The God Delusion discussion

Hazel wrote: "Do you have your OWN theory if you rule out a creator.

no, we remain intellectually honest with the answer "we don't know". And one day, we will work it out, and until then, we reserve belief unt..."

In other words you will never know.

"we don't know".

......... that does not sound like an atheist talking.

cs wrote: "In other words you will never know. "

What you don't seem to grasp is that YOU don't know. You're just pretending to know. The rest of us are just being honest. We can't help it if you're not.

As an aside, "never" is probably not correct. In fact, sooner or later, people will probably figure it out (by following evidence, not by making up stuff and calling it the truth). It may or may not be in our lifetime, but it will probably happen eventually.

I don't mind that I will never know, and I'm too honest to fill the gap in my knowledge with something that has no proof for it.

The fact is, as much as you put god in that gap, you will never know, you'll just have a convenient non-answer.

I have always thought that religion and science were meant to serve the same purpose - to explain how the universe works. There is some evidence that, before even the conscious idea of either existed, Neanderthals had some form of religious beliefs. But, as man matured and became more capable of explaining empirically what religion tried to explain through faith, religion seems less relevant.

Certainly, there is much that science hasn't explained...yet, but, in many ways, science is young or, at least for centuries, was stifled by the Christian Church. It has only really been since the late 18th century that it has been allowed to flourish and, in those couple of centuries it has cured diseases that religion could only admonish man to accept as divine will - plague, small pox, leprosy, tuberculosis just to name a few; it has taken us to the moon and back; and it has created the technology that is allowing us to have this discussion.

There is the constant argument put forward by the religious right that evolution for example is just a theory, no more provable than creationism based on the word 'theory'. But religious theory and scientific theory have two different meanings. Religious theory is, by definition based on faith and, therefore, neither provable nor improvable, at least to the believer. Scientific theory, on the other hand, means that any theory must first follow a workable hypothesis and then the results be published in a credible scientific journal so it can be tested by other scientists to prove or disprove its validity. (Just an aside - I find it fascinating that many of the people who most dispute the theory of evolution are the most likely people to believe in social Darwinism, a theory Darwin himself rejected))

I have lived on this planet for more than 60 years and, in that time, I have seen such incredible advances made by science. I cannot say the same thing for the growth of fundamentalist religion unless one believes that constant wars, genocide, terrorist attacks, etc can be seen as progress.

I am often told that one cannot hold religion or, if you like, God responsible for what evil has been perpetrated in its name but, if that is the case than neither should one give credit to it for any good religion has done and then religion is no more than a theory without real world consequences and, therefore, empty of any relevance to the real world. Here, I should add that, in fact, I believe that it is economics and the almighty dollar that drive most world conflicts and religion is just the excuse but, again, that just means religion has no real relevance in world events.

Science, on the other hand, never gets this kind of pass from the religious right - if it can't prove something immediately and empirically, than it gets a major 'fail' from much of the religious community (in fairness, not all, as even the Pope has expressed belief in climate change which, according to Rick Santorum, makes the head of the Catholic church a non-Christian)

Yet, imagine where we would be today if Galileo and Copernicus had not been stopped by the Church; if, over the centuries, Greek philosophy, including mathematics and medicine, had not been banned by the same Church; if, today, the Church was more concerned with poverty and human rights than it was with preventing stem cell research and alternate fuel technologies.

Yes, there is much that science hasn't proven and much that has been considered science in the past, like eugenics, which have been proven false (and by other scientists I might add) and it is true that the wars fought in the name of religion would not have occurred if not for the science that made them possible.

But, to me, and I should say, I am not a scientist, science is by it's very definition, neutral - it is how it is used that matters. Many of the discoveries of science that have helped fuel these wars have also helped to fight cancer. By the same token, I suppose, one could argue that the same people who argue that God is on their side in any war also do much good in the world. Unfortunately, that is changing - as science makes more and greater discoveries about our universe, religion seems to be digging in its heels and trying to turn back the clock to the good ol' days of theocracy and chastity belts. One should note, however, that the same people, at least in the US, who are screaming their religion to the heavens are championing a budget right out of the fictional playbook of that cranky and greedy radical feminist atheist, Ayn Rand and it seems like very few of the religious community see the irony or, if they do, don't care. Clearly, even the most powerful of the religious fundamentalists realize that their religion has become nothing more than illusion to be used to sway the voter.

.......... you would be no good at Charades then.


It won't be in your lifetime. So never is correct.

cs wrote: "that does not sound like an atheist talking. "

Have you ever met any atheists? You remind me of the man who watches Reefer Madness and then can't figure out why hippies everywhere aren't raping young girls in the street and turning into cannibals. "Why aren't they acting like pot smokers?" you ask.

cs wrote: "It won't be in your lifetime. So never is correct."

There you go again, pretending to know things you don't. Why do you feel the need to pretend to have knowledge that you don't? What's wrong with admitting that you don't actually know? Why can't you just be honest?

You might also look into the definition of "never" since my lifetime has no bearing on the term.

cs wrote: ".......... you would be no good at Charades then.


It won't be in your lifetime. So never is correct."

huh? What? You realise that a rebuttal doesn't work if you don't explain yourself. Making snide comments with no context is pointless.

Never is not correct, it will be known, just not in my life time, I will never know, but the human race will. And you accuse me of playing word games.

Your point has been lost on me, Reefer, hippies, raping, pot smokers.........

cs wrote: "Your point has been lost on me, Reefer, hippies, raping, pot smokers........."

My point was that you were acting like you know about atheists, but displaying a total lack of direct knowledge on the subject. It's like you were told what atheists were like and you believed it, having never actually encountered any.

Anyway, I'm not sure my point was lost on you. I think you just need to dodge a few more questions and so chose this as the way to avoid answering questions you find uncomfortable.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: ".......... you would be no good at Charades then.


It won't be in your lifetime. So never is correct."

huh? What? You realise that a rebuttal doesn't work if you don't explain yourself..."

In other words you will never know
...that is what I said. Note the word YOU.

I just thought, that pair of sentences "It won't be in your lifetime. So never is correct" is distinctly solipsistic in implication. My lifetime is a mere blip on the landscape, and discoveries will happen after it, whereas, though illogical, it seems like you're implying that when my life ends, thats the end of any discoveries that may happen... have I been elevated to godhead, I know the conversation about mini eggs and probability elsewhere has already determined that I'm a miracle worker, but am I a god now too, that when I end, so does the world?

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: ".......... you would be no good at Charades then.


It won't be in your lifetime. So never is correct."

huh? What? You realise that a rebuttal doesn't work if you don..."

you make no sense. you've mixed up quotes of old posts, I was replying tot he one where you said that it wont' happen in my lifetime. So never is correct. Which is fallacious and ridiculous.

Oh, and "I don't know" is very much an atheist answer, you obviously know little about atheists.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Your point has been lost on me, Reefer, hippies, raping, pot smokers........."

My point was that you were acting like you know about atheists, but displaying a total lack of direct know..."

I thought Atheists did not believe in a god.

atheists reject the claim that god exists, and thus hold no belief about god. We also accept that if someone provides proof of gods existence then we were wrong, but until someone does, then we reject the claim and hold no belief.

Maxine wrote: "I have always thought that religion and science were meant to serve the same purpose - to explain how the universe works. There is some evidence that, before even the conscious idea of either exist..."

wish I had a like button

Hazel wrote: "Maxine wrote: "I have always thought that religion and science were meant to serve the same purpose - to explain how the universe works. There is some evidence that, before even the conscious idea ..."

huh? What? You realise that a rebuttal doesn't work if you don't explain yourself. Making snide comments with no context is pointless.

cs wrote: ""we don't know".

......... that does not sound like an atheist talking. "

Sure it does. Most Atheists are happy to admit that since negatives cannot be proved, we can't "know" absolutely that there isn't a god that created everything. We can't know, absolutely, that the solar system and all life in it isn't some vast alien petri dish. We can't know that we are not all wired up to the matrix and only living virtual lives. We can't know, absolutely, that the earth and everything upon it wasn't created 2 minutes ago, and all your memories of a time before that event were simply created along with you.

With a few misguided exceptions, the people who claim to "know" the Truth (note the capital T!) are the religious.

We can, however, judge things as likely or not likely based upon evidence.

We have a considerable amount of evidence to show that there have been many very different religions, and so we can derive from that the fact that human beings create deities to worship even when they are wrong.

We have no evidence to suggest that the Christian version of god is any different from any of the other deities that mankind created. We can derive from this that he is a fictional entity just like all the others.

We have derived that should the big bang theory be true, we would expect to see certain evidence. When sought, this evidence has been found.

***

So on the one hand we have a deity as creator, the evidence for which is available from only one source* - and an anonymous anecdotal and possible apocraphyl source at that. One that requires an inexplicable, unknowable being of limitless power.

On the other, we have a theory from which predictions have been made and tested and found to be true. One that requires only that tried and tested laws of physics as we understand them hold to be true.

Its a fairly easy choice to make. One requires nothing but what we have already measured and observed, the other requires an invisible superman with limitless power who inflicts tortures upon mankind daily.

*or possibly a huge number of mutually exclusive contradictory sources that disagree so vehemently that they exhort the reader to slay anyone that disagrees. Either way, not very reliable...

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: ""we don't know".

......... that does not sound like an atheist talking. "

Sure it does. Most Atheists are happy to admit that since negatives cannot be proved, we can't "know" absolu..."

we can't "know" absolutely that there isn't a god that created everything. We can't know, absolutely, that the solar system and all life in it isn't some vast alien petri dish. We can't know that we are not all wired up to the matrix and only living virtual lives. We can't know, absolutely, that the earth and everything upon it wasn't created 2 minutes ago, and all your memories of a time before that event were simply created along with you.

..... but you seem to know absolutely..

On the other, we have a theory from which predictions have been made and tested and found to be true. One that requires only that tried and tested laws of physics as we understand them hold to be true.

..... you don't know that we were not created 2 minutes ago but tried and tested laws of physics are ok to go along with. What do they say about the time span of being created?

cs wrote: "..... but you seem to know absolutely.."

I suppose if your definition of "you seem to know absolutely" is that we all clearly and directly say that we do NOT know absolutely, then I'm not sure what help we can be on the issue.

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "we can't "know" absolutely"

.... but you seem to know absolutely.. "

Really? Where have I stated that I know, absolutely, that there is no god?

I simply don't believe in one.

Bring me evidence that stands up to as much scrutiny as the big bang theory, and I'll cheerfully change my mind. Ignoring evidence that contradicts with a predetermined conclusion is the purview of the religious.

As a side note, I see you still havn't found that one example of an instance when a disagreement about how the world works between science and the teachings of a god was resolved in favour of said teachings. Just one.

Or do you now accept my statement that all such disgreements, historically, have been resolved in favour of science?

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Maxine wrote: "I have always thought that religion and science were meant to serve the same purpose - to explain how the universe works. There is some evidence that, before even the conscious idea ..."

huh? What? You realise that a rebuttal doesn't work if you don't explain yourself. Making snide comments with no context is pointless.."

where was the snide comment in saying that I wish I had a like button in order to like the post in the way that people do on facebook. I was saying it was a good post in a memetic fashion. I think you're grasping at straws here, I can't even work out what your point is, as you've got the entire point of that post completely and utterly wrong.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "we can't "know" absolutely"

.... but you seem to know absolutely.. "

Really? Where have I stated that I know, absolutely, that there is no god?

I simply don't believe..."

....and you did not answer the counter question.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Maxine wrote: "I have always thought that religion and science were meant to serve the same purpose - to explain how the universe works. There is some evidence that, before..."

But it was your comment that I used when you also got the entire point of that post completely and utterly wrong.

cs wrote: "But it was your comment that I used when you also got the entire point of that post completely and utterly wrong. "

You're really making no sense now, do you fancy elucidating? Because I said about snide comments in relation to your saying something about being bad at charades, and not explaining what you were referring to, or who you were speaking to, or anything, and so the snide remark becomes meaningless. Whereas you said it in relation to me saying that someone elses post, not your post, someone elses pro science post was good.

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "....and you did not answer the counter question"

Why should anyone answer your questions when you do nothing but evade the questions posed to you?

You even did it in the post I am replying to, ignoring the question about just exactly when I claimed to know anything absolutely.

You consistently make unprovable (or provably false) claims and then twist like a weasel when called to back them up with any kind of evidence.

he twists and turns like a twisty turny thing :P

Baldric get out!

cs wrote: "Already covered this. But you can explain where or how 'inorganic matter' got here, if you like."

Seriously really!?! you don't pay attention to anything do you.

cs wrote: "If I understand you correctly, then I agree. I am claiming the existence of a god and I do not have the sort of proof that would convince you.

But let me reverse things for a moment. God or no God? You go with no god, ok. Do you have your OWN theory if you rule out a creator. "

Finally, you acknowledge your claim.

The evidence provided by science in the various fields of biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology are amply sufficient and don't require the addition of made up bullshit. And that which hasn't been figured out, I don't know and that's fine with me.

Or, in the words of Dara O'Briain - "Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Already covered this. But you can explain where or how 'inorganic matter' got here, if you like."

Seriously really!?! you don't pay attention to anything do you.

cs wrote: "If I unders..."

Does this atheist way of thinking just apply just to the god thing or everything involving science. For example if this debate was about alien life; we would agree that planets have been found outside of our solar system and in their stars goldilocks zone. Would you speculate as to what sort of life form there might be or would your statement still stand...

The evidence provided by science in the various fields of biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology are amply sufficient and don't require the addition of made up bullshit. And that which hasn't been figured out, I don't know and that's fine with me.

Statistically speaking, its unlikely that we are the only planet in the universe with life on it. However, I hold out judgement, I withhold belief, as there is no evidence for it.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "....and you did not answer the counter question"

Why should anyone answer your questions when you do nothing but evade the questions posed to you?

You even did it in th..."

I have been trying to keep up with three atheists who like some football teams play very well in their usual formation but when asked to change tactics, can't.

Anyway I have answered most of the questions asked and the one you are referring to has been answered, but I think you don't always read previous threads and so have missed it, or don't seen happy with the reply.

cs, you've just avoided answering the question again, whether its been asked and answered before is irrelevant really, Shaun is asking you to tell him your answer, And if the answer is in another thread, its completely unreasonable to expect Shaun to go trawling through other threads to find it, so instead of avoiding it, you could just reiterate what you claim to have already said elsewhere.

Shaun wrote: "Or, in the words of Dara O'Briain - "Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.""

You have just broken Hazels first rule on this forum, so I guess she will have to adjudicate on that one.

Dara O'Briain is a Catholic who does not believe in god, for comic effect.

Hazel wrote: "cs, you've just avoided answering the question again, whether its been asked and answered before is irrelevant really, Shaun is asking you to tell him your answer, so instead of avoiding it, you co..."

No what I should do is scroll back and give the message number. But since I have answered it more that once I would rather he did the scrolling.

cs wrote: "Dara O'Briain is a Catholic who does not believe in god, for comic effect. ."

I'm sorry, what? You're grasping at straws now.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Dara O'Briain is a Catholic who does not believe in god, for comic effect. ."

I'm sorry, what? You're grasping at straws now."

Why? what straws? and quotes don't count. But he is Catholic.

cs wrote: "No what I should do is scroll back and give the message number. But since I have answered it more that once I would rather he did the scrolling. "

But you have an idea of where it is, and he doesn't. It would be quicker all round if you just reiterated.

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Dara O'Briain is a Catholic who does not believe in god, for comic effect. ."

I'm sorry, what? You're grasping at straws now."

Why? what straws? and quotes don't coun..."

He considers himself to be an atheist of catholic stock.

Oh and using a quote to highlight a point being made is different to using a quote as your entire point, and trying to claim that god exists or doesn't exist because a famous person said so is the latter, and what I requested people stop doing.

Once again, you're using little niggling points to avoid answering questions, and to try and make us forget that you haven't answered. So please, just reiterate for Shaun, and lets move on.

Actually, I took it upon myself:

msg 179: cs accuses shaun of seeming to know absolutely

msg 181: Shaun asks cs where he has stated or claimed to know absolutely, that there is no god. And points out that cs still hasn't given an eg of a conflict between religious and scientific explanation where it turned out that religion was right

msg 183: cs avoids answering either question from shaun (eg of religion being right, and where shaun claimed to know absolutely), by saying that shaun didn't answer the counter question

msg 186: shaun asks why should anyone have to answer cs's questions when cs himself does nothing but evade any questions put to him, (which I, Hazel, would say includes asking a counter question instead of answering the question put to you, and asking why that counter question hasn't be answered in order to avoid answering the question again). Shaun points out that cs is avoiding answering the question shaun asked about when he claimed absolute knowledge.

Since then, you've replied to Shanna and I a few times, but still not answered Shaun. Nowhere on this thread is there evidence of an answer to Shauns questions.

In fairness, there are answers to the religion/science question in the prior thread - but sadly they are totally worthless answers and have not, in fact, resolved the question except perhaps in CS's mind.

When answering questions whilst trying to defend a claim, giving an answer with no intrinsic value doesn't count as having answered the question.

oh yeah, he said that when it came to claims etc where religion and science disagreed that religion won with "creation". I recall now, a one word answer, with no explanation, no evidence and nothing to back it up. Never mind that if someone had actually proved that creation happened as religion claims, it would prove that god exists, and neither of those have been proven, or even have anything approaching good evidence, it also presupposes that that the creation is that of the abrahamic god set out in genesis, and discounts all the other creation myths out there that it could be.

I just have to jump in here. I firmly believe that the Religious vs Atheist argument is one of those things that will never be resolved completely and to everyone's satisfaction- believers will continue to put their faith in God; atheists, myself included, will continue to put our faith in science. And if that's all there was to it, it would be an interesting debate and nothing else.

However, although I cannot speak for other atheists, the problem for me is that it is not that simple - to put it bluntly, I wouldn't give a rat's ass what the religious believed if they would just keep their noses out of my uterus (metaphorically speaking, of course).

I am tired of hearing the religious right spout their self-righteous platitudes while trying their damndest to push us back decades if not centuries. I wouldn't even mind if they showed the kind of piety that the Quakers once embodied (not counting Richard Nixon) but that is not the case. Fundamentalists have taken over the asylum and are wreaking havoc on a major scale.

They use religion as an excuse to dismantle the social safety net, to deny climate change, and to try to force women back to the 1950s. At the same time, they scream about religious freedom and protecting the taxpayer as if the two things were the same. Well, what about my freedom - I am not religious but I am a taxpayer too and I like the social safety net, I like that the government provides good paying jobs, I like safe roads, skies, and bridges, and I love health care. I like that, thanks to scientific advance, my life expectancy is far greater than it would have been had I been born even just a hundred years ago. All of these things require good science and good secular government.

I do not like endless wars, deregulation, and attacks on women's reproductive rights, all of the things the religious right are espousing. Interestingly, I also know that the fundamentalist agenda is more Ayn rand than Jesus Christ but that does not make it any more palatable to an atheist like me. In fact, it just tells me that most of this religious push is just hogwash, just a way to disguise mean-spirited greed with a Biblical mask. If the religious right really believed, they wouldn't be so enamoured of Newt or Rush- after all, the Bible has a great deal more to say about the sin of adultery than it has to say about family planning. Yet, I haven't seen any attempts to stone Rush and I do believe that Newt still has both his hands.

So, yes, I understand that this is just a debate, a mental exercise if you will, but the reality is that under all the rhetoric and back-and-forth of the debate, lies a reality - atheists are trying to protect the hard-earned gains of science and humanism and the religious right are trying to force us back to a time that they think (wrongly) was so much better. And opportunist politicians like Paul Ryan and the Koch brothers in the US and Harper here in Canada are pandering to the fundamentalists to achieve their own ends.

Plus, the question specifically mentioned disagreements that had been resolved, so that both science and religion are now in agreement. Such as Heliocentrism, the causes of natural phenomena like lightning or earthquakes, or the causes of disease. No such agreement has been reached on creation.

For those that didn't see the prior thread, my contention was that in every single historical case where science and religion were once in conflict but are now in agreement, it has always been the scientific view that was accepted by both sides.

CS claims this is not the case. A bold claim, but all he needs to do to back it up is to provide a *single* historic example. Thus far, he has been unable to do so and yet still refuses to retract his claim.

Maxine, I suspect that you'll find this interesting:

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

You'll need to find an hour to sit and watch it. Its all about the religious right and their attempts at social engineering.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Dara O'Briain is a Catholic who does not believe in god, for comic effect. ."

I'm sorry, what? You're grasping at straws now."

Why? what straws? and quotes don..."

No Shaun is able to scroll back and read the posts he obviously has not read.

Ok I am not getting the quote rule. It's make it up as you go along. is it?

He considers himself to be an atheist of catholic stock. No he is Catholic who for comic effect considers himself atheist.

O'Briain: Why would God put an appendix in you when it does nothing but randomly kill you for no reason?

using religion and atheism within his comedy does not detract from the fact that Dara himself says that he's an atheist who comes from catholic stock.

you're sidetracking again.

Hazel wrote: "using religion and atheism within his comedy does not detract from the fact that Dara himself says that he's an atheist who comes from catholic stock.

you're sidetracking again."

Hazel wrote: "using religion and atheism within his comedy does not detract from the fact that Dara himself says that he's an atheist who comes from catholic stock.

you're sidetracking again."

Sidetracking from what? Shauns question? He can look it up, you have already given your reply to my answer anyway... so Ok let's move on.

I actually found the messages relating to shauns question, and summarised at the top of this page. You haven't asnwered him. Lets not move on until you've answered him.

Quotes: using a quote to make your point, or as the basis of your point is a call to authority. Using a quote as an aside or additional to the point but not to make your point could be construed as knowing that someone else says it better than you do, and is about the same as linking to someone elses lecture/speech etc because they say it better than you can. Personally I try to avoid quotes as much as possible, but sometimes, someone says what I'm trying to say in a much more eloquent way than I ever will, and to quote them then is reasonable. But using quotes to say things like "Einstein believed in god therefore god exists", is a call to authority, and shouldn't be done