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

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 9:22:02 AM)
Such melodrama. You weren't warned off the thread, you were asked to stop the bashing. If you can manage to contribute to the thread without trying to insult everyone who disagrees with you, you're more than welcome to do so. XI

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 10:01:54 AM)
The endless retreat of the faithful into... "God of the gaps" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 10:03:09 AM)
I'm struggling to figure out where I strayed more than anyone else of an alternative view. But it doesn't really matter.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 12:29:47 PM)
For more on Dawkins, please see this post: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=740532 There you will find links to sites that link to various versions of a british documentary called "The Root of All Evil?" I think Dawkins is eloquent in speaking to why this issue is so important and why firmly held religious delusions are dangerous.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 3:31:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 So objective reality can only exist as a concept, ie only in the mind of an intellect. So untill something is percieved it does not have a reality? After it has been percieved it takes on a Subjective reality( I agree with you there), but untill it is percieved it has no reality( either subjective or objective)...? That would imply there was no reality untill there was an mind to percieve it, correct. I don't buy it. I think a rock under the ice of antartica, never seen by a living soul still exists, it has an objective reality. But if your assertion is correct and untill there is perception there is no reality, it implies that the world was created in an instant with the first Human thought( a nonsense form of creationism) or there had to be a perciever at the time of the big bang, and percieving all the events in the universe that preceeded the first human asking why, which indicates some sort of God. I did not explain it very well and it was confusing for me to put it this way – “Objective reality can only exist as a concept because as soon as it is observed it becomes subjective”. Objective reality is not a pre-existing state of subjective reality. It’s not something waiting to be switched on. Objective reality is an idealised, artificial, human, philosophical construct. So, no. I am not saying that the world was created by the first human thought switching on some dormant reality (dormant but fully conceived in all its complexity, by a conscious designer) If what I wrote suggested otherwise, I apologise. Subjective reality is what we experience through our organs of sense and our brains. All living things have a subjective reality, not just sentient ones. Yes there is a reality outside our own personal perception, one where rocks lurk under icecaps quite unconcerned if anyone knows and trees make plenty of sound in the forest, not caring one bit whether or not there are any of those self centered humans around to hear. Not sure what this contributes to the discussion but I thought I should clarify that to luckydog. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 5:05:58 PM)
What it clarifies was that you tried to jump in and defend an unsupportable statement by Chain. "Our objective reality is predicated on scientific knowledge. And no one complains about that. " Which if true would indicate an instantaneous creation, begining with the advent of scientific knowledge. obviously not true. So subjective reality is what we percieve, and objective reality does not actually exist it is just a "idealised, artificial, human, philosophical construct. " Hence reality can not exist with out humnan perception. No, Objective Reality is the actuall reality, regardless of how it is percieved or existing completely with out perception. What is the other form of reality besides subjective( percieved by a life form) and objective( just a human philosophical construct)? I do not think you are using the terms correctly. Lets use the cat in the box example. There is a box, neither of us know if there is a cat in it or not. But whether there is a cat in there has nothing to do with our knowledge of it. You look, and do not tell me. Now we have a different subjective reality regarding the box, you know and I don't. But that in no way changes the objective reality of whether there is a Cat in the Box or not. Zensee, Chain is a big boy and can defend his own statements, he doesn't need you to help...does he? Interstingly if it was true that perception must occur to have a reality beyond a philosophical construct, it would require that there was an observer present at the creation of the universe( and yes everyone agrees that the universe was created<that does not mean God exists, just that the universe and space time does>), and observing the rocks under the ice and long evolution of the Cosomos before any sort of life existed. I do not believe that to be the case, and my spiritual beliefs are not predicated on that.

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 8:35:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 What it clarifies was that you tried to jump in and defend an unsupportable statement by Chain. "Our objective reality is predicated on scientific knowledge. And no one complains about that. " Which if true would indicate an instantaneous creation, begining with the advent of scientific knowledge...blah..blah...blah... Yes, that is very poorly stated. Ya got me. Big whoop. You seriously didn't know what I meant by an objective versus subjective reality? I somehow doubt that. And if you did, then there is no point in discussing this further with you anyway. Some foundation in the roots of knowledge is necessary.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 8:43:15 PM)
Big boy or not, I did not speak in Chain's defense. I actually missed the statement which you quoted. I was addressing your own use of the terms, subjective and objective reality. Objective reality can also mean an agreement on unambiguous facts. For example, "healthy deer have four legs" - we can agree on what the words mean and that they accurately, if incompletely, describe deer. Not to speak on Chain’s behalf but I believe that is more like how he was using the term. The scientific process builds comprehensive models of agreement, one carefully examined, discussed and largely agreed upon piece at a time. It’s not infallible or unanimous (unlike some religious authorities) and it knows this. It has built in error correction. It can’t explain everything about everything; that requires miracles. But it’s the best process we have for using our rational minds. I am certain I did not say anything to suggest that “perception must occur to have a reality beyond a philosophical construct” or that this would necessitate an observer at the beginning of time. Quite the opposite, in fact. And I'm agnostic, unless you feel that doubting equals denial, in which case I'm an atheist. Philosophy is reflective. It is not, as you appear to be suggesting, the cause of what it examines. I do not know what your spiritual beliefs are or how you understand the universe to have originated (can we drop the word creation? it is so loaded). Perhaps if you laid those out I’d have a better sense of where you are coming from. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 8:48:52 PM)
Chain, but you never mentioned subjective reality. Your quote was from post 38 on this thread. And I stand by my contention that objective reality exists, and is it not predicated on scientific knowledge, as you falsely asserted. It's not poorly stated, it is flat out incorrect. I seem to have a greater foundation of the "roots of knowledge" than you do, as it is you making incorect statements. Fire burned for millions of years with no knowledge of why it does, or anyone to observe it, unless you believe in God.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 9:15:57 PM)
Well if you feel that "originated" is a better term than "created", that's fine by me, but it's only loaded because you don't like it. If you are not defending Chain's claim "that objective reality is predicated on Scientifc knowledge", we don't really have an argument. But what is the third type of reality then? Besides subjective and objective. Subjective has to be observed, and objective is thoeretical, from what you are saying anyway. We agree on what subjective reality is, reality that has been observed. You say objective reality is just a hypothetical state, while I say it is the actuall state, regardless of perception or knowledge of said reality. As to my beliefs, they are rather vauge. I usually use the term Zen Christian to describe myself, possibaly a Pagan Unitarian. I read a great book called the Tao of Physics many years ago. What really stuck with me was the way it talked about dimensions. If you lived in a one dimensional world( a plane), and encountered a 3 dimesnional object( a donut ring). You would not see a donut ring, you would see a circular track or 2 rings that appear to be seperate. And since time and space as we experience them do not really exist, there is an objective reality(more dimensions and/or outside of our universe) beyond our subjective perception based reality, but it is uncomprehensable, because we only get 3 dimensions. so we can't even begin to grasp what God/the total objective reality really is, and any one who says they do understand it is either a fool or trying to trick you. this goes for "scientists" and religous leaders. Personally I go for the Christ (western krishna)was a Bhuddist and spent the missing years in Tibet and India. And that his teachings have been horribly misintrepreted. I have felt what I consider to be the touch of the Divine in my life. I have no dogmatism other than a belief that there is a spiritual component to the universe. And I know I could never proove to anyone I am right.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 9:19:41 PM)
By the way I am all for using the Scientific Method. It is indeed a very good way of figuring out how things work, and making better bombs. I see no conflict between science and religion at all. But Science has not disproved the existance of God/A spiritual component to the Universe. Anyone claiming it has is not using the scientific method.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 10:21:52 PM)
I think we have agreed several times that there is a reality outside ourselves which exists whether we observe it or not. I don't know what term is commonly used for it (besides reality). I am just not aware of the term objective reality being used for it. I might be wrong. Words do get around. I guess it's the leap from that agreement to this "Fire burned for millions of years with no knowledge of why it does, or anyone to observe it, unless you believe in God. " that has me confused. Z.

Lorelei115 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 10:24:51 PM)
Well, I'll just say this... Nobody is going to find out the truth about God until they die, are they? So, if the theists are right, and there is a God, I'll get the sparkly wings and a halo and stuff or get reborn or go live in Valhalla or whatever. And if the atheists are right, my conciousness blinks out like a candle and it won't really matter any more, will it? So, why not comfort myself during life with the belief that God does exist? What is it hurting? Seriously? I don't discount science, and I don't discount theology. I believe both have things to teach us. Please note that my belief in God does not equal a belief in organized religion. I do have to agree with the sentiment that many organized religions have been used to control the populace or excuse otherwise inexcusable acts. But I feel that saying that some organized religions are wrong and saying that God does not exisist in any form are two separate issues.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 10:44:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lorelei115 So, why not comfort myself during life with the belief that God does exist? What is it hurting? Seriously? I don't discount science, and I don't discount theology. I believe both have things to teach us. The harm doesn't come from individuals believeing in god. It comes from groups clamouring that they are the chosen of god and that they have special permission to force the rest of us to agree, or die. It comes from making laws that restrict knowledge promote superstition and crimialise those outside the fold. It comes from leaders inflated with gods voice, telling them that they are doing His will, not that other mad, halucinating idiot over there. I think this is what concerns Dawkins. It sure annoys me. Z.

Lorelei115 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 11:10:01 PM)
Right-- In other words, like I said, organized religion is the problem, not a belief in God. Yet I often see that even having a belief in God makes someone into an object of scorn from Atheists. I guess I just don't understand why they need to prove so badly that God doesn't exist. Sooner or later, we'll all find out. It would be nice to think that if Atheists could prove through science that God doesn't exist, all those religious zealots would just say "Oh, sorry, our bad," and go back to being rational human beings. Somehow, I doubt that would be the case though. Even if you somehow had 100 percent conclusive evidence that indeed, God does not exisist, the zealots would find a way to discredit you. Facts just do not often enter into a true zealots perspective.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 11:19:55 PM)
Yes - Sorry, I was being repetetive. And sorry I can't help with paragraph two - science cannot prove god does not exist since it can't prove a negative. And since it will never prove everything there will always be plenty of nooks and chasms and imponderables for god to be hiding in. Z.

Lorelei115 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/3/2007 11:36:35 PM)
laugh I like that. I just got a mental image of a little white bearded guy peeking out from a cranny in the universerse saying "Ha, ha, science, you missed me!"

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 12:02:10 AM)
Zensee, I first want to say I enjoy spirited intelligent discussion. Thank you. We could be quibling over definitions now, which is pointless for both of us. I was taking what you said about objective reality just being a theoretical concept(requiring a mind to concieve of it), as true. If subjective reality must be percieved to exist(which we both agree I think) and objective reality is just a thoeretical concept( not real), it would follow that there must be an observer, for reality to be be more than a theoretical concept. So without an observation of it, the Universe could not have come into being. Who could have observed the creation of the universe? Certainly no one in side of it...ergo a God force. Compared to Subjective Reality I think Objective Reality is the only other choice, but I could be wrong and there be a third catagory. I didn't say I believed it, just that it followed from what Chain asserted.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 1:29:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 By the way I am all for using the Scientific Method. It is indeed a very good way of figuring out how things work, and making better bombs. I see no conflict between science and religion at all. But Science has not disproved the existance of God/A spiritual component to the Universe. Anyone claiming it has is not using the scientific method. I don't think anyone has said it has and simply said no one can prove there isn't a god but no one can prove there is one either. However, Dawkins points out that whether there is or isn't a god isn't 50/50 but the probability of there being a god is much less than that. He highlights quite a lot of research into why people believe in religion against all the rational evidence. That one of the main reasons why people are religious appears to be that people are dualist, they sense the separartion of mind and body. There are several compelling theories for this, one is that it would be required for people to give things they see intention and so become quickly aware of danger. Without dualism and an inability to give things intention, people would have to slowly work out what something is and so possibly put themselves in danger by not recognizing, say a tiger quick enough. One of the by products of this is that we give inanimate objects intention too and such things as the weather which are of course, completely indifferent. This is just a simplistic synopsis of one theory but he has given me enough leads to keep me reading throughout the year. Also he highlights cargo cults, something I forgot about years ago which is one of the more amusing illustrations of religious belief and how cults rise from people not fully understanding what they see, like the position people in the middle east or anywhere else for that matter must have been like several thousand years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

seeksfemslave -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 1:54:42 AM)
Can it be true that the hard line atheists and "believers" who claim that the scientific method will explain everything are having a conversion and can see the point of those who argue about the possible existence of a Deity but do it NOT from the tenets of organised religion but from an observation of the Universe as we experience it and the "mind bending" problems that are raised ? Political and social control and repression are NOT confined to those with religious views. It seems in a way to be a characteristic of many humans.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875