What did the fish say the 1,000,000th time it crawled up on the beach bfore it swam back? "(GASP!) Is this really supposed to work?!"
sky4it, that's an interesting calculation. Thanks.
That's just it, AnotherDan. If God is to work or communicate most directly and personally to people within the thoughts, awareness, "mind" of the individual the measurements for that are going to be different than if I'm weighing and dating rocks.
When Dawkins goes through the background and quotes on the "Trinity" he pulls out some of the convoluted logic and language that's been produced on it. That's legitimate, I think and could be applied to any number of different topics and ideas of Christian religion.
But all of religious thought doesn't fall into the same category or have the same weaknesses. For a person to have the very basic view that there's a "spiritual" component to life, it seems Dawkins wants to jump us through hoops immediately - "that's not true, there's no god, you can't prove that by any means other than your own misguided thoughts".
How do I validate in "idea"? A thought? The ability to plan for the future? The ability to romanticize a base survival instinct into the misguided sense of "love"?
Oh, those are just biomechanical impulses, complex processes of minute reactions and responses that have been bred into you by millions of years of difficult struggle and evolution, dude. You're fooling yourself.
Prove it, Dawkins.
So far I don't think he has. He can scrabble together all the hoohah's he wants against man's religious follies. When I get back to what's being proposed, at a base level, he can't prove or disprove that there is or isn't a God or purpose or plan to life, be it once or throughout man's history. What he really does prove I think that man at this stage makes choices, regardless of what he believes. Bad choices aren't restricted to those who have religious faith or don't. Apparently the "azshole" gene is deeply entrenched in everyone.
Ultimately he lays it back on me. "You prove it if there's anything there". But he won't accept the proof I'd offer, if I did. I could offer 1000's of instances of what I'd call advanced awareness and consistent contact by and with "God" and he says that while he'll allow the imagined comfort I get from it all, it's not "real". So be it, for him. That's why I say each person has to get their own faith. Or not. I can't have yours or you mine.
There's a line from a movie, where the character playing an "angel" is taking to a person who says they don't believe in God. They ask the person, "then how do you explain it?" Explain what? "The enduring myth of heaven?" Their answer is, they don't, it's not true. And the response is "some things are true whether you believe them or not".
Which works both ways I guess. Man may have historically developed the idea of some never-never land to make himself feel good at night in the cold, dark cave. Or there could be another explanation for the consistent fact that man at different stages of his history has become aware of God. Could God be trying to tell us something? Like "look, I'm right here".
...................I did my time in the agnostic chair. In the end, I concluded I am happier and more peaceful with my belief in God than I was without it. So, if my God is a delusion, who cares? I'd rather be deluded and peaceful, purposeful, happy than be "sane and rational" and depressed and miserable.
As I'm sure you know, that's you. I've heard that there are happy atheists and depressed and miserable theists.
Oh, those are just biomechanical impulses, complex processes of minute reactions and responses that have been bred into you by millions of years of difficult struggle and evolution, dude. You're fooling yourself.
...................Prove it, Dawkins.
So far I don't think he has. He can scrabble together all the hoohah's he wants against man's religious follies. When I get back to what's being proposed, at a base level, he can't prove or disprove that there is or isn't a God or purpose or plan to life
That last is a classic observation. In the rest of the book and elsewhere, Dawkins can be forthright about this.
The burden of proof lies with the affirmative group. Proving a negative is much harder. Fact is, God is "there" for all of us. Some of us accept Him and some reject Him. We also accept or reject all kinds of religious poo poo about Him. The doctrine of the Trinity is an easy target (how well we know) and it's easy enough to prove God is jealous, and make fun of that. But "homophobic"? I think not! He's just our Original Manufacturer, and brings up in Romans one what is "unseemly" (KJV) On a physical level, for example, it could be noted that there is a purpose for man's rectum. But Dr.W was right about one thing. If someone gives you a pen, for example, you could use it as a toothpick. (Trinitarians are not the only group that is an easy target.)
Here are George Carlin's thoughts. (Religion is bull......... warning! coarse language)
As I'm sure you know, that's you. I've heard that there are happy atheists and depressed and miserable theists.
That last is a classic observation. In the rest of the book and elsewhere, Dawkins can be forthright about this.
First, it must be said, Carlin is definitely one of the greats!!!
And yes, I was only speaking from my own POV and experience. I am quite certain there are happy atheists and agnostics. :) However, I would add that most, if not all, have their own forms of delusions. I think it is part of how our brains cope with life. Some may convince themselves they are tall and handsome, or slim and sexy. Some may convince themselves they are super intelligent or really funny. Whatever. As Sushi says, whatever it takes to get you through the night - as long as your fist isn't in my space, it isn't worth worrying about. :)
Oh and Sky - Good to see you!!!!! Perhaps I am both peeking and peaking. ;)
Ab, you seem to be saying that we're all deluded. Well, the only one I'm sure about is me.
:o
I've looked at a lot of the atheist / Dawkins stuff that's out there. Here's a good one where again Dawkins speaks for himself, and it addresses the thing that Socks brought up about proof. He also addresses Abi's "happiness" point of view. Good interviewer.
The thing that surprises me the most is how some get so exorcised over Dawkin's in the first place.
Everything I've heard him say, or read of him, seems almost self-evident, hardly controversial.
I guess that's how far I've fallen from the TRUE WAY, huh? The doctrines of devils make sense to me?
I was struck by what was said earlier in the thread about "needing" God. Do you really?
For what?
As a believer I know I was always conditioned to think that "The Ministry", "THE WORD", "GOD", and the promotion of same was of insurmountable importance. Now, it just strikes me as about as trivial an endeavor as is possible. Astrology, homeopathy, and crop-circles are of about the same relevance - as in - not much.
I tried to play the good Christian game, I really did. It just never worked for me. The Bible is about as dubious in it's sources as any other "Holy" writ (and there's LOTS of them) so why do we pay it any mind? Cause it makes so much sense? Yeah, O.K.
And as for the all-important "personal relationship" that we're supposed to have with Jesus, and God (and maybe Mary - depending on your brand-loyalty), are you sure you REALLY have one? I never was. I prayed, I tried to seek guidance, I put myself at God's disposal for whatever His needs may have been. And what did I get? Well, basically nothing. Is this how an All-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being operates? Apparently so. (Yes, I know, if it didn't work for me, it was OBVIOUSLY my fault - after all, GOD is always faithful -His WORD says so!)
Just for a millisecond, imagine that religions really ARE ancient superstitions that are now simply memes - poisonous thoughts that distort, misguide us to pointless, empty and even distructive behavior. If that is what they are, how could we ever come to grips with that reality if we cling to the idea that "faith" is such a desireable and worthy attribute that it should be cultivated and nurtured at all costs?
I don't think we come to our religious beliefs logically. Fear, longing, wishfulness, these are the types of things that push us towards a religion. Like Abi said, even if it isn't the truth, she'd prefer having it. Sorry, but that's a mindset that I couldn't tolerate for myself.
There's so much to overlook with religion. The normal laws of the universe no longer apply. A being so powerful that he can create everything that is, yet has no mass, no way of being detected whatever. Miracles, healings, magical feats, all things that simply ignore the laws of physics - but wisely never occur at a time or place where they can be carefully observed, measured, or recorded. Doesn't it ever get to you? Why do the miracles happen to somebody else at someplace other than where YOU are?
And it's all so capricious. This person gets healed, that person dies. If this is really the truth, is this the kind of God you'd even WANT? I guess it doesn't matter. The pot can't tell the potter anything, now can it?
The thing that surprises me the most is how some get so exorcised over Dawkin's in the first place.
Everything I've heard him say, or read of him, seems almost self-evident, hardly controversial.
I guess that's how far I've fallen from the TRUE WAY, huh? The doctrines of devils make sense to me?
I was struck by what was said earlier in the thread about "needing" God. Do you really?
For what?
As a believer I know I was always conditioned to think that "The Ministry", "THE WORD", "GOD", and the promotion of same was of insurmountable importance. Now, it just strikes me as about as trivial an endeavor as is possible. Astrology, homeopathy, and crop-circles are of about the same relevance - as in - not much.
I tried to play the good Christian game, I really did. It just never worked for me. The Bible is about as dubious in it's sources as any other "Holy" writ (and there's LOTS of them) so why do we pay it any mind? Cause it makes so much sense? Yeah, O.K.
And as for the all-important "personal relationship" that we're supposed to have with Jesus, and God (and maybe Mary - depending on your brand-loyalty), are you sure you REALLY have one? I never was. I prayed, I tried to seek guidance, I put myself at God's disposal for whatever His needs may have been. And what did I get? Well, basically nothing. Is this how an All-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being operates? Apparently so. (Yes, I know, if it didn't work for me, it was OBVIOUSLY my fault - after all, GOD is always faithful -His WORD says so!)
Just for a millisecond, imagine that religions really ARE ancient superstitions that are now simply memes - poisonous thoughts that distort, misguide us to pointless, empty and even distructive behavior. If that is what they are, how could we ever come to grips with that reality if we cling to the idea that "faith" is such a desireable and worthy attribute that it should be cultivated and nurtured at all costs?
I don't think we come to our religious beliefs logically. Fear, longing, wishfulness, these are the types of things that push us towards a religion. Like Abi said, even if it isn't the truth, she'd prefer having it. Sorry, but that's a mindset that I couldn't tolerate for myself.
There's so much to overlook with religion. The normal laws of the universe no longer apply. A being so powerful that he can create everything that is, yet has no mass, no way of being detected whatever. Miracles, healings, magical feats, all things that simply ignore the laws of physics - but wisely never occur at a time or place where they can be carefully observed, measured, or recorded. Doesn't it ever get to you? Why do the miracles happen to somebody else at someplace other than where YOU are?
And it's all so capricious. This person gets healed, that person dies. If this is really the truth, is this the kind of God you'd even WANT? I guess it doesn't matter. The pot can't tell the potter anything, now can it?
Perhaps you could talk about atheism then? (and not just the downsides a shortcomings and whatnot of religion) How do you deal with knowing that at any second you will cease to exist, and some day forgetten forever? How do you view concepts of love, "good", and "evil"?
That's just it, AnotherDan. If God is to work or communicate most directly and personally to people within the thoughts, awareness, "mind" of the individual the measurements for that are going to be different than if I'm weighing and dating rocks.
Ask yourself a question, what is the best way God could show his attributes and that he is God? Would it be by showing up as Superman and saying here am I? I think not, for to do so all he would generate is people with superinfatuated ideas of his nature. His nature is non-celebrity non-star like qualtiy, and with good reason, that there might be a kingdom which is established on equality not on servitude of some misabused power. Me thinks in this way, he has shown the ideal way to use power, [too bad most dont like it that way for themselves. /b]
Of course this explains why if you cant live in a kingdom like that with out abusing privledge one can be thrust out. In this, we all have equal chance, to be servants and not ruling by force.
Great post, George. Your choice, of course, but I suggest you copy and paste it to your "permanent record," Fresh Aar.
snip
.............I was struck by what was said earlier in the thread about "needing" God. Do you really?
For what?
Maybe that was me, George. I do. But not because I have a "God-shaped hole" in my heart. It's because He has reached me, somehow. I know He's "out there" and "in here." I "need" to be honest in exactly the way I think you and Dawkins are being honest. I don't want to deny the evidence. I "need" to be honest with the way things are, as I have seen them and experienced them. I'm sympathetic with your argument and Dawkins'. The senses lie to us at times. You have to eliminate those bugaboos if you can. To this day, I'm trying to do that, but yes, at this stage of my personal evolution, I still need God to know what I'm going through, to help me understand the big picture, to teach me stuff that science and poetry and art and philosophy can't teach me, and, to find a parking space once in a while.
snip (Yes, I know, if it didn't work for me, it was OBVIOUSLY my fault - after all, GOD is always faithful -His WORD says so!)
For what it's worth, I don't think it's your fault that your honest "try" at Christianity failed to produce the "promised" results. Well, yeah, it was to some degree, but it was TWI's fault, and your part in that failure was buying into it. I bought into it, too, so I'm pointing three back at myself, as "they" say. My post-Way journey has taken me to the cross, and a lot more makes sense to me, now, from Job to David-and-Nathan, to the Parables and message of the Kingdom, to the Prodigal and Paul. It doesn't make suffering "a blessing," but it helps me bear with understanding the slings and arrows with peace and with hope. What Dawkins says gets him through the night... fellowship with friends, art, music, etc, all make sense to me, but I have this additional dimension that also helps, and it does not require that I be in denial of any scientific fact. It does allow me (as does the US Constitution) to doubt scientific and philosophical theory and weigh for myself the preponderance of evidence for any such theory.
Just for a millisecond, imagine that religions really ARE ancient superstitions that are now simply memes - poisonous thoughts that distort, misguide us to pointless, empty and even distructive behavior. If that is what they are, how could we ever come to grips with that reality if we cling to the idea that "faith" is such a desireable and worthy attribute that it should be cultivated and nurtured at all costs?
OK, I've done that, at times for a lot longer than a millisecond. Religions are like that; yeah, they are. However, faith is not something to be worn like an ornament. I don't think it can be cultivated and nurtured, either, but I know what you're saying... religion tries to do those things. I was so surprised when I began to really see what Jesus spoke out against, even more than fornication and unforgiveness.... religious foolery. He never proclaimed "woe unto you" when speaking to tax collectors and prostitutes. He didn't 'enable' them, either, but he reserved his predictions of doom for the religious idiots of his day. Just for a millisecond, imagine that God raised him from the dead, and made him both Lord and Christ. Imagine what he'd have to say about the religious idiots of OUR day.
snip (hope I haven't snipped your favorite parts!)
Here's a pretty good answer from "the other side." Alistar McGrath was an atheist. Now he's Christian. He's a little more substantive elsewhere, but this is pretty good. And he's British, too, like Dawkins, so he delivers his message in the same respected accent.
George, I thnk we're seeing how the areas of religion and science end up polarized. Dawkins deals in his area of endeavor. By definition, science isn't going to and probably shouldn't enter into the philosophical or religious arenas to be effective. As much as science works to forge understanding out of information it's admirable. Likewise with religion and philosphy. They're not separate and divided, each informs the other IMO. But for each to be effective they have to allow for the fact that they may exclude each other entirely.
That Dawkins does his work is fine with me. He recongizes that's all he does because he feels that's the only logical conclusion based on what he knows.
Just as you pose the question to consider for moment that maybe religious faith isn't true or real, I pose another. What if it IS. What if both are true - man's understanding of the physical universe which is always underway and in process, and God? Consider for a moment that one doesn't exclude the other but that they're both true and factual. The question then is, how? The answer isn't "they can't be" in this hypothetical question. If you were to find out tomorrow that everything you understand today is true, but there is a God - then how the f@#k does that work out?
To a certain degree that's the situation I found myself in long ago. I've tried to disprove that what I believe(d) by "faith" wasn't true. Where I started with was that a large number of events in my life weren't explainable by normal methods, which took away from them to one degree or another, as if they hadn't happened the way I knew they did.
In the face of having to let them stand on their own I proceeded, and I continue to do that. I really don't know what else to do, it's the only honest authentic response I could have.
We have nothing to base any ideas of the future of love on scientifically. I think it will exist as long as life exists, but who knows really? There's no way to know.
The problem is that religious people tie together the concept of "good" with religion. In reality, morals exist within the human mind and society, religion is just a way of organizing the personal and social values into a unified group.
Right, but that obviously doesn't apply to humans.
You could be right, but that's like saying, "If humans could reproduce and evolve away from the process of breathing, we might no longer breathe."
As far as atheism being anti-theism, we are to a degree but only because theists push their views on us. There is little more annoying than some religious jerk coming up to you and telling you that you're going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus, or that you're a good person, so surely Jesus will show himself to you and you'll suddenly "learn", or any of the other holier than thou attitudes we face on a regular basis.
However, we are more than just anti-theists. It's not a matter of being a Christian or anti-Christian. In mathematical terms, we aren't 1 or -1, we're 0. We simply have no belief. There's no strict moral code, no set of beliefs, or any unifying thing other than the absence of a belief in gods.
who is pushing their views on you? Jehovah's witnesses? twi? 95% of people I run into don't want to talk about religion or Jesus, and if they do, in a very superficial sense.
to me atheism is this: you will cease to exist any minute, if you don't get caught before you die, you win. morals, love, and loyalty may be part of a social structure but they are to be played, not followed, to the best of your ability.
Another Dan: Nah, Abi is probably just having a bad hair day. She probably has some snarls up there that have to be hairbrushed out, thats my guess.
Nope, no bad hair day here.
Delusion - A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.
Are you really that certain that absolutely everything you believe is absolutely true? That there is no way even one thing you believe in isn't false, fanciful, or perhaps derived from deception?
And the conversation comes back to Dawkins and the God "delusion." Either he is deluded or I am, when it comes to God. No doubt about it. But whom?
In fairness to Dawkins, as viewers will see in the latest clip I posted, he as a scientist does not exclude the possibility of God as First Cause. Same as another poster said regarding atheism. Atheists are not +1 or -1; they are 0. They're not anti-God, but without God. To be fair to myself and believers, Dawkins does seem to lean toward the -1, he wants convince others of his zero religion. He makes a case that Intelligent Design is an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of species, etc. I counter that his devotion to what he calls "truth" is an alternative RELIGIOUS belief system. I agree with him, but he probably wouldn't with me.
The Judeo-Christian God is, as someone said, the big gorilla. Dawkins makes a good point when he says he's also an aThor-ist. He just doesn't believe in Thor as a true personality or whatever. He doesn't believe in a lot of gods, and neither do I. He just ticks One more off his list that I don't. And there the issue lies.
My "truth" is experiential. So is his. Science attempts to be objective, but its truths are as experiential and subjective as my own.
There is no God until you meet Him. I can't say Dawkins has never met Him. Maybe he's just forgotten, or he's delusional.
Just for a millisecond, imagine that religions really ARE ancient superstitions that are now simply memes - poisonous thoughts that distort, misguide us to pointless, empty and even distructive behavior. If that is what they are, how could we ever come to grips with that reality if we cling to the idea that "faith" is such a desireable and worthy attribute that it should be cultivated and nurtured at all costs?
I don't think we come to our religious beliefs logically. Fear, longing, wishfulness, these are the types of things that push us towards a religion. Like Abi said, even if it isn't the truth, she'd prefer having it. Sorry, but that's a mindset that I couldn't tolerate for myself.
. . .
How would one define "constructive" behavior? How can one be misguided if there is no destination? Why would one pointless endeavor be worse than another?
Atheists are so aggressive to show the downsides of religion, but what do they have to offer that's any better?
anotherDan - how true my friend "marvel not if the world hate you." "Some websites do not have room for opinions other than their agenda" while they are close ears it might be a good place to look for input on that book
Ask yourself a question, what is the best way God could show his attributes and that he is God? Would it be by showing up as Superman and saying here am I? I think not, for to do so all he would generate is people with superinfatuated ideas of his nature.
Yeah, we don't have that, do we?
Perhaps you could talk about atheism then? (and not just the downsides a shortcomings and whatnot of religion) How do you deal with knowing that at any second you will cease to exist, and some day forgetten forever? How do you view concepts of love, "good", and "evil"?
I don't think George would classify himself as an athiest. If you asked, I think he'd say he's agnostic, i.e., he just doesn't know. I'm in the same boat. There just isn't any evidence that points to the existence of a God. He may very well be there, but we can't, as a race, know it by our normal means of knowing. Why don't we have a God sense? Shouldn't be too hard for a God who supposedly wants loving children.
Re ceasing to exist, who cares? Life is what it is and will be what it will be. If that's how its meant to be, so be it. There's certainly nothing I can do about it and have never felt the need to 'deal' with it.
What has God to do with the other concepts you mentioned? Is it that much of a stretch to believe that humanity has the capacity to see the consequences of actions and learn from the experience? Its not really that hard to figure out good and bad. Its only when you interject undefineable, unverifiable and invisible 'spiritual' concepts into the mix that you run into problems.
What has God to do with the other concepts you mentioned? Is it that much of a stretch to believe that humanity has the capacity to see the consequences of actions and learn from the experience? Its not really that hard to figure out good and bad. Its only when you interject undefineable, unverifiable and invisible 'spiritual' concepts into the mix that you run into problems.
Like agape. Try defining that with any meaning.
-JJ
yes humanity can learn from experiences and predict consequences. "good" and "bad" imply some reference point. If it is so easy to figure out "good" and "bad", then that implies there's a relatively easy know reference point. What would that be?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
23
30
Popular Days
Oct 19
23
Oct 16
19
Oct 17
17
Oct 23
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 22 posts
cman 12 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
anotherDan 30 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
23 posts
Oct 16 2007
19 posts
Oct 17 2007
17 posts
Oct 23 2007
16 posts
Posted Images
socks
What did the fish say the 1,000,000th time it crawled up on the beach bfore it swam back? "(GASP!) Is this really supposed to work?!"
sky4it, that's an interesting calculation. Thanks.
That's just it, AnotherDan. If God is to work or communicate most directly and personally to people within the thoughts, awareness, "mind" of the individual the measurements for that are going to be different than if I'm weighing and dating rocks.
When Dawkins goes through the background and quotes on the "Trinity" he pulls out some of the convoluted logic and language that's been produced on it. That's legitimate, I think and could be applied to any number of different topics and ideas of Christian religion.
But all of religious thought doesn't fall into the same category or have the same weaknesses. For a person to have the very basic view that there's a "spiritual" component to life, it seems Dawkins wants to jump us through hoops immediately - "that's not true, there's no god, you can't prove that by any means other than your own misguided thoughts".
How do I validate in "idea"? A thought? The ability to plan for the future? The ability to romanticize a base survival instinct into the misguided sense of "love"?
Oh, those are just biomechanical impulses, complex processes of minute reactions and responses that have been bred into you by millions of years of difficult struggle and evolution, dude. You're fooling yourself.
Prove it, Dawkins.
So far I don't think he has. He can scrabble together all the hoohah's he wants against man's religious follies. When I get back to what's being proposed, at a base level, he can't prove or disprove that there is or isn't a God or purpose or plan to life, be it once or throughout man's history. What he really does prove I think that man at this stage makes choices, regardless of what he believes. Bad choices aren't restricted to those who have religious faith or don't. Apparently the "azshole" gene is deeply entrenched in everyone.
Ultimately he lays it back on me. "You prove it if there's anything there". But he won't accept the proof I'd offer, if I did. I could offer 1000's of instances of what I'd call advanced awareness and consistent contact by and with "God" and he says that while he'll allow the imagined comfort I get from it all, it's not "real". So be it, for him. That's why I say each person has to get their own faith. Or not. I can't have yours or you mine.
There's a line from a movie, where the character playing an "angel" is taking to a person who says they don't believe in God. They ask the person, "then how do you explain it?" Explain what? "The enduring myth of heaven?" Their answer is, they don't, it's not true. And the response is "some things are true whether you believe them or not".
Which works both ways I guess. Man may have historically developed the idea of some never-never land to make himself feel good at night in the cold, dark cave. Or there could be another explanation for the consistent fact that man at different stages of his history has become aware of God. Could God be trying to tell us something? Like "look, I'm right here".
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
As I'm sure you know, that's you. I've heard that there are happy atheists and depressed and miserable theists.
That last is a classic observation. In the rest of the book and elsewhere, Dawkins can be forthright about this.
The burden of proof lies with the affirmative group. Proving a negative is much harder. Fact is, God is "there" for all of us. Some of us accept Him and some reject Him. We also accept or reject all kinds of religious poo poo about Him. The doctrine of the Trinity is an easy target (how well we know) and it's easy enough to prove God is jealous, and make fun of that. But "homophobic"? I think not! He's just our Original Manufacturer, and brings up in Romans one what is "unseemly" (KJV) On a physical level, for example, it could be noted that there is a purpose for man's rectum. But Dr.W was right about one thing. If someone gives you a pen, for example, you could use it as a toothpick. (Trinitarians are not the only group that is an easy target.)
Here are George Carlin's thoughts. (Religion is bull......... warning! coarse language)
warning! coarse language
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
First, it must be said, Carlin is definitely one of the greats!!!
And yes, I was only speaking from my own POV and experience. I am quite certain there are happy atheists and agnostics. :) However, I would add that most, if not all, have their own forms of delusions. I think it is part of how our brains cope with life. Some may convince themselves they are tall and handsome, or slim and sexy. Some may convince themselves they are super intelligent or really funny. Whatever. As Sushi says, whatever it takes to get you through the night - as long as your fist isn't in my space, it isn't worth worrying about. :)
Oh and Sky - Good to see you!!!!! Perhaps I am both peeking and peaking. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Ab, you seem to be saying that we're all deluded. Well, the only one I'm sure about is me.
:o
I've looked at a lot of the atheist / Dawkins stuff that's out there. Here's a good one where again Dawkins speaks for himself, and it addresses the thing that Socks brought up about proof. He also addresses Abi's "happiness" point of view. Good interviewer.
Belle, you'll like this one
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
The thing that surprises me the most is how some get so exorcised over Dawkin's in the first place.
Everything I've heard him say, or read of him, seems almost self-evident, hardly controversial.
I guess that's how far I've fallen from the TRUE WAY, huh? The doctrines of devils make sense to me?
I was struck by what was said earlier in the thread about "needing" God. Do you really?
For what?
As a believer I know I was always conditioned to think that "The Ministry", "THE WORD", "GOD", and the promotion of same was of insurmountable importance. Now, it just strikes me as about as trivial an endeavor as is possible. Astrology, homeopathy, and crop-circles are of about the same relevance - as in - not much.
I tried to play the good Christian game, I really did. It just never worked for me. The Bible is about as dubious in it's sources as any other "Holy" writ (and there's LOTS of them) so why do we pay it any mind? Cause it makes so much sense? Yeah, O.K.
And as for the all-important "personal relationship" that we're supposed to have with Jesus, and God (and maybe Mary - depending on your brand-loyalty), are you sure you REALLY have one? I never was. I prayed, I tried to seek guidance, I put myself at God's disposal for whatever His needs may have been. And what did I get? Well, basically nothing. Is this how an All-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being operates? Apparently so. (Yes, I know, if it didn't work for me, it was OBVIOUSLY my fault - after all, GOD is always faithful -His WORD says so!)
Just for a millisecond, imagine that religions really ARE ancient superstitions that are now simply memes - poisonous thoughts that distort, misguide us to pointless, empty and even distructive behavior. If that is what they are, how could we ever come to grips with that reality if we cling to the idea that "faith" is such a desireable and worthy attribute that it should be cultivated and nurtured at all costs?
I don't think we come to our religious beliefs logically. Fear, longing, wishfulness, these are the types of things that push us towards a religion. Like Abi said, even if it isn't the truth, she'd prefer having it. Sorry, but that's a mindset that I couldn't tolerate for myself.
There's so much to overlook with religion. The normal laws of the universe no longer apply. A being so powerful that he can create everything that is, yet has no mass, no way of being detected whatever. Miracles, healings, magical feats, all things that simply ignore the laws of physics - but wisely never occur at a time or place where they can be carefully observed, measured, or recorded. Doesn't it ever get to you? Why do the miracles happen to somebody else at someplace other than where YOU are?
And it's all so capricious. This person gets healed, that person dies. If this is really the truth, is this the kind of God you'd even WANT? I guess it doesn't matter. The pot can't tell the potter anything, now can it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Putting everyone in a religious 'pot' that speaks of spiritual things is nonsense.
That's not thinking, just reacting to words said.
The fact, truth, reality or whatever you want to call it is-
there are things not seen that some want to see.
True, many go various ways that don't seem logical.
And there are those that see but can't be seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Perhaps you could talk about atheism then? (and not just the downsides a shortcomings and whatnot of religion) How do you deal with knowing that at any second you will cease to exist, and some day forgetten forever? How do you view concepts of love, "good", and "evil"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Ask yourself a question, what is the best way God could show his attributes and that he is God? Would it be by showing up as Superman and saying here am I? I think not, for to do so all he would generate is people with superinfatuated ideas of his nature. His nature is non-celebrity non-star like qualtiy, and with good reason, that there might be a kingdom which is established on equality not on servitude of some misabused power. Me thinks in this way, he has shown the ideal way to use power, [too bad most dont like it that way for themselves. /b]
Of course this explains why if you cant live in a kingdom like that with out abusing privledge one can be thrust out. In this, we all have equal chance, to be servants and not ruling by force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Great post, George. Your choice, of course, but I suggest you copy and paste it to your "permanent record," Fresh Aar.
Here's a pretty good answer from "the other side." Alistar McGrath was an atheist. Now he's Christian. He's a little more substantive elsewhere, but this is pretty good. And he's British, too, like Dawkins, so he delivers his message in the same respected accent.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
God loves you all
here a link that needs pray
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
it’s a board but they say they are logic but they are not
I told them by Richard Dawkins reasons love is a Delusion too
but it only took hours before I was banned and I only used logic with title
“Love is a Delusion”
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Sweet Roy - LOL!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Another Dan: Nah, Abi is probably just having a bad hair day. She probably has some snarls up there that have to be hairbrushed out, thats my guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
George, I thnk we're seeing how the areas of religion and science end up polarized. Dawkins deals in his area of endeavor. By definition, science isn't going to and probably shouldn't enter into the philosophical or religious arenas to be effective. As much as science works to forge understanding out of information it's admirable. Likewise with religion and philosphy. They're not separate and divided, each informs the other IMO. But for each to be effective they have to allow for the fact that they may exclude each other entirely.
That Dawkins does his work is fine with me. He recongizes that's all he does because he feels that's the only logical conclusion based on what he knows.
Just as you pose the question to consider for moment that maybe religious faith isn't true or real, I pose another. What if it IS. What if both are true - man's understanding of the physical universe which is always underway and in process, and God? Consider for a moment that one doesn't exclude the other but that they're both true and factual. The question then is, how? The answer isn't "they can't be" in this hypothetical question. If you were to find out tomorrow that everything you understand today is true, but there is a God - then how the f@#k does that work out?
To a certain degree that's the situation I found myself in long ago. I've tried to disprove that what I believe(d) by "faith" wasn't true. Where I started with was that a large number of events in my life weren't explainable by normal methods, which took away from them to one degree or another, as if they hadn't happened the way I knew they did.
In the face of having to let them stand on their own I proceeded, and I continue to do that. I really don't know what else to do, it's the only honest authentic response I could have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
this may be relevant:
http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/scien...moralrelativism
who is pushing their views on you? Jehovah's witnesses? twi? 95% of people I run into don't want to talk about religion or Jesus, and if they do, in a very superficial sense.
to me atheism is this: you will cease to exist any minute, if you don't get caught before you die, you win. morals, love, and loyalty may be part of a social structure but they are to be played, not followed, to the best of your ability.
I want to know why should I think otherwise?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
You shouldn't be bolshevik. You should be true to yourself. Why play though. Why not be who you really are?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Roy, "marvel not if the world hate you." Some websites do not have room for opinions other than their agenda.
Sky, in my deluded condition, it's hard to tell. :wacko:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Nope, no bad hair day here.
Delusion - A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.
Are you really that certain that absolutely everything you believe is absolutely true? That there is no way even one thing you believe in isn't false, fanciful, or perhaps derived from deception?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
As I thought. Abi's hair is just fine.
And the conversation comes back to Dawkins and the God "delusion." Either he is deluded or I am, when it comes to God. No doubt about it. But whom?
In fairness to Dawkins, as viewers will see in the latest clip I posted, he as a scientist does not exclude the possibility of God as First Cause. Same as another poster said regarding atheism. Atheists are not +1 or -1; they are 0. They're not anti-God, but without God. To be fair to myself and believers, Dawkins does seem to lean toward the -1, he wants convince others of his zero religion. He makes a case that Intelligent Design is an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of species, etc. I counter that his devotion to what he calls "truth" is an alternative RELIGIOUS belief system. I agree with him, but he probably wouldn't with me.
The Judeo-Christian God is, as someone said, the big gorilla. Dawkins makes a good point when he says he's also an aThor-ist. He just doesn't believe in Thor as a true personality or whatever. He doesn't believe in a lot of gods, and neither do I. He just ticks One more off his list that I don't. And there the issue lies.
My "truth" is experiential. So is his. Science attempts to be objective, but its truths are as experiential and subjective as my own.
There is no God until you meet Him. I can't say Dawkins has never met Him. Maybe he's just forgotten, or he's delusional.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How would one define "constructive" behavior? How can one be misguided if there is no destination? Why would one pointless endeavor be worse than another?
Atheists are so aggressive to show the downsides of religion, but what do they have to offer that's any better?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Sunesis, anotherDan, and others
God loves you my dear friendsl
Sunesis - thanks I am glad you like it
anotherDan - how true my friend "marvel not if the world hate you." "Some websites do not have room for opinions other than their agenda" while they are close ears it might be a good place to look for input on that book
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Yeah, we don't have that, do we?
I don't think George would classify himself as an athiest. If you asked, I think he'd say he's agnostic, i.e., he just doesn't know. I'm in the same boat. There just isn't any evidence that points to the existence of a God. He may very well be there, but we can't, as a race, know it by our normal means of knowing. Why don't we have a God sense? Shouldn't be too hard for a God who supposedly wants loving children.
Re ceasing to exist, who cares? Life is what it is and will be what it will be. If that's how its meant to be, so be it. There's certainly nothing I can do about it and have never felt the need to 'deal' with it.
What has God to do with the other concepts you mentioned? Is it that much of a stretch to believe that humanity has the capacity to see the consequences of actions and learn from the experience? Its not really that hard to figure out good and bad. Its only when you interject undefineable, unverifiable and invisible 'spiritual' concepts into the mix that you run into problems.
Like agape. Try defining that with any meaning.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
"Behold the man!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
yes humanity can learn from experiences and predict consequences. "good" and "bad" imply some reference point. If it is so easy to figure out "good" and "bad", then that implies there's a relatively easy know reference point. What would that be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.