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

seeksfemslave -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 10:37:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Scientists do science. Engineers apply science quote: ORIGINAL Zensee I see you got one of those super duper hair splitters too. Applied science still uses scientific principles. Z. This is NOT hair splitting. The purpose of rigorous science is to formulate and codify that which EXISTS in Nature. The velocity of Light was constant in a vacuum regardless of the motion of the emitting source before ever that fact underpinned the Special Theory of Relativity. A major exception is Natural Selection where convoluted speculation is the order of the day. Giraffe got a long neck to reach higher up the trees. Ho Ho Ho.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 10:48:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But you did say "It's not the preference it's the evidence. " And I asked what evidence, do you have none? I wasn't referring to any specific piece of evidence but the importance of it in general. When choosing the best explanation, direct, verifiable evidence carries much more weight than hearsay. It's not a matter of preferring that there not be a god. The choice is determined by the evidence. For example, fossils are infinitely more persuasive than a fables. Z.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:11:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 You combine darwinism with a lack of morals, and you get something like the nazis. I was just talking with a friend this evening and she pointed out that Nazis had Gott mit uns 'God is with us' engraved on their belts and that Hitler often invoked providence and God to his cause in his speaches and said in 1941 to his adjutant General Engel, he would always be a Catholic. In fact he says in Mein Kampf that killing the Jews as long as its done humanely is carrying out God's work. Weighed against this, he did often denounce and make derogatory remarks during dinner conversation about Christianity being a desease invented by the Jews, though ironically he never considered Jesus to be a Jew. However, if he believed or not, he certainly used religion in a way to promote the genocide against the Jews and there is no doubt that most of those people who carried it out were Christians. The propaganda machine of the Nazi party found religion very useful.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:36:50 PM)
[/quote] I was just talking with a friend this evening and she pointed out that Nazis had Gott mit uns 'God is with us' engraved on their belts and that Hitler often invoked providence and God to his cause in his speaches and said in 1941 to his adjutant General Engel, he would always be a Catholic. In fact he says in Mein Kampf that killing the Jews as long as its done humanely is carrying out God's work. Weighed against this, he did often denounce and make derogatory remarks during dinner conversation about Christianity being a desease invented by the Jews, though ironically he never considered Jesus to be a Jew. However, if he believed or not, he certainly used religion in a way to promote the genocide against the Jews and there is no doubt that most of those people who carried it out were Christians. The propaganda machine of the Nazi party found religion very useful. [/quote] Yes Hitler used Chraistianity. I agree. He also used sceince. But the point of Nazism was not to spread Christianity, but to spread the Master Race, as they determined it through science.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:46:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Yes Hitler used Chraistianity. I agree. He also used sceince. But the point of Nazism was not to spread Christianity, but to spread the Master Race, as they determined it through science. Without religion it is doubtful he could have carried the science or what past for science. Dawkins quoted Seneca which seemed apt. 'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:46:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 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. Confucionism was not the religion of old China. Mix of Animism, Ancestor and Emperor worship was. they beleived in an afterlife and eternal soul. Confuscious taught that people must be Devout in that religion. Bhuddism is certainly a religion, and full of "delusional" beliefs like an eternal souls, a spiritual realm. It also has a supernatural giver of Justice(karma). As well as priests and ritual ect. It meets every test of a religion, and says itself that it is one. As I previously pointed out, in Bhuddist countries there is either another religion like in Japan( shinto) or it is a full blown religion like in Tibet. Intersting distinction you make though, so it also follows that Islam is not a religion? They do not worship Mohamed, just revere him as a prophet, just like Buddists do. Again you can attack Christianity untill the cows come home, I agree mostly. But in that you disagree with Dawkins who opposes ALL religions. Not just the Judeo derived faiths.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:50:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But you did say "It's not the preference it's the evidence. " And I asked what evidence, do you have none? I wasn't referring to any specific piece of evidence but the importance of it in general. When choosing the best explanation, direct, verifiable evidence carries much more weight than hearsay. It's not a matter of preferring that there not be a god. The choice is determined by the evidence. For example, fossils are infinitely more persuasive than a fables. Z. So give me some direct, verifyable evidence. Fossils prove there is no God? How does that work? It does prove that the genisis account is not literal in its time frame, but so what? That in way dispels the notion of the Divine. So since you have no evidence, it is faith you are operating on

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 12:52:21 PM)
[/quote] Without religion it is doubtful he could have carried the science or what past for science. Dawkins quoted Seneca which seemed apt. 'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.' [/quote] If that is your opinion, ok. As you pointed out, religion had been on the retreat(really just in Europe) for centuries, and the Nazis steeped in to fill the void.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:06:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang 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. The concept of Athieism had existed for centuries before Jefferson, and if he felt that way he certainly could have said so. Perhaps he didn't because of politics and popularity, and he was just lying for power. This is disproved by his letters to his familly after he retired from Politics and had nothing to lose. He was very clear that he was not an Athiest, and that reason showed him there was a god( not the litteral God of the State Christianity( he hated that with a passion)). For you to put words in his mouth is kind of amusing( is that Science? ignoring the direct evidence to ge tthe result you want?) American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ag·nos·tic (āg-nŏs'tĭk) Pronunciation Key [image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif[/image] [image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif[/image] n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Jefferson said he was sure there was a God, hence he was not an agnostic One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. No holy texts allowed? Very tolerant of you, they get to swear on what ever they choose, some have even used encyclopedias and such. Maybe some day you will get the power to force others to do as you want( or as you claim rationality(intrepreted by you) demands. But really White Post Christian Europe is on the decline, your numbers are shrinking. Islam is growing by leaps and bounds. So probably not.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 1:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife 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. Natural slection also works intra species, and most certainly is at times the strong destroying the weak. Look at a litter of Puppies for example. They compete for the teats. The stronger push aside the weaker, and often the runts are starved to death by their brothers and sisters, and do not pass on thier genes. Are you saying that is not part of Natural selection? Slow Antelope get eaten. Human societies compete for resources, and the clan driven away from the watering hole will often die off. Also I don't see how just saying "oh its natural" relieves them of the need to determine how. To me explaing how something can come from nothing, for no reason, in violation of the observed laws of Science is pretty complicated. That time and space as we percieve them do not really exist and that there is something out side our universe(supernatural), which caused the creation of our universe, is a much simpler explanation, and would seem to be the Occam's choice. Astronomers aren't concerned with it, and it doesn't matter in thier work, so they do not address the problem. This in no way demonstrates that there is not God of some sort.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:15:36 PM)
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?") In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:41:51 PM)
Chain, that is about Christianity, not God. Why can you not grasp that?

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:50:59 PM)
Jefferson clearly hated orginized Christianity. That is not the same as disbelieving in God, which he most certainly did. "Jefferson's God was the source of moral values. In a letter to his nephew Peter Carr, he wrote that "He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if He had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science."[9] Rather, God made man "with a sense of right and wrong."[10] People were responsible for their actions on earth and would be rewarded or punished in some kind of afterlife." http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html He unequivably states his beliefs in a private letter to his nephew. He directly states he belives in God, an afterlife, and that there will be a judgement. I do not know why you are ignoring his direct words and pretending he felt otherwise. Is that Science? Ignoring direct evidence in favor of your own preconcieved ideas? Are you pretending that is rational? If so why? And thanks for the Quote proving that he had indeed considered Athiesm and rejected it. He was not an agnostic, he had definite ideas about the Nature of God.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 2:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Chain, that is about Christianity, not God. Why can you not grasp that? Jesus is god or at least to a Christian or an ex-Christian I suppose. The two are one and the same or should that be three are one and the same. Father, son and holy ghost. Not only are Christians monotheists but polytheist too. I guess you could take any religion and find something just as toally absurd.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 3:39:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Chain, that is about Christianity, not God. Why can you not grasp that? Jesus is god or at least to a Christian or an ex-Christian I suppose. The two are one and the same or should that be three are one and the same. Father, son and holy ghost. Not only are Christians monotheists but polytheist too. I guess you could take any religion and find something just as toally absurd. Or you can find a "rationalist" who apperantly doesn't understand logic, which is even more absurd. Who pretends that a "faith" based on weak rhetorical arguments is "rational thinking". Who makes assertions that when challenged runs away( you never did give me a society that formed with out a religion. As I explained bhuddism or confuciousism doesn't qualify). Someone who demands tolerance, but wants to take away choices(no holy texts should be allowed. Not required but choosen by the individual elected by his peers). You can read up on the theology behind the trinity if you want to(which I am sure you don't), it is not Polytheism.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 3:49:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 You can read up on the theology behind the trinity if you want to(which I am sure you don't), it is not Polytheism. Nothing is what it seems after its been through the twisted logic of theologians It was listening to such twisted logic as the trinity as an eight year old that started me questioning such nonsense, which proved quite something when my teacher admited that there was no certainty Jesus existed anyway.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 3:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 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. So, the study says religious people don't act immoral compared to the rest of the population. So where is the damage being created by religions? It would reason that if the members of a group acted morally compared to the rest of the population, they wouldn't cause more damage than any other group. So, why the desire to eliminate a group that doesn't act immoral compared to the rest of society. By eliminate I just mean eliminate the belief. This assumes the study is true of course, which I'm sure it is, as this is what I've observed as well, and mentioned earlier in the religious I've personally known. The problem I highlighted in my last sentence of the post you are answering. Morals breakdown when people defend irrational beliefs. It seems to make them....well, irrational. Now those irrational beliefs might not be religion pure and simple but quasi-religious beliefs such as fascism or some other political-religious doctrine that is a irrational belief. This is my point there are plenty of organizations following unproven concepts, that would/could be put into the same class as religion. Any belief in a form of government over another is belief, and has caused just as much damage as religion. So, if we are going to villify religion then we must rationally do the same to every group clinging to an unproven notion of fact. So, People that believe, Democracy,Socialism,Communism, Fascism, are all clinging to an unprovable concept of one true and best form of government. Groups like PETA, NRA, believe in an uprovable concept. Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, Gay Rights Advocates, are clinging to an unprovable premise. The very concept of rights and obligations at it's core is an unprovable premise. Most groups in this country at their core have a unproveable belief binding the membership together based on rights. I'm still wondering why it is so different than religion. Since the vast majority of the concepts we deal with are purely human inventions devoid of any scientific proof. The whole of political systems from top to bottom and everywhere in between is no different than religion, because they are totally based on the concept of rights and obligations which have no scientific basis. Why should it be allowed to exist. In the end it just doesn't work, the argument goes like this. People should not believe in religion because it is irrational, and people do irrational things when they believe in such concepts. But the whole construct of human civilization is based on irrational human beliefs. The belief in human rights and obligations, is not a scientific provable notion. The concept that happiness should be used as a guage of success, is not a scientific notion. The notion of free will is not a scientific provable fact. The notion that peace is better than war is not a scientific provable fact. If you look around you and examine the system you live in, it is purely based on human belief, and absolutely has very little to do with science. Almost all human laws, rights, obligations, the concept of right and wrong. Are all non-scientific beliefs. So, my question is if the whole construct of human civilization is based around an uprovable theory of how humans should live and interact then why should religion be looked down upon when effectively it does the same thing. If it is merely an objection to them having another unscientific belief not shared by others, then that is a judgement call based on belief.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 4:14:42 PM)
I can best answer that with a few quotes. Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool. ~ Voltaire Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money. ~ George Carlin Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything just give him time to rationalize it. Forgive me for being blunt. ~ Robert Heinlein Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. ~ Napoleon Bonaparte Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

LadyEllen -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 5:16:53 PM)
Good God! This thread is still going on? Oh, sorry.... This is remarkable. It appears that this thread is still going on. I hypothesise that if the number of posts has increased since I last posted, then this thread is still going on. There have indeed been more posts, adding to the total number of posts, and so my hypothesis is proven. E

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/5/2007 6:09:28 PM)
Those are all opinions and just as irrelevant as quoting the bible. Anyway, you can't provide a reason for someone not to be religious, without proving that ones own views are not worth holding on many issues. You are in essence attacking yourself if one resolves the two positions. DoubleThink is what Orwell called it. Simultaneously holding two positions that are in contradiction. Belittling religion for being irrational. While holding views that are equally irrational. Belief in Human rights, Belief in a certain form of government over another. Belief in Freedom of choice. Etc.... The only difference and a rather small difference really. Is one group believes concepts came from a god. And others quote men providing unprovable assertions and assign a similar weighting to their opinion.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875