|
ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (12/30/2006 9:55:17 PM)
|
Theory is an idea that is supported by evidence that can be acquired through scientific means.
Conjecture is a wild stab in the dark.
The notion that god exists is a conjecture.
The notion that god did anything to affect the nature of your existence is a double conjecture.
There is no evidence to support the notion that god exists.
There is no methodology to obtain any such evidence to support the notion that god exists.
There is no objective manner to measure or record such evidence if either the evidence or the methodology were to exist.
NO ONE has to disprove the non-existence of any entity when there is no evidence to support the notion of the entity's existence in the first place.
The conjecture that "god exists" is not a valid presumption for any philosophical argument.
The double conjecture that "god did it" is NOT a valid default for a lack of scientific understanding.
The double conjecture that "my god says so" is NOT a valid default regarding social welfare.
The nature of all life on this planet is to compete. When our ancestors ate, they had to compete with other forms of life to survive (the use of farms and ranches only makes the competition completely one sided). When species evolve, they pit one form of biological life against the surrounding environment - the one more compatible with the environment survives while the other forms do not. When people grow food, build homes, or make clothing they are competing against their environmental conditions. When people debate, have wars, look for employment, find recreation, they all compete in one form or another.
The notion of society is nothing more than a tool for people to use to be able to compete together in a team sport, of sorts. It is the most important tool we have and like any other tool, it requires constant responsibility and maintenance.
The notion of "god" evolved from this basic need to compete. The notion of "god" has never been more than a tool for the socially weak to use on a psychological, social, economic or metaphysical level in order to attempt to cheat in the competition of life. If a politician couldn't sell his ideals, he would say "god told me so". If a man wanted more money for preaching about some deity, they would merely sell supernatural favors in return for material things. If man wants to compete against death all he has to do is say "my belief in my god will allow me to live forever - even posthumously." If a man wants answers for why he exists in the first place, he just thinks to himself "Because some god said so".
All that "god" is, is a way for man to get what he wants with no realistic amount of effort. Its a simple and irresponsible manner of achievement within society, and nothing more. To invoke supernatural forces to achieve control over external forces is to try and cheat society of something you haven't earned. Sports stars do it all the time with their little superstitious pre-game "good luck" rituals. Wiccans do it with magic spells. Astrologers do it by reading the heavens. So how is the monotheistic "prayer" different? Simple. It isn't different at all.
To believe in "god" is a personal choice, but one that can not be validated.
To believe your invalid personal belief in "god" gives you the right to dictate your actions and interactions is social irresponsibility.
To believe your invalid personal belief in "god" gives you the right to judge others according to your invalid personal beliefs is social irresponsibility to the second power.
To believe your invalid personal belief in "god" gives you the right to enact social law based on your invalid personal beliefs is social irresponsibility to the third power.
"Good" and "Evil" are philosophically subjective terms that are defined and redefined by whatever philosophy followed.
The great acts of abuse in perpetuated by man in history were beneficial to at least one person.
No one can show solid evidence that the conjecture of "God exists" is anything more than religious faith.
Ergo, those who use the mythology and the double conjecture that "god wants me to" to support their beneficial acts, regardless of how minor, only succeed in paving the road for those who will use the same arguement to justify their great acts of abuse.
As far as Dawkins goes. The more he speaks for science and against religion, the more the religious will have to defend themselves against him. The more the religious defend themselves, the greater the personal leaps of faith for their followers become. The greater the leaps of faith become, there will be more and more people less willing to make those leaps - and like at any other dead end in a maze, they will have to come back in order to progress further down a different path.
To say Richard Dawkins and other outspoken atheists don't make a difference in society is purely wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
