anti-christian/religious texts go it is a far more entertaining read than most, if a little naive.


----------



## Blackrg (Nov 16, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Yah. OK then:
> 
> Do you believe in (a) god(s)?



Sorry for offline my bad

No..not god or gods. 

I guess my faith is in the continued persistence of the consensual hallucination we share called 'reality'


----------



## Pauly (Nov 16, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Moderate religionists are the sea in which the extremists swim, that's my problem. It would be great to be able to slap down the loonies, but wait! Everyone else in that religion shares virtually identical beliefs but with varying degrees of intensity.




I agree with Dawkins/Hitchens and co in that extremism is inevitable and unavoidable with religion because the fact is, as you say, it's there in the books as 'spoken' by God/Jeebus/Raptor Jesus and being told it's the one truth and you should take their word for it. Yesterday there was an article in one of the weekend paper's supplement magazines about extremism (reformed failed suicide bomber etc), and they kept talking about literalism with readings and stuff like 'that's not how you're supposed to do it!', look at the moderate types! But hold! Aren't these people actually doing a better and more consistent job of repping for their faiths, taking the whole book seriously rather than cherry-picking the good bits or trying to turn dubious events or sections into metaphors (you should see how they rationalise the Midianites getting massacred, hilarious).


Like it or not, if everyone picks up their copy of, for example, the Bible you can count a pretty impressive death toll for over 2000 years ago for a little bit of unremarkable land in the Middle East, where the creator of the universe finally decided to make an appearance (took long enough!). This always makes me lol when Christians e.t.c talk about morals and stuff like without the church we'd all turn into wild animals. Take it they didn't notice that while God was cutting a swathe through the sinners, over in the East China was already doing some pretty cool stuff, guess they didn't get the message. Oh, and those Hindus too, who'd been around for a couple of thousand years already. 


But yeah, as long as the texts exist you're going to have people that take them super serious with no room to manoeuvre. Me, I'm a liberal transhumanist, technically agnostic since it's the only real rational position, but for all intents and purposes an atheist since the odds seem pretty slim indeed. Russell's teapot basically. If you made me pick one religion I could put up with having to be surrounded by it'd probably be Adveita Vedanta Hinduism or something like that (although there's probably something suspect somewhere I didn't see).



Oh yeah, death count!

Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)


----------



## hairychris (Nov 16, 2008)

Yes, Russell's teapot...  The joys of probablility!


----------



## silentrage (Nov 16, 2008)

Blackrg said:


> Sorry for offline my bad
> 
> No..not god or gods.
> 
> I guess my faith is in the continued persistence of the consensual hallucination we share called 'reality'



so you're buddhist.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Nov 16, 2008)

Pauly said:


> Oh yeah, death count!
> 
> Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)






hairychris said:


> Yes, Russell's teapot...  The joys of probablility!




I haven't read the book, but it seems pretty interesting from what you guys are saying. I'll try an grab a copy when I can.


----------



## Pauly (Nov 17, 2008)

You can read the essay online, the book is basically a collection of essays pertinent to religion.

Why I'm not a Christian


----------



## hairychris (Nov 17, 2008)

The teapot example is quoted here:

Russell& - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Nov 18, 2008)

Pauly said:


> You can read the essay online, the book is basically a collection of essays pertinent to religion.
> 
> Why I'm not a Christian


That is an excellent read.



hairychris said:


> The teapot example is quoted here:
> 
> Russell& - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As is this.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 18, 2008)

Have a look at his "the problems of philosophy" book if you can. It's his introduction (<100 pages but very intensive) to the subject and is well worth a read. It puts his other writings in to context and demonstrates how important definitions are to arguments.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Nov 19, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> I generally cannot stand religious text. It doest really phase me whether it is for, or against religion, i just feel like all the writers on both sides are trying to sway (scare) me into doing what they want.
> 
> I enjoy _writing_ about religion, or religious ideals, because i get to make up my own mind about everything, so its less infuriating.
> 
> As for the OP, i hear its supposed to be quite a good book, and so far as anti-christian/religious texts go it is a far more entertaining read than most, if a little naive.



I agree, I've never read it, but I don't like the condescending attitude people have towards other people because of there beliefs on either side. Sure if someone attacks mine I will defend myself, but I won't try to devalue someone else. I really don't believe in a God or higher power although I think that there is the possibility. So people label me an atheist and try to get me to go to atheist groups and stuff, but they do the same things I really don't like about religions...


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 19, 2008)

ILdÐÆMcº³;1279257 said:


> I agree, I've never read it, but I don't like the condescending attitude people have towards other people because of there beliefs on either side. Sure if someone attacks mine I will defend myself, but I won't try to devalue someone else. I really don't believe in a God or higher power although I think that there is the possibility. So people label me an atheist and try to get me to go to atheist groups and stuff, but they do the same things I really don't like about religions...


----------



## hairychris (Nov 19, 2008)

Fair enough.... *if* the religious nuts keep it in their pants and don't act on those beliefs.

I honestly don't give a shit what people believe, it's up to them. I may think that they're wrong - and enjoy the odd argument about it - but they're totally within their rights to imagine what they like. I'm not intolerant in that respect.

However, as we all know, belief informs action. If one has irrational beliefs then expect, ultimately, irrational actions.

ILd&#208;&#198;Mc&#186;&#179;, basically you _are_ an atheist then, by definition!  Nowt to be afraid of, and any negative connotations are bullshit spouted by people with a vested interest in the opposite. I don't know why people want you to join groups & stuff, that sounds a bit silly. All atheism is is a clean slate - do what you will and keep in mind the golden rule, a human morality is much more satisfying then an imposed supernatural one. Not sure what the social climate in MN is... do you have idiots trying to break science there too?


----------



## Mattayus (Nov 19, 2008)

hairychris said:


> If one has irrational beliefs then expect, ultimately, irrational actions.



I like that 

One exception I always made was your general Christian. Not evangelical or fundamentalist, but here in the UK certainly we have a very pleasant, benevolent breed of protestant that I always find endearing. Just the other day me and my gf had to take our son in church because it has a public toilet and it was FREEZING outside and Callum needed changing. A woman from the canteen offered us to come in out of the cold doorway, and into the canteen for a cuppa tea. 

It was utter pleasantry, nothing more nothing less. Warm, welcoming, courteous, and ungrudging, which they all seem to be like.

But then I always ask myself; is that benevolence an act of self-gratification? Without the umbrella of religion over them would they all be like that as an atheist? I'm not for a second implying that religion is the basis of benevolence, but they do often act a bit over the top with it, to a point where sometimes it does seem irrational. Not that offering shelter from the cold is irrational  That was just an example to make the point, you get what I mean though.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 19, 2008)

Funnily enough one of the quotes that Dawkins uses early on in The God Delusion (I don't have it with me so I'll paraphrase) is that our English priesthood have done a very good job of innoculating us against Christianity!

"but here in the UK certainly we have a very pleasant, benevolent breed of protestant that I always find endearing"

Yeah, a good guard against a tendency for religious extremism in our country which was entirely the point that was made.

I'll not comment on the other parts as I'm going to try to keep book related after my previous rant(s)!!


----------



## Mattayus (Nov 19, 2008)

Haha, you make it sound like as soon as my back's turned they're in the kitchen skinning babies ffs 

I'm merely saying, I don't care what their intentions are as a person, or their beliefs, so long as they smile and keep on walking. It's much more than I've seen from Christians in other countries, with their vigorous self righteousness that often comes across threatening.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Nov 21, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Fair enough.... *if* the religious nuts keep it in their pants and don't act on those beliefs.






hairychris said:


> However, as we all know, belief informs action. If one has irrational beliefs then expect, ultimately, irrational actions.


So True.  Irrational people are such a pain to deal with.



hairychris said:


> All atheism is is a clean slate - do what you will and keep in mind the golden rule, *a human morality is much more satisfying then an imposed supernatural one.*


I couldn't agree more. 



Mattayus said:


> I'm merely saying, I don't care what their intentions are as a person, or their beliefs, so long as they smile and keep on walking. It's much more than I've seen from Christians in other countries, with their vigorous self righteousness that often comes across threatening.


 
I like your story. And this is how it hsould be, accpting others for who they are instead of trying to change or eliminate them. No matter what we believe, we all have some very fundamentally similar wants, needs, desires, emotions, etc.

Gimme a good Atheist over a Jehova's witness any day!! 



hairychris said:


> Not sure what the social climate in MN is... do you have idiots trying to break science there too?


I dislike how many totally ignore and and fight against science simply because of their religion's stories.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Nov 21, 2008)

hairychris said:


> ILdÐÆMcº³, basically you _are_ an atheist then, by definition!  Nowt to be afraid of, and any negative connotations are bullshit spouted by people with a vested interest in the opposite. I don't know why people want you to join groups & stuff, that sounds a bit silly. All atheism is is a clean slate - do what you will and keep in mind the golden rule, a human morality is much more satisfying then an imposed supernatural one. Not sure what the social climate in MN is... do you have idiots trying to break science there too?



Not really, everyone is fairly decent around here. There are a few nut jobs like anywhere though. There is a guy that carries a big wooden cross into my campus everyday and preaches crazy shit by it. Like masturbation is evil, your body belongs to god, sex before marriage is a sin, basically all this stuff about why college students are going to hell ect.... He really annoys me, I've been meaning to strike up an argument with him, but I just don't have the time to deal with that kind of crazy.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Nov 22, 2008)

^ I would avoid that dude as much as possible.


----------



## noodles (Nov 25, 2008)

Coming in way late to the discussion, but...

Matt, you should pick up "An Infidel Manifesto" by Gary Lenaire. Gary was the guitarist/vocalist for Tourniquet, a Christian metal band from the 80s. It offers the unique perspective of a man of great faith, who later questioned, and ultimately abandoned, his beliefs. Rather than coming off with the arrogance that too often plagues atheistic literature, Lenaire offers a sympathetic viewpoint for the individual, while almost brutally deconstructing the contradictory teachings of the Bible. It is a very difficult subject to broach without being insulting, and I think the author does the best possible job you can.


----------



## Mattayus (Nov 26, 2008)

Awesome man thanks, I'll check that out  Someone asked me what books I want for Christmas actually... Ironically, I'm going to ask for that one


----------



## UGH (Nov 26, 2008)

Taking one of Mr. Dawkins suggestions from his text, I can recommend "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman as well. Although, in the UK it's main title is different and I don't remember it at the moment.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Nov 27, 2008)

Good book. I pretty much agree with Leec, especially about the self checking part. Case in point: That video on YouTube where a bunch of creationists show up at his door and ask him to provide an example of a genetic mutation increasing the amount of information in the system. This is something he's addressed before, but said creationists take the video of him trying to decide whether to throw them out or humor them and answer their question and make it look like he's stumped.



As for Dawkins being a "sad fuck" -- I don't think so. It's kind of hard being Douglas Adams' friend otherwise. He has a reputation for being acerbic, so he's very cautions about being calm.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 29, 2008)

Mattayus said:


> Haha, you make it sound like as soon as my back's turned they're in the kitchen skinning babies ffs
> 
> I'm merely saying, I don't care what their intentions are as a person, or their beliefs, so long as they smile and keep on walking. It's much more than I've seen from Christians in other countries, with their vigorous self righteousness that often comes across threatening.



Shit, I really should have replied to this (I'm dense), if only to make me look like less of an arse! 

I don't have an issue with nice people, and those who you mentioned are probably as nice a bunch of people who you'll ever meet. They are almost certainly more pleasant & helpful then I'd ever grow up to be.

Which is the problem. Without nice people like those, it'd be easy to condemn the extremists for having bonkers ideas, and condemn the bonkers ideas too. For some reason people don't want to tell these nice people that their beliefs are irrational, and dangerous in the hands of people who aren't nice.

That goes back to my point. The extremists cannot be challenged with any true force because their core beliefs are identical to the accepted irrationality of everyday believers, the difference is in intensity of belief, and the fact that they are willing to act with more conviction.

I fully agree with the view that the fundamentalist is at least consistant in application of their belief system whereas the normal believer cherry picks. I also firmly believe that the way of challenging fundamentalists is to point out that their whole belief system is nonsense, and anyone who shares those views should be challenged as a matter of course. It won't happen... at least not here where our entire cilvil institution is wrapped in Anglicanism to varying degrees. The USA had, potentially, the best idea but it's been subverted by those who it was supposed to protect others from.

Note: this clip is fucking epic, listen to the story. Right wing Christians get their arses handed to them by pagans after school/religion separation gets pulled in one school: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cjw6fVYJA1o

Anyway, been reading Dawkin's book again. I'm still not convinced by all of it - although maybe this is because I've read more then most of his target audience - but there are several very good chapters in there.

I mean, who needs gods when you have nature. Just ponder what it took to get you here, and if that doesn't amaze you then you haven't got it. 'God' is a shortcut, a cop-out, an admission that you don't *want* to examine the forces that brought you here, wilful ignorance. I'm with Dawkins 100&#37; on this beef with belief (wow, alliteration too!)... Religion disappoints, rather then angers, me most of the time.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Nov 30, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Anyway, been reading Dawkin's book again. I'm still not convinced by all of it - although maybe this is because I've read more then most of his target audience - but there are several very good chapters in there.



If you can give a single good counter to his the maximum parsimony argument, I'll seriously consider reverting back to double agnosticism.


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 30, 2008)

See, Chris, this is the reason i am against both parties in this kind of argument, and why i cant take the book seriously. 

Basically, its reduced to 2 extremist sides. You have fundamentalist Christians, who will try with all their might to convert you, and force their beliefs down your throat, and then there are the extremist atheists who will treat you like shit if you believe in any form of deity, or if you have any accepted form of religion in your life.

I dont like either side, i think they're both dicks, and i dont want _either_ side telling me what i should or shouldnt believe. I mean you yourself refer to _their_ beliefs as being "completely irrational", while some of them are to just about everyone (myself included), the point is thats what they have chosen. AAnd when push comes to shove, there is nothing _disproving_ religion in its entirety.

Dont be so disparaging of other peoples views is all im saying, you're basically reducing yourself to their level, or even below because you are being a massive hypocrite as well as the rest...

Again, for the book, it really is an interesting read, with both good and bad, but for gods sake dont read too much into it because the guy _does _have an axe to grind lol.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Nov 30, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> As for the OP, i hear its supposed to be quite a good book, and so far as anti-christian/religious texts go it is a far more entertaining read than most, if a little naive.



Have you read it, or haven't you? Because first it sounds like you haven't, then it sounds like you have. Besides that, what exactly is na&#239;ve about it?



Demoniac said:


> Basically, its reduced to 2 extremist sides. You have fundamentalist Christians, who will try with all their might to convert you, and force their beliefs down your throat, and then there are the extremist atheists who will treat you like shit if you believe in any form of deity, or if you have any accepted form of religion in your life.



Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are only those two sides. There's more to it than that, but... The Christians are absolutely right in trying to convert you. In fact, it's their moral imperative. You're going to hell otherwise, to suffer for all eternity. Besides that, how the believers act in no way affects the truth of the belief.



> I dont like either side, i think they're both dicks, and i dont want _either_ side telling me what i should or shouldnt believe. I mean you yourself refer to _their_ beliefs as being "completely irrational", while some of them are to just about everyone (myself included), the point is thats what they have chosen.



So... we can have public debate about this or that system of economics, or whether we should drill in Alaska, or whether evolution should be taught in public schools, but religion is off the table. Why? Because that's what they've chosen, that's why. Why did they chose it? Well, they just did. Makes a lot of sense.



> AAnd when push comes to shove, there is nothing _disproving_ religion in its entirety.



The fact that you'd make that statement leads me to believe that either you haven't read the book, haven't understood the book, or have forgotten all about it. Or even discussed the subject in any length. With anyone. Or any pseudoscientific view at all.



> Dont be so disparaging of other peoples views is all im saying, you're basically reducing yourself to their level, or even below because you are being a massive hypocrite as well as the rest...



Sure, if we were talking about whether red or blue is a better color... but we're talking about reality here. I am not required to take someone who says the world is flat seriously. Why? They're making _factual statements_. If someone tells me that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, am I to nod agreeably and say, well that's your opinion?


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 30, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Have you read it, or haven't you? Because first it sounds like you haven't, then it sounds like you have. Besides that, what exactly is naïve about it?


 

Well, when i say "i hear its supposed to be" i obviously havent read it. I have a friend who has, who i have had many discussions on the subject with, and whose opinions i have to go on. Which i trust, given our similarities on the subject.



Jongpil Yun said:


> Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are only those two sides. There's more to it than that, but... The Christians are absolutely right in trying to convert you. In fact, it's their moral imperative. You're going to hell otherwise, to suffer for all eternity. Besides that, how the believers act in no way affects the truth of the belief.


 
How do you know? Have you died? Can you prove to me what happens to your soul (if there is such a thing) when you die? The thing that annoys me is the fact that they do it to begin with, even atheists who have no 'moral imperative' to do it. They dont know what happens any more than you, so they choose to adopt a system of religious beliefs as their doctrine. Just like you believe there is nothing anyone can say that can prove you wrong about the world being round, they believe there is nothing you can say about god being real, and there being an afterlife.




Jongpil Yun said:


> So... we can have public debate about this or that system of economics, or whether we should drill in Alaska, or whether evolution should be taught in public schools, but religion is off the table. Why? Because that's what they've chosen, that's why. Why did they chose it? Well, they just did. Makes a lot of sense.


 
Im not saying we shouldnt discuss religion, but its a set of beliefs that people choose to live by nd affects what they think will happen whenthey die. Its a discussion point, but not when both sides are ordering me to believe everything they both say.

I dont even understand what your reply was supposed to mean, i dont mnd discussion, as long as its just that: Discussion. Not evangelical rantings, telling me how much of a fuckwit i am for not believing certain things. That isnt discussion.



Jongpil Yun said:


> The fact that you'd make that statement leads me to believe that either you haven't read the book, haven't understood the book, or have forgotten all about it. Or even discussed the subject in any length. With anyone. Or any pseudoscientific view at all.


 
The first half: I havent read it. Like i said "I hear its good". Religion itself and both the pros, cons and consequences of it was one of my most prominent discussions over the last 5 years. Science, philosophy, religion, literature, history, people, all of it analyzed, all of it thought, talked, discussed, argued and criticised by me and my group of friends, and even professors. 



Jongpil Yun said:


> Sure, if we were talking about whether red or blue is a better color... but we're talking about reality here. I am not required to take someone who says the world is flat seriously. Why? They're making _factual statements_. If someone tells me that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, am I to nod agreeably and say, well that's your opinion?


 
The fact is, the way they view science is the way you view religion: as hocus pocus bullshit.

Neither side can view the other seriously, because they both think of the other in the same way. Im not asking you to take it seriously, im not asking them to take you seriously, just stop peddling their wares to me.

What i was saying in my post was that he was sounding like a giant-ass hypocrite talking down to me because i dont believe religion is "just a cop-out", just like christians talk down to me bacause i dont believe in god.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 30, 2008)

As my brain can't deal with all of this at once I'll try to answer these points by paragraph, and hope you'll get where I'm coming from!



Demoniac said:


> See, Chris, this is the reason i am against both parties in this kind of argument, and why i cant take the book seriously.



Religion is the exception to how modern people live their lives. We use 'science' (loosest possible term, maybe technology is a better idea) to live our day to day existence, but the same reasonable approach that we have is forgotten the instance religion comes into the question. I'd call that intellectually inconsistant to start with... 



Demoniac said:


> Basically, its reduced to 2 extremist sides. You have fundamentalist Christians, who will try with all their might to convert you, and force their beliefs down your throat, and then there are the extremist atheists who will treat you like shit if you believe in any form of deity, or if you have any accepted form of religion in your life.



I imagine that the only time the term 'atheist' crops up is when we/they are arguing the toss with religious people.

There is no such thing as an 'extreme' atheist. Maybe the therm you're looking for is antitheist. Atheists simply don't believe in deities, antitheists are expressly against religion as well.

I think that believers are flat wrong. That is completely within my rights. However I don't think that they're going to spend an eternity burning after my death, I just think that they're mistaken in this one. I also act that this life is *all* that we have been given and think that people deserve respect because of this.

I think that you'll also find that atheists want to 'convert' people to rationality via intellectual arguement, evidence, logic... Theists are more likely, in my experience, to use threats (from burning for eternity to physical violence).

Who's _reason_able?



Demoniac said:


> I dont like either side, i think they're both dicks, and i dont want _either_ side telling me what i should or shouldnt believe. I mean you yourself refer to _their_ beliefs as being "completely irrational", while some of them are to just about everyone (myself included), the point is thats what they have chosen. AAnd when push comes to shove, there is nothing _disproving_ religion in its entirety.



You agree with me that some views are irrational. I put it to you that this is NOT a good thing. Maybe I am a little less intellectually tolerant about the contortions that religious belief requires, but again - I think that they're wrong but it's their right to hold the views.

As for disproving religion? Well, I can't go in to all of the arguements here, but it's relatively straight forward to disprove specific religions. All you need to do is critically read the Bible and compare it against testable evidence to put big question marks against Christianity. A monotheistic deity in the Chirstian sense is a tangle of logical contradictions before we even start. (For instance I haven't seen a decent definition of 'god'. In our frame of reference we need to be able to define something to acknowledge it's existence. If we can't then we, to all intents & purposes, can't use the the word 'existence' to start with...)



Demoniac said:


> Dont be so disparaging of other peoples views is all im saying, you're basically reducing yourself to their level, or even below because you are being a massive hypocrite as well as the rest...



I'm asking them to think for themselves. Why am I being hypocritical? What's the saying... oh yeah, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I'm not saying why the universe exists, who/what created it and how who/what wants *ME* to live *MY* life. I don't want to stop anyone from doing what they will, unless it impinges on the rights of others. I don't have a book saying that I'm great and the rest of the world are haram or kaffir or goyim or heretic or whatever the fuck justificationthe believers use to look down on me.

If that's being unreasonable then I'm happy to be it. I'll stick to unreasonably believing that we all born, breathe the same air and ultimately die (with finality) in the same way.

I think that I posted earlier that irrational beliefs can turn into irrational action. That is what I am most afraid of, and why I don't like being called a hypocrite in these discussions!  I'm not the one making exceptions in my life for my unproved - ina away that, for the rest of my life, I would not accept - belief.

As far as I see the only reason that religions get away with their beliefs is because they are so ingrained in our cultural identities, and the number of people who share them. Look at the Invisible Pink Unicorn arguement (you can't prove it's not there) and Russell's Celestial Teapot example... 



Demoniac said:


> Again, for the book, it really is an interesting read, with both good and bad, but for gods sake dont read too much into it because the guy _does _have an axe to grind lol.



He's passionate against what he sees as deliberate ignorance. He's not a philosopher, primarily, but a biologist. Try reading his more scientific books, he's a very sharp man.

He used his role as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science to take the fight to those people who disparage science... As we see, however, a vast majority of these people are religious.




--- Merged post ---





Demoniac said:


> How do you know? Have you died? Can you prove to me what happens to your soul (if there is such a thing) when you die? The thing that annoys me is the fact that they do it to begin with, even atheists who have no 'moral imperative' to do it. They dont know what happens any more than you, so they choose to adopt a system of religious beliefs as their doctrine. Just like you believe there is nothing anyone can say that can prove you wrong about the world being round, they believe there is nothing you can say about god being real, and there being an afterlife.



Dude, I'm really going to have to disagree with you.

ATHEISTS ARE NOT THE ONES MAKING CLAIMS!!!

Do dogs have an afterlife? They're mammals? Or chimps? They're 98&#37; human?

Atheism is a clean slate on which an ethical system can be built. Many, maybe most, atheists are Humanists. Humanism gives a moral system not based on divine reward and punishment.

No we don't 'know' what happens after death. Isn't it better to make this life as good as possible for everyone? That's a fucking strong moral imperative if you ask me, and not one that sees threats or bribary with reference to any unproved entities.



Our conciousness allows dualism - means that we can put ourselves into other's places, hence allows us to imagine that our conciousness can be separated from the body. I am a monist: I _think_ that the 'soul' is a function of the physical system that contains it (the brain). Why do I believe this? Basically because imparing the function of the hardware impares the operation of the software. Brain damage and mental illness can affect who the person is at a fundamental level. And thinking that we have an immortal soul is massively presumptuous (unless reincarnation is included but even then we're seen as the pinnacle... which admittedly is vaguely Humanist!).

Who's come back from the dead to _prove_ any of this? No-one afaik. Who can _prove_ that your Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't there? No-one. So I don't work on the assumption of either.

EDIT: seriously, read this. It's only short: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot Things change when you factor probability into any discussion....

EDIT2: Oh, and try to read the book. There is actually some good stuff in The God Delusion. This is quite a fun book too, if you like shouty, but razor sharp and simple to understand, philosophy: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 30, 2008)

hairychris said:


> As my brain can't deal with all of this at once I'll try to answer these points by paragraph, and hope you'll get where I'm coming from!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There we go 

I wasnt meaning to insult with the last post, i have a hard time with religious discussions, because i cannot stand people on both sides (again, no offence meant personally).

Its more the very act of trying to prove what i believe is wrong. I agree that there are beliefs that lead to irrational actions, and that is stupid, and again, something i am truly against. I have no problem with 'religion' per se, or science per se, or even atheists (or as you put it "Antitheists" ), just when they tell me im an idiot. If they believe it, and practice it within their rights and go about their lives normally, power to them! If they choose not to believe in a religion, again, good for them  Everyone _needs_ something to believe in.

I also agree that the only reason that religions 'get away with' stuff is a result of how much they are a part of society, and how intertwined religion is with 'morality' and even law itself. 

I alsorealise he's an intelligent man, just too in you face with his opinions for my taste .


----------



## hairychris (Nov 30, 2008)

Hehe....

No-one's saying that you're an idiot. What it is worth doing, though, is try to frame what you do think and what you do believe (I use this in the widest, not-necessarily-religious, sense of the word). I have to say that it's only relatively recently that examining this stuff in detail has appealed to me and it ended up answering a lot of hanging questions that I didn't know existed. I used to say that I was agnostic, until I learned what the terms atheist and agnostic actually meant. Maybe I'm getting less agnostic about things because I'm also getting used to the fact that to have any meaningful interaction with our universe any power has to be able to interfere with it directly. Apart from subatomic quanta there doesn't seem to much other scope for any gods out there..!  Shit, possibly I'm just old, bitter & twisted.

If I remember what you wrote earlier about not having read the book, please try to borrow it at least. You may consider some of these arguments 'in your face' but I can really recommend at least getting to see the fundamental positions of both theists and atheists. Books are good. I'm moving flat currently and my book fixation made it harder work then I'd have liked!!

If I can just quote something back at you - "I have no problem with 'religion' per se, or science per se, or even atheists" - I have a feeling that you're still seeing the word 'atheist' as a dirty one. It's culture, not the word itself, that's at fault. I also find it amusing that you separate religion and science completely. I don't know whether you did that in a deliberate way, but I tend to take that view whereas the religious scientist (and regular believer) may not see them as mutually exclusive in any way.

Just to throw a final spanner in the works I have a feeling that you may actually be an agnostic atheist.... if only because you, in your writing, seem not to lump yourself in with believers/theists. 'I don't know' is not a statement of belief - we may not know if anything is out there but the point is do we _believe_ in it or not??  Agnosticism isn't half way between god & nothing. I used to think it was but I have come to the conclusion that I didn't know what I was on about for most of my life!!! 

Actually I've started calling myself an Apathist - I don't know if god exists and I really don't care....


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 1, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Hehe....
> 
> No-one's saying that you're an idiot. What it is worth doing, though, is try to frame what you do think and what you do believe (I use this in the widest, not-necessarily-religious, sense of the word). I have to say that it's only relatively recently that examining this stuff in detail has appealed to me and it ended up answering a lot of hanging questions that I didn't know existed. I used to say that I was agnostic, until I learned what the terms atheist and agnostic actually meant. Maybe I'm getting less agnostic about things because I'm also getting used to the fact that to have any meaningful interaction with our universe any power has to be able to interfere with it directly. Apart from subatomic quanta there doesn't seem to much other scope for any gods out there..!  Shit, possibly I'm just old, bitter & twisted.
> 
> ...


 
I dont lump myself with believers or scientists. I tend to be a middle of the road kind of guy, in most discussions i cannot see the single ideas as the ultimate ideal, and cannot exclusively believe in that one thing. I look at a compromise of both, all the time. Communism and capitalism, religion and science, and so on i cant decide on one. It means (i think) that i have a reasonable idea of them, _but_ it also unfortunately means that i look at things as extremes all the time, until i am proved wrong/corrected  Like i just have been 

I just prefer making up my own mind on just about everything. Good points mind you man, i may borrow it off the mate i was taking about. I do look down on atheists too, just as much as religion, because that ones ive met so far have just (generally) been such assholes about the whole concept it just makes me fucking angry...

As for the concept of God: Im an Agnostic i suppose. I dont know if God exists, but im certainly open the the possibility.


----------



## hairychris (Dec 1, 2008)

Well, to be fair, until you 'find' your deity/deities/etc you're an atheist by default... An agnostic one, maybe, but an atheist all the same.   It's a pretty natural human position to take - don't believe something until you see it.

Here's quite a good starter look at definitions:

Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion

All good. Most of the above's covered by Dawkins in his book but they should sort the definition aspect out for ya!


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Dec 5, 2008)

> Religion itself and both the pros, cons and consequences of it was one of my most prominent discussions over the last 5 years. Science, philosophy, religion, literature, history, people, all of it analyzed, all of it thought, talked, discussed, argued and criticised by me and my group of friends, and even professors.



And you're _still_ saying shit like "There's nothing to disprove religion."?



> How do you know? Have you died? Can you prove to me what happens to your soul (if there is such a thing) when you die?



Way to miss the point. If you believe that non-Christians are going to hell, it is your moral imperative to try to convert them. What is so complicated about that statement?



> The thing that annoys me is the fact that they do it to begin with, even atheists who have no 'moral imperative' to do it. They dont know what happens any more than you, so they choose to adopt a system of religious beliefs as their doctrine.



No.



> Just like you believe there is nothing anyone can say that can prove you wrong about the world being round, they believe there is nothing you can say about god being real, and there being an afterlife.



Wrong. I do not _Know_ with a capital K that the world is round. All evidence suggests that it does. In the extremely unlikely event that we somehow discover that the earth is flat (and it would take incredible amounts of evidence to explain things), then I will change my opinion.



> The fact is, the way they view science is the way you view religion: as hocus pocus bullshit.
> 
> Neither side can view the other seriously, because they both think of the other in the same way. Im not asking you to take it seriously, im not asking them to take you seriously, just stop peddling their wares to me.



Oh? Well, unfortunately for them, we have the advantage that our stuff works.


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 5, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Oh? Well, unfortunately for them, we have the advantage that our stuff works.



For them, their religion works too. Also, you totally avoided the point of what i said AGAIN.

I get that you are totally incapable of understanding or accepting _anything_ outside of what you believe, but dude, hate to break it to you, _your ideas arent the only ones..._


----------



## hairychris (Dec 5, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> For them, their religion works too. Also, you totally avoided the point of what i said AGAIN.
> 
> I get that you are totally incapable of understanding or accepting _anything_ outside of what you believe, but dude, hate to break it to you, _your ideas arent the only ones..._



Just one thing... Please hold off on using the word 'believe' without clarification.

Religious belief - Gained through revelation, passed down from elders/tradition/holy books, and assuming that the religion is theistic (has a god/gods) the conviction that these entities a) exist and b) are worthy of worship 

Rational belief - gained through interpretation of demonstrable evidence

I 'believe' that 'rational belief' is correct and 'religious belief' is wrong. Why? Because of evidence. Look at how the religious treat evidence - if it supports their religious theory they're all over it, if it disproves their theory they ignore it. Essentially they fit evidence to a preconcieved theory.

The rational examination of evidence does this in reverse, evidence is taken and a theory is developed from there. If any piece of reproducable evidence goes against the theory (evolution, for example), then the theory must be modified or ditched altogether. This is how science works - 'natural law' is the best fit of observable evidence.

Now, when defining 'belief', what do *you* anchor that belief to? yes, rational belief has a lot of unknowns, but it allows us to explore these. It does not paper over the holes and call this GOD as our theists would.

I _understand_ what religious belief consists of. That does not mean that I have to _accept_ that it is in any way true or valid.



EDIT: to put it bluntly, if someone believes that 2+2=5 then they're wrong, however strongly they hold that belief...


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 7, 2008)

^ True, but again, completely missing the _point_ of religion.

Religion is to give people something to believe in. Thats all. To give them someething to make their lives whole. Im even getting into whether or not its 'correct', im just telling the asshole to lay off people who _do _believe it, just because he believes it is _wrong_ to believe in something.

That was my point all along. True Christianity preaches tolerance and forgiveness, its a fucking shame that no-one else seems to, waste of time or not, correct or no, the _actual_ system of belief and the _actual_ morals shown in the bible are by no means bad things, and by no means a terrible thing.

I talk about beliefs, just like a belief that "black is better than grey" or like Jongpil said "red better than blue" (or the other way around? :s), they _believe_ their religion is what they should do with their life. Who cares? Why go _out of your way_ to be an asshole about it, and possibly destroy peoples entire system of life?? Fuck that, and fuck people who do that. Its just as bad as televangelism or the god damn mormons that walk around guilting you because you're 'going to hell'. What right does he or anyone else have as human beings to determine that other people are correct in what they think or not?

Fucking *NONE*.

He has NO right _telling_ people that they are wrong about what they believe, and insulting people because of it.

And yeah, Jongpil, even after all that discussion with everyone, i still say there is _no way to disprove religion_. Because the conclusion i and my friend came to: It doesnt matter one way or another whether its real or not, because its a system of beliefs that shapes your morals, and to prove God real makes him subject to the same laws and rules as mankind and any other form of physical life. The concept of god doesnt have to be proven. IT IS A BELIEF. It is the acceptance that there is something omnipotent and unknowable somehow affecting your life for better or worse, and you live your life according to the morals 'they' set down because you believe it to be THE RIGHT THING TO DO and/or like what the religion preaches.

What I did, was accept that there are people who will have beliefs i find to be completely irrational and stupid (like your complete inability to accept _anything_ anyone else has to say without running to stick in your god damn "You're wrong" bs), and if you dont accept that, you're an idiot. Not everyone grows up the same way. Not everyone has the same genes, experiences, parents, memories, and instilled morals, why are you even fucking surprised that there are people who accept religion? Not everyone is you, and sure as shit not everyone acts the same way as you and thinks like you do (a fact i have to be honest, i am really glad of).

You have different beliefs, thats fine. Have them, its up to you, i wont try and 'disprove' what you think. But dont insult other people for theirs, and act like you are somehow better than them because of your belief.


----------



## forelander (Dec 8, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> What right does he or anyone else have as human beings to determine that other people are correct in what they think or not?
> 
> Fucking *NONE*.
> 
> He has NO right _telling_ people that they are wrong about what they believe, and insulting people because of it.



People can believe in what ever they want, sure. But, when those beliefs fly in the face of all evidence (dinosaurs didn't exist etc) it becomes another issue. It's *not* OK for people to decide something is true when everything says it's false, and justify their mindset with "Well it's _my belief_." 

I'm not even talking about the fundamental ideas of religion or faith here, or the existence of God or anything like that. I'm talking about simple things, like dinosaurs didn't exist, the earth is only 6000 years old etc. I can choose to believe that 1 + 4 = 1020348 all I want, but there's an entire foundation of mathematical reason that disagrees with me, and if my only justification is "it's my belief," then I deserve to be told I'm wrong. Most of the time there isn't a need for faith of belief, because there's evidence and reason and explanation right there.


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 8, 2008)

God damn reason. I keep thinking about morals and 'faith' itself. So far as maths go, i do agree personally, _but_ im not going to go out of my way to prove someone else wrong. I honestly dont think it matters, and why should I?

I mean, look at it like i said before as well, they have every right to say what they think because to them, science is a myth. There are people who are in the middle, but the ones making statements like taht are gnerally the ones who do think of science as a bunch of crap. Its all about perception, and you cant 'disprove' someone elses _perception_ of the world. Its not going to happen if they dont want it to, so why bother. Just let them believe it.

That kind of thinking is exactly what led to the extinction and enslavement of entire races: "Oh they're just _savages_ and their beliefs are _wrong_." And so they were enslaved, brainwashed, and their culture destroyed for no other reason than other peoples arrogance in their own belief system, and complete refusal to accept and understand another set of beliefs. The world is full of conflicting ideals and concepts, just live with it, because there will never _be_ a single, 'perfect' belief.

I believe that science is more or less right. Im not a big fan of religion. But they can have their beliefs regardless of how ridiculous they seem to me.


----------



## forelander (Dec 8, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> God damn reason. I keep thinking about morals and 'faith' itself. So far as maths go, i do agree personally, _but_ im not going to go out of my way to prove someone else wrong. I honestly dont think it matters, and why should I?
> 
> I mean, look at it like i said before as well, they have every right to say what they think because to them, science is a myth. There are people who are in the middle, but the ones making statements like taht are gnerally the ones who do think of science as a bunch of crap. Its all about perception, and you cant 'disprove' someone elses _perception_ of the world. Its not going to happen if they dont want it to, so why bother. Just let them believe it.
> 
> ...



I'll not go out of my way to prove someone is wrong either, just trying to shed some light as to where Jongpil might be coming from. 

I don't agree that anyone is justified in arguing science is a bunch of crap or a system of beliefs. There's a lot more to it than making something up and saying "I believe in this therefore it is valid." A main part of this is the encouragement of advancement, refinement and validation, something many 'beliefs' seem to lack. 

All I'm getting at is there is a point where belief and fact (can't prove anything, I know, blah blah, but for all intents and purposes let's just accept some things to be true) should be separate of each other. As I say, I can believe 2 + 2 = 5 and that earth's gravity is an equivalent acceleration of 3 m/s&#178; until I'm blue in the face, that doesn't make me any less wrong (in that it's pretty well fact that 2+2=4 in standard arithmetic and the acceleration due to gravity on earth is 9.8 m/s&#178. 

I'm not going to get into any arguments about it, nor do I necessarily agree with the manner JP presents his arguments, I just felt the need to make a distinction between reality and beliefs.


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 8, 2008)

Fair call dude. You actually brought a couple of things to my attention as well 

I tend to opt towards science as well, but i really dont care what people believe, cos so far as im concerned; its a free for all. Didnt mean to come off as such a fucknut either dude, i think i ended up sounding like a massive hypocrite as well as everything.

Also, sorry for _totally_ dragging this thread off topic...


----------



## hairychris (Dec 8, 2008)

^ 

Hehe, I think I get where you're from too.

Personally I don't really care what people believe as long as it doesn't spill over into our shared reality. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of people, this belief informs their actions which _do_ affect that reality.

You seem to really want to sit on the fence over this. That's fine, but on my part I see it as an inconsistant position.

I see this topic as a simple fight of demonstrable reality (faith in reason) vs undemonstrable fantasy (faith in religion). There is NO middle ground IMO. None. The instance you let in even a hint of the fantastic your entire system is suspect. Agnosticism is just a flavour that can fall on either side of the theistic arguement.

Why do I think this? Well, I see the choice of belief in the unknown vs belief in the known as a simple binary choice. You either do or you don't. The agnostic position is that we don't _know_, but knowledge informs beliefs rather then defines them. I don't know for sure that there's something out there, but I do not base my life, morals, etc on the assumption that there *is*. The theistic claim is that this entity or entities positively exist in some form...

A note on this... if it's able to affect our universe must use forces that fall into the realm of science. If the entity is so completely detached from our reality that we cannot comprehend it in any way at all, there is no practical difference between it's existense and non-existence.

On a practical level you can look at the personality cults of Stalinist-style communism as non-theistic religion, so to a certain extent the theistic and religious arguements are separate. When talking about major Western religions there is a theistic basis to them, so the theistic argument is interwoven with any problems that people may have with religions. It all gets horribly complicated!

Tolerance? Absolutely, we all need to get along. Understanding? Yeah, we need to know where other people are coming from.

Granting that people's beliefs are _reason_able when they quite blatantly aren't? No way. Respecting those beliefs? No, I don't respect people being deliberately wrong or nonsensical. Respecting the right to hold them? Yeah, that's up to them as long as they keep their actions clean.

Demoniac, all good, y'know?  The Dawkins book puts a lot of these points over better then we certainly can...

I think that this whole thing has gone OT in a big way, hehehe!


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 8, 2008)

Oh my yes. And i am on the fence. Im middle of the road with absolutely everything. Not necessairily because i 'cant decide', so much as i just truly dont believe either single side is 100&#37; correct in any matter... its not a feasible option so far as im concerned. 

On topic again: I should probably actually read it. One day


----------



## forelander (Dec 8, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Why do I think this? Well, I see the choice of belief in the unknown vs belief in the known as a simple binary choice. You either do or you don't.



I follow a quantum belief system - I believe both sides are true until a defining observation is made .


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 8, 2008)

forelander said:


> I follow a quantum belief system - I believe both sides are true until a defining observation is made .



But that's impossible! 

If, for arguments sake, want to disprove god's existence by that rational, you can't "observe" the non-existence of something so improbable and irrational as an original creator being! The fact that everyone not on drugs fails to see it on a daily basis should be reason enough...


----------



## hairychris (Dec 8, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> Oh my yes. And i am on the fence. Im middle of the road with absolutely everything. Not necessairily because i 'cant decide', so much as i just truly dont believe either single side is 100&#37; correct in any matter... its not a feasible option so far as im concerned.



EDIT: Just adding a link to Dawkins. I think that it probably relates very closely to what you were talking about earlier:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

I don't know what the evangelical was expecting, to be honest, but I doubt that it was this... in public...! END EDIT!

'Reason' (or science or whatever you want to call it) is basically test & observation. Science, fwiw, is not a thing, it's essentially this process but strictly controlled so that the results are reproducable. These observations are then fitted together in hypothesis that allow predictions to be made on other sets of data. If the results from new data fits the hypothesis it is strengthened, if the new results deviate then the hypothesis requires revision. In this way science, the application of reason, is self correcting. If you can tell me of a religion that has a process to find truth is as controlled a fashion then I'll applaud you! In fact, a tenet of major religions is to hold faith even when reality contradicts the teachings.

I don't see how you can accept both 100%, or accept neither.  Reason isn't one tool for human understanding, it's our entire toolbox. Anarchy prevails otherwise.

Many theists try to say that they are rational, but their 'faith' still boils down to what is essentially unprovable. Many atheists will happily believe in the supernatural if the supernatural can be demonstrated.

Do you believe that there is a specific point, somewhere, where reason breaks down? Please note that there is a subtle but massive difference between a phenomenon that we do not currently understand, and a phenomenon that we can never understand (eg the supernatural). Do you believe that there are things in this universe that fall into the second category, or the first?

FWIW atheists generally plump for the first, theists (by definition as their god is not a 'natural' being) fall into the second category.

Things do tend to get a bit sketchy at the quantum level where probability seems to hold as much sway as anything, btw... 



Demoniac said:


> On topic again: I should probably actually read it. One day





As you note the on topic part didn't last long!



forelander said:


> I follow a quantum belief system - I believe both sides are true until a defining observation is made .



_Schr&#246;dinger's God????


_


----------



## forelander (Dec 8, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Schrödinger's God



That's the joke I was going for, yeah.


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 8, 2008)

hairychris said:


> Do you believe that there is a specific point, somewhere, where reason breaks down? Please note that there is a subtle but massive difference between a phenomenon that we do not currently understand, and a phenomenon that we can never understand (eg the supernatural). Do you believe that there are things in this universe that fall into the second category, or the first?



I believe there are both. The origin of the universe. The big bang may be a reasonable theory, but as a human i cannot understand how something can come of _nothing_. That being said, i dont understand the concept of the immaterial being that illogically created the world in seven days 

And yeah, the on topic bit didnt last long  



forelander said:


> I follow a quantum belief system - I believe both sides are true until a defining observation is made .



I agree with this. But for me 'faith' is in a slightly different basket to science, so despite the fact that im not actually religious, i find it much harder to 'disprove' religion as i dont really believe it can be/should be proven _or_ disproven...


----------



## hairychris (Dec 8, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> I believe there are both. The origin of the universe. The big bang may be a reasonable theory, but as a human i cannot understand how something can come of _nothing_. That being said, i dont understand the concept of the immaterial being that illogically created the world in seven days
> 
> And yeah, the on topic bit didnt last long



Bwahaha.

I think that you may have missed my point slightly... Physics current says 'I don't know'. The apologist says 'I don't know therefore god'.

Back to an earlier point, if the force behind our universe's creation has no intersection with our reality then it does not exist by any reasonable definition.

However, if the solution is something like... hmm, the universe is expanding in a way that's difficult to visualise, however, if you take a deflated balloon, draw points on it, then blow the balloon up, you see the points moving away from each other but this is only through the action of an additional dimension (the dots on the balloon are 2D, the balloon inflating is 3D).

If you live in the 2D universe you may find the physics involved difficult to comprehend, but they are explicable through regular natural laws, although rather esoteric maths is required! Our universe may be similar... there may be additional dimensions outside our experience but this is not the same as the supernatural in the theistic vein as there will be laws controlling these additional universes too.

No one knows for sure because it is currently impossible to demonstrate any theories. We may never discover the details, but positing that anything other then natural causes _has_ to be the explanation is a big fucking ask...


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 8, 2008)

^ Maybe it is too much to ask, but i definitely think its plausible at the very least. Unlikely? Probably. Possible? I think so.

I agree with you other than that.

I just thought of something though: How fucking funny is the thought of a "God" creating the world.. flat... and it spinning through space


----------



## Amelie (Dec 8, 2008)

TonalArchitect said:


>



x 2.

Sky-Daddy, HAHAHAHA. Awesome.

I found the book really hard to progress with, it's pretty heavy duty and I'll admit I put it down for a long while after only a few chapters, even though I was enjoying it. I think he's fantastic, whoever said that he has to take everything to the edge of the earth because of the nature of the topic was totally right. He had to do it because believers would be picking holes in the book for the next century.


----------



## hairychris (Dec 8, 2008)

^ Hehe, weird, it's easy reading compared to some of his other stuff... 

Oh, I don't need a hug, btw. I like ranting.  Makes up for the fact that I'm definitely going to hell. All of them, probably!



Demoniac said:


> ^ Maybe it is too much to ask, but i definitely think its plausible at the very least. Unlikely? Probably. Possible? I think so.
> 
> I agree with you other than that.
> 
> I just thought of something though: How fucking funny is the thought of a "God" creating the world.. flat... and it spinning through space



OK then, we now have the regression issue.

If something 'intelligently' created this universe, what (or who) created the creator?

If you don't say that the natural universe (or universes) is the is the ultimate mover, you either have infinite regression or a 'special case' that you call god. This is inconsistent, especially if you cannot define the attributes of this being to start with... 

This is a fundamental issue with any claim of this type. If you want to be more specific & bash individual religions who make explicit claims then, well, that's possible too.  Heck, you may say that something created the universe & left it to it's own devices (deism), this creator is still kicking around today but we can't describe it so don't bother to try (agnostic theism) or that the whole universe is god (pantheism) but they are all ultimately unprovable... and in the case of the first 2 are logically 'challenging' to define in the first place!

I seem to remember reading somewhere (maybe Dawkins) that pantheism was described as 'sexed up atheism', where you essentially worship existence. That amused me. I'm easy to amuse. 

Sign me up for the cosmic multi-dimensional frisbee theory. I'm fucking there!


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 8, 2008)

Im a weird one.


----------



## hairychris (Dec 9, 2008)

Hah!  Well it makes as much sense as any other statement, especially if god's own universe is a frisbee itself, and so-on ad infinitum. Makes me travel sick even to think about it...


----------

