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  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 4:04:08 AM   
MasDom


Posts: 375
Joined: 11/10/2005
Status: offline 		Me.
Look i,ve lost relationships over religion.
Who are you to tell me if I care about life and sincerity,
That If I don't believe in your god i,m out of luck in the end.
Or to toss me out of a loving, and smooth ongoing relationship?

Look I think what he was getting at was the conclusion
that in this world your decisions are your own.
And all actions or reactions prelude to your own choices.

Whether you believe in god ,or not shouldn't give you the rite to judge others as wrong based on the fact of your personal god.

I remember that movie thirteenth warrior.
How the Arabic and the Vikings were hitting it off.
even expressing respect for each others religions.

To them it was simple in the end.
Good is good ,and bad is bad.

After all the fighting about god or no god.
I believe I don't know and yet however...
Saying your god thinks its rite to use a nuke to destroy your enemy...Doesnt make for much logic does it?

What I mean by that is we often do place in personal goals.
The truth lost in time to all honest meaning.
If ever the creation of divinity possibly misguided.

Now i,m Not saying your god doesn't exist.
But do I have to believe in it?

Shall I bow down like a little cowering dog 
when you tell me I'm going either to a bad place or nothingness  
  Simply because I don't believe in what you do?



Look you know that Baldwin brother
going around with the professional skaters 
converting people in the crowd after the show?

What I feel about that is simple...
He doesn't tell them their going to hell if they don't convert.
And he leaves it for the end of the show.
Who ever wants to leave can, no questions asked.

So in my agnostic Mind I cant be angry.
But i,ll still bring up the standing point of fear.

Why do they convert?...

What god has ever really produced
healing or a miracle lately.
Really all I see is war and hatred,
as if a giant global gang war.
In the end i,m just the poor guy wearing the wrong collars,
walking down the wrong alley...

As for me here is my ending statement on god.

If he is so loving as they say, whatever god it is.
Those who are deserving go to a better place.
Not just by being a good Lil puppy.
I mean any one who saved lives or really cared,
Because in no way would any of these gods send them to a punishment for something as simple as this.

   And if it doesn't exist then we all go no were.
So in the end we may have battled, and lost lives over what?


As for if he ,or she or even -it- exists.
Past dealing with your own life ,and its mistakes.
What does it matter?

Down here we have our own troubles to deal with.
Our own honesty and choices to make.
   And looking up to the stars doesn't answer things for us.

I once asked a girl if she herd god tell her to kill her first born.
Wouldn't she ask why first, needing to know?

She told me that she would know if it was really him.
And not need to question, because he must have a reason.
To which the relationship eventually ended soon after.

To that I bring you this question.
If it does exist, what if this is a test?...
 
What if god doesn't tell you to do anything at all?
  Then whats your excuse?...

Why look to the skies when the answers are here...
And were the hell we create for ourselves.
I don't care what any one tells me.
The voices in my head can be silent.

(Quote -me-)

My hands do heal.
Do kill.
   
Provide the future in my every step.
  Destroy the past with simple words.

I am .Reborn in my children.
Guide all fate.
And with it, the answers or silence I shall bring with it.

I create and I destroy.
Bring cities to rune.
Rebuild them if I desire.

I am god.
I am man... errr ...."Human kind."


< Message edited by MasDom -- 12/31/2006 4:10:35 AM >

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 4:31:12 AM   
meatcleaver


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

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Actually, the book got panned in the New York Review of Books, which is about as left-leaning as you can get:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775


It seems to me the reviewer is as much on a mission as Dawkins and if the reviewer is  even a little religious no doubt he would feel insulted by Dawkins. The point Dawkins makes time and again is there is no need for the intervention of a supernatural being in order for life to exist, there is no evidence of a supernatural fingerprint on any part of creation. As he points out, the more intelligent theologians have left the field in favour of science and claim religion to be beyond scientific scrutiny. A major contention of Dawkins is that it isn't any more beyond scientific scrutiny than science is beyond religious scrutiny and points out the nonsense of intelligent design as it tries to muscle religion into the field of science. I can accept that this book will probably not be satisfying to someone steeped in science or theology but it is not aimed at them in my eyes but to the ordinary Joe in the street and on that level it succeeds. 

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 12/31/2006 4:34:20 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 6:09:34 AM   
Dtesmoac


Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline 		Does Dawkin not show one of the central differences between religeous belife and sicentific theory

The religeous belief can not consider that it may be wrong
Scientific theory is about the best understanding at the moment.....but we could be wrong.

It seems Dawkins displays this - I'm just waiting for the Fatwah to be declaired against him for mentioning Mohammad


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 6:42:34 AM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline 		The African Yoruba religion has a story about religion being scattered and each of the world's religions keeping only a piece of the Truth and that only through world unity will the entire Truth be revealed.  There's a possibility that a God exists but not in any form any religion envisions.

_____________________________

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 texancutie)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 6:55:20 AM   
ZenrageTheKeeper


Posts: 237
Joined: 6/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

The weakness of this approach is to assume that as presently developed the human intellect is capable of understanding everything.This is manifestly not true.


And so the socially weak created god to fill in the gaps.

quote:

Those of a religious or agnostic persusion can look at the world, marvel at its complexity, note even the most primitive forms of life are mind bogglingly complex, and say chance processes could not possibly have brought this about. Statistical methods can be and have been invoked to demonstarte this. This branch of maths is studiously avoided by evolutionary biologists.


No, its only mind-boggling to those too ignorant to try and conceptualize it. Your weak mind is not evidence of the existence of any supernatural entity.

quote:

Whether or not people who claim to hold religious beliefs have committed wicked acts or used religion to gain political control has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of a deity.


Oh yes it does. Its primary use in society directly correlates to the reason the notion of god was invented by man in the first place.

quote:

With regard to morality it is noticeable that over the last 30/40 years the application of secular values has unquestionably  not produced any spectacular improvements and has often resulted in some quite nasty things occuring.
One about which info. is being suppressed , or at least not broadcast the way it should be considering the implications, is the epidemic proportions of sexually transmitted diseases.


As I've said before, the "nasty acts" of human history were beneficial to at least one individual. Morality based on supernatural validation will always be inherently less responsible to that which is based on rational logic.

Those who use religion to base their morality upon have no place in society except as way of aiding others cheat within it.

< Message edited by ZenrageTheKeeper -- 12/31/2006 6:57:24 AM >

_____________________________

If Men never thought with their penises, all you girls would still have cooties.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 7:01:52 AM   
ZenrageTheKeeper


Posts: 237
Joined: 6/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Rest assured Zenrage is secure in his Faith. 
The religous have no need to defend themselves against Dawkins and Zenrage, we just sort of laugh at you.  You and Dawkins definatly make a difference in society, you drive centrist folks to God and the Republican party.


Oh you like to laugh at non-believers huh. Try this one on for size then.

I'm placing a personal bounty of 50 million human souls on the heads of every man, woman and child who uses the notion of "god" to validate their actions, inactions and interactions. Payment will be made to the demon, devil, angel, god, or goddess that takes each one of you out of existence forever.

If you're right and god exists and your soul has value to it, then this becomes an irrefusable offer and you die. If I'm right, and there is no god then there is no threat. Either way I win, and you lose.

C'mon, boy. Let's see you laugh.


_____________________________

If Men never thought with their penises, all you girls would still have cooties.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 7:17:02 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac
The religeous belief can not consider that it may be wrong
Scientific theory is about the best understanding at the moment.....but we could be wrong.


It is also the case that those holding religious beliefs have no problem riding the coattails of those providing scientific knowledge when its suits them. Certainly in ordinary life people of faith use gasoline instead of "god's will" to run their combustion engines and make their cars go.

Sometimes people of faith will reply to the above with the notion that "god helps those that help themselves." Fair enough, but while we are all so busy helping ourselves - precisely as if god didn't exist - why then do we even need the idea of god anyway?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ZenrageTheKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 7:33:05 AM   
meatcleaver


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

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

There's a possibility that a God exists but not in any form any religion envisions.


Huh? So god doesn't want us to know god exists so why do we even consider god?

The main reason I can see for proclaiming god's existence is control. I have a friend whose father died when he was a young child. Throughout his life whenever he did something of which his mother didn't approve, she would invoke his fathers memory 'You're father wouldn't approve!'. This worked until he realised his mother always had the advantage because he could never ask his father what his true feelings were and his mother could invoke his father's memory to win any difference of opinion.  This is how religion works, it tries to keep us ignorant, to blindly live according to the rules of those who insist they know the 'truth' yet their truth is at best 'superstition' at worse 'malicious'.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to eyesopened)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 7:44:34 AM   
eyesopened


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

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

There's a possibility that a God exists but not in any form any religion envisions.


Huh? So god doesn't want us to know god exists so why do we even consider god?

The main reason I can see for proclaiming god's existence is control. I have a friend whose father died when he was a young child. Throughout his life whenever he did something of which his mother didn't approve, she would invoke his fathers memory 'You're father wouldn't approve!'. This worked until he realised his mother always had the advantage because he could never ask his father what his true feelings were and his mother could invoke his father's memory to win any difference of opinion.  This is how religion works, it tries to keep us ignorant, to blindly live according to the rules of those who insist they know the 'truth' yet their truth is at best 'superstition' at worse 'malicious'.


i don't disagree with you at all.  my opinion is that there very well could be a God that is completely different from the one(s) that seem to cause all this debate and unrest.  Why does God have to exist or not exist why isn't there an alternative choice?  i don't believe anyone should force "faith" on anyone even those who claim to have none.  i have difficulty seeing the difference between your rant and the rant of the religious.


_____________________________

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 #: 29
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 8:00:39 AM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		The difference is this:

A Pastafarian Believer and MeatCleaver are seated at a table together. On the table there is an apple in plain site of both parties.

MeatCleaver says, "We should slice up that apple and eat it."

The Pastafarian Believer replies, "I say we eat the fettuccine alfredo first and save the apple for dessert."

---

During any subsequent discussion, MeatCleaver will try to assert the existence of only the apple which is part of an objective and agreed upon reality. The Pastafarian Believer will also try to assert the existence of a plate of fettuccine alfredo which is part of a subjective and delusional worldview which only he believes in and is able to see.

Science merely asks that we support a more purely objective worldview, refining our conception of an objective universe as more information becomes available. Religion asks us to abandon the objective universe in favor of a purely subjective and delusional worldview.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to eyesopened)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 8:09:59 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Zensee...your post outlining you generosity with human souls is the first one I have ever read on Collar Me that I cant understand.

Since the soul is a concept derived from a religious perspective it seems possible that really you are a believer, despite your claims to the contrary.

Just to add, what do you win if the god that you believe in takes the the believer out of existance. Their God still exits, doesnt it ? Something you claim to be untrue.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 12/31/2006 8:16:59 AM >

(in reply to ZenrageTheKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 10:23:41 AM   
NeedToUseYou


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

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

The difference is this:

A Pastafarian Believer and MeatCleaver are seated at a table together. On the table there is an apple in plain site of both parties.

MeatCleaver says, "We should slice up that apple and eat it."

The Pastafarian Believer replies, "I say we eat the fettuccine alfredo first and save the apple for dessert."

---

During any subsequent discussion, MeatCleaver will try to assert the existence of only the apple which is part of an objective and agreed upon reality. The Pastafarian Believer will also try to assert the existence of a plate of fettuccine alfredo which is part of a subjective and delusional worldview which only he believes in and is able to see.

Science merely asks that we support a more purely objective worldview, refining our conception of an objective universe as more information becomes available. Religion asks us to abandon the objective universe in favor of a purely subjective and delusional worldview.


The problem with this, is that more people see the alfredo than don't. You can view this also if more than half the population sees something you don't who is really being delusional?

I agree it's is just an apple, but put to popular vote it's an apple with a plate of alfredo.

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 12:45:45 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		As a confirmed atheist, I'm as sympathetic to Dawkins as the next guy, but I have to agree with the reviewer that Dawkins did not take on the most sophisticated concepts of religion in his book.  He reduced all religion to the idiot televangelism brand, and thereby violated the first rule of forensics: always refute the BEST version of your opponent's position, not the worst.

I also have to agree with Orr, for that matter, that if postulating is God is "begging the question" (and, like Dawkins, I think postulating God is indeed begging the question), then postulating rules of nature is "begging the question" as well.  It's not as though atheists know where the universe came from either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Actually, the book got panned in the New York Review of Books, which is about as left-leaning as you can get:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775


It seems to me the reviewer is as much on a mission as Dawkins and if the reviewer is  even a little religious no doubt he would feel insulted by Dawkins. The point Dawkins makes time and again is there is no need for the intervention of a supernatural being in order for life to exist, there is no evidence of a supernatural fingerprint on any part of creation. As he points out, the more intelligent theologians have left the field in favour of science and claim religion to be beyond scientific scrutiny. A major contention of Dawkins is that it isn't any more beyond scientific scrutiny than science is beyond religious scrutiny and points out the nonsense of intelligent design as it tries to muscle religion into the field of science. I can accept that this book will probably not be satisfying to someone steeped in science or theology but it is not aimed at them in my eyes but to the ordinary Joe in the street and on that level it succeeds. 

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 2:00:34 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Oh you like to laugh at non-believers huh. Try this one on for size then.

I'm placing a personal bounty of 50 million human souls on the heads of every man, woman and child who uses the notion of "god" to validate their actions, inactions and interactions. Payment will be made to the demon, devil, angel, god, or goddess that takes each one of you out of existence forever.

If you're right and god exists and your soul has value to it, then this becomes an irrefusable offer and you die. If I'm right, and there is no god then there is no threat. Either way I win, and you lose.

C'mon, boy. Let's see you laugh.


Well you can't see me through the computer, but I laughed pretty hard.  Again I am not laughing at your faith, but at your dogmatism and false belief that you understand everything.  I am laughing at your silly construct, you do not have 50 millions souls to give away.  I am laughing that you think you won something.  I am not trying to convert you, that would be a waste of time.  I am laughing that you simplfy things so much to make your argument, and your nonscence suppositioins about others thoughts.
  So you also think that Love does not exist???  You can't see it or put it in a box.

Those who use religion to base their morality upon have no place in society except as way of aiding others cheat within it.  
So most people have no place in society?  That's interesting.  Genocidal but  interesting.  Lets compare religous vs scientific Morality( as espoused by Zenrage).  Religon--all people have souls and value.  Zenrageism---those who I disagree with have no place in society.  Ill take religion.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 3:54:22 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
The problem with this, is that more people see the alfredo than don't. You can view this also if more than half the population sees something you don't who is really being delusional?


Yes - proof is needed. We expand the scenario to include the following facts:

The Pastafarian Believer and MeatCleaver are not allowed to leave the room for an undisclosed period of time. Only MeatCleaver is allowed to eat of the apples and 6 new ones appear each day from a food shoot above the table. The Pastafarian Believer is allowed to eat his fill of fettuccine alfredo - as much as he can find to believe in. They can both have all the water they like.

Who leaves the room at the end of 2 months?


_____________________________

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

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 4:22:11 PM   
sophia37


Posts: 1433
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline 		Boy that was a good video. Gotta give the guy a lot of credit. Do you know how hard it is to have such a convincing interview with a news person? Fabulous. Im going to look a lot more into this guys work. Thanks

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 4:24:18 PM   
NeedToUseYou


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

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
The problem with this, is that more people see the alfredo than don't. You can view this also if more than half the population sees something you don't who is really being delusional?


Yes - proof is needed. We expand the scenario to include the following facts:

The Pastafarian Believer and MeatCleaver are not allowed to leave the room for an undisclosed period of time. Only MeatCleaver is allowed to eat of the apples and 6 new ones appear each day from a food shoot above the table. The Pastafarian Believer is allowed to eat his fill of fettuccine alfredo - as much as he can find to believe in. They can both have all the water they like.

Who leaves the room at the end of 2 months?


You know this example is not really directly related to God, as belief or non-belief in God doesn't manifest itself in physical terms. So, yeah, the alfredo guy will die, or start hallucinating and believe the apple is alfredo or blame you taking the alfredo when he goes to eat it, using powers of the devil or something. But the only example that would apply directly to a God argument is one that judges two people that only vary in a non-detrimental belief. There is no real life equivalent to your example. I've no knowledge of a religion that claims it's followers can create things, or eat ethereal food. Basicly, they don't claim to have regular experiences with something you will be able to measure. Because it's just a thought, that manifests itself in an emotion and feeling. You can' t really do that in physical form, as neither will die directly from having or not having the belief. I've never heard of someone starving to death because they believed in some notion or another.

It doesn't manifest itself physically, and neither is it claimed in a lot of religious peoples views, they will say god can manipulate the physical world(miracles) but never witnessed it.

So, how would this apply to proving or disproving God. If anything it would prove the person was hallucinating, absolutely nothing more.

Really, have you met many religious people that claim to see things that aren't there. Not many, at the most(Unless the person was clinically mentally ill), I've heard direct claims of being filled with emotion and such, not actually seeing God, or all that stuff.

So, it remains in the mind, and as such you can't prove it or disprove it. If someone says they felt God touching them, well no one can disprove that they felt what they call God.





(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 4:58:49 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline 		You are blithely skipping past my central point - religious fanatics have no problem accepting science when it comes to things like autos, computers, electric lights, gas ranges, etc. Just all of a sudden when discussing this whole "god delusion" science becomes quackery.

If science puts the apple on the table and fills the belly too, then what good is god? Why bother believing in something that exists only as a silly if persistent notion in one's head?

More bluntly:
Our objective reality is predicated on scientific knowledge. And no one complains about that.

What does religion bring to the party?



< Message edited by Chaingang -- 12/31/2006 5:03:37 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 5:39:15 PM   
NeedToUseYou


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

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

You are blithely skipping past my central point - religious fanatics have no problem accepting science when it comes to things like autos, computers, electric lights, gas ranges, etc. Just all of a sudden when discussing this whole "god delusion" science becomes quackery.

If science puts the apple on the table and fills the belly too, then what good is god? Why bother believing in something that exists only as a silly if persistent notion in one's head?

More bluntly:
Our objective reality is predicated on scientific knowledge. And no one complains about that.

What does religion bring to the party?




Religion ultimately brings escape from death, or the belief  anyway. It makes pain and suffering a useful sacrifice for reward in the afterlife, instead of a useless meaningless experience. It gives a purpose and accountability for the actions one takes in life. It provides a reason to restrain ones urges.

Anyway, it can do those things, but it can also be used to manipulate, but I don't think most people get into it for that aspect. I think people need to believe that perfection is a reality and improvement is certain, and this dirty speck of a planet, is just a passing nightmare, not the be all end all of reality.

That is as well as I can reason it out.

I'm not sure why science and religion must be in conflict either. If one believes in God then one must believe God made the oil for the purpose of us using it for our benefit. If God made Genes and gave us the intellect to find and figure them out, well maybe he does want us to perfect them.

The only real conflict between the bible and science is the whole evolution thing( to narrow down to one religion), which isn't a prerequisite for a belief in God, so disproving that doesn't disprove God even. If you disprove evolution all you did was disqualify one act that God was supposed to have done. You wouldn't have ruled out God. And it would be written off as human error in writing the timeline down, or attributed to a different timline, or something else.

One can't take away faith, I really BELIEVE(no facts just gut feeling), that everyone believes in something. Some believe science will save us, some believe a perfect form of government will save us. Some believe that aliens will save us. Some believe love will save them. Some believe god will save us.

So, what do you believe will save us? Once you answer that you may be able to provide certain history showing a certain progression, but it's not proof or fact that it will occur, but it doesn't change the fact that most believe it as fact all the same.

In the end I've never met a person that didn't have faith/belief in something that isn't provable.

I'd guess you have faith in science and reasoning will save us. You have more data to show and speculate on a trend but no real proof, just belief.



(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 5:57:07 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Just all of a sudden when discussing this whole "god delusion" science becomes quackery.
But science does not become Quackery when discussing God.  Believers in just about every religion think that the creator designed the universe and set the laws of matter, which gives us Fire gravity electrcity, ect.  Science has NOT proved that there was a not a designer to the universe.  Science has NOT proven that life arose by accident.  Many scientists Theorise these to be facts, but replacability is part of scientific proof.  Just because a theory is widley accepted does not make it so, again see 20,50,100 years ago in science.   Religious thought has also evolved over time.  When Science can make a new universe(or a new type of molercule that can behave like DNA), lets talk, though that would sort of indicate that there was a creator. 
Let me do what Dawkins does and turn it around Chain...so you absolutly do not believe that Love can exist?  It can't be quantified by science, right?  So just like God it is simply a delusion( for the weak?).  So if you accept that Love exists, do you have to renounce science?
 
More bluntly:
Our objective reality is predicated on scientific knowledge. And no one complains about that.
How do you figure that, for hundreds of thousands of years Mankind had no scientific knowledge, and for millions of years no species of animal or Plant did, yet there was an objective reality, at least according to the scientific evidence.  Your arguments in favor of science are not based in science Chain. 

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.172