RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007

RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/14/2009 9:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain When I started the thread I was extremely tired and my mind was not thinking efficiently. I do love Dawkins but I meant the other guy. He was new to me but after listening to him I don't see much difference between either of them. Regardless, I'm not sure what you mean by AGW. Acronym Definition AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming

Esinn -> Religion is Beer Goggles for the irrational (11/14/2009 10:56:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: Atheists need people to believe in god just so they can have someone to tell they are wrong. My question, for both sides, is "who cares what you believe...?" Honestly, I do share my belief structures with some folks, but I don't go hunting up opportunities to tell people what I believe and make them change what -they- believe to suit what I believe. The people that I talk to are either curious and ask, or already share similar philosophical and spiritual views as I do, so we sit around comparing notes. If someone is a theist, and that helps hir sleep at night, more power to hir. If another is non-theistic, and xhe is at peace with the choice, well, then, so be it. The theists can get together and talk about their theist theories, and the non-theists can talk about their non-theistic theories, and just leave one another the heck alone. DC Religion is an irrational belief which makes exclusive contradictory truth statements/claims. These claims are accepted as fact. The problem not a shred of evidence exists or has ever existed to demonstrate truth to these facts.. Each side demands they are right calling upon the same evidence the other side uses to claim they are right. Oddly enough as we progress and science advances we know many(most) of these facts were lies, misinformation, pious fraud or otherwish human invention. Convincing oneself of a truth without evidence or in direct contradiction to evidence is dangerous. History has taught us this lesson time and time again. The social friction(I am right/you are not. You are sinful/I am not - ETC) has been and is one of the greatest cause of human suffering(the greatest cause?). I care about theism with the same passion I desire to end racism, sexism and homophobia(all by the way are deeply rooted in most modern theist beliefs). With 15 million non-theists in the USA(Less than 14 million live in my state, I believe) what you think or desire to care about is not important, your opinion if pro theist is unimportant. I am sure rich white christian slave owners made similar statements less than 200 yrs ago. After are just black people, who cares? Beside god on numerous occasions promoted slavery - god can not be wrong. It was just their way of life tied with delusional beliefs. I understand you point of view. Just as people were conditioned to accept slavery you have been conditioned to accept theism. Although it took hundreds of years society progressed(regardless of what the bible) despite the fact they were just black people.... Most rational people now a days feel different. Very sincerely though.... 95% + of the politicians in this country along with 70% + of the business owners, managers or decision makers are theist. Atheism challenges and even attacks the most personal values of these individuals. Yet, in the last 150 years atheism has grown quicker than it has in the last 1,500. Religion offers nothing to a society or culture wishing to move forward. If you disagree I do not care.

Fellow -> RE: Religion is Beer Goggles for the irrational (11/15/2009 1:23:01 AM)
quote: Religion offers nothing to a society or culture wishing to move forward. If you disagree I do not care. The one aspect of theism is the existence of higher (compared to human) consciousness (God). The argument: we do not need God to explain the World (Dennett) does not prove anything. The idea that the simpler model is the right one is not science. Sometimes we prefer a simpler working model but we move to more complex if things do not fit. The complicated problems do not (usually) have simple answers. The organized religion and religious practices have little to do with the philosophical questions. Some practices are irrational but it can not be used as an argument (Dennett) against religious World view. Humans have (self-)destructive violent nature. Organized religion has been essential throughout the history to restrain it. This is a fact. The other restraining force is education. I do not think the last is developed enough to replace the organized religion. There is plenty of evidence to support it. US society moves forward on self-destructive path. The economic system (unlimited consumption) is almost absurd. It may need more religion. Many religious people just pretend to be.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 5:51:26 AM)
DC it's not like atheists only started speaking out against the idea of god after 911 or other spiritual driven atrocities, besides how many people got comfort from their spirituality during these times? You can argue that ignorance is good or bad in these situations, people need their coping mechanisms. Believing in Halloween could be dangerous because it just promotes blackmail or begging, if looked at objectively in terms of influence on human beings then traditions like this should be next on the hit list.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 6:27:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel SL4, that slander doesn't at all reflect reality. For instance Dennett has a day job. Dennett is currently (April 2009) the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, University Professor, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies (with Ray Jackendoff) at Tufts University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett If atheism became moot point within our lifetime Dennett and Dawkins would still have plenty to do and plenty to write about. Firstly from a legal perspective I suppose I'm committing the act of libel not slander specifically. In terms of their motives behind their speeches or lectures (since I don't know their history intimately) I can only go by how much they mention their publications or the publications of others they agree with. I like this idea of yours that if you took away the idea of god and along with it all the other things theorised about (but unable to prove) in philosophy that they'd be much left for the likes of Dawkins and Dannett to discuss. God is a philosophical idea like Schroeder’s cat; could you imagine: " Schroeder’s cat; I'm telling you the cat is definitely dead and not both dead and alive at the same time" "Oh ok then, thanks for that." What would be the next question to consider: freewill verses determinism? Isn't that god related i.e. asking if there is a plan set beyond your ability to control or if you decide how events occur? So many questions inherently relate to the idea of 'if a creator exists or not', if we settle the idea of god once and for all then logically we are answering many other (on the face of it unrelated) questions with this new absolute truth. The atheist is a terrible thing for philosophy in my view because they take away a proposed idea just by saying the proposed idea is wrong, they don't then replace that idea with a better more realistic alternative. Such people also get bogged down in spiritual texts by discussing if they are true or false i.e. written by god or not, I can tell you the bible isn't the word of god and I've not even read it. If I scanned a zebra with a barcode reader and a message appeared saying "I exist" then I'd consider that credible evidence that nature was created through intelligence, not some text written through human emotion about what the human author wants or needs god to be. People (atheists) take the untruths written in such texts (that we all know are untruths) and state these as proof that a god doesn't exist. Perhaps the idea is right but the human interpretation of what that god wants or needs is entirely wrong. So who is wrong people from various cultures theorising through history that the universe around us was created or the atheists telling us no it wasn't? Why put one set of people on a greater footing than others, ultimately you are making an emotional choice in terms of who you think has given it more thought and if they agree more or less with what you personally think.

dcnovice -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 7:35:21 AM)
SlaveMaybe, my point was simply that what other people believe/fear can affect us all profoundly, either for good (Civil Rights Movement) or ill (Inquisition).

GotSteel -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 7:42:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Firstly from a legal perspective I suppose I'm committing the act of libel not slander specifically. That's correct; I thought it unlikely that you'd know what the word libel meant. quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 In terms of their motives behind their speeches or lectures (since I don't know their history intimately) I can only go by how much they mention their publications or the publications of others they agree with. No, you could actually research them a little in order to come up with statements that made sense. That would certainly be the responsible thing to do. quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 I like this idea of yours that if you took away the idea of god and along with it all the other things theorized about (but unable to prove) in philosophy that they'd be much left for the likes of Dawkins and Dannett to discuss. False, that's not my position. Please stop straw manning me. You should also research the common forms of atheism, your arguments aren't remotely reality based there either.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 8:21:13 AM)
I've been through all this before with you and don't much like repeating myself especially to someone who's main aim seems to be scoring points rather than entering into a discussion. Yes I could research what drives people but I'm likely to only find loads of PR bunk written favourably about them or by their faithful supporters such as yourself. We all make judgements about one another based on the exposure we have to these people. Sorry I can't conduct thorough research on everyone I hold an opinion about based on my exposure to them. Simply I don't have the time and based on experience any such work undertaken will prove fruitless; since when was that last time anyone left something negatively written about them stand? I simply ask myself what do any of these people in general, not just him, have to gain by acting in the same way as the religious figures they despise? Perhaps they are modern day saints enlightening us all and we should be thankful for their insight or perhaps they just like people hanging on every word they say much like any religious figure does. You stop thinking for yourself if you start listening to such people without any kind of consideration for a balancing argument against what they say. p.s. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Firstly from a legal perspective I suppose I'm committing the act of libel not slander specifically. That's correct; I thought it unlikely that you'd know what the word libel meant. I know this is a small finicky point but I expect people to use words accurately if they expect people reading them to understand what they are saying. It is also impossible, more generally speaking, for me to slander or libel anyone here unless I am stating something as fact rather than offering an opinion. Why you even used such language is beyond me, was it just to give some much needed oomph to your writing?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religion is Beer Goggles for the irrational (11/15/2009 4:07:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: Religion offers nothing to a society or culture wishing to move forward. If you disagree I do not care. The one aspect of theism is the existence of higher (compared to human) consciousness (God). The argument: we do not need God to explain the World (Dennett) does not prove anything. Nor does "this is unexplainable so I'll add god to the mix to explain it"The idea that the simpler model is the right one is not science. Sometimes we prefer a simpler working model but we move to more complex if things do not fit. The complicated problems do not (usually) have simple answers. The organized religion and religious practices have little to do with the philosophical questions. Some practices are irrational but it can not be used as an argument (Dennett) against religious World view. Humans have (self-)destructive violent nature. Organized religion has been essential throughout the history to restrain it. This is a fact. no, this is an asinine statement when more people have been killed in the name of one god or another than for any other reason The other restraining force is education.and atheism correlates very well with education I do not think the last is developed enough to replace the organized religion. There is plenty of evidence to support it. US society moves forward on self-destructive path. The economic system (unlimited consumption) is almost absurd. It may need more religion. Many religious people just pretend to be.

Fellow -> RE: Religion is Beer Goggles for the irrational (11/15/2009 5:59:12 PM)
quote: Nor does "this is unexplainable so I'll add god to the mix to explain it" Why not; God hypothesis is acceptable to me. quote: Organized religion has been essential throughout the history to restrain it. This is a fact. no, this is an asinine statement when more people have been killed in the name of one god or another than for any other reason I see religion as a positive force in general. There have been negative aspects historically but the enforcement of moral behavior through spirituality and fear by religion can not be discounted. Educated people would engage in moral behavior normally as a way of life. So, the atheism has no relevance here.

GotSteel -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 7:49:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 I've been through all this before with you and don't much like repeating myself especially to someone who's main aim seems to be scoring points rather than entering into a discussion. Your right I haven't been entering into a discussion, the thread doesn't have a topic to discuss; just a link. It's a Brain thread, it's just kind of how it goes.[sm=dunno.gif] It's not as though your taking pot shots at atheists using false assertions really constitutes much of a discussion either.

slaveluci -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 8:03:11 PM)
You know what the best "reason" of all to believe in God is? Because someone chooses to. It's his/her right and no amount of derision should change that. If you don't believe, that's great. If someone does, that's great. It shouldn't affect your belief system one little bit if someone else chooses to believe in something that you do not. You can quote me................luci

Brain -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/15/2009 8:13:01 PM)
Believe whatever you want but when people start blowing themselves up as suicide bombers killing innocent people or starting wars that's when I say enough is enough.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religion is Beer Goggles for the irrational (11/16/2009 2:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: Nor does "this is unexplainable so I'll add god to the mix to explain it" Why not; God hypothesis is acceptable to me. quote: Organized religion has been essential throughout the history to restrain it. This is a fact. no, this is an asinine statement when more people have been killed in the name of one god or another than for any other reason I see religion as a positive force in general. There have been negative aspects historically but the enforcement of moral behavior through spirituality and fear by religion can not be discounted. Educated people would engage in moral behavior normally as a way of life. So, the atheism has no relevance here. It may be "acceptable to you" but it does absolutely nothing to actually explain whatever it is you feel is undefined. I see religion as a destructive force in general. It stifles the individual, rallys masses into atrocious behavior, and socially acceptable behavior can be reinforced without resorting to fairy tales.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/16/2009 2:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci You know what the best "reason" of all to believe in God is? Because someone chooses to. It's his/her right and no amount of derision should change that. If you don't believe, that's great. If someone does, that's great. It shouldn't affect your belief system one little bit if someone else chooses to believe in something that you do not. You can quote me................luci Im glad you put "reason" in quotes, since what you posted isnt a reason at all.

Fellow -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/16/2009 3:19:36 PM)
quote: Believe whatever you want but when people start blowing themselves up as suicide bombers killing innocent people or starting wars that's when I say enough is enough. What can you do about it? Russian communists declared Atheism an official belief and burned churches, nothing good came out of it. The connection between religion and suicide attacks is complex and the politics can not be cut out of the equation (that is the case with all religious wars).

DarkVictory -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/16/2009 3:31:20 PM)
One of the things not said so far in the thread, unless I missed it, is the utter horror that religion is for the young. Religion of all varieties promotes a belief in the irrational and survives by reaching out to the young and impressionable and training them to turn their rationality off in certain areas. It encourages them to embrace the positions of borderline insanity.

mnottertail -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/16/2009 3:32:35 PM)
not to mention having to go to tuesday school, until you get confirmed, instead of chasing skirt.

subfever -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/16/2009 8:47:38 PM)
As far as the existence or non-existence of an intelligent, supreme-being creator is concerned, there is no proof either way. One can only choose to believe or choose not to believe. The question then becomes: Why does one choose to believe or not believe? Why is there even a debate, when neither side can prove their position? The most rational position is "I don't know." Dark Victory hits the nail on the head. Religious "training" (indoctrination is a better description) typically begins when one is young and very impressionable. Religion, along with the other institutions, keeps mankind divided, controlled, distracted, and enslaved. Religion is slavery.

tazzygirl -> RE: Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007 (11/16/2009 8:52:53 PM)
Oddly enough, i find a freedom within my slavery.... as i do my religion.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875