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

Collarspace Discussion Forums

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 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 11:45:40 AM

luckydog1

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

I also walk on water(I did today its called ice) and can turn water into wine(add sugar,yeast, and some fruit, did it last summer) and bring the dead back to life(CPR, been trained but haven't had to do it yet) but only when no one is looking and I object to being studied when I'm doing it.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 181

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 11:47:59 AM

LadyEllen

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

I dont think youre seeing what I'm saying; I'm saying that the "mind" by which you are upholding science, is refuted by pure science, and so nothing which arises from or depends on the mind is reliable - including science and religion. There is no God in such a situation, for our means of apprehending God (the mind) is deemed unreliable and all of its apprehensions therefore equally flawed.

Given that we all agree that we do have a mind, or at least must work on that assumption, then we must question why it is that, in pure scientific terms we are able to form a mind and thence thoughts and ideas, when in any other circumstance, the same particles interacting in the same way do not produce conciousness. To jump to the conclusion that this is a suggestion of the "God hiding" proposition is most unscientific, strangely. It suggests rather, that pure science can offer no explanation for us having minds, and yet we have them, and so demonstrates that pure science is not the tool for the job, and from that, that pure science cannot be used for every question we might have - including the question of God, by whatever nature we understand that concept, as either a function of the mind itself or as something outside, which can be apprehended solely by way of our minds.

E

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 182

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 11:51:24 AM

luckydog1

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

The sky is bue and the earth is round because of the physical laws of this universe(physics). Where did those rules come from? A God/force is one answer. They just have to be, is another. ( what force would make them have to be that way?) Current science says that according to scientific laws, the universe could not have come into being, the physics would not work. So they say that in the early universe the laws of Physics were different. Hence they are not immutable and unchanging( ie they do not have to be the way they are, and they have not allways been so).

< Message edited by luckydog1 -- 1/4/2007 12:04:11 PM >

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 183

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:00:53 PM

luckydog1

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

So bassically we have some people arguing that all things must be through science, that's how we know things. Yet science neither prooves nor disprooves the existance of a God force. Science does infer that there are more dimensions, and something beyond our universe, which by definition is supernatural( beyond the natural). So people are claiming that all must be known through science, yet assert an scientifically unproven hypothesis, ie that there is no form of God whatsoever. And they posit science as proof of there being no God, when it states no such thing. This is pure hypocrisy. It is interesting "Science" is turning into its own little cult, based on faith(my prefered branch of epitemology is correct, Why? Because I prefer it.) and unsupported by Science.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 184

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:03:17 PM

Chaingang

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

God of the gaps again.

No, I don't know the first cause and no I cannot infinitely support my first assumptions. But that doesn't mean that all possible answers are equally valid - I simply don't know right now. Occam's Razor [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor ], which is continually validated heuristically, suggest that some causes are far likely than others (see my previous post).

Also, epistemology is philosophy, not hard science. It is also not faith. Epistemology is an approach to information with an eye to ever further refining the idea of what is actually known. It also doesn't have all of the answers hidden somewhere within it.

And as I have stated, my tendency is to approach all matters with skepticism - more sure of my lack of understanding than anything else. It is precisely because I don't know that I have real chance of finding out the truth of any matter. Pragmatism is my other guiding light. Some things have practical uses and others basically don't.

Your fire analogy fails in my view. I can't ever recall a time when someone suggested to me that wood caught fire because god willed it so. Fire occurs because of observable phenomena that has been recorded and replicated many times. One cause leading to another cause, etc - all steps in a chain of activities leading to fire. You would seem to want some huge mystery behind every activity, but I am sorry - some things do have accepted explanations. We call these explanations theories as nothing is considered a final truth.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 185

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:08:10 PM

Chaingang

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Given that we all agree that we do have a mind, or at least must work on that assumption...

I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe in mind, spirit, or soul. I believe in nervous systems. Nervous systems have been observed.

What is this "pure science" of which you speak? It comes across as an evasion of some sort.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 186

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:10:26 PM

Chaingang

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

God is merely unlikely, not disproven. Just how many times must that be stated?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 187

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:12:30 PM

meatcleaver

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

So bassically we have some people arguing that all things must be through science, that's how we know things. Yet science neither prooves nor disprooves the existance of a God force. Science does infer that there are more dimensions, and something beyond our universe, which by definition is supernatural( beyond the natural). So people are claiming that all must be known through science, yet assert an scientifically unproven hypothesis, ie that there is no form of God whatsoever. And they posit science as proof of there being no God, when it states no such thing. This is pure hypocrisy. It is interesting "Science" is turning into its own little cult, based on faith(my prefered branch of epitemology is correct, Why? Because I prefer it.) and unsupported by Science.

People aren't arguing that all things exist through science. Science is the tool with which we search for knowledge but just because that knowledge is incomplete at the moment and may never be complete, it doesn't mean that god exists in any shape or form and when I say god, a supernatural god that lives beyond the laws of physics and can intervene in them at will.

No one has posited proof that god doesn't exist, we know one can't prove god doesn't exist but the knowledge accumulated since the middleages has slowly occupied that which was once the province of god and continues to do so and there is no reason to believe it will not continue to do so. Religion has been in retreat for centuries and now relies on sticking its tongue out and saying science can't prove god doesn't exist. Well if that is all religion is based on, you can keep it.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/4/2007 12:13:50 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 188

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:17:05 PM

luckydog1

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

Epitomology is conflicted and teaches nothing, the various schools do not agree at all. It can not be pointed to as a source for anything, except intersting discussions. Or as you use it, a psuedo scientific talisman, an article of faith. I never said any such thing as all possible answers are equally valid, infact in the question at hand there are only 2 answers...there is a god force/supernatural or there isnt. One's right, one's wrong. If there isn't, the universe came from nowhere- for no reason, seems rather unlikely to me, and seems to be a violation of Occam's razor. For most of Man's history we had no idea what fire was. In fact it was thought to have come from the gods in the greek pagan tradition, and the one who stole it from the gods was punished severly. My point was that science is not neccessary to make fire. Yes, every time you piss off the faires in a stick they got hot and burst into flames, observable, and replicable, but not science. That is not what I think, but it is what was thought for millenia before the concept of Science existed. And it is proof that science is not needed to make fire.

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 189

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:27:54 PM

Tikkiee

Posts: 1099
Joined: 4/6/2006
Status: offline

~~Not directed at anyone in particular~~

I am a scientist. I look for answers to things that others are willing to accept on belief.

I also know that by taking this approach, as the years go on, many of the ideas that I BASE MY BELIEFS on will either be proven or dis-proven.

It is impossible to either prove or disprove a belief

Yet, one can acquire actual factual proof that is possible to prove or disprove some of the ideas that you base this belief on.

The existence of a supernatural being will never be proven or dis-proven by science simply because one can not prove or disprove a belief.

_____________________________

~~@ cass @~~

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 190

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:30:08 PM

Chaingang

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
I also walk on water(I did today its called ice) and can turn water into wine(add sugar,yeast, and some fruit, did it last summer) and bring the dead back to life(CPR, been trained but haven't had to do it yet) but only when no one is looking and I object to being studied when I'm doing it.

Gee, why not let the ice, wine, and breath fairies do these things for you?

If you use and believe in science, how about getting with the program and scoring one for the team?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 191

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 12:31:23 PM

Chaingang

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
And it is proof that science is not needed to make fire.

Exactly, science merely explains how it's done. This is great if you happen to want a gas range in your home!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 192

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 2:01:12 PM

Chaingang

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

I take back everything I have stated in this thread - apparently there is real proof of the divine existence of Jesus:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/offbeat/2007/01/03/dunlap.jesus.in.a.tree.wjxt&checkAgain=false&wm=native_nm

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 193

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 2:28:32 PM

luckydog1

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

That does not change that I and many people believe there is a spritual component to the Universe and life. That the Physics that makes fire burn and gas ranges work, comes from somewhere. That natural gas burns in no way disproves the existance of God. That something can not come from nothing. Intelligent Design. So as I understand , not you or anyone on this thread is actually arguing that science prooves there is not God. Is that correct.

We are all in agreement that science in no way disprooves the existance of God? It literally can not.
We all agree that Dawkins does not use science in anyway to disproove the existance of God? (If science can not do it, he can not do it with science). He does however present rehtorical arguments(pianting mental pictures).
The Original Post was "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." Does Science in anyway proove that Belief in God is irrational? No it can not. Does Dawkins base his belief on Science, No. Can it be shown that religion inflicts great harm on societies? Again no, it can not. Can one agree with Dawkins, Yes, but it is not science based or rational to do so, it is an act of faith. Can we all believe what ever we want? Yes. Has everyone including myself used widley varying differences in what words like God or Religion mean? Yes. Is anyone going to change thier opinions due to this thread?, very unlikley.

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 194

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 2:35:19 PM

Chaingang

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Does Science in anyway proove that Belief in God is irrational? No it can not.

It is not reasonable, logical, nor parsimonious to believe in god. Hence I think it can be safely concluded that such a belief - entirely unsupported by any evidence whatever - is irrational.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Can it be shown that religion inflicts great harm on societies? Again no, it can not.

Um...religious intolerance? Holy wars? Recommending people not use condoms so they can overpopulate the planet and also die of AIDS?

You must try to keep up with current events...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 195

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 2:58:38 PM

luckydog1

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

Plenty of non religous wars to go around. Plenty of political and racial intolerance to go around. Chain, you stated that people like me had no place in society, that's real tolerant. The Hundreds of millions of people killed by Athiests in the 20th century. The uncountable millions killed with the tools derived from science. If using a gas range means you have to accept there is not God, so does using a machine gun, or do these things only count when in your favor?. The uncalculable damage done to our ecosystem by scientists. The fast approaching Genetic damage. All thanks to Science. It is reasonable, logical and parsimonius to believe there is a God. I understand you have a faith, and get very angry when it is challenged. I know I am not going to change you. As Meat says, "religion has been in retreat for centuries", look at what it has brought us. Polution, nukes, unprecedented disease, Overpopulation( the population Boom started long before Condoms were invented), perhaps catastrophic global warming. Basically technology without Morals. Science gives us no Moral Code, at best it gives us Darwinism( which really was the moral code of the 20th century) might makes right, and the strong should prey on the weak. Interestingly, all the past(just, non polluting, sustainable) societies that Meat is so enamored with were extremly religous.

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 196

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 3:33:14 PM

Chaingang

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

I'm not angry at all. I find your saying so ridiculous.

People still use "The Book of the Conquest" as justification for claiming the "Promised Land." That's harm with a provable cause. It's sad that you refuse to recognize that. If you would like to start another thread bashing science go right ahead, but that's not really on point for this thread.

I don't recall saying that there was no place in society for the likes of you. I do find you hypocritical, however. Everything you note above as a harm caused by science is only knowable through scientific processes and measurement. You take the benefits and then undermine the foundations of scientific knowledge as a religious apologist.

I am not the one creating sodomy laws or trying to tell others the terms under which they may copulate. I am not out to outlaw same sex marriages. I am not out to do any of the numerous things religious hooligans try to do every day. And yet you claim that religions cause no harm and create no controversy. It is demonstrable that religions indoctrinate people to stone age myths and ethical systems. They organize political groups to further the ends of this complex and myopic indoctrination. And yet you claim no harm is caused.

Well, I see the harm.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 197

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 3:45:27 PM

meatcleaver

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

As Meat says, "religion has been in retreat for centuries", look at what it has brought us. Polution, nukes, unprecedented disease, Overpopulation( the population Boom started long before Condoms were invented), perhaps catastrophic global warming. Basically technology without Morals. Science gives us no Moral Code, at best it gives us Darwinism( which really was the moral code of the 20th century) might makes right, and the strong should prey on the weak. Interestingly, all the past(just, non polluting, sustainable) societies that Meat is so enamored with were extremly religous.

Religion doesn't give moral codes either. Psychologists have done a lot of work in this field and found that human morality is the same across the board and even found that peoples in the Amazon rain forest who have little contact with the outside world and who don't have a formal religion give the same answers to questions about moral and ethical dilemmas as religious and atheist people do. (the questions were adapted to their environment.)

In short, morals appear to have developed in us through natural selection.

Morals breakdown when people are defending irrational beliefs and whether these are religious or quasi-religious political beliefs such as fascism or ideological communism, it makes no difference.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/4/2007 3:49:02 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 198

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 3:57:03 PM

eyesopened

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Does Science in anyway proove that Belief in God is irrational? No it can not.

It is not reasonable, logical, nor parsimonious to believe in god. Hence I think it can be safely concluded that such a belief - entirely unsupported by any evidence whatever - is irrational.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Can it be shown that religion inflicts great harm on societies? Again no, it can not.

Um...religious intolerance? Holy wars? Recommending people not use condoms so they can overpopulate the planet and also die of AIDS?

You must try to keep up with current events...

As one who has studied the various religions of the world i can say with certainty that "religion" has done no such thing as recommend people not use condoms! There's a huge difference between spiritual belief in a power beyond oneself and the influence of madmen using the power of their offices, whether through organized religion or government or military or any number of clubs, social organizations, cults, etc. Extremely few religious sects are against birth control and i can't think of a single one that is against disease prevention. "Holy War" would suppose that every individual who upheld a specific dogma agrees with that war and i sugges that not every Muslim in the world agrees with current "holy wars" any more than every American agrees with the current war in Iraq just because they are American.

These kinds of sweeping generalizations are not even facts but are designed simply to incite and inflame and should be left out of the discussion.

_____________________________

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)

Post #: 199

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti ... - 1/4/2007 4:05:29 PM

Zensee

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

As one who has studied the various religions of the world i can say with certainty that "religion" has done no such thing as recommend people not use condoms!

You aren't a very attentive student apparently. There's this little religion called Roman Catholicism which has spent decades preventing the use of condoms, especially in the developing countries.

Got any more of your own "sweeping generalizations {which} are not even facts but are designed simply to incite and inflame and should be left out of the discussion."?

Pot / kettle / black ad infinitum...

Z.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to eyesopened)

Post #: 200

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094