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

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:38:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 In the risk of repeating myself, no one can answer the ultimate question. Religion is just an irrational answer to it. I prefer no answer to an irrational answer. In that respect, god is irrelevent. Allright I finally got you to admit it is simply your preference. And your preferences are rational, and others are delusional. I fear to my core if your ilk ever gets power. It's not the preference it's the evidence. I'd be more inclined to fear leaders who aren't rational. Z

seeksfemslave -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:38:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Well what made the universe you may ask and I will ask, who made god? If god came out of nothing then I don't see why the universe shouldn't have come out of nothing. No one is ever going to find out so god is irrelevent. If thats your faith you are welcome to it, but it ain't backed up by science. In the risk of repeating myself, no one can answer the ultimate question. Religion is just an irrational answer to it. I prefer no answer to an irrational answer. In that respect, god is irrelevent. Its fairly clear I think that the question of first cause is one that is simply outside the capacity of the human mind/consciousness, itself a trancendental mystery, to deal with. That alone should give anti Deists pause for thought. Something that arrogant humans will NEVER comprehend. The fact that better mousetraps have been constructed, that some of religious persuasion hold odd views, that some fascistic/communistic governments have or have not been quasi religious is neither here nor there. Scientists do not create any thing new, they observe and formulate rules for phenomena that already exist. Some things are outside their remit.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:41:15 AM)
No. Its what leads you to that decision. You either take the route of reason which pushes god further and further out of the equation until that final leap is not that great or you take the irrational route of religion and take a absolutely huge leap of faith. Like I said that is your faith You make completely unfunded claims( societies with out religion) and pretend that is rational. You only use the parts of sciencetific theories that you like, and ignore the parts you don't, and pretend it's rational. It's not.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:43:00 AM)
Zensee, what evidence?

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:50:30 AM)
Well what made the universe you may ask and I will ask, who made god? If god(God if he exists is outside of our space/ time, and is posited as being eternal. Which in a realm beyond time makes perfect sense) came out of nothing then I don't see why the universe( science says it had a start point and will end, hence it is not eternal) shouldn't have come out of nothing( it would violate several scientific laws). No one is ever going to find out so god is irrelevent(perhaps to you(subjective) but to most of those who ever lived he was very relevant).

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:58:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Scientists do not create any thing new, they observe and formulate rules for phenomena that already exist. Some things are outside their remit. What? You mean the intarweb was here all along, just waiting to be described? Those shifty, soulless scientists! Whatever cannot be described by science isn't going to be made any clearer by the arbitrary inclusion of a deity. Maybe simpler, but that's just convenience. Z.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:00:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I would place Russian and Chinese communism in the same category as German fascism as a quasi-religious belief, they all had the trappings of religion and none of the rational of people who reached the conclusion there isn't a god through reason. Their beliefs are as irrational as any religious belief. Budhism is a philosophy and not a religion in many people's eyes. Confucianism the same so that takes in just about all of China and large parts of south east asia. Let me see if i understand. If it looks like politics but is bad, it must be religion or quasi-religion but if it looks like religion but is good, it is just a philosophy. Did i understand it correctly? Now, i'm even more confused, are the Chinese a society without a religion because the majority of citizens are Budhist or are the Chinese a quasi-religious society because they are communist?

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:02:56 AM)
Scientists do science. Engineers apply science( what the scientists have learned). Engineers built the Web for the war machine to handle several nuclear blasts and still be able to communicate. That we can look for BDSM partners and argue politics and reliigion is just a nice bonus to it.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:04:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 You calling Jefferson a liar? I don't think you know the first thing about Jefferson or his views. It's also clear to me you didn't read the quotes I linked to earlier. Here are two again: "The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to his nephew, Peter Carr "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, July 5, 1814 In case you wonder about it, Jefferson is complaining about what are primarily Pauline overlays in the New Testament.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Zensee, what evidence? Certainly not the evidence that deists have none of. But that is of no matter because belief in deity is a leap of faith. I don't understand the need to have science confirm the existence of god. It can't. If you want to believe, do so - just don't call it science. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Scientists do science. Engineers apply science( what the scientists have learned). Engineers built the Web for the war machine to handle several nuclear blasts and still be able to communicate. That we can look for BDSM partners and argue politics and reliigion is just a nice bonus to it. I see you got one of those super duper hair splitters too. Applied science still uses scientific principles. Z.

aSlavesLife -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:29:26 AM)
I have been avoiding this thread for the most part, as these debates always seem to erupt into anger on both sides. But I would like to toss in a couple of points that seem to be unclear. Survival of the fittest does not refer to the strong destroying the weak. It reflects strong adaptation features aiding a species survival in certain environments. Those species less able to cope with an environmental shift ( less strong ) will have less chance at passing along their genes. The ones with genetic advantages for a changed environment ( strong ) will have a greater chance of reproducing, therefore ensuring that their genetic line is continued. But what is an advantage for one environment may be a weakness in another. People that have tried to adapt this observation to society have mangled the meaning of the term. They are also guilty of the naturalistic fallacy. The other point concerns deities, the universe, and Occam's razor. The short version of Occam's razor would be " When presented with two answers which both provide a solution to a problem, the simplest answer tends to be the best one. " For this reason many physicists and astronomers tend to think that the universe formed as a natural occurrence rather than invoking a deity. To invoke a deity makes the solution far more complex as one then not only has to explain the occurrence of the universe, but is also faced with the impossible burden of explaining the occurrence of the deity, the machinations in which the deity manipulated energy to create the universe, and what formula the deity used to create the energy needed to create the universe. These people see the universe as a natural phenomenon, and see no more use in injecting a divine source into the solution than they would to inject a divine source into other natural phenomena such as hurricanes, snowflakes, or lightning.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:51:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Scientists do science. Engineers apply science( what the scientists have learned). Engineers built the Web for the war machine to handle several nuclear blasts and still be able to communicate. That we can look for BDSM partners and argue politics and reliigion is just a nice bonus to it. If god lit the blue touchpaper and stood back and watched his creation with indifference, then god isn't worth acknowledging. If god is omnipotent and watches the misery of his creation with indifference, then god is a vindictive sadist. If god has created us and placed us in this universe to learn, then he is also a vindictive sadist because god could snap his fingers and teach us everything. In the bible this vindictive god orders genocide and encourages murder etc etc. None of it adds up. All science does is give a rational alternative to this mixed up psychopathic raving lunatic of a diety and any other diety which is more benigh but impotent.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I would place Russian and Chinese communism in the same category as German fascism as a quasi-religious belief, they all had the trappings of religion and none of the rational of people who reached the conclusion there isn't a god through reason. Their beliefs are as irrational as any religious belief. Budhism is a philosophy and not a religion in many people's eyes. Confucianism the same so that takes in just about all of China and large parts of south east asia. Let me see if i understand. If it looks like politics but is bad, it must be religion or quasi-religion but if it looks like religion but is good, it is just a philosophy. Did i understand it correctly? Now, i'm even more confused, are the Chinese a society without a religion because the majority of citizens are Budhist or are the Chinese a quasi-religious society because they are communist? Moaist communism is a quasi-religious as it was based on the cult of the individual like Christianity. Budhism and Confuscianism are philosophies on how to live ones life. It doesn't take many irrational believers to hi-jack a society. The fundies/neo-cons seem to be doing it pretty OK in the US as far as I can tell.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 3:06:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I would place Russian and Chinese communism in the same category as German fascism as a quasi-religious belief, they all had the trappings of religion and none of the rational of people who reached the conclusion there isn't a god through reason. Their beliefs are as irrational as any religious belief. Budhism is a philosophy and not a religion in many people's eyes. Confucianism the same so that takes in just about all of China and large parts of south east asia. Let me see if i understand. If it looks like politics but is bad, it must be religion or quasi-religion but if it looks like religion but is good, it is just a philosophy. Did i understand it correctly? Now, i'm even more confused, are the Chinese a society without a religion because the majority of citizens are Budhist or are the Chinese a quasi-religious society because they are communist? Moaist communism is a quasi-religious as it was based on the cult of the individual like Christianity. Budhism and Confuscianism are philosophies on how to live ones life. It doesn't take many irrational believers to hi-jack a society. The fundies/neo-cons seem to be doing it pretty OK in the US as far as I can tell. So Budhism and Confusicainism can't be cults of the individual because Gautama Buddha and Confucius weren't individuals like Mao or Jesus? i am sorry to be so stupid but i still don't understand.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 3:11:06 AM)
No chain, I am well aware that Jefferson had serious problems with orginized Christianity. you should read up on the Colonial Church of Virginia, it was nightmare. I didnt say he was a christian. But he did believe in God, and he wrote that into the Declaration of Independance. I get it you hate Christianity

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 3:12:34 AM)
Zensee, I was kidding with the web thing. But you did say "It's not the preference it's the evidence. " And I asked what evidence, do you have none?

LadyEllen -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 4:04:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If god lit the blue touchpaper and stood back and watched his creation with indifference, then god isn't worth acknowledging. If god is omnipotent and watches the misery of his creation with indifference, then god is a vindictive sadist. If god has created us and placed us in this universe to learn, then he is also a vindictive sadist because god could snap his fingers and teach us everything. In the bible this vindictive god orders genocide and encourages murder etc etc. None of it adds up. All science does is give a rational alternative to this mixed up psychopathic raving lunatic of a diety and any other diety which is more benigh but impotent. I promised myself I wouldnt get involved in this dead end discussion any further, having "skewered the scientific rationalists" as Seeks observed. But the above illustrates again, that condemning religion solely on the basis of one very incoherent religion - and a religion which arose from the religion of a tribe of misogynistic untouchable desert slaves of entirely different society and culture to us at that, whilst easy is not correct. Put it this way; I agree with every one of MC's statements above, even the benign but impotent deity comment. I will go further - the sooner this confused morass of blithering rubbish is distilled of all the trash that surrounds it, the better. The sooner Christianity becomes what it is - the "saving of souls" (emotive, but such is the term of reference) by way of faith in Jesus as saviour, and discards 90% of its nonsense addenda (99% of the OT, and most of the NT) as well as all of the "heritage" it has incurred by way of the Church, the better - for none of that nonsense is required for the salvation to be effective, (and whether we see it as a psychological or spiritual effect, it is effective), and only tends to obscure and hinder what is vital. Even better, the sooner this vile foreign cancer is removed from every facet of our laws, societies and culture, the sooner we will be able to live without of all the bullshit it has brought with it. Maybe I am biased, and I do acknowledge that a lot of good works have been performed by Christians (notably not the majority who use that name), but every single problem I see in our culture, stems from some piece of outlandish rubbish advanced by or arising from that religion. Including, since it has been brought up earlier, the phenomenon of naziism. In short, wrong God - not God at all in fact, wrong everything from that initial flaw, in what is being called religion in much of this thread. In such a situation it is easy to demolish religion, and it is a demolition I will gladly participate in if we are to restrict ourselves to this particular cult. But demolishing one religion because of the obvious flaws in its entire construction, does not demolish Religion as a whole (in its true, all encompassing sense), and does not invalidate the idea of God, by whatever nature we understand that concept. E

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 4:57:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened So Budhism and Confusicainism can't be cults of the individual because Gautama Buddha and Confucius weren't individuals like Mao or Jesus? i am sorry to be so stupid but i still don't understand. As far as I'm aware and I'll stand corrected, Budhism and Confuscianism aren't worshipped in themselves, they divised a philosophy by which to live. Budhists and Confuscians don't invoke the supernatural. Let's take Christianity. Jesus, god and the holy spirit, one god yet three but indivisible (huh?) are worshiped. Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, who made miracles happen in his life, who was killed and rose from the dead and then ascended to heaven. If you pray hard enough he has even been known to intervene in someones life. It just becomes absurd. Yep. Budhism has some wierd ideas, karma and reincarnation but there is no supernatural god to invoke. Moa having no more power than any other individual encouraged hero worship and above human powers to be projected onto him as though he was a sort of mesaih some Jesus figure.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 6:35:13 AM)
Clearly this thread is going round in circles but I think that those who keep responding that Scientific Rationalism is a complete approach to ALL problems, some state it explicitly some obliquely, simply dont understand the point of view of those who disagree. I am not religious in any formal way, I earned a meagre living in the Telecomms. industry, very interested in Science/Technology but I can still see that the mysteries that those who will look can see point to something beyond the limits of rational thought to comprehend. Those who are religious I suppose try to connect in an emotioanal way based on Faith.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 10:14:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No chain, I am well aware that Jefferson had serious problems with orginized Christianity. you should read up on the Colonial Church of Virginia, it was nightmare. I didnt say he was a christian. But he did believe in God, and he wrote that into the Declaration of Independance. I get it you hate Christianity People express themselves with available language. "Nature," "Nature's God," and "Creator" all seem to me terms being used by someone that doesn't want to come right out and just say "God." There isn't much that he wrote that confirms Jefferson as much of a believer, quite the opposite. And as already explained, the term "agnostic" would take almost another 100 years to come into usage. It takes a long time to break the yoke of indoctrination. But for the time, deism was basically the refuge of the scoffer - one has merely to look at the definition of the word to understand why. --- Deism: [1]deúism. noun. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. --- So what is that exactly? That's exactly the kind of definition you would get if the idea of god were to be interchangeable with the idea of first cause. That's all it is. The use of it is that no one understands the first cause anyway so 200+ years ago the deist created a "god of the gaps" and made him the "creator." Given another hundred years I suspect that most people that were deist would adapt the use of the term "agnostic" instead. aSlavesLife does a good job above of explaining why adding a creator into the first cause mix fails the Occam's Razor maxim. --- BTW, as a further aside I used the term "godspeed" the other day in these forums. As it turns out I do happen to know what it means. It doesn't make me a believer, the term is merely part of English speaking culture and I use the terms available. Likewise when someone sneezes I say the usually expected and polite "bless you" which is short for "god bless you," and of course the whole idea is a verbal charm intended to make sure the person doesn't lose their lose from out of their sneeze. I think it's sheer idiocy to not recognize that the tedious belief in god, long unchallenged, has allowed the idea of god to enter into the language in various ways. The other day congress people were sworn in and made to swear on various holy books that they would uphold the U.S. Constitution. After giving it some thought, I realized that they should all be swearing/affirming on the Constitution itself and that no holy texts should even be allowed.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875