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

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 7:54:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 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) Exactly! Thank you. it doesn't make one iota of difference in my mind because people are people and will find ways, things, places, in order to justify themselves. It doesn't matter. i'm not a bad person for having specific personal beliefs and tenants and others aren't bad people for not having them. i think it would make a difference in the world if we looked for how people are the same, looking for positive and uplifting interactions than so much focus on the negative and i direct that to the "religious" as well as those who have no religion. It is seeing how we are the same that will bring peace, not on our differences. Sorry, there's no scientific fact behind what i just said.

KatyLied -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 7:59:41 AM)
quote: Okay. There is a god. Now how did that improve anyone's life? Exactly.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 8:05:02 AM)
luckydog1: Zensee has already answered you in the main, but I just wanted to add this... Science does not pull explanations out of its collective ass. It attempts to put forward theories that are based on observed phenomena, And yes, they are generally expected to be replicable. The field known as "theoretical physics" is an area that provides fewer "near certainties" because much of it remains in the decidedly theoretical stages - attempts are made to explain the model of creation as we understand it now, the more we understand the more we alter our original model, and so on. Science does not explain the first cause but that doesn't mean that any alternative explanation - like a god idea - is either necessary or suitable in the meanwhile. Personally, I simply withhold judgement on the notion of first cause as I wait to see what turns up. It's not a question I trouble myself over because it has no practical utility. I allow for the tiny possibility that there is a god of some kind out there; not because I believe in god or want to hedge my bet on the issue of judgment but because just as his possible existence cannot be proved I cannot disprove it either - but that doesn't make the idea of god true, necessary or even useful. The whole problem with the idea of god is summed up in the phrase: "non sequitur." Just because the world is round it does not follow that there is a god. Just because the wind is high it does not follow that there is a god. Just because the sky is blue it does not follow that there is a god. It just doesn't follow. The idea of god isn't true, necessary or useful. It explains nothing.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 8:53:01 AM)
quote: 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. MC and all, Please allow a tangent question that perhaps can be addressed from both sides of the god, no god debate. There is an inherent assumption that the belief in god points to a belief in a benevolent god. A "power greater than ourselves" who is worshiped would worthy of worship. Stipulating that their is deity, and documentation of his works appear in the Bible; do his deeds merit worship? The god of the Bible is alleged to be all forgiving; however one bite of an apple can condemn not only the perpetrators but their yet to be born untold future generations. The Biblical god is the source of all knowledge; yet when his 'children' seek to sit by his side to learn, he eliminates their common language. How does god compare to his adversary, the devil? God is credited for destroying the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah, having his 'angels' kill the first born male of Egypt, destroying every living thing on the planet save for one family and a boatload of animals. Is there any comparable activity assigned to the devil? Obviously business concurs with who humans need to fear most; "acts of god" are excluded from any insurance policy. The devil needs no such exemption. So there is a god - but the question is - Is that a good thing?

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 9:11:38 AM)
There's no coherent attempt to reconcile the "problem of evil" in the Bible. The closest you will get is toward the end of the Book of Job where the authority of god is asserted to be beyond questioning. But because the problem exists and it is hard to understand why bad things happen to good people it is sometimes said that Lucifer is actually "the god of this world" - that it was the archangel Lucifer that created this world under god's instruction and that he retains certain power over this world even in his fallen state. Of course, The Book of Job is always good enough for me. It encapsulates most of the best reasons not to believe in god and answers none of them except to assert authority for the deity based on circular reasoning. I would actually argue that the book is there as a wink to non-believers that might otherwise make good religious leaders; that actual belief is not a prerequisite.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 9:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: 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. MC and all, Please allow a tangent question that perhaps can be addressed from both sides of the god, no god debate. There is an inherent assumption that the belief in god points to a belief in a benevolent god. A "power greater than ourselves" who is worshiped would worthy of worship. Stipulating that their is deity, and documentation of his works appear in the Bible; do his deeds merit worship? The god of the Bible is alleged to be all forgiving; however one bite of an apple can condemn not only the perpetrators but their yet to be born untold future generations. The Biblical god is the source of all knowledge; yet when his 'children' seek to sit by his side to learn, he eliminates their common language. How does god compare to his adversary, the devil? God is credited for destroying the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah, having his 'angels' kill the first born male of Egypt, destroying every living thing on the planet save for one family and a boatload of animals. Is there any comparable activity assigned to the devil? Obviously business concurs with who humans need to fear most; "acts of god" are excluded from any insurance policy. The devil needs no such exemption. So there is a god - but the question is - Is that a good thing? Very good point. Even scientific discoveries can be used for good or evil. The god of the bible doesn't sound like a nice guy for the most part. Or maybe at best cosmic scapegoat. What motivates us to treat others with kindness and understanding? That's all that is really important. Who cares if it's because of irrational belief in some diety or just that it makes some sort of sense to be good to others of the same species? If i hold a spiritual belief that motivates me to be kind, generous, helpful, why should that bother anyone? i would agree that to use the irrational belief in some god or gods as justification to be cruel is just irrational cruelty. Is rational cruelty any less cruel?

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 9:33:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Even scientific discoveries can be used for good or evil. Good and evil are human constructs and have nothing to do with our knowledge about the universe we in habit, it is not the province of science to tackle philosophical, moral and ethical questions which are irrelevent to science (that is not to say they are irrelevent to scientists). Science tackles what is, not the consequences of our possessing knowledge.

KatyLied -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 9:43:25 AM)
quote: If i hold a spiritual belief that motivates me to be kind, generous, helpful, why should that bother anyone? It's sad that you can't be motivated to good things without the threat of punishment from a diety. It would be better, in my opinion, to be a good person at the core of your being, irregardless of a belief in a diety. Goodness for the sake of goodness. What happens if/when you find out that the diety doesn't exist? Will you still be so motivated?

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 9:47:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: If i hold a spiritual belief that motivates me to be kind, generous, helpful, why should that bother anyone? It's sad that you can't be motivated to good things without the threat of punishment from a diety. It would be better, in my opinion, to be a good person at the core of your being, irregardless of a belief in a diety. Goodness for the sake of goodness. What happens if/when you find out that the diety doesn't exist? Will you still be so motivated? Why did you assume i am motivated by the negative when all i have been trying to say is that i abhor the negativity in these discussions. i have not said anyone was bad or wrong. i don't believe in a punishing god, i don't believe in the god depicted in the bible. i am motivated by something i cannot explain nor do i feel the need to. i am still wondering why being negative toward a belief is beneficial to anyone.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 9:52:05 AM)
To no one in particular: Discussing religion is often worse than politics in regard to keeping people's blood pressure in the safe range. Several outrageous flames have had to be culled from this discussion already and there are still several borderline posts that could go as well. PLEASE keep this civil and without namecalling (and yes, repeatedly calling someone ignorant because they do not hold the same thoughts on a subject as you definitely qualifies as namecalling) so we don't have to take further action here. Thank you, XI

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 11:16:46 AM)
general reply: In reference to Dawkin's isn't it the case that he actively seeks out people in an attempt to convert them? Answer:Yes. I've seen enough of his work to know this part. So, if he is the one attempting to convert people from their present belief structure, wouldn't the burden of proof be on his shoulders. Not the other way around. If a Witness comes to your house, he must prove his assertions to you, it is not your job to accept the premise of his claims, because you are the target for conversion. Same with Dawkin's, he goes to these people's churches and events and attempts to convert them to his way of thinking. So the burden of proof is on his shoulders. So, it does become a situation where Dawkin's must disprove the existence of God, or Prove that Science can explain the phenomenon associated with God. This isn't possible at present. So, he is banging his head against the wall just the same as the religious that attempt to prove to the non-believer that God exists with a 100 percent certainty.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 11:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou So, it does become a situation where Dawkin's must disprove the existence of God, or Prove that Science can explain the phenomenon associated with God. This isn't possible at present. So, he is banging his head against the wall just the same as the religious that attempt to prove to the non-believer that God exists with a 100 percent certainty. As Dawkins points out, it is impossible to disprove fairies or pink elephants or the Flying Spaghetti Monster but people don't believe in them because they are too ridiculous to believe in without evidence, yet they believe in a god with no evidence at all.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 12:18:46 PM)
So, if he's not seeking these people out to disprove God becuase he can't as you assert, then what is his point. He knows before he enters the church he can't disprove God to them. He knows he will fail in his confrontations. So, he's just going to argue, and stir the flames and create a divide. Hell, I think he is correct in his basic view. But all he does with that view is stir up anger for no reason. His beliefs may be based on science but his actions are definitely not based on science. It's illogical to claim what he is doing is in the name of science, peace and enlightenment, his ACTION, is walking into churches and pissing people off for no reason. He doesn't change their beliefs, he only cements their beliefs. So, he works solely for the purpose of division among people. Look at the post's that were removed if you saw them before hand. They basicly boiled down to. I hate religious people. Oh yeah, that's going to help the world. And Dawkin's does the same thing only utilizing a more subtle approach for no positive gain. He's rallying the troops, nothing more than that.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 12:30:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou So, if he's not seeking these people out to disprove God becuase he can't as you assert, then what is his point. He knows before he enters the church he can't disprove God to them. He knows he will fail in his confrontations. So, he's just going to argue, and stir the flames and create a divide. He's basically wanting people to think rationally and open up to knowledge rather than believe in superstition and the fairy tales about supernatural god. You only have to look at the grip religion has over otherwise intelligent people to see his reasoning. Bush (and he is not the only leader and I'm not refering to him as otherwise intelligent) talked about god's influence on his actions. Isn't it scary to you that a world leader puts fairy tales before logic and reason? I never saw any hate posts but I guess they were removed while I was away.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 2:07:06 PM)
Well a monster is a flesh and blood creature, perhaps with special powers. Spaghetti is a cooked from of grain, not alive in any way, hence can not be a monster, nor fly. Pink elephants can be seen, if they are in a location. Science says there is "stuff" outside our universe(but we have no data whatsoever about it), and that our universe had a start point. Science teaches that Space/time as we know it doesnt actually exist. Anything that exists beyond Time/space is by defintion supernatural (above or beyond natural). How is accepting such a silly analogy "thinking rationally"?

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 2:23:31 PM)
I have asked several times and gotten absolutly no response to this. To the Anti God people (Meat, Zensee, Zen, Chain, et al)...Is it correct to assume that you do not believe that Love can exist. That anyone who thinks they have experienced love is delusional, weak mined, ect. Perhaps Dawkins also has never experienced even a moment of Love in his life, It would explain his combattive behavoir and tone. Can I prove to you God exists, No the Bible and most religous traditions say it can't be done. Can you prove to me he doesn't exist, again no. The NYTimes Book review near the start of this post shows several logical inconsistencies in Dawkin's latest work, his argument is weak and has holes in it. To pretend it is fact is an act of Faith. Deciding that the current scientific consensus is Fact, is also an act of faith. In fact we can say most likely the current theories will change. To attatch Dogmatism to them is nto using science. It is making a dogmatic religion out of the Scientific Method. Religous arguments also are weak and have lots of holes. And I think Both Sides of this debate are running on Faith, but only one side will admit it. I do wish the Hate posts hate not been removed, that is sad, we are all adults here and are choosing to be in this charged debate. I wonder who was posting Hate posts? Was it a Pro or Anti God poster?

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 2:55:55 PM)
MC and all, Please allow a tangent question that perhaps can be addressed from both sides of the god, no god debate. There is an inherent assumption that the belief in god points to a belief in a benevolent god. No most religous traditions do not say this. Many have nuetral dieties( Diests or Bhuddists. Others like Hindi or Pagan have a plethora of gods, some good, some malevolent. A "power greater than ourselves" who is worshiped would worthy of worship. Stipulating that their is deity, and documentation of his works appear in the Bible; do his deeds merit worship? Religion/belief in a God is much bigger than the literal reading of the God of the Modern New Testament/Old Testament Bible. And let's be real here. None of us are hard core literalist Christians, we wouldn't be in a BDSM site. Poking holes in that limited concept of the divine does not affect my( or I presume anyone else's here) belief in any way. The god of the Bible is alleged to be all forgiving; however one bite of an apple can condemn not only the perpetrators but their yet to be born untold future generations. First, you are misstating what t hat Story is. It was not an apple they ate, it was the Fruit of the tree of the of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The point of that lesson is rooted in Freewill. Which is a very interesting concept, a non believer in God must also discount the possability of free will, right? IF we are just Physics in action, we are just machines, no free will involved. --at a more literal level, lets assume you have a child. You tell him not do mess with the paint thinner in the garage, but he does any way and he injests it and messes up his genes. You would forgive him right, and still love him, but he would be damaged. The Biblical god is the source of all knowledge; yet when his 'children' seek to sit by his side to learn, he eliminates their common language. That is part of a very ancient story that is told in many forms around the world. It is a lesson in Hubris and Pride, and may have a little archelogical backing. How does god compare to his adversary, the devil? God is credited for destroying the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah, having his 'angels' kill the first born male of Egypt, destroying every living thing on the planet save for one family and a boatload of animals. I am not really a Christian and am certianly not a literalist, but Christian theology would say that God made compacts with people, and really set different terms for dealing with us at different times. After the Flood there was a New Covenant, and God Quit doing things like you mentioned, first born slaughter ect. Jesus came and made a third deal.Is there any comparable activity assigned to the devil? All Death, Lies Hatered, Murder among Borthers, ect. (again that would be from a Christian theological perspective, not my own) Obviously business concurs with who humans need to fear most; "acts of god" are excluded from any insurance policy. The devil needs no such exemption. Thats pretty good, so little original thought gets put into these discussions. We could say that Mamon ( god of Greed, to a christian a major Demon one of Lucifers Generals) = bussiness. And that Insurance Companies are in Leauge with the Devil. So there is a god - but the question is - Is that a good thing? Is existance a good thing? I vote yes

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 2:57:01 PM)
The best religious people can do in proving there is a god is the pantomine shout 'He's behind you!'

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 3:10:31 PM)
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 Because Communism is often refered to a Scientific socialism, and holds as a central tenant that There is no God, that it is a delusion, an Opiate for the Masses, ect. Not all Capitalists are Materialists, that simply does not follow and is a basic logical fallacy( Ironically Logic is result of Science, it's a form of math). There are Capitalist Materialists, but thier problems with Marxism are not based on theology, but on economics.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 3:39:20 PM)
Those people in this thread who point to what they see as the weaknesses in the belief in a Deity do so by criticising the inconsistancies/weaknesses that may be exposed by using their rational scientific attitudes to examine the concepts present in the teachings of the major religious sects. The problem is far deeper than this. For example the idea of the Big Bang may or may not explain the origin of things. It is most likely an idea based on the maths of calculus when combined with what is currently known about the state of the Universe. That does NOT make it TRUE.Our knowledge is so limited that it is a conceit to think otherwise. I challenge the Rationalists to explain for instance the infinitude or otherwise of space. A scientific problem if ever there was one ! The actual concept of infinite space. You cant so dont bother !!!! If you scientific types will open your minds you will recognise that there exists things that CANNOT be explained by the scientific method. Science describes NOT explains ! Though morality, ethics and religion have become intertwined, with regard to the existence of a Creator they are TOTALLY irrelevant.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1357422