Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[JACKAL & HYDE]

Ok, lets bring it out to 100 pages..

Anyone on here have any proof of no God out there?

Anyone?

Anything irrefutable will do for or against its existence.. No?


Pfft

Tired argument....


[/list]

[Tone Deft]

Oh, you know the guy that made this? >
^^^ Ok, well then theres no God obviously because this JPG says so..

No, christianity sucks because a jpg says so.

Talk about NAZI propaganda, your lookin at it whether there is a god or not.

I asked god if he existed, he didn't answer. What did he tell you?

[JACKAL & HYDE]

Oh, you know the guy that made this? >
^^^ Ok, well then theres no God obviously because this JPG says so..

No, christianity sucks because a jpg says so.

Talk about NAZI propaganda, your lookin at it whether there is a god or not.

I asked god if he existed, he didn't answer. What did he tell you?

And if a "God" did exist and was sitting in the sky 24/7 exclaiming "WORSHIP ME OR DIE with big Red eyes" you think we'd all be living the same lives we're living now? Or would it obviously be a more boring totalitarian exact environment?


Regardless of the argument itself, you have no proof... As the "God sayers themselves" have no proof either... No proof whatsoever either way. So God/no God with "conviction" = arrogants either way.. Period the end.

[Tone Deft]

Regardless of the argument itself, you have no proof... As the "God sayers themselves" have no proof either... No proof whatsoever either way. So God/no God with "conviction" = arrogants either way.. Period the end.

Agnostics are people without balls. This is your life, make a decision. Is there a god or not? There is no maybe.

If there was a god up in the sky with big red eyes, I'd say "stop bogarting the joint man!!"

[JACKAL & HYDE]

Regardless of the argument itself, you have no proof... As the "God sayers themselves" have no proof either... No proof whatsoever either way. So God/no God with "conviction" = arrogants either way.. Period the end.

Agnostics are people without balls. This is your life, make a decision. Is there a god or not? There is no maybe.

If there was a god up in the sky with big red eyes, I'd say "stop bogarting the joint man!!"

Yet still, you have zero proof either way so I'll take your point as mute....

[BoimB son of BoB]

Regardless of the argument itself, you have no proof... As the "God sayers themselves" have no proof either... No proof whatsoever either way. So God/no God with "conviction" = arrogants either way.. Period the end.

Agnostics are people without balls. This is your life, make a decision. Is there a god or not? There is no maybe.

If there was a god up in the sky with big red eyes, I'd say "stop bogarting the joint man!!"

Yet still, you have zero proof either way so I'll take your point as mute....

lame argument. we had this discussion almost 100 pages ago.

there is no proove against the spaghetti monster either. there is no proove against angels, satan, ghosts, afterlife and all that shit. you believe in all of that because one can not disprove this?

if you do, you are just stupid and i suggest the board ignores you.

then again we maybe not hit the hundreds....

we will take angels etc as a scientific hypothesis etc. that way you can still discus it.

enlighten ous you holey bright minded dude

[zordon]

Regardless of the argument itself, you have no proof... As the "God sayers themselves" have no proof either... No proof whatsoever either way. So God/no God with "conviction" = arrogants either way.. Period the end.

Agnostics are people without balls. This is your life, make a decision. Is there a god or not? There is no maybe.

If there was a god up in the sky with big red eyes, I'd say "stop bogarting the joint man!!"

Yet still, you have zero proof either way so I'll take your point as mute....

The problem with asking if there is a god, is that the word god was man made. So exactly what god are you talking about, are you theist, deist, pantheist? We can probably agree that the word god was man made. Also you cant disprove the flying spaghetti monster, or thor, but that doesnt make either of them real. Its not a mute point, and its not arrogant to say, there is a high probability that there is no god! I have no problem with anyone presenting evidence to the contrary, or with someone believing otherwise. Also please read the book in question, Richard Dawkins -the god delusion, It goes into this particular arguement in detail. By the way I just asked peoples opinions about the book, if its really bothering anyone we can stop. It's good to know that ableton users are for the most part freethinkers, whether they believe in god or not.


I cant disprove that he/she is or is not real. But i'm not going to start a cult that will stone anyone who doesnt believe that it is.

[BoimB son of BoB]

LOL, zordon this is your second post isn't it?


GUYS THIS IS THE GUY WHO STARTED THIS TOPIC!

but never gave a reply since

until now

[noisetonepause]

I just wanted to help this thread get to 100 pages..

thanks, NTP. But if you really want to help, you're going to have to say something inflammatory.

OK. How about this:

Each person has to search his soul and find out what's right. You don't need proof that God exists, all the proof in the world won't change your emotions. Feelings don't care about proof, they never have. They're just there, and you can't really change or control them much... So, you either know that god exists, or you know that it doesn't. You already know. There's absolutely nothing to worry about...

[pilcrow]

zordon (son of mordon?): welcome back. Nice job with the can of worms.

a few thoughts:

(1) it's moot point. MOOT. Not mute. A point is said to be "moot," according to Merriam-Webster, when it's "deprived of practical significance: made abstract or purely academic."

(2) Tone Deft, you have alarmingly quick access to a wide range of insulting and vitriolic artwork. I will be more careful next time what I wish for.

(3) The Spaghetti Monster "problem" is not a problem. Human society has never, to my knowledge, posited the existence of the SM--whereas the majority of humans have, since the beginning of time, believed in some form of creator, prime mover, or God. A first cause that stands outside of nature. That wide-ranging and pervasive belief, I think, is what needs to be explained away by atheists. And I've never heard or read an argument that does that to my satisfaction--Dawkins included.

As I think I posted earlier: The religious impulse has been far too persistent in human life and history for the currently fashionable bashers like Dawkins to have much long-term effect on it. He has to know that, or he’s not nearly as bright as he thinks. Maybe that’s why he resorts to such strident and arrogant rhetoric, and sarcasm that’s meant to sting—he realizes he’s peeing into the wind. The notion that absolutely no part of human religious history for the last 10,000 years—from animists to zoroastrians to vedantists, zen buddhists, jews, muslims, christians—ever touched on even the smallest fragment of objective reality is just absurd.

(4) We don't have to reject science in order to accept a religious outlook, or vice versa. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not either/or. They’ve co-existed side by side since the time of Archimedes. They are two different realms of experience and inquiry. People who think science and religion are battling aren’t approaching either one with insight. People who think Science is working toward a grand statement that is going to bury Religion once and for all are making a category mistake. It’s almost like saying “If the Indianapolis Colts keep playing as well as they have this season, they’re going to cure cancer.”

(5) Many people expect too much from “Science.” That brand of faith is called Scientism. There are simply plenty of questions, like religion, that science is never going to get near—mostly because science is not the realm for approaching them (see point 4, above). Science can’t even tell me which of Shakespeare’s plays is most aesthetically satisfying or why; how on earth is it going to parse the God question?

[pilcrow]

I just wanted to help this thread get to 100 pages..

thanks, NTP. But if you really want to help, you're going to have to say something inflammatory.

OK. How about this:

Each person has to search his soul and find out what's right. You don't need proof that God exists, all the proof in the world won't change your emotions. Feelings don't care about proof, they never have. They're just there, and you can't really change or control them much... So, you either know that god exists, or you know that it doesn't. You already know. There's absolutely nothing to worry about...

There's a lot to that. I think people who know there's a God know it far more deeply than any rationally laid-out proof can convey. Atheists who "know" there is no God, on the other hand.... are just wrong

[eyeknow]

Um, what was it that was so important again?

Sorry, didn't smoke my "fit in to thy forum-ology" joint today.........


being a classmate though..............can you help?

[BoimB son of BoB]

(3) The Spaghetti Monster "problem" is not a problem. Human society has never, to my knowledge, posited the existence of the SM--whereas the majority of humans have, since the beginning of time, believed in some form of creator, prime mover, or God. A first cause that stands outside of nature. That wide-ranging and pervasive belief, I think, is what needs to be explained away by atheists. And I've never heard or read an argument that does that to my satisfaction--Dawkins included.

yes, of course, people don't believe in the SM, because it is a ridiculous thought. but so is believing in god. the only difference being GOD been taking as 'serious' and the spaghetti monster as not being serious. although the belief in god is evenly well fundamented as believing in the SM.

we don't neeeed a first mover /creator. and there is no indication for there being a necessity for a creator anywere. i know you all point out to the big bang etc. but the big bang does NOT NEED a creator also, especially nothing with a (moral, all knowing) conciousness.

bringing a creator into play for explaining the universe and such only makes things much worse. the elegancy of how the universe can be explained would be totally lost. it would be a very big disapointment to need something supernatural to explain why things work as they do. who made the creator? ho did something socomplex come to exist inthe first place? did it evolve ? it would bring even more questions than it 'd give answers.

that's the problem with ID and creationism. it says: it is like that because god snapped his fingers and wanted it like that.

that is just lazy... it makes any further investigation impossible... it explains ous nothing and makes ous dumb arses.

i like to be amazed by te comlexity of nature. and i'm always even more amazed by the pure genius explanation scientist come forth with after years of hard work. exlanations that are so elegant and well underbuild, that those creationist seem like retarded morons.

[Machinate]

Regardless of the argument itself, you have no proof... As the "God sayers themselves" have no proof either... No proof whatsoever either way. So God/no God with "conviction" = arrogants either way.. Period the end.

Agnostics are people without balls. This is your life, make a decision. Is there a god or not? There is no maybe.

Agnosticism isn't the same as saying "maybe". Besides, you can't choose what you know to be true - you can only choose what you believe to be true, hence there are both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, based on an acceptance of the dichotomy between belief and knowledge.

Accepting religious agnosticism was a big thing for me. I have a lot less trouble tolerating christians because of it

[cbit]

(3) The Spaghetti Monster "problem" is not a problem. Human society has never, to my knowledge, posited the existence of the SM--whereas the majority of humans have, since the beginning of time, believed in some form of creator, prime mover, or God. A first cause that stands outside of nature. That wide-ranging and pervasive belief, I think, is what needs to be explained away by atheists. And I've never heard or read an argument that does that to my satisfaction--Dawkins included.

You assert that humans have believed in god since the beginning of time. This is problematic in a couple of ways:

1. Humans haven't existed since the beginning of time. At a certain point in history, none of our ancestors believed in anything like a god (perhaps we'd have to go back to our common ancestor with the chimp.. or maybe we could find universal lack of belief in gods much more recently).

2. The deities that people have believed in through the ages aren't 'One god' (who just wears different outfits), far from it. Consider the polytheistic religions. Baal, Thor, Zeus etc etc. these are quite distinct intentional objects. The old gods have fallen out of fashion, the judeo christian god is very much in vogue now. Same omnipotence maybe, but different guys (rereading your post now i see that i misread it the first time, so perhaps this point is redundant).

3. Since there was a time in which a large number of people believed in the literal existence of Thor. should we take "Thor exists" seriously as a truth claim? Thor presents the same problem to theists as the FSM does (with the difference that people did really believe in thor).

The God Delusion doesn't attempt to explain the existence of religion for that you'll need to take a look at 'Breaking the Spell' by Daniel Dennet, a fascinating read.