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

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 > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 6:39:36 PM

Chaingang

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

Science tells you how you know what you know. Or did you suppose it was all a veil of illusion?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 6:44:46 PM

leatherorlace

Posts: 215
Joined: 2/21/2005
Status: offline

I discovered that it's all done with mirrors and hooka smoke screens.
Gnetry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Science tells you how you know what you know. Or did you suppose it was all a veil of illusion?

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 7:09:35 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Actually it is all an illusion based on perception. Time and Space as we experience them, do not really exist. Science teaches us that. And again, people knew all kinds of things before science was invented. "Science tells you how you know what you know." , is not a true statement. Maybe it is for you, but your un scientifically supported statements cast doubt on it.

(in reply to leatherorlace)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 7:52:10 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

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'm having trouble squaring this (I can't resist) dogmatic statement with the antislavery and civil rights movements, in which religious beliefs impelled people, often at great risk to themselves, to fight ignorance and malice and to empower the oppressed to do so as well.

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 12/31/2006 7:54:08 PM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 8:10:59 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

What does religion bring to the party?

If we're honest with ourselves, we'll recognize that just about all the ethical values we hold dear--that people have rights, that people deserve freedom, that people should be treated with dignity, etc.--are essentially religious beliefs. After all, they're ideas that we believe tenaciously despite the lack of empirical evidence for them.

The OP, for example, recently started a thread on inequality. But what scientific data suggests, much less proves, that people are, or should be, equal? Those of us who strive to make the world more equal are trying to reshape the world on the basis on unproven, unprovable beliefs. In other words, we're doing just what religious folks do.

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 12/31/2006 8:17:42 PM >

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 8:13:18 PM

Chaingang

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

Science can be defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Phenomena is the plural form of phenomenon. Phenomenon can be defined as an occurrence, a circumstance, or a fact that is perceptible by the senses.

---

I think scientific knowledge began when people began attempting direct explanations of the physical world around them. YMMV.

So, I'm not seeing it, luckydog1. Nice try though. Thanks for playing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 12/31/2006 8:26:57 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

"Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54

Richard Dawkins asserts that belief in god is irrational and inflicts great harm upon societies. Jeremy Paxman interviews Professor Dawkins as part of the Newsnight book club.

-----

Talk among yourselves.

There are some researchers that think we are genetically programmed to believe in God.

Here is a link to this controversial theory

http://www.entheogens.com/godgene.html

quote:

Dean H. Hamer has received much criticism for his new book, "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes." Evangelicals reject the idea that faith might be reduced to chemical reactions in the brain. Humanists refuse to accept that religion is inherent in people's makeup. And some scientists have criticized Hamer's methodology and what they believe is a futile effort to find empirical proof of religious experience

I find it ironic that most people who are atheists and those who are religious have a problem with this...smiles.

I think it is entirely possible that we are genetically programmed to believe in God, and if we find out that we are, just what will that mean, if anything at all

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 2:12:23 AM

LadyEllen

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

Hi

My name is Ellen. Or at least my name would be Ellen, if "I" had any real, independent existence. As it is though, science tells me "I" am nothing more than an oddly shaped cluster of quintillians of quintillians of atoms, whose interactions with one another are kept unto themselves through a barrier of billions of billions of other atoms, ("my skin") which separates "my" atoms from the countless atoms outside. Except that is, when "I" need some extra atoms to keep the whole thing going. When that occurs, the atoms at "my mouth" permit new atoms to enter "me". Oh, and of course, "I" also let in some of the mixture of atoms in the air every few seconds, which "I" need to keep all those reactions going.

Whats really curious, is that somewhere near the top of "me", there are these really bizarre reactions occurring, that make "me" think, which of course as everyone knows, is impossible! Even more strangely, these reactions making "me" think, seem to cause "me" to think that "I" exist! Atoms and electrical charges cant think, or cause self awareness, surely? Yet, apparently thats whats happening. All very odd. Indeed, "I" am writing this, and "you" are reading it! Now how inexplicable is that!?

Its a good job science tells "me" I dont exist really. Otherwise "I" might get to thinking that it might be a good idea to be in a truly bizarre state called happiness, or to start down a line of thought which said that if "I" am convinced "I" exist, then it would be better if "I" could think more clearly. And further, that if "I" exist, and all these other similar collections of atoms and reactions also exist (people, I thinking of calling them), then it might be better if "we" got on together - you know, cooperated so that "we" could all be happy and think better, and maybe most importantly, work together so that "we" all, as far as possible, get the new atoms we need to keep our atomic reactions going.

But thinking a bit more about it, this science stuff that tells "me" that "I" am just a pile of atoms, it kinda makes no sense..... if "I" dont exist, and the people called scientists dont exist either, then how is it that "they" can tell me anything or "I" can understand it and act on it?

Still, "I" do understand it, and "I" am going to act on it. There's a few other collections of atoms down the road whose molecular configuration and reactions displease "me", so "I" am going out to destroy "them". Its only atoms after all. "I" wonder if "they" have any good atoms I could take? Anything goes in the struggle for atoms "you" know.

E

_____________________________

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

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 2:37:23 AM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Science can be defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. It could be, but any list from an actuall scientist would include replicable experiments,before it can be claimed as a fact or proven. Which is what you are doing. What experimental investigation has been done on the creation of universes? I misssed the article on the unique DNA like molercule they made from scratch. What Data do we have on that which is outside of our universe?
Phenomena is the plural form of phenomenon. Phenomenon can be defined as an occurrence, a circumstance, or a fact that is perceptible by the senses. Phenonema also occur within time/space, And science, as does religion, deduces that there is stuff beyond our time/space. It seems reasonable to assume that things occur there since our universe was created.

I think scientific knowledge began when people began attempting direct explanations of the physical world around them. YMMV.

So, I'm not seeing it, luckydog1. Nice try though. Thanks for playing.

You can think that, but you would be at odds with most every serious scientist. There was indeed, at least according to scientific consensus, an objective reality for billions of years before the elements of the earth( dust) became alive. Chrsitian fundamentalists think there was one for only 5 days before the creation of Man. You think it was concurrent with the creation of Man? Does that mean that all reality and variety of creatures were created in the same instant? And you think that is Science? I don't know what to actually say about that.
Also the early attempts at explaining phenomena were religous, yet you define them as science?????

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 4:20:51 AM

Zensee

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

What experimental investigation has been done on the creation of universes?

What Data do we have on that which is outside of our universe?

luckydog. It is up to those who believe the universe was “created” to propose and conduct those experiments. Until those results are in you should know that merely refuting someone else’s theory does not automatically validate your own. And if science is an illusion because perception is an illusion, then god must be an illusion too, right?

We have no data from outside this universe. So what? The existence of unknowns or even unknowables does NOT prove the existence of god. As yet unanswered questions about the origins of life are not proof of the literal existence of ol’ man YHVH or any other creator being from any other human mythology. It just doesn’t work that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

You can think that, but you would be at odds with most every serious scientist. There was indeed, at least according to scientific consensus, an objective reality for billions of years before the elements of the earth( dust) became alive. Chrsitian fundamentalists think there was one for only 5 days before the creation of Man. You think it was concurrent with the creation of Man? Does that mean that all reality and variety of creatures were created in the same instant? And you think that is Science? I don't know what to actually say about that.

Also the early attempts at explaining phenomena were religous, yet you define them as science?????

What are you saying in this paragraph? Objective reality is a concept, not a thing, luckydog.

After that the rest sort of falls apart.

Are you calling chaingang a creationist?

What proof do you have that “the early attempts at explaining phenomena were religious.” ? A talent for abstract thought is what differentiates us from our primate ancestors, not a flair for superstition. For abstraction to be adaptive it must be scientific – it must be able to recognise the useful and discard the useless as efficiently as possible. The bow and arrow did not float to the surface of the wellspring of faith. It was developed in an informal but scientific manner.

Z.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 4:22:38 AM

meatcleaver

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

It's strange how religious people are happy to use science everyday but refuse to accept it when it confronts their belief system, they have a fundemental flaw in their logic.

If I really believed in a supernatural god (which I most emphatically don't, having a modicum of respect for my intelligence) I would have no problem jumping off a tall building because if I believed and prayed hard enough I would bounce off the tarmac at the bottom or if I did go splat! I know god would have some lesson for me to learn. Most likely the lesson would be, pay attention in physics class!

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/1/2007 4:26:06 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 5:03:38 AM

eyesopened

Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
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.

*laughs* From what i have observed, MeatCleaver would never suggest sharing anything. As far i am concerned it doesn't matter what food they see and long as neither tries to force-feed me any of it. my spiritual belief has never suggested that i abandon the objective universe in favor of a delusion. i have never had a problem understanding science as the "how" of things and i have my own thoughts of "who"

Rius said Socialism is like Christianity; It might work if anyone actually tried it. i tend to agree.

To prove there is not a God is like proving there aren't extra-terrestrials. Plenty of "proof" on both sides of that issue depending on who you talk to and the end-all answer is "it would be arrogant of us to think we are alone in the universe". That's not science. And let's not forget that microbes didn't exist until science discovered them. Can you imagine how crazy it must has sounded to people that someone believed there were "X-rays" until they were proven? Who are we to say what may be discovered in the future.

my point is that the word delusional was used to describe those of us who like the idea of a power greater than ourselves. How is atheistic name-calling more nobel than religious name-calling?

_____________________________

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 #: 52

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 5:32:33 AM

meatcleaver

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

my point is that the word delusional was used to describe those of us who like the idea of a power greater than ourselves. How is atheistic name-calling more nobel than religious name-calling?

Because we live in a universe governed by laws we understand and even if we don't understand them, experience tells us that is to do with our lack of knowledge and not some supernatural intervention.

Religious people believe in supernatural intervention in a universe in which their everyday lives are governed by physical laws. This omiscient and omnipotent god is a contradiction that cannot exist. This god that answers their prayers while ignoring Johnny's down the road or if he ignores yours, he obviously has a reason to, maybe its some lesson he wants to teach you. The central tenets of christianity for example, the virgin birth, the miracles, the rising from the dead, we know all these to be fictions written down by someone who wasn't there and they happened in places they couldn't have in times that were chronologically out of sequences with recorded events. And anyway, which damn religion is the correct religion? And why do more than 95% of people follow their parents religion if indoctrination was not taking place? None of religion is based on rational thought even though we live in a rational universe. Go to the top of a tall building and jump off, physics will tell you you will fall to the ground, religion will tell you you will fall to the ground because you are trying to test god and god won't be tested. yeah yeah yeah, we've heard that one before. Religion is ignorance.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to eyesopened)

Profile

Post #: 53

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 6:15:21 AM

eyesopened

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

my point is that the word delusional was used to describe those of us who like the idea of a power greater than ourselves. How is atheistic name-calling more nobel than religious name-calling?

Because we live in a universe governed by laws we understand and even if we don't understand them, experience tells us that is to do with our lack of knowledge and not some supernatural intervention.

Religious people believe in supernatural intervention in a universe in which their everyday lives are governed by physical laws. This omiscient and omnipotent god is a contradiction that cannot exist. This god that answers their prayers while ignoring Johnny's down the road or if he ignores yours, he obviously has a reason to, maybe its some lesson he wants to teach you. The central tenets of christianity for example, the virgin birth, the miracles, the rising from the dead, we know all these to be fictions written down by someone who wasn't there and they happened in places they couldn't have in times that were chronologically out of sequences with recorded events. And anyway, which damn religion is the correct religion? And why do more than 95% of people follow their parents religion if indoctrination was not taking place? None of religion is based on rational thought even though we live in a rational universe. Go to the top of a tall building and jump off, physics will tell you you will fall to the ground, religion will tell you you will fall to the ground because you are trying to test god and god won't be tested. yeah yeah yeah, we've heard that one before. Religion is ignorance.

Oh! Now how does that answer the question about name-calling??? See how ignorant i am! *laughs*

_____________________________

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 #: 54

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 6:38:39 AM

meatcleaver

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

To quote you, those of us who like the idea of a power greater than ourselves. Reflect on the word 'like', your belief in a higher power seems to rely on you liking the idea, not on any evidence. I like the idea of pink elephants dancing in my garden but liking them isn't going to make them appear and liking a power greater than yourself isn't going to make a greater power exist. This seems to be the level of argument for the existence of god because no evidence can be produced that god exists. The idea of god is defended by saying god exists outside the laws of the universe. The very laws he can somehow eliminate at will but only in very special cases and never leaves any objective evidence.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to eyesopened)

Profile

Post #: 55

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 6:54:27 AM

eyesopened

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

How does that make name-calling productive? You are much more passionate about disliking those who hold spiritual beliefs than i am about those who hold none. i'm still confused how angry atheism is better than angry religion? Makes no sense whatsoever. i will absolutely agree that many of the world's horrors have come from religious fanatics but i content that fanaticism itself is the culprit not the religion or lack thereof. Communism seems like the only viable way to achieve world peace but like socialism and christianity i've never seen it actually practiced.

_____________________________

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 #: 56

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 7:03:25 AM

Zensee

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

Ignorance is not an insult it is simply a description, eyesopened. Superstitious people IGNORE rational explanations and the weight of evidence.

Z.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to eyesopened)

Profile

Post #: 57

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 7:20:05 AM

eyesopened

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

Okay. There is no god. Now, how did that improve anyone's life? If everyone on the planet dismissed religion as being silly superstition, how would that make the world a better place? Would people not find some other reason to wage war and hate other people? My point is that neither the proof of no god or the belief in one or more gods should be used to discredit other people. Buddhism does not believe in a any particular diety but is still considered religion. Is that also bad? How is the example of purely scientific and secular politics (Soviet Union comes to mind but i may be ignornant there too) an example of a better society? Without a god, people would still find tenants to follow because i think humans have emotions which are controlled by chemical changes in the body. In a perfect world would we not use science to regulate those emotions so that no one is capable of feeling anything that could result in violence? i guess i don't see why it is important to prove that God doesn't exist because i fail to see how that would make the world a better place. People have gone about making scientific discoveries on a "huntch" that something must exist based on other evidence but not actual evidence of the thing itself. It's called discovery. If we accept science as it is, without wondering what could be, there would be no more discovery. In my humble opinion.

_____________________________

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 Zensee)

Profile

Post #: 58

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 7:24:48 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Well the entire argument you have presented here could be made against by mirror.

Okay. There is a god. Now how did that improve anyone's life?

And so on.

Ron( Who follows a one-eyed god)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to eyesopened)

Profile

Post #: 59

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/1/2007 7:29:05 AM

meatcleaver

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

How does that make name-calling productive? You are much more passionate about disliking those who hold spiritual beliefs than i am about those who hold none. i'm still confused how angry atheism is better than angry religion? Makes no sense whatsoever. i will absolutely agree that many of the world's horrors have come from religious fanatics but i content that fanaticism itself is the culprit not the religion or lack thereof. Communism seems like the only viable way to achieve world peace but like socialism and christianity i've never seen it actually practiced.

I'm not name calling.

I don't dislike those that hold spiritual beliefs. I'm just bemused by people who hold such beliefs without any evidence but wouldn't accept other ideas without evidence.

I'm not angry.

Communism has nothing to do with it which is another thing that bemuses me. Why do capitalist materialists attack communism for being materialist while captialism is every bit a materialist philosophy as communism.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to eyesopened)

Profile

Post #: 60