Dawkins' "The God Delusion": One of the best books I've read in a while.

[Seekermeister]

Codewiz,

Funny why are you in this thread? You are here trolling.

So if I speak what I think and believe, that is trolling? If that is the case, then there are plenty of trolls in this forum.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Even from the comments of the OP, it is obvious that it is impossible for anyone to disprove God.

Yeah but he can address it from a probability/statistics point of view based on ALL the current evidence. That is what he does. He explains why it is such LONG odds that a God does exist. And there is almost certainly no "personal" god.

Based on his selected view of what is considered evidence.

No one will ever be able to prove God does not exist. That is not possible.

He doesn't have to prove it doesn't exist. Just like we don't have to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

He does take the time to point out SCIENTIFICALLY why the odds are against a God existing. Why don't you do the same showing SCIENTIFICALLY why odds are that a God does exist.

That is precisely where I disagree with him. When something is unknown, the "odds" don't mean anything. Dawkin's assertions are really just a belief system, and he perverts science by misusing it to support his 'religion'.

I also don't see that he understands the difference between existence of god(s), and belief in god(s). The two matters really have nothing to do with each other.

Any student of history knows that belief in god(s) has been a driving force in man's development. As he points out, there are lots of negative aspects, but there are also positive aspects, and unless someone believes there's been no progress since the beginning of humankind, the evidence is that the good outweighs the bad.

Did you read the book? Almost everything you say, he addresses........

I haven't read the book, my opinions are based on an extended talk/lecture of his. I would assume he addresses the points I mentioned, in his book, that is why I raised them.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

I don't have a belief system........

This is totally untrue. Just because your beliefs are different, doesn't mean that you don't have them. And if you don't have any system of belief, then you don't have any foundation for your beliefs. The fact that you believe in science in the fashion that you do, is the basis of your system.

Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

Funny why are you in this thread? You are here trolling.

So if I speak what I think and believe, that is trolling? If that is the case, then there are plenty of trolls in this forum.

I have no problem with anyone being skeptical about God. Nor do I mind that someone should speak, either in questions or statements that would make this apparent. However, when a person writes a book, which clearly denounces God, this is a step beyond. Even from the comments of the OP, it is obvious that it is impossible for anyone to disprove God. Therefore, all that is left is that someone simply airs their own beliefs, which are based primarily on their own biases. If a person has nothing more than this, then the only reason for writing such a book, is either for profit, notoriety or political influence.

No that quote right there is trolling because you haven't read the book and expect some sort of respect for your religious beliefs but come in here and thread crap.....

So yeah, you are a troll.

 

[DAGTA]

This thread needs more DVK916

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I would like to also add. You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because you decide to believe in an ancient historically inaccurate book in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence, dont expect me to respect your beliefs. Just like you would have no respect for someone who believes in Zeus.

Your religious beliefs deserve the same amount of respect as someone who believes in Zeus. NONE.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't expect me to bow to your idiotic belief system...

And rightly so, don't expect people to believe your belief system.

Open minded people understand this.

I don't have a belief system........

The problem is that religious people DEMAND respect for their religion when there is no reason for respect. It is taboo to talk about how silly religion is in general.

You don't have a belief system ? Impossible.

How do you decide what to eat for lunch ?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: VenomXTF
Seek, where's your evidence. As you yourself said, your view of God is also "based more on your own biased perceptions, than by any evidence."

I believe that I addressed your question in my response to Codewiz. But, I will add that there is aspects of knowledge that do not come from physical evidence, therefore cannot be put in a testtube, nor perceived by the senses. But, to attempt to explain this in a fashion that a person without that exposure would understand is not realistic.

Funny enough, but your kind is exactly the target of the book - those who loudly proclaim to be in possession of some "truth" only they are privy to, that it is not possible to question your "truth" and to top it off, that everyone must respect you, defer to you and ultimately do as you tell them. That is precisely why people like Dawkins are speaking out.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I would like to also add. You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because you decide to believe in an ancient historically inaccurate book in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence, dont expect me to respect your beliefs. Just like you would have no respect for someone who believes in Zeus.

Your religious beliefs deserve the same amount of respect as someone who believes in Zeus. NONE.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't expect me to bow to your idiotic belief system...

And rightly so, don't expect people to believe your belief system.

Open minded people understand this.

I don't have a belief system........

The problem is that religious people DEMAND respect for their religion when there is no reason for respect. It is taboo to talk about how silly religion is in general.

You don't have a belief system ? Impossible.

How do you decide what to eat for lunch ?

So you want to split hairs now. Either you are being dense or just a PITA.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: VenomXTF
Seek, where's your evidence. As you yourself said, your view of God is also "based more on your own biased perceptions, than by any evidence."

I believe that I addressed your question in my response to Codewiz. But, I will add that there is aspects of knowledge that do not come from physical evidence, therefore cannot be put in a testtube, nor perceived by the senses. But, to attempt to explain this in a fashion that a person without that exposure would understand is not realistic.

Funny enough, but your kind is exactly the target of the book - those who loudly proclaim to be in possession of some "truth" only they are privy to, that it is not possible to question your "truth" and to top it off, that everyone must respect you, defer to you and ultimately do as you tell them. That is precisely why people like Dawkins are speaking out.

QFT

Nothing else gets that HIGHLY RESPECTED status.....

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

And yet you posted earlier about where "god" can hide? And how sure you are that this will be disproven, by some "new testament" in science?

You're delusional if you can't see you follow every single religion out there in your beliefs and motives. It is your belief system.

 

[Seekermeister]

Codewiz,

So yeah, you are a troll.

I have always considered a troll to be a person that make personal remarks about somebody or something else to be a troll. Considering the epithets that you are throwing around, you fit that definition to a tee.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: VenomXTF
Seek, where's your evidence. As you yourself said, your view of God is also "based more on your own biased perceptions, than by any evidence."

I believe that I addressed your question in my response to Codewiz. But, I will add that there is aspects of knowledge that do not come from physical evidence, therefore cannot be put in a testtube, nor perceived by the senses. But, to attempt to explain this in a fashion that a person without that exposure would understand is not realistic.

Funny enough, but your kind is exactly the target of the book - those who loudly proclaim to be in possession of some "truth" only they are privy to, that it is not possible to question your "truth" and to top it off, that everyone must respect you, defer to you and ultimately do as you tell them. That is precisely why people like Dawkins are speaking out.

You misunderstand. It is not a truth only he is privy to. Everyone has access, but most people are so caught up in ego and trying to blame others for everything that they fail to see anything else... or even try to. There is much more to this existence than we have been able to qualify and quantify so far. It's 'out there' for anyone willing to try to find it.

Of course, here on ATOT, a post like this is going to be rediculed by those that don't understand.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

And yet you posted earlier about where "god" can hide? And how sure you are that this will be disproven, by some "new testament" in science?

You're delusional if you can't see you follow every single religion out there in your beliefs and motives. It is your belief system.

You are missing a point. Even when God can't hide in the realm of physics, it still won't prove a God doesn't exist.

It will simply prove that a God isn't REQUIRED for us to exist. People used to say that there was no way we could have "evolved" into what we are now. Evolution has shown how it happened.

Now people use physics to say a God is required for us to exist. Once that is exposed by science then there will be no place for God to hide. It will mean that a God isn't REQUIRED for us to exist.

It still won't prove God doesn't exist.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

And yet you posted earlier about where "god" can hide? And how sure you are that this will be disproven, by some "new testament" in science?

You're delusional if you can't see you follow every single religion out there in your beliefs and motives. It is your belief system.

There's a very large difference between a metaphysical belief system and one about the natural world.

Codewiz's post about god "hiding" is described with appropriate lucidity in Dawkins' book, and he addresses the whole point of a belief system.

People in this thread are going to continue to argue out of ignorance, because those that are arguing simply haven't read the book. Agreeing with Dawkins isn't the issue; arguing against matters that were completely addressed by him is.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

I don't have a belief system........

This is totally untrue. Just because your beliefs are different, doesn't mean that you don't have them. And if you don't have any system of belief, then you don't have any foundation for your beliefs. The fact that you believe in science in the fashion that you do, is the basis of your system.

Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

Your tv works because of science, I agree.

But, do you watch anything on your tv ?

Take South Park for example; can you explain why the creators of South Park are able to create it ? What is the scientific explanation for wit ?

I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm saying if you think there is a scientific explanation, even though there's no scientific evidence for it, that is a belief system. No different from someone who thinks their creativity is a gift from "God".

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I have no problem with anyone being skeptical about God. Nor do I mind that someone should speak, either in questions or statements that would make this apparent. However, when a person writes a book, which clearly denounces God, this is a step beyond. Even from the comments of the OP, it is obvious that it is impossible for anyone to disprove God. Therefore, all that is left is that someone simply airs their own beliefs, which are based primarily on their own biases. If a person has nothing more than this, then the only reason for writing such a book, is either for profit, notoriety or political influence.

A "step beyond" what exactly?

Let's slip that shoe on that other foot:

I have no problem with anyone not being skeptical about God. Nor do I mind that someone should speak, either in questions or statements that would make this apparent. However, when a person writes a book, which clearly praises God, this is a step beyond. Even from the comments of the OP, it is obvious that it is impossible for anyone to prove God. Therefore, all that is left is that someone simply airs their own beliefs, which are based primarily on their own biases. If a person has nothing more than this, then the only reason for writing such a book, is either for profit, notoriety or political influence

That should pinch your toes a bit

My point here is that no one can disprove the existance of "god" (although some of the biblical claims can certainly be cast in doubt), just as no one can prove the existance of "god" (although Carl Sagan proposes a method in "Contact" that I would accept). Your guess that "god" exists has no better standing than another person's guess that "god" does not exist.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I would like to also add. You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because you decide to believe in an ancient historically inaccurate book in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence, dont expect me to respect your beliefs. Just like you would have no respect for someone who believes in Zeus.

Your religious beliefs deserve the same amount of respect as someone who believes in Zeus. NONE.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't expect me to bow to your idiotic belief system...

And rightly so, don't expect people to believe your belief system.

Open minded people understand this.

I don't have a belief system........

The problem is that religious people DEMAND respect for their religion when there is no reason for respect. It is taboo to talk about how silly religion is in general.

You don't have a belief system ? Impossible.

How do you decide what to eat for lunch ?

So you want to split hairs now. Either you are being dense or just a PITA.

I am not being either. I am not the one who denies how human beings function, and the nearly universal need humans have to believe in something.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Descartes
There's a very large difference between a metaphysical belief system and one about the natural world.

Codewiz's post about god "hiding" is described with appropriate lucidity in Dawkins' book, and he addresses the whole point of a belief system.

People in this thread are going to continue to argue out of ignorance, because those that are arguing simply haven't read the book. Agreeing with Dawkins isn't the issue; arguing against matters that were completely addressed by him is.

I understand. I just want to eat athiests on my tummy.

Onward soldiers!

spidey the otter

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

Funny enough, but your kind is exactly the target of the book - those who loudly proclaim to be in possession of some "truth" only they are privy to, that it is not possible to question your "truth" and to top it off, that everyone must respect you, defer to you and ultimately do as you tell them. That is precisely why people like Dawkins are speaking out.

I didn't realize that I was speaking so loudly to you, since I have not typed anything in bold. Or is it that if anyone has a differing opinion for your own is to brazen for you? If you will go back to my first post, I clearly said that I had no problem with anyone having questions or making statements contrary to my own beliefs. So, how does that constitue a demand for respect or obedience?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Codewiz,

I don't have a belief system........

This is totally untrue. Just because your beliefs are different, doesn't mean that you don't have them. And if you don't have any system of belief, then you don't have any foundation for your beliefs. The fact that you believe in science in the fashion that you do, is the basis of your system.

Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

Your tv works because of science, I agree.

But, do you watch anything on your tv ?

Take South Park for example; can you explain why the creators of South Park are able to create it ? What is the scientific explanation for wit ?

I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm saying if you think there is a scientific explanation, even though there's no scientific evidence for it, that is a belief system. No different from someone who thinks their creativity is a gift from "God".

*sigh*

Again, Dawkins completely addresses this issue. You're entirely missing the point.

Seeking an explanation for any phenomenon does not constitute a belief system. Having preconceptions about that phenomenon does. The theist will explain it by placing god in its place, and the scientific mind will use their tools to find answers. One claims to know the answer but has no proof, the other has no proof and assumes ignorance until he does so. That is not a belief system.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Descartes
There's a very large difference between a metaphysical belief system and one about the natural world.

Codewiz's post about god "hiding" is described with appropriate lucidity in Dawkins' book, and he addresses the whole point of a belief system.

People in this thread are going to continue to argue out of ignorance, because those that are arguing simply haven't read the book. Agreeing with Dawkins isn't the issue; arguing against matters that were completely addressed by him is.

I understand. I just want to eat athiests on my tummy.

Onward soldiers!

spidey the otter

LOL

I like otters.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Yeah ok if you want to call what we see, feel, hear, and touch a belief system then so be it.

I have to take the stance that math and our basis for science is true. If you want to call that a belief system then so be it.

I call it painfully obvious. My tv works because of science.

And yet you posted earlier about where "god" can hide? And how sure you are that this will be disproven, by some "new testament" in science?

You're delusional if you can't see you follow every single religion out there in your beliefs and motives. It is your belief system.

There's a very large difference between a metaphysical belief system and one about the natural world.

Codewiz's post about god "hiding" is described with appropriate lucidity in Dawkins' book, and he addresses the whole point of a belief system.

People in this thread are going to continue to argue out of ignorance, because those that are arguing simply haven't read the book. Agreeing with Dawkins isn't the issue; arguing against matters that were completely addressed by him is.

You are clearly a smarter man than I.



I will drop this because I am partially the reason this has gone so far off course. I was hoping this thread could be used by people to discuss the book and ideas. Too bad that will never happen instead we have to argue with peope who haven't even read the book.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Descartes
There's a very large difference between a metaphysical belief system and one about the natural world.

Codewiz's post about god "hiding" is described with appropriate lucidity in Dawkins' book, and he addresses the whole point of a belief system.

People in this thread are going to continue to argue out of ignorance, because those that are arguing simply haven't read the book. Agreeing with Dawkins isn't the issue; arguing against matters that were completely addressed by him is.

I understand. I just want to eat athiests on my tummy.

Onward soldiers!

spidey the otter

LOL

I like otters.

I hate to use a comedy show as some means of a reference. But that episode does make the point succiently clear. Much better than I can.

 

[SonnyDaze]

**Yaaaawn**. Man, I just woke up. Whew......where am I? Oh yeah, I'm in ATOT.

<-------P&N.

 

[hans030390]

I've heard the book brings up a lot of good points, but I've heard there are also a lot of good counter points to the book as well (you just have to find the right material, and a lot of it isn't).

I may read the book just to read it, but I don't have that kind of money.

To the OP, I wouldn't go around posting things that may relate to religion in some way...it usually doesn't end up well.