Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/5/2007 6:14:03 PM   
Tikkiee


Posts: 1099
Joined: 4/6/2006
Status: offline
Y'all are aware aren't you that the fastest way to coming to a conclusion on this debate would be for each of you to take up a baseball bat, stand in a circle, and take turns bashing each other on the back of the head.
 


_____________________________

~~@ cass @~~

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 281
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/5/2007 6:17:16 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tikkiee

Y'all are aware aren't you that the fastest way to coming to a conclusion on this debate would be for each of you to take up a baseball bat, stand in a circle, and take turns bashing each other on the back of the head.
 



Wouldnt be fair though Tikkiee. The religious types would win within a minute, 'cause the science types would all be too busy calculating the required velocity of the bat to produce cranial failure, and theorising about different ways of holding and swinging the bat to achieve this.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Tikkiee)
Profile   Post #: 282
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/5/2007 6:17:47 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tikkiee

Y'all are aware aren't you that the fastest way to coming to a conclusion on this debate would be for each of you to take up a baseball bat, stand in a circle, and take turns bashing each other on the back of the head.
 



LOL, I don't think so. I agree with him except for the fact that I don't think belief in religion is any more irrational than what alot of the beliefs people hold without questioning.

I'm not religious at all, so have no stake in if religion was eradicated, but see no point of eliminating one irrational belief when the whole of civilization is built on unprovable irrational belief.



(in reply to Tikkiee)
Profile   Post #: 283
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/5/2007 6:23:30 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
Hmmm, one thing I'm sure we all agree on is that you don't have the right to take your pics down. You are in violation of the Horny Net Guy Protocol Section 4 paragraph 5 which states. "All women are obligated to provide Horny Net Guy's(hereon referred to as HNG's) with wanking material".

Ha, I caught you, you are a heithen non-believer in the principles of HNG. You can't argue with that.  Up with the pictures, or suffer the wrath of HNG International.

(in reply to Tikkiee)
Profile   Post #: 284
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/5/2007 6:33:04 PM   
Tikkiee


Posts: 1099
Joined: 4/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tikkiee

Y'all are aware aren't you that the fastest way to coming to a conclusion on this debate would be for each of you to take up a baseball bat, stand in a circle, and take turns bashing each other on the back of the head.
 



Wouldnt be fair though Tikkiee. The religious types would win within a minute, 'cause the science types would all be too busy calculating the required velocity of the bat to produce cranial failure, and theorising about different ways of holding and swinging the bat to achieve this.

E

LMAO LadyEllen...that got a laugh out of me. I needed the cheering up, thank you
 
/still giggling
 
 sorry NTUY, the pics were causing more problems than they were worth. Hey but consider yourself lucky, you got to see them before I took them down
 That should count for something

_____________________________

~~@ cass @~~

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 285
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/5/2007 7:06:06 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
Got any quotes for all that?  Confucius taught that people must be devout in that religion?  What was that religion called?

Wow.  I guess it doesn't matter, it's only the internet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Confucionism was not the religion of old China.  Mix of Animism, Ancestor and Emperor worship was.  they beleived in an afterlife and eternal soul.  Confuscious taught that people must be Devout in that religion.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 286
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/5/2007 10:49:37 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I wasn't referring to any specific piece of evidence but the importance of it in general. When choosing  the best explanation, direct, verifiable evidence carries much more weight than hearsay. It's not a matter of preferring that there not be a god. The choice is determined by the evidence. For example, fossils are infinitely more persuasive than a fables.



So give me some direct, verifyable evidence.  Fossils prove there is no God?  How does that work?  It does prove that the genisis account is not literal in its time frame, but so what?  That in way dispels the notion of the Divine.  So since you have no evidence, it is faith you are operating on


I just answered this and now you ask the same question based on that answer even though my answer plainly said "I wasn't referring to any specific piece of evidence but the importance of it (evidence) in general". Repeating questions that have already been answered won’t change those answers.

Let me try and lay it out for you one more time.

1) I am not trying to disprove the existence of god - that CANNOT be done, as has been stated here numerous times. God, conveniently, leaves no evidence - he cannot be seen, heard, leaves no foot prints, no photos, stool or hair samples... no evidence at all (BTW - where's your direct evidence FOR the existence of god? Why is it my job to prove your theory?). I admit that I cannot disprove that which does not have a measurable presence but I invite you to knock yourself out proving it is there.

2) For me this is a choice between two explanations for the origin of the universe and life as we know it. The naturalistic, rational one is supported by evidence and observation. It provides data which I can examine and experiments which I may reproduce. It recognises that it will never perfectly answer all questions but it does it's best to answer as many as possible and to remain open to new evidence and interpretations. - The other, the supernatural explanation, has no physical evidence to support its claims (in fact most evidence contradicts those claims), the central phenomenon is invisible and the best evidence is written or spoken, third person accounts long after the events AND it claims to have perfect, unchagning answers to ALL questions (unless they are heretical, in which case they will be punished - doubting is the equivalent denying).

Now stacking these up beside each other, which is the better choice? (Cue the game-show thinking music...)

So, again, I have no hard evidence for the absence of an intangible (i.e. god), which does not equate to proof that there is a god.


Z.



_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 287
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 1:29:45 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Original Zensee
For me this is a choice between two explanations for the origin of the universe and life as we know it. The naturalistic, rational one is supported by evidence and observation


Taking explain to mean more than simply describe then...
Science cannot explain the origin of the Universe
The fossil record does not support Natural Selection and evolution of species by gradual change..

Where do that leave us then ?

Why doesnt the Big bang violate the scientific principle of Conservation of Energy ?
Also remember that the idea of an electron orbiting a nucleus is fiction and known to be so, but developments on that fiction lead to accurate predictions about Radiation and Absorption spectra.
There's an expression for that, cant think of it but it boils down to, observe the phenomenon, speculate and say that IF x is true then the phenomenon should be occur  hey presto science reveals  truths.  Bingo !

Natural selection says if it is true we should exist, we do exist therefore......fill in the blanks.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 1/6/2007 1:41:14 AM >

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 288
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 1:55:20 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Those are all opinions and just as irrelevant as quoting the bible.

Anyway, you can't provide a reason for someone not to be religious, without proving that ones own views are not worth holding on many issues. You are in essence attacking yourself if one resolves the two positions. DoubleThink is what Orwell called it.

Simultaneously holding two positions that are in contradiction.
Belittling religion for being irrational. While holding views that are equally irrational.
Belief in Human rights, Belief in a certain form of government over another. Belief in Freedom of choice
. Etc.... The only difference and a rather small difference really. Is one group believes concepts came from a god. And others quote men providing unprovable assertions and assign a similar weighting to their opinion.



I have never said I believe in human rights. I have said that certain people have broken human rights laws which are quite different. But anyway, belief in human rights is quite quite different to belief in religion. Human rights are a human construct and as such to needs a consesus to be acted upon where religion is the belief in supernatural edicts that are beyond question.

As for believing in different types of government. This again is something that can be rationally debated using reason and some conclusion can be reached. Religion would impose its own government that is divinely dictated and unopen to question. Look at the muslim world and there are enough of your fellow country men that would impose god's will on earth given the chance.

Religion finds questioning intolerable because it professes to be the truth and requires unquestioning faith which is why those quotes are valid. Look at Sharia law in some muslim countries, to you it may be brutal but to many muslims it is the will of god. Christianity does not wescape this nonsense, look at the views of the rapturous Christians in your own country, many who would welcome nuclear war because it would indicate the second coming of Christ. The prospect of one of those gaining power is very frightening indeed and if someone like Bush can be elected with his religious views, it is not impossible. 9/11 happened not because of terrorism but because people really really did believe the literal truth of the religion they were taught, they really believed they were going to paradise. There has been enough documentation of the raptures martyrs are supposed to feel when they take their oathes. Same with the London bombing. Without religion, Palestinians and Jews would be the same, the Irish would be the same, Cyriots would be the same.

Yes without religion there would still be many things to fight about but nothing is more potent than intoxicating a good person than religion because it encourages blind faith. To repeat the quote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg


_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 289
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 3:46:32 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Those are all opinions and just as irrelevant as quoting the bible.

Anyway, you can't provide a reason for someone not to be religious, without proving that ones own views are not worth holding on many issues. You are in essence attacking yourself if one resolves the two positions. DoubleThink is what Orwell called it.

Simultaneously holding two positions that are in contradiction.
Belittling religion for being irrational. While holding views that are equally irrational.
Belief in Human rights, Belief in a certain form of government over another. Belief in Freedom of choice
. Etc.... The only difference and a rather small difference really. Is one group believes concepts came from a god. And others quote men providing unprovable assertions and assign a similar weighting to their opinion.



I have never said I believe in human rights. I have said that certain people have broken human rights laws which are quite different. But anyway, belief in human rights is quite quite different to belief in religion. Human rights are a human construct and as such to needs a consesus to be acted upon where religion is the belief in supernatural edicts that are beyond question.

As for believing in different types of government. This again is something that can be rationally debated using reason and some conclusion can be reached. Religion would impose its own government that is divinely dictated and unopen to question. Look at the muslim world and there are enough of your fellow country men that would impose god's will on earth given the chance.

Religion finds questioning intolerable because it professes to be the truth and requires unquestioning faith which is why those quotes are valid. Look at Sharia law in some muslim countries, to you it may be brutal but to many muslims it is the will of god. Christianity does not wescape this nonsense, look at the views of the rapturous Christians in your own country, many who would welcome nuclear war because it would indicate the second coming of Christ. The prospect of one of those gaining power is very frightening indeed and if someone like Bush can be elected with his religious views, it is not impossible. 9/11 happened not because of terrorism but because people really really did believe the literal truth of the religion they were taught, they really believed they were going to paradise. There has been enough documentation of the raptures martyrs are supposed to feel when they take their oathes. Same with the London bombing. Without religion, Palestinians and Jews would be the same, the Irish would be the same, Cyriots would be the same.

Yes without religion there would still be many things to fight about but nothing is more potent than intoxicating a good person than religion because it encourages blind faith. To repeat the quote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg



Well, I guess I should of said some treat the ideas I listed as fact. And I'm not sure where there is any meaningful debate regarding these concepts. Generally people believe in them and don't move from the position regarding correct or incorrect. I've not witnessed it anyway.

I don't think your being honest in your evaluation of peoples beliefs in regards to Politics, rights, etc... Most if not all believe their view of such things is fact, if they don't state it as fact, they certainly don't move in their positions anymore than a religious person changes to atheism.

I mean just ask a Pro-Choicer if they could be convinced otherwise, or a Pro-Lifer. It's not a rational debate, because there is nothing besides personal beliefs and values to base the arguments on. Same with peoples views on forms of government. It's not any different because people don't change their views in the vast majority of circumstances regardless of what anyone is saying. My views on such things have only changes because of personal reflection on the subject, not from scientific proof. You can't supply scientific data because it doesn't exist for such things.

Like abortion:
The divide is pretty much determined on when one thinks something is a "human" and the rights of the baby\fetus\mass of cells compared to that of the womb\woman\host.
There is no basis for this decision on a scientific basis. It is belief. Some believe it is a baby when brain activity begins, some don't feel it is a baby until it exits the body, some believe it's a baby when it could conceivably live outside the womb,some when sperm joins egg etc... All unprovable, yet I doubt you'll argue against the idea that a lot of Pro-choicers and Pro-Lifers are even more devoutly commited to their view than to religion, or at least as passionate.

How is that different, than an unmoving belief in god.

Just one example there, but there are plenty more examples if you want them.

God is argued as irrelevant in this thread because the belief is "irrational", yet most views are irrational, and just as unlikely to change.







(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 290
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 4:20:31 AM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened


So Budhism and Confusicainism can't be cults of the individual because Gautama Buddha and Confucius weren't individuals like Mao or Jesus?  i am sorry to be so stupid but i still don't understand.


As far as I'm aware and I'll stand corrected, Budhism and Confuscianism aren't worshipped in themselves, they divised a philosophy by which to live. Budhists and Confuscians don't invoke the supernatural.

Let's take Christianity. Jesus, god and the holy spirit, one god yet three but indivisible (huh?) are worshiped. Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, who made miracles happen in his life, who was killed and rose from the dead and then ascended to heaven. If you pray hard enough he has even been known to intervene in someones life. It just becomes absurd.

Yep. Budhism has some wierd ideas, karma and reincarnation but there is no supernatural god to invoke.

Moa having no more power than any other individual encouraged hero worship and above human powers to be projected onto him as though he was a sort of mesaih some Jesus figure.


Here's a little snippet that may help you understand the Buddah and how He is "worshipped"

According to tradition, the historical Buddha lived from 563 to 483 B.C., although scholars postulate that he may have lived as much as a century later. He was born to the rulers of the Shakya clan, hence his appellation Shakyamuni, which means "sage of the Shakya clan." The legends that grew up around him hold that both his conception and birth were miraculous. His mother, Maya, conceived him when she dreamed that a white elephant entered her right side (The Dream of Queen Maya, 1976.402). She gave birth to him in a standing position while grasping a tree in a garden (Birth of the Buddha, 1987.417.1). The child emerged from Maya's right side fully formed and proceeded to take seven steps. Once back in the palace, he was presented to an astrologer who predicted that he would become either a great king or a great religious teacher and he was given the name Siddhartha ("He who achieves His Goal"). His father, evidently thinking that any contact with unpleasantness might prompt Siddhartha to seek a life of renunciation as a religious teacher, and not wanting to lose his son to such a future, protected him from the realities of life.

The ravages of poverty, disease, and even old age were therefore unknown to Siddhartha, who grew up surrounded by every comfort in a sumptuous palace. At age twenty-nine, he made three successive chariot rides outside the palace grounds and saw an old person, a sick person, and a corpse, all for the first time. On the fourth trip, he saw a wandering holy man whose asceticism inspired Siddhartha to follow a similar path in search of freedom from the suffering caused by the infinite cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Because he knew his father would try to stop him, Siddhartha secretly left the palace in the middle of the night (The Great Departure and the Temptation of the Buddha, 28.105) and sent all his belongings and jewelry back with his servant and horse. Completely abandoning his luxurious existence, he spent six years as an ascetic (Fasting Siddhartha, 1987.218.5), attempting to conquer the innate appetites for food, sex, and comfort by engaging in various yogic disciplines. Eventually near death from his vigilant fasting, he accepted a bowl of rice from a young girl. Once he had eaten, he had a realization that physical austerities were not the means to achieve spiritual liberation. At a place now known as Bodh Gaya ("enlightenment place"), he sat and meditated all night beneath a pipal tree. After defeating the forces of the demon Mara, Siddhartha reached enlightenment (Plaque with scenes from the life of the Buddha, 1982.233) and became a Buddha ("enlightened one") at the age of thirty-five.

The Buddha continued to sit after his enlightenment, meditating beneath the tree and then standing beside it for a number of weeks. During the fifth or sixth week, he was beset by heavy rains while meditating but was protected by the hood of the serpent king Muchilinda (Buddha sheltered by a naga, 1987.424.19ab). Seven weeks after his enlightenment, he left his seat under the tree and decided to teach others what he had learned, encouraging people to follow a path he called "The Middle Way," which is one of balance rather than extremism. He gave his first sermon (Buddha's First Sermon at Sarnath, 1980.527.4) in a deer park in Sarnath, on the outskirts of the city of Benares. He soon had many disciples and spent the next forty-five years walking around northeastern India spreading his teachings. Although the Buddha presented himself only as a teacher and not as a god or object of worship, he is said to have performed many miracles during his lifetime (Bookcover with scenes from the life of the Buddha, 1979.511). Traditional accounts relate that he died at the age of eighty (The Death of the Buddha, L.1993.69.4) in Kushinagara, after ingesting a tainted piece of either mushroom or pork. His body was cremated and the remains distributed among groups of his followers. These holy relics were enshrined in large hemispherical burial mounds (stupa, 1985.387), a number of which became important pilgrimage sites.

In India, by the Pala period (ca. 700–1200), the Buddha's life was codified into a series of "Eight Great Events" (1982.233). These eight events are, in order of their occurrence in the Buddha's life: his birth (1976.402), his defeat over Mara and consequent enlightenment (1982.233; 1985.392.1), his first sermon at Sarnath (1980.527.4), the miracles he performed at Shravasti (1979.511), his descent from the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods (Buddha's Descent from the Trayastrimsha Heaven, 28.31), his taming of a wild elephant (1979.511), the monkey's gift of honey, and his death (L.1993.69.4).

Let's see.... born of a virgin, tempted, performed miracles, gave great sermons, no Buddah and Jesus aren't even remotely alike.

Jesus never claimed to be divine and neither did His followers.  The emperor Constantine told His cronies to make the philosophy espoused by Jesus into a religion.  Prior to that time, there was no such thing as "Christianity" so it's not Jesus or His philosophy you should have a beef with but with Constantine.  Constantine's new religion bares little resemblence to the original philosophy as evidenced in the Nag Hammadi scrolls.

While not giving a name to a diety, Buddhists pray and make offerings to a power outside themselves that most folks would call "god" for lack of a better term.


Look, it's an acuarial fact that the Chicago Cubs will never win the World Series which would make Cubbie fans irrational and delusional and with the evidence of riots, violence and corruption of "organized sports" all sports fans are under the thumb of an athletic worldview which causes great harm to a great many people. One need only look at the new field of "sports medicine" to see this is true.   There is no evidence that even one who practices personal exercise at home will not get sick and die so athletics are irrational and delusional and should be stopped.  Except golf cuz that's not really a sport, that's a game... oh, and NASCAR cuz that's not a sport, it's a religion.




_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 291
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 4:39:32 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Let's see.... born of a virgin, tempted, performed miracles, gave great sermons, no Buddah and Jesus aren't even remotely alike.



Well I have to admit to being not well up on Buddism and have been taking my info secondhand (which I guess is always a mistake) but you've enlightened me. Buddhism is as full of junk as Christianity.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to eyesopened)
Profile   Post #: 292
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 4:58:04 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

God is argued as irrelevant in this thread because the belief is "irrational", yet most views are irrational, and just as unlikely to change.



Views do change. Read the Old Testement and read the morality in the time of Moses, genocide was fine by god, he encouraged it. Now I am first to admit that we have not rid the world of such horrendous crimes but it is no longer viewed as OK to annihilate whole peoples, at least not in the west and I am the first to admit we have a long way to go. The real problem with religion is its absolutism, belief without evidence. Now I am an atheist but my atheism is not absolute, given proof that god exists I would gladly change my view on atheism and accept god exists but no one has ever produced any evidence of god's existence and I suspect it is because there isn't any. I will go further and say any absolute position is a problem, all knowledge is provisional and subject to change should new evidence arise.

As for abortion, I would argue both absolute positions are wrong. My personal position on abortion is that I support it because if it was illegal women would still seek abortion but put their own lives at risk in the process. A fetus before a certain age doesn't have a nervous system so can't be sentient in the way we understand sentience. The problem I have with many pro-lifers is that they would willingly take the life of a fully developed human being or sacrifice a fully developed person for their cause and have done. Like any moral and ethical issue we should remain sensitive as to whether we are doing the right thing and leave our decisions open to review depending on further knowledge and information.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 293
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 5:03:58 AM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Let's see.... born of a virgin, tempted, performed miracles, gave great sermons, no Buddah and Jesus aren't even remotely alike.



Well I have to admit to being not well up on Buddism and have been taking my info secondhand (which I guess is always a mistake) but you've enlightened me. Buddhism is as full of junk as Christianity.


Which brings us back to you assertion that China is an example of a society without religion.  Now that you are enlightened may i call you buddha?


_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 294
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 5:36:41 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Which brings us back to you assertion that China is an example of a society without religion.  Now that you are enlightened may i call you buddha?



Yep but I prefer Jesus.

People are dualist, no matter what race or culture they are so one has to be precise about what one is defining but I would stick with many far eastern (sub)cultures where supernatural intervention in the world is not a belief and to me that is the key issue. I'm no expert but the mother of my youngest daughter is Japanese and has no religion nor her family. Yes they have rituals for their dead and these give solace but the idea of intervention in the world by a supreme being or minor beings just isn't there. In fact their religiousity is so deep they are Christian once a year because they like the presents. I can't think of one Japanese person I know that has deeply held religious beliefs where there is a divine being watching over them. That is not to say there aren't any spiritual Japanese, the country is full of temples. Maybe they have been somewhat chastised by Shintoism being used to motivate the nation to build an empire and watching it come crashing down on their heads. Such is the power and dangers of religion.

Even Dawkins admits that monism has to be an intellectual rejection of dualism because people are naturally dualist because of the way we have evolved and that it is the evidence before his eyes that makes him and most scientists reject religion.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to eyesopened)
Profile   Post #: 295
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 6:18:35 AM   
MistressCamille


Posts: 107
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71)

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 296
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 7:18:08 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
To those who "believe" that science is rational and at the same time hold that those who believe  or at least do not reject the idea of the existence of a  Deity  are being irrational,  what do they mean when they use the word rational?

For example, Scientists do not know the source of the magnetic force but but use is made of its existence.
Likewise believers do not know the source or location of a Deity but make use of the possiblity of its existence.

Magnetic force is palpable while the God force is shrouded in deep mystery but that it exists MAY be inferred from Nature.

If anyone bothers to reply do not confuse the issue by introducing moral concepts or expose contradictions between established religions. or itemise the wickedness that has been supported by the major religions.  OK ?

(in reply to MistressCamille)
Profile   Post #: 297
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 7:25:18 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

God is argued as irrelevant in this thread because the belief is "irrational", yet most views are irrational, and just as unlikely to change.





Views do change. Read the Old Testement and read the morality in the time of Moses, genocide was fine by god, he encouraged it. Now I am first to admit that we have not rid the world of such horrendous crimes but it is no longer viewed as OK to annihilate whole peoples, at least not in the west and I am the first to admit we have a long way to go. The real problem with religion is its absolutism, belief without evidence. Now I am an atheist but my atheism is not absolute, given proof that god exists I would gladly change my view on atheism and accept god exists but no one has ever produced any evidence of god's existence and I suspect it is because there isn't any. I will go further and say any absolute position is a problem, all knowledge is provisional and subject to change should new evidence arise.

As for abortion, I would argue both absolute positions are wrong. My personal position on abortion is that I support it because if it was illegal women would still seek abortion but put their own lives at risk in the process. A fetus before a certain age doesn't have a nervous system so can't be sentient in the way we understand sentience. The problem I have with many pro-lifers is that they would willingly take the life of a fully developed human being or sacrifice a fully developed person for their cause and have done. Like any moral and ethical issue we should remain sensitive as to whether we are doing the right thing and leave our decisions open to review depending on further knowledge and information.


In the quote you quoted my meaing was "God" as in a belief in god, not the dictates of god. Basicly saying peoples belief in god isn't likely to change, just like other beliefs people hold to a large extent without facts to support them.

I'm not arguing what you personally believe or justify your positions with. I'm arguing that most people that hold such positions base it on a belief of what right and wrong are.

Anyway, I think I must be failing to convey my reasoning, it appears plain as day to me. That a belief no matter how you (generic you) justify it, is still a belief. And the reasoning for holding such beliefs are really not based on facts in the cases I laid out. For many people (maybe not you personally), but such belief in the concepts that it's indistinguishable between religious belief. And most people hold to at least a few of these beliefs and rarely change.






(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 298
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 12:13:38 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
The religious ethics of at least 65% (including Christians, Jews, and Muslims) of the world's population can be examined by looking at extracts from "Joshua" aka "The Book of the Conquest":

---

...of Jericho...
6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

...skipping a bit...

10:30
And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho.

10:31
And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it:

10:32
And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah.

10:33
Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining.

10:34
And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it:

10:35
And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish.

10:36
And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it:

10:37
And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.

10:38
And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it:

10:39
And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

10:40
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

10:41
And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.

10:42
And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.

10:43
And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.

---

To my knowledge, this is the first world myth to depict genocide. Whereas I consider myself knowledgeable in the area of myth and religion, I know of no other religions that have such a story that they tell. And to be clear, this is the ethic taught by the story as ordained by god:

"...they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

Some of you want to pick only examples that don't show the inherent madness in the god delusion, but for 55% of the world the harm of these beliefs is plain to see. Given time, I could probably show fault with all such irrational beliefs.

In a court of law, matters would have to be proven via evidence. You believers are happy to accept whole books of ideas without any support in reality whatever. You cannot prove the existence of your god hypothesis and yet you still choose to believe. So be it.

But can't you plainly see why the rest of us are deeply disturbed by your delusions? Given ideas like "a promised land," being the "chosen people of god," and so on. I mean, you believers sure want a lot of latitude given your unsupported beliefs. It's very worrying to the rest of us.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 299
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/6/2007 2:36:32 PM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang


To my knowledge, this is the first world myth to depict genocide. Whereas I consider myself knowledgeable in the area of myth and religion, I know of no other religions that have such a story that they tell. And to be clear, this is the ethic taught by the story as ordained by god:

But can't you plainly see why the rest of us are deeply disturbed by your delusions? Given ideas like "a promised land," being the "chosen people of god," and so on. I mean, you believers sure want a lot of latitude given your unsupported beliefs. It's very worrying to the rest of us.


Try the Syrian historical records and perhaps Roman records where the kings and emperors asked the gods how to best destroy other peoples.

However, let's suppose you are absolutely correct and i along with everyone who believes in a power higher than ourselves is a dangerous murderer.  How do you propose to change this?  Perhaps kill us?  What exactly is your purpose is posting this?  To fan the flames to incite the anti-religion folks to herd us into camps?  i don't get the message of what you would have us do?  If i renounce my spiritual beliefs how will that make the world a better place?  Genocide in africa isn't at all based on religion but just plain old bigotry, much the same as the bigotry i see in your posts.  Is a perfect world predicated on all people espousing your point of view?  How then are you different than the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door and tell me the world would be better if i adopt their views?  Are you different because only you and people who think like you "right" and everyone else wrong?  Again i am so confused because i really hate to see how this is different from any other kind of bigotry.  Please enlighten me, it seems to be a day for enlightenment.


_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.133