The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Mike - Indi Rev]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

'God' 'himself' demands (via 'his' holy books) that we worship 'him'....it's surely a little counter productive to be utterly undetectable if you're desiring Universal Rule.

We've already pretty much proved in this thread that 'god' can't be found in the religious texts of 'his' religions....and they're the prime source of 'god' gossip! If 'he's' not there, where is 'he'? And furthermore, why should we care?

I'll try and set out a decent response to your previous post in a minute but this one will be quicker.

I haven't been trying to argue the case for any particular religion, I'll leave that for someone with more in depth knowledge or one particular religion.

I would say it's entirely possible for all organized religion to based on false-hoods and yet there still be a God. There is nothing in my opinion about God that says he necessarily has to make his presence known. And there is certainly nothing in the nature of a supreme being that would require books to written about it to ensure it's existence.

I would distance my arguments for the existence of God from organized religions and certainly would not try to use any particular religion as a proof for God's existence. I think this distance more or less negates the point you made about demands of worship via holy books. Also, I'm not going to try and say that there is necessarily anything "productive" about any God that may exist. Is it necessary that we have a purpose in our life? Is it necessary that we are productive? I would answer no to this question and would consequently say that there is no necessity for a God to be productive or have any particular goal either.

I think one reason there might not actually be a 'correct' conclusion to our discussion is because we're both talking about slightly different things. I get the feeling you're more focused on pointing out the absurdity of religion, where I'm aiming my points more at proving it is completely POSSIBLE for there to be a God. A point which I'm pretty sure you wouldn't contest. No?

[Curate]

That's a good point to an extent. Yes, it is theoretically quite possible for all forms of organised religion and human faith to be wrong and for there still to be a "god", but that tends to lead into a debate about semantics.

When any of us talk of "god", we all have a reasonable idea of what is meant by the god of most organised religions. Many "new age" (I hate that expression) types would use the word "nature" where perhaps a by-the-book Christian would say "god" and for me they are both basically referring to the same idea, just with their own perceptions/preconceptions applied.

I, for one, am a complete atheist. I don't believe in god, (no capitals here), I don't believe in religion, and I certainly don't believe in the hereafter. I also believe I and others who think the same are right. I know that sounds horribly smug, but I do despair at the way we still have this "god of the gaps" that is some untouchable recourse when science or humanity has yet to find an answer to a particular question. What allows an otherwise sensible person to allow people to say "because god" when they're put in a difficult situation? Why not "because broccolli", or "because alien lemons"?

The only way I can even try to understand faith is to remember how I felt when I believed in Santa and, to be fair, there was a good deal more in the way of tangible evidence for him...

Religion casts such a huge shadow over the world and has for so very long, but just because something is traditional does not mean it has inherent value or truth. Those who say that religion gives the guidelines for a good life are miles off. Leaving aside the obvious inconsistencies (anyone kill their kids today?) in that, I can't help but think that generally accepted good ways to live are apparent without relying on the big guy.

I just wish people would take responsibility for their own actions and mistakes, rather than hoping for some omnipotent nightnurse. I do honestly believe that there is something so sad about seeing people who are deprived and destitute finding solace in religion. I suppose the only consolation is that there won't be a "them" to reflect on their mistakes when they're dead.

Whoever said that if god didn't exist it would be neccessary to invent him was painfully correct.

[LesMts]

I take it that by not capitalising God/god that you're indicating you're talking about any gods?
I hate when atheists are talking about the God Yahweh and they refuse to capitalise it to make a silly and ill thought out point.

[Curate]

I don't use a capital because, if you do, people tend to think you're talking specifically about the Christian God. If you like, I'm tentatively referring to "gods" to cover different conceptions although, like I said, it boils down to semantics.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by Curate

I don't use a capital because, if you do, people tend to think you're talking specifically about the Christian God. If you like, I'm tentatively referring to "gods" to cover different conceptions although, like I said, it boils down to semantics.

Yeah, cool.
It's just a lot of people refuse to use capitals when talking specifically about God (not gods). It annoys me because we still capitalise the names of fictional characters.

[Curate]

Yeah, that's a good point. I think there is a difference between staunch atheism (to which I subscribe) and bloody mindedness (which would remove the capital from God for the reasons you mentioned).

Much like someone said earlier, Dawkins biggest enemy is himself. He has the points and the intellect to truly make people question their beliefs, but his persona can be so off-putting as to give those he argues against an easy pot shot to take the heat off.

I maintain that his work, especially The God Delusion, is excellent, but I think a modicum of humility here and there wouldn't go amiss. After all, his stated intention is to make the faithful reassess their faith, and I should imagine that is quite a traumatic thing to do. I'd just rather we left hysteria to the religious.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by Curate

Yeah, that's a good point. I think there is a difference between staunch atheism (to which I subscribe) and bloody mindedness (which would remove the capital from God for the reasons you mentioned).

Much like someone said earlier, Dawkins biggest enemy is himself. He has the points and the intellect to truly make people question their beliefs, but his persona can be so off-putting as to give those he argues against an easy pot shot to take the heat off.

I maintain that his work, especially The God Delusion, is excellent, but I think a modicum of humility here and there wouldn't go amiss. After all, his stated intention is to make the faithful reassess their faith, and I should imagine that is quite a traumatic thing to do. I'd just rather we left hysteria to the religious.

At least Dawkins isn't Christopher Hitchens, a man so angry with religion that he may as well have called his book 'I Want To Punch That Massive WANKER God, In The Face'.

Shermer is the person I recommend to others, he's got humility in spades.

[Curate]

That's got "best seller" written all over it.

[Thee Alex]

Surely has!

[LesMts]

The best anti-creationism thing we could hope for, outside a lecture from Dawkins, is coming to Dundee shortly.

Aside from that, I'll leave you with a quote which sums up how unbeatably glorious science is as a tool for understanding the world around us...

"Science, you see, is the optimum belief system: because we have the error bar, the greatest invention of mankind, a pictorial representation of the glorious undogmatic uncertainty in our results, which science is happy to confront and work with. Show me a politician's speech, or a religious text, or a news article, with an error bar next to it?" - Ben Goldacre

[Rebelius]

"we never claim to be totally right, so we can't be wrong..." ??

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

"we never claim to be totally right, so we can't be wrong..." ??

We never claim to be totally right but we're less likely to be wrong than anyone else.

[Rebelius]

well I like to deal in absolute truths