The god Delusion: Richard Dawkins

[VladimirIlyich]

Why is it fine in a democracy to have people not being able to reach conclusions after looking at the evidence?

 

If you think a man you pray to is going to heal your nan then why is that not an issue that you get to vote?

 

I don't buy all this "without religion there's be no war" nonsense - people would still be cunts. The main problem is that religion pushes a model of not questioning what you are told, not questioning authority and willfully denying the reality you live in. It's a problem. We can't just pretend it isn't because we don't want to hurt people's feelings.

Why do people vote Tory or Ukip when they know how shit most peoples lives will be?

I suppose the same applies to religion.

[KopOut]

Just posting a bit from a Buddhist which is related to this argument, incase it could be of use to any of you :

 

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html

 

 

Luckily for the dhali Llama, he doesnt have to live in the real world.

[Spy Bee]

Sorry Adam, you've firstly just swapped the idea of faith for a belief system as if they are synonymous. They aren't.

 

You can apply agnosticism to many things...hence it's a system for approaching and dealing with questions. You can't apply atheism to other things. It's no more a system of belief than not thinking the FSM exists.

 

Just because some people hold one thing that has been made up above other things that have been made up doesn't make me thinking they are made up any more of a belief system. It's an opinion on a single thing. No more or less a belief system than not thinking the XMen are real. Stop demanding reverence from me for one that you won't apply to the others.

 

You've then, despite me deliberately making the point earlier, moved the argument away from the "god" that the huge majority of the people who use it are referring to. I've no interest in belittling people who ponder the unknown energy singularity god you refer to (surely deism not theism though?) and am talking about god in the normal, massive majority use of the word.

 

I'd like you to tell me why nobody putting forward unicorns as a creator makes my point about them being comparably without merit as something to believe in? If someone did that would put them on an equal level? What?

 

I'm getting very tired of bright people telling me the comparison is "lazy" and not giving me any reasonable explanation of why it is. Unicorns and Fairies are LESS fantastical a thing to believe in than interventionist gods. Much less. I'm still waiting for anyone to outline a decent reason why they aren't.

I have never heard someone use the phrase agnostic unless they were talking about theism.

 

I have never been talking about an interventionist God. If you want to cartoonise an idea of God and then compare it to unicorns and pixies then fair enough, but I don't think anybody in this thread has been arguing the existence of a guy with a beard sitting on a cloud. 

 

You say that you don't find 'intellectual nourishment' (a phrase I would avoid if I were you) in stating that you are agnostic about Gods, yet at the same time, you have only engaged on the matter of the aforementioned bearded deity. Do you really find intellectual nourishment in comparing pixies to overlords with facial hair? 

 

Surely there is some intellectual nourishment to be had in discussion of The Science Delusion, of our lack of understanding of consciousness etc. Maybe engage on them rather than repeatedly dismissing the nimbus strutting hipster by referencing mythical creatures.

[Stu Monty]

Mate, nobody is arguing that an interventionist god exists but they are definitely arguing that I'm not allowed to compare that god to other nonsense things.

 

That's the crux here that everyone disagreeing with me seems intent on dancing around.

 

Also the idea that I'm cartoonising god by talking about the God that almost everyone who believes in a god perceives is absolutely ridiculous. Willfully so.

[VladimirIlyich]

Is anybody on here talking about a bearded wizard in the sky?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I am. Like the one the bible talks about being on a cloud, with a beard. The bible.

[Jairzinho]

I am. Like the one the bible talks about being on a cloud, with a beard. The bible.

 

The beardble.

[Dr Nowt]

Can god neg?

[setreal]

Is anybody on here talking about a bearded wizard in the sky?

 

Who knows? Everybody believing in (a) god today, more or less believes in their own image of what (a) god is.

 

In the past, though, if you look at the iconography, the christian god was very often/alomst always depicted in some sort of anthropomorphic fashion (as soon as people were brave enough to depict him, and before that he was very often the "hand of god" - a human hand...). That isn't a big surprise, as that's clearly what he is in the Old Testament. The NT is a bit of a different matter.

[setreal]

Can god neg?

 

I just tried. He can.

[Rico1304]

Who knows? Everybody believing in (a) god today, more or less believes in their own image of what (a) god is.

 

In the past, though, if you look at the iconography, the christian god was very often/alomst always depicted in some sort of anthropomorphic fashion (as soon as people were brave enough to depict him, and before that he was very often the "hand of god" - a human hand...). That isn't a big surprise, as that's clearly what he is in the Old Testament. The NT is a bit of a different matter.

Isn't the NT God a man seated on a throne?

[Spy Bee]

Also the idea that I'm cartoonising god by talking about the God that almost everyone who believes in a god perceives is absolutely ridiculous. Willfully so.

How many people actually do believe that though. My gran was a church goer and very religious. When I once questioned her on her faith though she admitted that she didn't actually believe in Sky Man, she just believed in a higher power etc. I think many people would be much the same.

I don't disagree that people blowing up other people because they want to meet loads of virgins or because God told them too is bad. That's why radical Muslims and Tony Blair are dangerous people. I just think some people should be allowed to have faith without being mocked.

[Dr Nowt]

I just tried. He can.

 

Lord, it's a miracle.

[Red Phoenix]

Luckily for the dhali Llama, he doesnt have to live in the real world.

 

The Dalai Lama is the head of the Gelug School of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is one of the newest major traditions of Buddhism. What I quoted was written by a Theravadan monk, and Theravada is one of the oldest surviving traditions on the planet. And what he was saying echoes what Buddhists for thousands of years have said regarding the same issue. At the same time, hundreds of millions of Buddhists do live in the "real world", and most of them probably have the same take on this.

 

So what you said makes no sense at all, basically.

[Josef Svejk]

Firstly, what definition of toleration are you using? And secondly, in what way am I a "zealot"?

 

I'd like to say at this point that I was agnostic about the prospect that you were talking out of your backside, but it would be a lie.

 

Belatedly back to this.

 

(1) Your first question rests on confusion: between matters moral and matters conceptual. I referred to a moral principle from your ideological stockpile (the Lockean principle of toleration) - in order to hint at possible incoherence in your overall liberal position. So, (i) you suggest that Locke was 'intolerant' in certain respects (which is historically true, but philosophically inconsequential) and (ii) you ask me for my definition of 'toleration' (which might be worth offering if it were remotely relevant in this context).

 

(2) I take you to be an ideological 'zealot' in the sense that you offer not so much your own opinions as those someone with your ideological commitments should offer. That's why you're so utterly predictable. Your ideology does your thinking for you. Even if your ideology were the least objectionable of all known or possible ideologies, you would remain intellectually lazy (on the most charitable interpretation).

 

As for whether I'm talking out of my backside, I'll leave that to qualified peers to decide.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Interesting read this thread.

[Strontium]

Belatedly back to this.

 

(1) Your first question rests on confusion: between matters moral and matters conceptual. I referred to a moral principle from your ideological stockpile (the Lockean principle of toleration) - in order to hint at possible incoherence in your overall liberal position. So, (i) you suggest that Locke was 'intolerant' in certain respects (which is historically true, but philosophically inconsequential) and (ii) you ask me for my definition of 'toleration' (which might be worth offering if it were remotely relevant in this context).

 

(2) I take you to be an ideological 'zealot' in the sense that you offer not so much your own opinions as those someone with your ideological commitments should offer. That's why you're so utterly predictable. Your ideology does your thinking for you. Even if your ideology were the least objectionable of all known or possible ideologies, you would remain intellectually lazy (on the most charitable interpretation).

 

As for whether I'm talking out of my backside, I'll leave that to qualified peers to decide.

 

So many words. I'm nominating this for Pseud's Corner in Private Eye.

 

Assuming I've understood correctly, your attitude seems to rest on a couple of things I would take issue with.

 

Firstly, that tolerance requires those who disagree to shut up about it. Tolerance just means I have to permit people to express themselves, and nothing more.

 

Secondly, and much more egregiously, the idea that rationalism amounts to something dogmatic or ideological. You might as well claim that mathematicians are zealots because they always get 4 when they add 2 and 2.

 

I don't consider it intellectually lazy to be "zealously" attached to reality, nor is it intellectually lazy to always apply a consistent rule, namely rationalism, to situations. It is predictable, because it's supposed to be.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Reality? Any chance you can enlighten me on that?

[ElishaScottBC]

And that folks is how to dodge bullets with style and finesse!

 

[Josef Svejk]

So many words. I'm nominating this for Pseud's Corner in Private Eye.

 

Assuming I've understood correctly, your attitude seems to rest on a couple of things I would take issue with.

 

Firstly, that tolerance requires those who disagree to shut up about it. Tolerance just means I have to permit people to express themselves, and nothing more.

 

Secondly, and much more egregiously, the idea that rationalism amounts to something dogmatic or ideological. You might as well claim that mathematicians are zealots because they always get 4 when they add 2 and 2.

 

I don't consider it intellectually lazy to be "zealously" attached to reality, nor is it intellectually lazy to always apply a consistent rule, namely rationalism, to situations. It is predictable, because it's supposed to be.

 

You haven't understood, clearly. Which is why you're resorting to insults.

 

Your response to the first point is completely immaterial to anything I've said.

 

Your response to the second point suggests some kind of mental illness. Your normative claims are not constitutive of reality. I'm sorry to break that to you.

[Rico1304]

Reality? Any chance you can enlighten me on that?

Aren't we waiting for your response? Apologies if I've missed it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Aren't we waiting for your response? Apologies if I've missed it.

I'll be replying to all your posts here, Stu. I can barely grab a minute at my desk though.

I'll make time to be enlightened on reality, though. I'd actually give up my job and spending time with my family to be enlightened on something as important as that.

[Jose Jones]

Mate, nobody is arguing that an interventionist god exists but they are definitely arguing that I'm not allowed to compare that god to other nonsense things.

 

That's the crux here that everyone disagreeing with me seems intent on dancing around.

 

Also the idea that I'm cartoonising god by talking about the God that almost everyone who believes in a god perceives is absolutely ridiculous. Willfully so.

 

Nah, you of course can compare god to unicorns and other nonsense things if your intent is to ridicule.  Go right ahead.

 

But if you are trying to have a logical and intelligent discussion regarding human belief in God without at least tipping your cap in the direction of  all the reasons as to why people believe - the historical and cultural aspect of it, the shifting nature of belief, the limits and growth of human understanding, etc. etc. - and how that might be pretty obviously different from unicorns, then you are going to come across as either a bit rude, disingenuous or stupid.

Dawkins started out in column a, quickly made it through b and is closing in rapidly on c.

[Rico1304]

I'll make time to be enlightened on reality, though. I'd actually give up my job and spending time with my family to be enlightened on something as important as that.

Nice words. So we're still waiting then?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Nice words. So we're still waiting then?

Yes. And you'll wait until I've got time to write a response. Only then can you dismiss it and carry on being a twat. Well, you can be a twat in the meantime, I guess.