The God Delusion discussion

Jason wrote: "But to ask you die hard atheists - what would happen if you won? You disproved all that people had faith in to support there lives. So they now have a hole... what do people turn to then?"

Why are you assuming there is a hole? Isn't it just as plausible that religion has put into people the idea that a hole is there and then stated that they have the only way to fill it?

Have you considered that they made "the disease", then announced that they have the only cure and you better pay them in time and money and loyalty or the cure won't be given to you?

But how do you know there is a disease at all?

John wrote: "Jason, you are right that if religion/faith were removed from people's lives it would leave a hole.

You are right that some people probably need religion, and get great comfort from their faith and/or the organised church they belong to.

That's not in question.

The point is none of that makes it true. "

Why is it right that some people need religion? Why is it right that there would be a hole at all? I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

I don't doubt that some people feel good from having their religion, but I do question if they could not feel equally good or even better another way. What makes you think that can't happen?

Kevin wrote: "A hypothetical on if religion didn't exist is difficult for me to quantify. On one hand I see a world of very intelligent beings able to tackle many complicated problems. The issue I see is on the ..."

There are some superstitions that are more or less harmless to anyone other than the belief-holder and some that are dangerous.

For the most part, I see atheists only angry about the latter. They may not like the former, but I don't see them demanding that people surrender them "just because". In other words, "keep it to yourself and we've got no problems. I'm not in charge of whatever you choose to think as long as it doesn't harm me or the world I live in."

Jason wrote: "Maybe i just don't need organised religion and its community to believe? i don't know.

Most organised religions are incredibly oppressive if you look at the popular ones' history and looking at that point and that point alone, how can they be that way in the name of something so pure and all powerful and good? its hypocritical.
So i reject them and all their practices and think that if i'm a good person nonetheless its as good as Gods grace. "

So basically you believe in a god for no reason at all, not even a religious one. You just do it... to do it?

Jason wrote: "Whats left when you remove all the practice of Religion minus prayer?

You living your life and suffering the consequences of doing bad deeds and the benefits of happiness/luck/success etc for being a good person. Good in the sense of what society has pre-constructed as being good. Thats what i meant by Gods grace or blessing.
The only word that comes to hand is the loose definition of Karma. "

Why is a belief in god necessary for any of that? Why is it even helpful with any of that?

If you subtract the god part of your statement you're left with the second and third sentences. What's wrong with those by themselves? Why do you need the third or fourth sentence at all?

because you can't or anyone can't prove that there isn't a God and yes the secular laws of society define what is morally right and wrong based upon the original laws that were first brought about by religious books yes?
I'm also liberally minded enough to respect and be tolerant to other religions and beliefs, so i don't mind if you're atheist, jew, christian, hindu or agnostic etc.
As long as you don't force your beliefs on me.

Karma and coincidence, fate etc are a bit more ambiguous than believing in God.
Something that at least has definable traits of what we would understand a God to be. A being that is omnipotent and omnipresent.

Logic and Academia should be kept away from God and Religion because it is something you will neither prove or disprove (even if Aliens land tomorrow, people will still believe in God, maybe not the creation story, something i don't believe in but God will still exist) as I said earlier its like Art. Its romantic and emotive and no one can explain it, its opinion only.
As simon and Garfunkel quote "You can burn down my churches but i'll still be free"
I know its not very credible quoting an artist but its a worthy one.

There would be a hole because the world situation would prove so - billions worship - that culture and history would be..removed and proved defunct.

I am a Rational person, i do believe that Reason and Logic and Science and Medicine can solve humanities problems but it cannot and should not be applied to Faith in Religion and God. which I see as a form of expression.
(some artists do produce amazing work with mathematics but i'm not talking about that)

No, secular laws deal with justice, thats not always on the side of morality.

We don't need to prove there isn't a god, you need to prove there is one. It is cultural prejudice instilled by generations of the belief in god that leads peopel to even consider the idea that we have to provide proof of non-existence. However, that sentiment in and off itself is both ridiculous and worthless. If I tell you, as I did earlier that there is a dragon in you garage that goes invisible when you look, and that you have to provide proof of its non-existence, then you'd think I was a moron for asking for such evidence. You would expect me to provide evidence that its there. Objectively, and without the subjective nature of the cultural biases and prejudices about the existence of god that have been instilled into almost all society, we can see that asking for evidence of non-existence is not just ridiculous, but untenable.

We can disprove not only the need for gods existence, but also, when given a clear definition, we can show that the whole idea is illogical, and cannot work within the laws of nature. If god does not exist within the laws of nature, then it is not even a blip on the radar, and has no meaning within our lives, nor our world.

The problem with your last statement is that it does not actually represent what religion or faith is, it is not an expression, it is a system of belief, and it makes claims about the world we live in. Moreover it makes claims that are directly contradictory to the evidence. Anything that makes claims, tenuous or absolute, about the world we live in is open to investigation, and can be looked at with logic and reason to decide if the claims made are viable, accurate, and whether they have any veracity. And if those claims contradict the evidence, we cannot ignore them and not investigate them, because what if they are true? And if they aren't true, which does indeed appear to be the case, they should be shown to not be true.

Jason wrote: "because you can't or anyone can't prove that there isn't a God "

Must something be disproved in order for reasonable people to acknowledge that it doesn't exist?

Should we not investigate species because we can't disprove the existence of unicorns? Doesn't that mean that science should stay out of it and that reason has no place in the study of the animal kingdom?

Jason wrote: "I'm also liberally minded enough to respect and be tolerant to other religions and beliefs, so i don't mind if you're atheist, jew, christian, hindu or agnostic etc. As long as you don't force your beliefs on me."

This doesn't seem to match up with what you said earlier:

Jason wrote: "I find Atheism ignorant and intolerant."

That quote seems to indicate that you don't care what someone's beliefs are as long as they are not going around trying to be rational and, you know, expecting evidence that something exists before declaring that it does.

Jason wrote: "There would be a hole because the world situation would prove so - billions worship - that culture and history would be..removed and proved defunct."

How so? How would history be "proved defunct"? History would have still happened. I'm not sure what you're point is except that there would definitely be a hole because you really think there would be. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Jason wrote: "i do believe that Reason and Logic and Science and Medicine can solve humanities problems but it cannot and should not be applied to Faith in Religion and God."

But why does it get special treatment? Why isn't it allowed to be questioned the same way as anything else? Why is there this one area where you think people can just say whatever they want, with no basis, and it's all perfectly acceptable? Why are they allowed to trick children into thinking something is the case even though it has no basis in fact?

I get that adults should be allowed to think whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but don't children count as "someone else"? Why is it okay to teach children that they'll be sent to hell for thought crimes? Isn't that threatening them with torture? Why is that okay?

Why is religion allowed to protect child molesters and increase the spread of AIDS? At some point, we all have to answer for the consequences of our actions. Why does religion get to be totally outside the morality of any decent person anywhere on earth?

Don't get me wrong. "Religion operates outside the borders of logic and reason" is a really common argument. I'd just like someone, for once, to be able to explain why it somehow gets to be exempt from having to answer for itself the way everything else on earth has to.

Let me ask this instead: Is it possible that it's not a matter of opinion, that there either is or is not a god? If there is a real answer to the question of whether or not there is a god, then how should one decide this question in a fair way? Should evidence be considered at all?

Jason wrote: "because you can't or anyone can't prove that there isn't a God and yes the secular laws of society define what is morally right and wrong based upon the original laws that were first brought about ..."
Jason,
Are you suggesting that before the bible was written there wasn't, at the very minimum, the idea in communities that murder, rape, theft and other such things were bad for the community. Didn't the ancient Romans, Greek's, Egyptians, Chinese, Persians, druids ad infinitum all have laws regarding these matters all with out reference to the Abrahamic god, or either of the bibles?
The very fact that bible (or any other religous text)was written implies that a co-operative social group that must have had "laws" pre-existed it. Just because the these laws were codified in the bible doesn't mean the bible writers can claim authorship or creation of them.
It's the old how can you be moral without god or religion, which then implies that the faithful are only good because they fear the punishment.
If it was proved tomorrow without any room for doubt that there is no god, no hell, would you rush out and murder, rape and steal?

Edited to include a sentence that I must have deleted by accident.

John wrote: "if science isn't proving it, there must be something wrong with science!"

I agree. This is the fundamental basis of his argument.

John wrote: "I think Jason's position is not unusual.

Many people reject religion and don't buy the stories in the Bible (or other holy book), but hold a vague belief in some kind of supernatural purpose or f..."

I agree with John and ask him to reword "if science isn't proving it, there must be something wrong with science!"

This isn't exactly what I meant but it fits it in a more aggressive way. I mean for example Science isnt advanced enough to explain what Human consciousness is and there is nothing more personal to every one of us. God would be the last thing mankind would defeat, or prove exists (depending on your point of view)

But you can throw out Religion if you feel it isn't doing what it serves its purpose for, I think i see it in the same way as people participate in society(or choose not to)

Jason wrote: "I agree with John and ask him to reword "if science isn't proving it, there must be something wrong with science!"

This isn't exactly what I meant but it fits it in a more aggressive way."

Is it possible that it IS the logical conclusion to what you think, but you just haven't taken the time to work it through and realize that it is?

John wrote: "Religion is irrelevant to the claim that there is a supernatural realm.

You were saying that science should not be applied because it cannot understand something like God (like art in your example..."


But how do you know so irrefutably?
What about people claiming to have souls? etc.

How do you quantify an experience? Isnt that just a word to define something that is emotive and not rational or logical.

God/faith/belief can move people - its a personal thing, well i believe it should be. Organised religion, like the Catholic church is indifferent from the concept of cult of personality.

Jason wrote: "God/faith/belief can move people - its a personal thing, well i believe it should be. Organised religion, like the Catholic church is indifferent from the concept of cult of personality..."

OK, I get the anti-organised religion bit.
But here is a simple question: What makes a personal religion/belief in a deity any more valid than a delusional belief?
If the belief isn't harming anyone that's fine, there may even be a faith related placebo effect that is positive in some ways...but having faith in something doesn't necessarily make it real.

I note the initial thread was about atheist/agnostic. We seem to have drifted away from that.
I think when folk are getting bogged down in the definitions and degrees of unbelief they are pretty much missing the point. I also think that folk can get too invested in the etymology of the words and ignore their meaning in common useage...many words have meanings that are now slightly, or dramatically, different from what their etymology suggests.

I always view gnosticism/agnosticism as a perpendicular scale to theism/atheism.

Gnostic Theist - KNOWS there is a god.
Agnostic Theist - Believes in a god, but accepts that nobody can know for certain.
Agnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a god, but accepts that nobody can know for certain.
Gnostic Atheist - KNOWS there isn't a god.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QdYoufb0UsQ...

Shaun wrote: "I always view gnosticism/agnosticism as a perpendicular scale to theism/atheism.

Gnostic Theist - KNOWS there is a god.
Agnostic Theist - Believes in a god, but accepts that nobody can know for ce..."

Aye, I've seen similar discussions/arguments around these terms. Some around how valid the terms are to describe the beliefs expressed...then usually ending up getting philosophical around the idea of whether you can truly ever know anything...at this point it ends up (in my opinion) "havering keech" (to use a colloquialism - rough trans if needed: talking from their nether regions). Aye, sure you can get tied up in discussing "true" knowledge, but in practical everyday terms how does a "Gnostic Theist" differ from an "Agnostic Theist"? Is it in an arrogance of gnosis?
Is there a risk of confusing the current implications of gnosis with the occult meanings?
In everyday terms: does an agnostic's (lower case) actions differ from an atheist's? I don't think so.

Having been on the other side of these debates, I should point out that the hard part is questioning the fundamental assumption. It's not in the details or the specific approaches (this concept of religion or that detail about emotional connectedness to "god"), but in getting at the barest truth, the most underlying belief and questioning that with total self-honesty.

Until a person is willing to stare into that question with an absolute knowledge for truth, daring to drop ANY assumption or abandon ANY idea that cannot hold up to honest scrutiny, not much else will matter.

Of course, you never know what will get someone to realize this and actually question the assumption, but once a person does, the answer becomes obvious almost instantly.

Daniel wrote: "Having been on the other side of these debates, I should point out that the hard part is questioning the fundamental assumption..."

Which fundamental assumption?

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Having been on the other side of these debates, I should point out that the hard part is questioning the fundamental assumption..."

Which fundamental assumption?"

It can be different for each person, but it's whatever assumption you're beginning your entire line of reasoning with. It's not that Jason is unreasonable, it's just that he's beginning with a bad assumption (bad because it hasn't been tested or questioned at all) In Jason's case, he seems to be starting all of his reasoning from the point where there already is a god. The actual question isn't really being asked.

In order to reach a point where "if science isn't proving it, something must be wrong with science" a person has to have begin the whole scenario with the assumption that "Thing X is true", in this case "There is a god".

If that assumption weren't there, then the question could be simply "Why can't science prove there is a god?" But that question cannot be asked because of the underlying assumption. The "something wrong with science" notion (even if he wouldn't phrase it that way) can only exist in a mind that is beginning with an assumption that is not questioned.

If, on the other hand, you start with the assumption, then "what's wrong with science?" becomes the obvious logical question to ask. Once you ask that question, then you automatically build answers like "It's outside of the realm of reason or science." or "science can't possibly understand" or "it's like art, indefinable" because it's the only way to square what's wrong with science without having to question your underlying assumption.

All that to say that explaining how it's not like art or addressing those specific arguments like "science can't possibly understand" accomplishes nothing unless it gets someone to go back to the root assumption, the one causing all the problems.

The only way for a person to get through to other side totally, is for them to reach a point where they are willing to honestly question the First Assumption. In this case, it would be to honestly ask "Is there a god?" the same way a person would ask "do i have any paper in my printer?" You look for the reasons for and against it, you test your printer, you check the tray. If it's not printing, you check for clogs, and so on until you establish that there either is or is not paper in the printer.

The specific question matters greatly here, because we tend to ask our questions with our assumptions built in (a kind of confirmation bias), so a person in Jason's position might be asking "How do I know there is a god?" or "How can god be proved?" or "How can a god exist even if there is no evidence?" all of which build the question around the assumption already being true that there is a god. A person who does this can and often does convince themselves that this is the same as questioning the assumption, but it isn't.

Nothing can change for Jason until he questions the assumption. All other debate/conversation is just talking around things in the hopes that the underlying assumption will be challenged as a result.

Ultimately, no one can make him question the assumption. He either will one day or he won't.

That was a bit rambly, so let me know if it's unclear.

Most poems are logical (I'm tempted to say all but I am certain there will be exceptions)

I use the logic inherent in language, its metaphors, its sounds, its silences, it emotional subtexts, etc when writing poetry.

Just because you cannot understand a poem does not mean it is not logical.

Logic can be applied to painting (and should be) because artists make decisions about their work (use of color, shade, materials, brushes - even if their decision is one to do with chance (tossing paint into a fan and catching its spray).

Underpinning everything we do is a logic (even a pathological one)

That same logic should be applied to religion just the same.

Even beliefs come from a logical process, (even an illogical one, like walking under a ladder) they do not simply manifest themselves - so logic can and should be applied to them.

How else can we try to understand ourselves?

Question (since I am unable to spend the time reading all of these posts), did any read The Dawkins Delusion ? It has some interesting points to it.

God? I have no need of that hypothesis.

In fact, from a recent interview I heard of him with an astrophysicist; he should stick to biology.

Mike wrote: "Not even Spinoza's god? >:-D There are even a few noteworthy atheists that do not like how Dawkins "info mined from the web" without authenticating; the very thing Dawkins "should" have hated sin..."

Why use a euphemism? nature is nature, calling it god leads to the temptation to anthropomorphise...

I like poetry and fanciful speech and so I can appreciate Spinoza's god. However, the word too easily escapes meaning and muddies discussion. For me, inserting god is cliche without the benefit of ever having been novel.

Mike wrote: "Question (since I am unable to spend the time reading all of these posts), did any read The Dawkins Delusion ? It has some interesting points to it."

Agree. But the issue I have with Dawkins and I have seen many interviews with him, is that the only way he can be show he is right is to prove the other side wrong. He has no direct evidence to prove he is right.

It's a bit like a politician saying the opposition is wrong so my party must be right.

But then again Dawkins main objective is not to show that there is not god, it is to sell books.

this coming from the man who elsewhere posted that as science couldn't answer what came before the big bang that it must be god. The irony levels are almost lethal cs.

Hazel wrote: "this coming from the man who elsewhere posted that as science couldn't answer what came before the big bang that it must be god. The irony levels are almost lethal cs."

You do edit posts to your advantage. I do not clain that it is god, I say that I believe it is god.

in order to believe, you have to base that belief on a claim, we've been through this cs, and we're not doing it again. If you have no claim, then you have no basis for your belief.

You have claimed to believe in a god, that is you making a claim about gods existence, as you cannot believe in the god without believing it exists, you state that you believe in god, thus that means you believe that god exists, and thus you are making a claim that god exists.

And you have no proof at all to back up your claims, so yes, the irony is reaching contamination containment levels.

Hazel wrote: "in order to believe, you have to base that belief on a claim, we've been through this cs, and we're not doing it again. If you have no claim, then you have no basis for your belief.

You have claim..."

You are using 'words' like 'claim' to progress your argument. You suggest that because I 'believe' there is a god that I therefore must 'claim' that there is a god and if I claim that, then I must prove it.

This of course is just Hazel playing with words.

Why not replace 'claim' with 'suggest'. I suggest (meaning,it is possible) that there is a god. That then means that god could exist.

Then I would be using Dawkins argument in reverse. He thinks that it is so unlikely that there is a god he might as well be atheist. I think it is so likely, I might as well believe.

ok, so if you don't claim that a god exists, what is it that you believe in? If you make no claim, there is nothing on which to base your belief. I'm not playing with words, I'm trying to find the logical route to your claim that haven't claimed there is a god, when you quite distinctly claim to believe in god. There must be some basis for what you believe, and "I might as well, as its likely that there is a god" is a weak argument, especially as the evidence suggests that it is distinctly unlikely that there is a god.

Dawkins at least clearly sets out his evidence and explanations in the God Delusion, you can't even accept the idea that to hold a belief a claim has to be made on which that belief is based, which grounds the belief, as it were, in to something tangible. Dawkins doesn't think that there probably isn't a god, so he might as well be atheist, he's atheist because the evidence shows that there isn't likely to be a god, you've got it the wrong way round. To reverse his argument, you would have to be able to say the evidence shows that there is likely to be a god, and so based on that, I believe he exists. But as the evidence doesn't point to god existing, then your argument falls down.

Then you will have to tell me what you think Dawkins thinks is evidence that god does not exist, because he has not convinced me, that he does have evidence.

I think you are again having issues with the 'belief' word. You seem to view it as 'accept' but I see it as 'Have faith in' or 'hope'.

You visit, for example, Liverpool. A year later someone asks you 'have you been to Liverpool' and you say yes. They say 'prove it' but you can't.

Does that mean that you have not been to Liverpool?

I know there is a god but I can't prove it any more than Dawkins can prove otherwise.

Seriously cs your back to this?!?
Saying "I believe" is making a statement of claim.
Your refusal to acknowledge this doesn't change it.
Just who is playing with words??

cs, though I don't know why I'd chose to visit Liverpool, if I did so, it would have to be by train as I don't drive, as such, I'd have the tickets to prove the journey, and I'd have taken pictures as I'd never visited before, so I'd have photographs. And if I really wanted, I could get the security camera footage of me being in Liverpool station, and in the city centre, and in any shop or establishment I visited while I was there.

So yes, I could prove I'd been to Liverpool.

But again, its apples and oranges. My claiming to visit a city we know exists is not exactly a massive claim, its not something that would be considered odd or extraordinary. Whereas claiming that there is an all powerful being that created the universe is among the biggest and most extraordinary claims anyone can make.

Now, you've said you "know there is a god". That is most definitely a claim on the existence of god. Well, I reject that claim, so where's the proof to convince me I shouldn't reject it?

Dawkins has presented his arguments in the God Delusion, maybe before you feel you can critique his argument you should actually read it? The lack of a rating by yourself suggests you haven't read it, and a search of your books list confirms it. Read his book, then maybe you can comment on what he has to say.

I have read the book and I have read many others as well. I have only been here for a few weeks and have not got around to recalling or listing them all. If I was to score it do I rate it high because Dawkins has done what he wanted to do very well, even though I don't agree with most of it or do I score it low for that very reason?

I have said there is a god rather than I believe there is, in the last post, since Dawkins is allowed to claim there is no god.

Ok if you have something against Liverpool substitute it with any town you like. I though you might split hairs on that one, but I was hoping you could have gone along with me. Not every one takes photo's and keeps train tickets and the cctv footage is not always kept or clear....... etc. etc. Not having proof does not mean something is non existent. If science does not believe 'stuff' is possible even when there is no evidence, they would not take things further.

Shanna wrote: "Seriously cs your back to this?!?
Saying "I believe" is making a statement of claim.
Your refusal to acknowledge this doesn't change it.
Just who is playing with words??"

It's not.

Why not?

Have you just resorted to grade three playground rebuttals?
Honestly! cs saying "I believe" is making a statement of claim "I believe the sky is pink" "I believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" "I believe that you just resorted to a grade three playground rebuttal" "I believe that god exists" are all claims that I think something is true... it is up to me to back up and "prove" whether they are or not, whether I can or not.

cs, I didn't split hairs, I answered the question. Replace the city name with another, and the answer would be the same. But it still comes down to it not being an extraordinary claim, its not unreasonable to think that I could travel to any given city, town, country etc. Its well within reasonable consideration. The existence of a supernatural all powerful being however, is an extraordinary claim.

You're absolutely correct, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But that doesn't mean we default to the position of belief. Otherwise there would be millions of things that we default to believing in, such as pixies, squizoids, santa clause, dragons, fairies, plups, vampires, werewolves, demons and bnubs.

Your statement about saying there is a god because dawkins says there isn't is a great example of backpeddling. I forgive you for it though, as you've caught me doing it before. Dawkins claims that it is highly unlikely there is a god, not that there is no god. The thing is, the reverse cannot be said, as there is no evidence that makes it highly likely that there is a god. Based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely that there is a god, this cannot be turned on its head, as the evidence backs up the statement.

So, why did you state that you know there is a god, as I don't believe your claim that dawkins said the opposite, as he didn't.

Though, yes, you are allowed to state it, but if you do state it, you have to back it up, otherwise its yet another unsubstantiated claim. So, do you retract the statement? Or will you be backing it up?

And no excuses of "well he said x, so I can say y", as that sounds like a child saying "but he said a naughty word, so why can't I?" "That person can do x, so that means I can do Y" is not a reasonable argument. For example "a doctor is allowed to heal people, so I'm allowed to hurt them" just doesn't wash, and its the same thing logically as you stating that god does exist because someone states that he doesn't. Its not a debate point, its a petulant assertion of a contrary point of view.

So, tell me, will you retract the statement of knowing that god exists, as the evidence is against it, or will you be providing the evidence that seems to have alluded everyone else?

Shanna wrote: "Why not?

Have you just resorted to grade three playground rebuttals?
Honestly! cs saying "I believe" is making a statement of claim "I believe the sky is pink" "I believe that there are fairies at..."

As I have previously said to Hazel, you both are using a philosophical point of view to argue you case but there are other ways of looking at things.

As well as philosophical there is scientific, moral, historical and personal ways of looking at things.

If I ask you 'is it reasonable to accept that there is a Higher Being', you will say 'no not with out proof', because the scientific way of looking at things needs proof. The philosophical way is to not give answer but to question the question.

Moral, historical and personal are self explanatory.

If I ask the same question, 'is it reasonable to accept that there is a Higher Being', I would answer 'yes'.

Everything has been caused by something, hence cause and effect, so it is not unreasonable to assume the cause was god.

Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer

Where do morals come from?

The universe is vastly complicated so it is reasonable to assume that something even more complicated must have been the cause. Just as complicated as the universe is human personality so the cause of the universe has to be greater.

Hazel's visit to Liverpool is similar to someone with a personal experience of god. Because they have not evidence, it does not make the exerience less real.

Hazel wrote: "cs, I didn't split hairs, I answered the question. Replace the city name with another, and the answer would be the same. But it still comes down to it not being an extraordinary claim, its not unre..."

We don't default to that position of belief, only some of us do. Others default to the, I will only believe once someone else has done the homework and has given me the evidence I require, stance.

I am not back peddling, because this is a Dawkins thread I am including him here. His proof seems to be knocking the opposition rather then delivering any real proof of his own.

Dawkins work IS proof of there being a god rather than not. As atheists like to use the flying spaghetti monster as a rival to god, why has Dawkins not devoted as much of his time in convincing us that the spaghetti monster is not real.

Will I retract the statement of knowing that god exists? I will if you want me to, outside of this Dawkins thread. But since it only related to this thread, maybe I can't retract it, as it does not exist. I think you are beginning to understand because you want me to retract the word 'know' but you are happy with the word believe.

I think we are getting closer in understanding :)

cs wrote: "Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer"

What is this statement based on?

cs wrote: "As well as philosophical there is scientific, moral, historical and personal ways of looking at things. "

It's interesting to note that the last three have no interest in facts. They are based entirely on interpreting things in such a way as to create a scenario in which I can pretend what I want to be true is actually true. Anytime they accidentally collide with any real truth is purely incidental since they are not interested in truth. They have greater priorities than the truth. (One does not reasonably expect to reach the truth by accident and prioritizing anything above the truth itself is just that.)

As such, they are of no use in a discussion interested in reaching any actual truth. One does not approach sharpshooting as if Training and Closing-Your-Eyes-And-Hoping-You-Hit-The-Target are on equal basis for quality shooting.

If, however, your central argument is that you believe a god exists purely because you want to (which you are certainly free to do) even knowing there is no valid basis for such a belief, then that changes things.

From reading your comments, the above seems to be the case. All of the arguments around "different perspectives to look at things from" do stem from a central need to get the conversation away from Facts and toward Preference-Of-Position.

Arguing against what you call the "philosophical" perspective is essentially just an argument against reason and logic in general and arguing against the "scientific" perspective is essentially an argument against facts and using a real method to uncover the truth.

Since these are the only two approaches which prioritize truth and facts above anything else, you are essentially arguing against trying to find the truth at all, except by means of deciding what you want to be true and then really really hoping that it is.

You are, of course, under no obligation to prioritize the truth but it makes it hard to have a real discussion when one side is prioritizing the truth over everything else and the other is prioritizing preference above anything else.

sigh, cs, i'm not asking you to retract anything, I'm saying that if you don't know it, then you should retract saying so, and that your excuse for saying it is poor at best. Don't hide behind "but he said" arguments, it childish, and you should be better than that.

If you don't retract it, then no matter what claims you make as to why you said it, you still said it, so either you believe what you say, and thus have made a claim, or you don't believe what you said and should retract it as a statement.

The statement that god exists is either what you believe or it isn't, whether its in this thread or not. If its not what you believe, you should say so, without relating it to what someone else may or may not believe. Otherwise it really does sound like a child saying "he said this, so I say that, nyer, ya boo sucks to you".

I think we're getting further away in understanding.

I'm neither happy nor unhappy with the word knows nor believe, because when it comes down to it, both are still making a claim about the existence of god, and as neither one of the statements you make is being backed up with proof, I reject both. Believe and know are both claims, and thus both need proof to make them reasonable claims.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer"

What is this statement based on?"

I don't know about you Daniel, but I love these statements, as there are so many flaws in the human body, that if it were designed, it would have been an apprentice job, that would have been rejected, and the apprentice thrown out of the workshop..

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "As well as philosophical there is scientific, moral, historical and personal ways of looking at things. "

It's interesting to note that the last three have no interest in facts. They a..."

Hazel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer"

What is this statement based on?"

I don't know about you Daniel, but I love these statements, as there are..."

Yet another philosophical argument as to why something can not exist without proof.

How would prove Henry the Eighth existed?

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer"

What is this statement based on?"
Fact

cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer"

What is this statement based on?"
Fact"

what fact, please, enlighten us.

cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer"

What is this statement based on?"
Fact"

It is a "fact" merely because you declare it so?

cs wrote: "Yet another philosophical argument as to why something can not exist without proof."

You do seem to willfully misunderstand things. Are you intentionally forming straw-man arguments out of an inability to have your point make sense without them? There is no one rational anywhere arguing that something cannot exist without proof. All that is being argued is that it is so unlikely as to not rate serious consideration. I doubt you need the hugeness of this difference explained to you.

If we went around believing everything which is possible for which there is no evidence, we would be utterly unable to function and the species would die off in a matter of days.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Anything that has a design (which we have) has had a designer"

What is this statement based on?"
Fact"

what fact, please, enlighten us."

....if something has been designed you call the one who designed it a designer, fact.