Dawkin's God Delusion

[osarusan]

I dont think that this post -

In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.

draws this conclusion-

yet you think because no one can categorically disprove Gods existance then the chance of his existance are the same as his non existance I.E. 50-50!

[osarusan]

If you have a horse that has odds of 1,000-1 it has "a chance" of winning, but would you believe that horse was going to win.

No I wouldnt, but I would understand that there is an actual possibility, however unlikely, that the horse could win.

Just as you must concede that there is a possibility, however unlikely, that God exists.

So..........

God was a figment of the human imagination

You cannot say this with certainty.

(PS : Mods - Apologies for the different posts - feel free to merge)

[BohsPartisan]

You mad b@stard.

Seriously

[BohsPartisan]

You cannot say this with certainty.

But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.

[osarusan]

But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.

How about we compare it to oxygen............after all you cant prove oxygen exists............. (remember that thread??)

I think that you can say it with 99.9999999999999% certainty when quantified in a scientific way, but religion/belief itself cannot be quantified in a scientific way. At its core is a belief in something that its followers/practicioners accept cannot be proven anyway. So I think to try and use scientific arguement misses the point.

[BohsPartisan]

but religion/belief itself cannot be quantified in a scientific way. At its core is a belief in something that its followers/practicioners accept cannot be proven anyway. So I think to try and use scientific arguement misses the point.

I think this is missing the point. Anything else that can't be quantified in a scientific way is fiction. Religion somehow is spared being categorised as fiction even though to all intents and purposes it is.

This is from a correspondance I had elsewhere on the subject...

In the beginning there was no religion.
The first Humans were very intelligent animals. They understood more about the world than other animals. In becoming human they became conscious of themselves. In becoming conscious of themselves they naturally questioned their origins. They questioned the natural world around them. As they had no understanding of biology, physics or chemistry so they drew the conclusion that something or someone had put them here and had created all around them. This must have seemed logical to them as they saw that for a spear or a hut or anything else to come into existence, someone had to make it.
With the division of labour came the specialisation of spirituality. A priestly caste developed who acted as bureaucrats, scientists and dispensers of religion. Because they did no other work they had time to develop their knowledge of astronomy which impacted upon agriculture I.E. the ability to predict tides and flooding around the Nile valley and such areas of early civilisation allowed them to appear to have some supernatural knowledge. It suited them to perpetuate this myth so the sun, the moon and the stars became gods. Sacrifices made to the gods meant meat for the priests. Tithes meant grain and other foodstuffs.
In early religions belief in an afterlife was not universal. In many of them the afterlife was reserved for the nobles and priestly castes. This made them godlike and helped perpetuate the social systems that guaranteed them their lavish lifestyles. Hence religion was born, invented by men through ignorance and perpetuated by greed. This is why I am an Atheist. I base my atheism upon historical, anthropological and scientific evidence...
because we don't know something we shouldn't just fill in the gaps with our imagination. The gaps in science's understanding of the universe are continuously getting smaller, therefore the space you can attribute to "the divine" is getting smaller. Take evolution. Before Darwin discovered natural selection people said, look we can't explain where humans came from, isn't it as good an arguement as any that god put us here? So a divine being was thrust into fill the gap in our knowledge. When that gap was closed by Darwin, God had to find some other gap to hide in...
What we have to ask ourselves though is what god is (should he exist).
God to be divine would be:
All knowing,
All Powerful,
Benevolant.
A look at the world around us shows that no such being exists. If he were all knowing he would know about human suffering, if he was all powerful he would be able to stop it and if he was benevolant he would.
Not that the god of the bible is in anyway benevolant. A reading of the old testement reveals Yaweh (the god of the Abrahamic tradition encompassing Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as being a nasty, vindictive, jealous, sadistic, racist, sexist and homophobic being. No god is preferable to that god by a mile.

[strangeirish]

How about we compare it to oxygen............after all you cant prove oxygen exists...

I can. See here. Still working on the God thing though.

[Student Mullet]

But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.

I think that you're starting with a belief and landing statistics on top of it.

[osarusan]

Anything else that can't be quantified in a scientific way is fiction.

Here are some quotes from Steven Hawking on God. Look especially at the last lines of no. 2 and no. 8.

If this is a scientific debate, then, no offence meant, I'm gonna trust Dr. Hawking over you

[hoops1]

But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.

There is also a 99.9% certainty that you have a ****ing opinion on everything
including the price of camels testicles in Cairo

[osarusan]

There is also a 99.9% certainty that you have a ****ing opinion on everything
including the price of camels testicles in Cairo

Bohs Partisan, I stand corrected. Here is 100% proof that something exists, and that something is stupidity

[BohsPartisan]

There is also a 99.9% certainty that you have a ****ing opinion on everything

Well if I've gone to the trouble of studying a subject I'm entitled to have an opinion on it.

[BohsPartisan]

If this is a scientific debate, then, no offence meant, I'm gonna trust Dr. Hawking over you

I don't rate Hawking at all to be honest. If you really want to read a top notch cosmologist go for Eric J.Lerner. By and large though cosmologists and physisists know such a tremendous amount about their own subject thay know little about anything else. People like Lerner are in a minority.

[osarusan]

I don't rate Hawking at all to be honest. If you really want to read a top notch cosmologist go for Eric J.Lerner. By and large though cosmologists and physisists know such a tremendous amount about their own subject thay know little about anything else. People like Lerner are in a minority.

Ah Jaysus man, you cant be serious. He is a true genius. I'll check out Eric Lerner. As it's 1.53am here, good night to ya.

[jebus]

Honestly I never understood why Dawkins and atheists care so much about people believing in God, if you don't like it then fine, constantly going on about it, or calling believers ignorant/stupid/etc. proves that you are just as ignorant as Bible thumpers trying to ram the Word of God down everyone's throat

[dahamsta]

Whether he's right or not in his arguments I find the man to be as obnoxious as the Christian far right in America. I don't think he ever asks or is willing to listen to reasoned debate and his 'I'm right, no questions' attitude puts me off the man.

Have you seen him in Lynchburg? I doubt you'd say that if you have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

There's no doubt that some of the things he says are counter-productive, such as his belief that people that believe in god are "idiots", but he does always state clearly that that's his opinion. And he's his own man, he's not representing anyone other than by default, so if that's the way he wants to put his opinion across, that's his decision.

I do find it funny that many of Dawkins supporters hold him up as some sort of Christ like idol though

I've never observed that, but then I haven't hung around on any cheerleading websites. Knowing Dawkins, I doubt he does either.

For the record, I'm not an atheist. I just think Dawkins talks a lot of sense, and I think we need someone sensible around to counteract the idiocy that is ID.

adam

[Lionel Ritchie]

Honestly I never understood why Dawkins and atheists care so much about people believing in God, if you don't like it then fine, constantly going on about it, or calling believers ignorant/stupid/etc. proves that you are just as ignorant as Bible thumpers trying to ram the Word of God down everyone's throat

Well I am an atheist and just for a flavour of why some atheists "care so much about people believing in God" I'll have a stab at the fact that here in Ireland Bertie Ahern would be commiting career suicide if he announced tomorrow he was an atheist, in the USA there are powerful people lobbying to have creationism taught alongside evolution in Science classes as an "equal faith position" and in the UK Blairs government are allowing creationist adherent nutcases like Reg Vardy invest money in schools in return for the right to appoint members to managment committees of schools in deprived areas of the north-east. Vardys aim is thought to be similar to the US scenario above.

[finlma]

Well said Lionel. Atheism is seriously frowned upon in this world. For some reason its not right in our society to question religion. People are happy to believe that a man can walk on water, turn water into wine and have a virgin as a mother and expect people not to question it. Beggars belief to be honest.

[sonofstan]

I'm a perfectly contented atheist - well, I'm not perfectly contented, but i am about my atheism - but i think Dawkins' book is nonsense (though I haven't read it - much too busy) this review by terry Eagleton is worth a read, if only for the first line

[Lionel Ritchie]

I'm a perfectly contented atheist - well, I'm not perfectly contented, but i am about my atheism - but i think Dawkins' book is nonsense (though I haven't read it - much too busy) this review by terry Eagleton is worth a read, if only for the first line

That article is nonsensical.

Seems to claim Dawkins work is worthless because he doesn't know enough about theology. Dawkins will rightly claim that that's as irrelevant as his not being up to speed on the Harry Potter series. The only difference being that if there's a crucial vote to be taken soon on any number of issues ...Education, Stem cell research, right to life, right to die -news and current affairs programs from here to worlds end aren't going to drag JK Rowling on for her tuppence worth.