Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[old.Tohtori]

Heh didn't mean anything about it really, didn't think you were being dick'ish about it.

But yeah, i myself was wrong in pursuing the last page matter further, thought that Scouse actually had a point in why every religion should be stuck in the same mold outside the "Well they believe".

Interested to hear, by the way, if someone has a reason for it. Not looking for "'cause they all batsh*t crazy" though

 

[Krazeh]

But yeah, i myself was wrong in pursuing the last page matter further, thought that Scouse actually had a point in why every religion should be stuck in the same mold outside the "Well they believe".

That was his point. He was saying that all religious people believe in something for which there is no evidence on which to base that belief; it doesn't matter what variation of god or deity they may believe in, it's the fact that they believe without rational reason to do so that allows you to "lump" them all together.

To put it more clearly, the arguments against religion aren't really concerned with what variation of a supernatural deity you believe in. It's about the fact that you hold the belief without requiring any evidence to support it, so it doesn't really matter whether what it is you believe in is the christian god, baby jebus, allah, viking gods, hindu gods etc.

 

[Ctuchik]

Ctuchik, i have a big feeling in my gut that if you hear the word religion, for example if i said i'm religious, you'd instantly think jesus, bible etc?

If so, need to adjust that view

No not quite.

I always wait and see if someone starts to shove "jesus" down my throat before i proclaim them utterly insane and should be put out of their misery.

I really don't care that much if someone is deeply religious or just a little bit, as long as they stay out of my fucking way and don't try to advocate that their view is the only true one, or try to convert me.

But that doesn't mean i won't aggressively argue against religion.

If i'm wrong i can always say "i'm sorry" after i died, and because god is so forgiving he obviously will accept my apology and all will be well.

 

[Ctuchik]

I have always said that if "god" or "gods" were to show themselves I would believe in them.

Until then it's bullshit.

I can do that as well but...

If "god" or any "gods" ARE responsible for all the bad shit in this world then they can still go fuck themselves, paradise after death or not. I'd take having my "soul" destroyed over spending an eternity in a "paradise" knowing that any.

 

[Ctuchik]

It's about the fact that you hold the belief without requiring any evidence to support it, so it doesn't really matter whether what it is you believe in is the christian god, baby jebus, allah, viking gods, hindu gods etc.

Hey, don't bad talk the Viking gods, one of them is apparently the godess of porn!

I'd worship her if i knew she existed...

 

[Scouse]

thought that Scouse actually had a point in why every religion should be stuck in the same mold outside the "Well they believe"

It's the pertinent point. It's the point that wins the argument.

The thing that defines all religions is that they base their faith on untestable belief. Therefore religion = bullshit


You wishing the argument was something else don't make it so. It makes you a denier.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That was his point. He was saying that all religious people believe in something for which there is no evidence on which to base that belief; it doesn't matter what variation of god or deity they may believe in, it's the fact that they believe without rational reason to do so that allows you to "lump" them all together.

To put it more clearly, the arguments against religion aren't really concerned with what variation of a supernatural deity you believe in. It's about the fact that you hold the belief without requiring any evidence to support it, so it doesn't really matter whether what it is you believe in is the christian god, baby jebus, allah, viking gods, hindu gods etc.

But regarding what i answered Ctuuchik, it had no point. Not to mention it's a very poor excuse to lump everyone into the same mold when talking religion. It only fits to one criteria; if you're talking about believing in general and that is a moo point(cows opinion; doesn't matter) since it's obvious.

And as said, everyone believes in some form or other, no one checks every single thing to a 100% proof ratio before accepting something.

Would make telling stories a f*cking chore

No not quite.

I always wait and see if someone starts to shove "jesus" down my throat before i proclaim them utterly insane and should be put out of their misery.

I really don't care that much if someone is deeply religious or just a little bit, as long as they stay out of my fucking way and don't try to advocate that their view is the only true one, or try to convert me.

But that doesn't mean i won't aggressively argue against religion.

If i'm wrong i can always say "i'm sorry" after i died, and because god is so forgiving he obviously will accept my apology and all will be well.

That's a fair way to look at it, i don't appreciate preaching either. Either way, anti-religion or other religion.

On the viking gods though; they don't really give a f*ck about world events and often pester humans just for funsies. And yes, there's a love god in almost every pantheon religion. Or a tittygoddess if you will

It's the pertinent point. It's the point that wins the argument.

No it's not, it's just stating an obvious fact. There is no winner in a "does god exist" discussion, it's neither way true or false.

Also i'm not wishing an argument is something else, i was saying your argument had no point in what i said.

But the main problem can be seen in your other post on another thread(nuclear), where you state that this is a "religion is bullsh*t" thread, when it's nothing of the sort.

 

[ford prefect]

Do you have a source for this? I would love to see anything where he's actually said that if a theory, presumably one which is falsifiable and backed up with evidence, was presented for the existence of god he still wouldn't believe it. As I said previously i've not seen anything to suggest that he takes the position that a god cannot exist, merely that the probability of one existing is so low that there is no reason to believe one does.

He said as much during the "Has science buried God" debate in 2008, and in several of his public addresses - I attended a lecture in Oxford in 2002, where he said pretty much the same.

You don't understand the word faith. Things don't require faith just because they can't be proven beyond doubt. Only if they are unlikely to be true do they need faith. Believing things things to be untrue which are obviously not likely to be true does not require faith. I don't need faith to believe that there wasn't a paralympics on the moon last week but I can't prove it. There are an infinite number of unlikely propositions which we all believe to be false without actual proof. To say that all of these are faith positions is to reduce faith to a trivial truism.

I understand the word faith perfectly: the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing, in fact I have made a point of making quite a lengthy study of it and Dawkins philosphical arguements require faith in rationalism and the non existence of god - they are key to them. I am simply saying, that although Dawkins is a brilliant man, his arguments don't hold sway under Verification Theory, that alone makes him unobjective. Perhaps if I am guilty of anything it is misunderstanding the Irony I see in him. That doesn't make my point invalid however.

 

[Wij]

He said as much during the "Has science buried God" debate in 2008, and in several of his public addresses - I attended a lecture in Oxford in 2002, where he said pretty much the same.



I understand the word faith perfectly: the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing, in fact I have made a point of making quite a lengthy study of it and Dawkins philosphical arguements require faith in rationalism and the non existence of god - they are key to them. I am simply saying, that although Dawkins is a brilliant man, his arguments don't hold sway under Verification Theory, that alone makes him unobjective. Perhaps if I am guilty of anything it is misunderstanding the Irony I see in him. That doesn't make my point invalid however.

Forget the linguistic play and Dawkins for a second. Are you saying that not believing in a deity requires faith of an exactly equivalent nature and definition as believing in a deity does ?

 

[Aoami]

YouTube - Bertrand Russell on God (1959)

 

[ford prefect]

Forget the linguistic play and Dawkins for a second. Are you saying that not believing in a deity requires faith of an exactly equivalent nature and definition as believing in a deity does ?

Nope, but it does require some faith. Any conviction, regardless of how rational requires faith. Now obviously to fervently argue the non existance of a god requires a great deal of faith in science and that ultimately it can explain everything, especially in terms of theoretical physics. A casual belief in the none existance of god requires much less faith, but still faith in your own beliefs above those of others. Equally there are those who have a casual belief in god.

Even Agnostisism, of which I am, requires a certain amount of faith, even if only that the unknowable questions about god and the metaphysical are irrelevant by their nature - which of course could be ultimately wrong and cause me to burn in hell, I have faith that is not the case.

 

[Krazeh]

Nope, but it does require some faith. Any conviction, regardless of how rational requires faith. Now obviously to fervently argue the non existance of a god requires a great deal of faith in science and that ultimately it can explain everything, especially in terms of theoretical physics. A casual belief in the none existance of god requires much less faith, but still faith in your own beliefs above those of others. Equally there are those who have a casual belief in god.

Even Agnostisism, of which I am, requires a certain amount of faith, even if only that the unknowable questions about god and the metaphysical are irrelevant by their nature - which of course could be ultimately wrong and cause me to burn in hell, I have faith that is not the case.

So just so i'm clear, you are of the view that not holding a belief in something that has absolutely no evidence for it requires an act of faith?

 

[Wij]

Any conviction, regardless of how rational requires faith.

That makes the word totally trivial and very misleading to use as people will assume it has a similar meaning to that of religious faith. In any case English is a language defined by its usage. Your definition would not be recognised by the majority of speakers.

Also, Logical Positivism is cock

 

[ford prefect]

So just so i'm clear, you are of the view that not holding a belief in something that has absolutely no evidence for it requires an act of faith?

Simple verification theory, yes. You can state god doesn't exist all you want, unless you can prove it definitively, your belief is an act of faith based on opinion, conjecture and doctorine, nothing more. That doesn't in and of itself make it any less valid, but equally it doesn't lend that belief any more weight.

 

[Krazeh]

Simple verification theory, yes. You can state god doesn't exist all you want, unless you can prove it definitively, your belief is an act of faith based on opinion, conjecture and doctorine, nothing more. That doesn't in and of itself make it any less valid, but equally it doesn't lend that belief any more weight.

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about stating a belief in god not existing. I'm talking about not having a belief in god existing. They're two completely different things.

 

[Wij]

Simple verification theory, yes.

Verfication theory is about whether statements are meaningful or nonsense, not about whether they require faith.

You've already admitted that there's a world of difference between the faith required to believe in God and the 'faith' required not to believe in God so your initial point about Dawkins and irony falls flat. Arguing the toss about epistemology won't change that.

 

[ford prefect]

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about stating a belief in god not existing. I'm talking about not having a belief in god existing. They're two completely different things.

Ah, I see, you are absolutely right, they are very different things and yes, in that case, no, there is no faith involved, you are absolutely right, although that wouldn't be true atheism, it would irreligion, to which faith doesn't apply.

Going vaguely back on topic, if Dawkins followed that line of reasoning, I don't suppose he would be so outspoken against religion or the idea of god. I suppose ultimately Dawkins is an example of why Scientists make poor Philosophers and vice versa.

 

[ford prefect]

Perhaps if I am guilty of anything it is misunderstanding the Irony I see in him. That doesn't make my point invalid however.

Verfication theory is about whether statements are meaningful or nonsense, not about whether they require faith.

You've already admitted that there's a world of difference between the faith required to believe in God and the 'faith' required not to believe in God so your initial point about Dawkins and irony falls flat. Arguing the toss about epistemology won't change that.

Yeah, I agree, the concept of Irony is rather abstract for me, and I often see it where others don't. Faith is faith however, regardless of whther it is applied to religion, science or anything else for that matter.

 

[Wij]

Faith is faith however, regardless of whther it is applied to religion, science or anything else for that matter.

As I've just shown, faith is not faith as it can have many different implied meanings. To assert that not believing something for which there is no evidence requires faith not only goes against the common accepted usage of the word but is also an epistemological position which few would agree with.

 

[Krazeh]

Ah, I see, you are absolutely right, they are very different things and yes, in that case, no, there is no faith involved, you are absolutely right, although that wouldn't be true atheism, it would irreligion, to which faith doesn't apply.

I think the term atheism while originally only covering people who actively disbelieved in god has expanded to cover people who don't hold a belief in the existence of god as well as those who believe he doesn't exist.

Going vaguely back on topic, if Dawkins followed that line of reasoning, I don't suppose he would be so outspoken against religion or the idea of god. I suppose ultimately Dawkins is an example of why Scientists make poor Philosophers and vice versa.

I disagree that you need to have a belief in the non-existence of god to be outspoken about religion. As i've said in previous posts it seems to me that Dawkins' issue with religion isn't actually about the existence or not of god, it's about the dogma organised religion enforces and the fact that people are believing in things for which there is absolutely no evidence to support their existence.

 

[nath]

I disagree that you need to have a belief in the non-existence of god to be outspoken about religion. As i've said in previous posts it seems to me that Dawkins' issue with religion isn't actually about the existence or not of god, it's about the dogma organised religion enforces and the fact that people are believing in things for which there is absolutely no evidence to support their existence.

I was under the impression that religion struck first, so to speak. He started out writing evolutionary biology books and, as far as I recall, had the books repeatedly attacked by religious folk. The God Delusion was a response to that. Could be wrong though. Additionally, religion is FAR from a benign presence in this world, and as such it's entirely reasonable to attack it if it's guilty of things you disagree with.

Oh and yes, Ford - atheism can mean active disbelief in a deity but also lack of a belief in a deity. Strong atheism vs weak atheism, positive or negative atheism etc.

 

[Krazeh]

I was under the impression that religion struck first, so to speak. He started out writing evolutionary biology books and, as far as I recall, had the books repeatedly attacked by religious folk. The God Delusion was a response to that. Could be wrong though. Additionally, religion is FAR from a benign presence in this world, and as such it's entirely reasonable to attack it if it's guilty of things you disagree with.

You could be right, i'm not entirely sure of the early days of Dawkins vs religion. Either way I don't think that the driving force behind his participation in debates and the books he writes is a passionate disbelief in god and a desire to force people to accept his belief. On the contrary, as i've said previously, I think he genuinely holds no belief in the existence of god and wants to show people why that is, i.e. there's no evidence for god. That and he disagrees with things organised religion gets upto.

 

[old.Tohtori]

One thing i have to note though, about atheists and don't take this as an attack or some comparison;

Atheists do put a hell of a lot of effort into an absence of action. Not to mention the movement is rising rapidly and if it goes, better term lacking, unchecked, you might have a troublesome future as it's already showing religious elements.

I'd really love to see a zealot agnostic around, preaching and ranting about how it's all on the fence

 

[Wij]

What religious elements ?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, focus on that part won't you

Let's put it like this; Any, ANY, group of people with similar thoughts and a vocal section to that group already potraits some similar preachy features as religious preachers. Now add to that the zealot type atheists and it's even closer.

If it gets organised, it's pretty much the same, except without the belief(or other fitting word) part.

I didn't say it HAS religious elements, just that it's showing. Yiou have to admit, there's a fair bit of religious like preaching going on in that camp.

 

[DaGaffer]

I didn't say it HAS religious elements, just that it's showing. Yiou have to admit, there's a fair bit of religious like preaching going on in that camp.

If by "religious like preaching" you mean "I don't find the existence of God very likely", and "but don't take my word for it, think it through for yourself", then, yeah, very "religious".

 

[old.Tohtori]

If by "religious like preaching" you mean "I don't find the existence of God very likely", and "but don't take my word for it, think it through for yourself", then, yeah, very "religious".

No i don't mean sensible arguments, i mean preaching, it's not that hard to understand unless people got some kind of blindfold on which puts them in complete denial of any mention towards anything religious being at all similar to any degree.

F*cking paranoia that is.

 

[Wij]

BBC News - Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says

hmm

 

[mooSe_]

People just love to compare atheism to a belief system no matter how many times you tell them it isn't, in fact it's defined by its lack of being a belief system

 

[old.Tohtori]

People just love to compare atheism to a belief system no matter how many times you tell them it isn't, in fact it's defined by its lack of being a belief system

Well according to Scouse, it's only fair

I don't thinka theism is a belief system, though i think it's a choice as any other.