Just read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

[MotoBrah]

if only there was religion/politics subforum on bb.com

[MrAWatts]

It's an excellent book. If there's one thing you should take away from it, it's that while you may not be able to prove something doesn't exist, you can determine the probability of its existence. Also, the burden of proof rests with the believer anyhow.

[DogOnWheels]

It shows how preposterous the idea is that there is no plan and order in the universe. If there was no one to design our thoughts, then our thoughts are accidential and therefore irrelevant. Basic cause and effect.

Why does accidental equal irrelevant lol

Who does sanction "relevance" and what it is lol

If anything, it is idea of some transcendent "designer" derived from childish imagination that is preposterous

lol

[sinfiery]

if only there was religion/politics subforum on bb.com

post on misc section












get told you posted on wrong section

[BushrodButtram]

lol C. S. Lewis was a great writer, but as a philosopher, he's as relevant as ovulating chimpanzee. What does deriving stance of intelectual nihilism from Big Bang theory have to do with the argument about religion, is probably comprehensible only to mind of 5 year old.

The argument is, #1, that if your thoughts are caused by a deterministic process, there's no reason to think they are "true", any more than the automatic responses of ants to pheremone signals are "true". That is, they might be informative to the extent necessary to be adaptive, but there's no reason to believe that they can be extended beyond their adaptive applications. Given a mechanistic conception of thought, there's no reason to believe that human thought is capable of understanding the universe, any more than ant thought is capable of understanding why you mow your lawn.

But more than that, #2, if your thoughts are caused by a deterministic process, then you have no choice other than to think what the physical circumstances of the universe cause you to think. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no way to know, since your very belief that you're right or wrong is merely an epiphenomenon. That is, strict materialism turns us all into meat robots.

Most philosophers are not very hot on materialism these days. I don't read the literature any more, but Thomas Nagel just published some stuff about the failure of the neo-Darwinian synthesis to do any useful work in theories of mind and consciousness; more generally, the philosophy professionals I know, while atheists to a man, aren't that interested in hard materialist theories of mind. (Searle is arguably a dualist by now, and I recently read a paper by a prominent guy I'm blanking on now who basically says "there is no good reason not to be a dualist, although I am still a materialist for non-philosophical reasons.")

[sinfiery]

It shows how preposterous the idea is that there is no plan and order in the universe. If there was no one to design our thoughts, then our thoughts are accidential and therefore irrelevant. Basic cause and effect.

You made the 1st logical step.

This inherently assumes the only way ones thoughts can not be accidental or irrelevant would be by starting from a source of power that is all powerful and so the only way to make such a statement would be through a belief in such a being to give you the leg to stand upon.

But this is all dependent upon the logical structure of the way in which we interact and the way our language says. As is evident, you stating "basic cause and effect"
How is that dependency outside the realm of things unable to be questioned?
It isn't.

[germanyt]

To OP, go to www.thethinkingatheist.com

[SamBrah]

Good book OP, read it when I was 18.

[germanyt]

When I read that Richard Dawkins doesn't even consider himself a (hard) atheist, I gained some faith back in humanity.

He defined himself as a 6.9 out of 7. That's pretty ****ing hard. But since it's impossible to disprove God he cannot claim a 7. Every sensible atheist on Earth has the same position.

[sinfiery]

He defined himself as a 6.9 out of 7. That's pretty ****ing hard. But since it's impossible to disprove God he cannot claim a 7. Every sensible atheist on Earth has the same position.

Every sensible atheist should call themselves agnostic then.

[Loctus]

It shows how preposterous the idea is that there is no plan and order in the universe. If there was no one to design our thoughts, then our thoughts are accidential and therefore irrelevant. Basic cause and effect.

Umm, why would you ever think that your thoughts are relevant to something? Life has no meaning, get used to it. Not like the universe cares about you.

[DogOnWheels]

The argument is, #1, that if your thoughts are caused by a deterministic process, there's no reason to think they are "true", any more than the automatic responses of ants to pheremone signals are "true". That is, they might be informative to the extent necessary to be adaptive, but there's no reason to believe that they can be extended beyond their adaptive applications. Given a mechanistic conception of thought, there's no reason to believe that human thought is capable of understanding the universe, any more than ant thought is capable of understanding why you mow your lawn.

But more than that, #2, if your thoughts are caused by a deterministic process, then you have no choice other than to think what the physical circumstances of the universe cause you to think. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no way to know, since your very belief that you're right or wrong is merely an epiphenomenon. That is, strict materialism turns us all into meat robots.

Most philosophers are not very hot on materialism these days. I don't read the literature any more, but Thomas Nagel just published some stuff about the failure of the neo-Darwinian synthesis to do any useful work in theories of mind and consciousness; more generally, the philosophy professionals I know, while atheists to a man, aren't that interested in hard materialist theories of mind. (Searle is arguably a dualist by now, and I recently read a paper by a prominent guy I'm blanking on now who basically says "there is no good reason not to be a dualist, although I am still a materialist for non-philosophical reasons.")

I never really got into that ontological crap about what is "being", "truth" etc. In the end they're only semantic games of our limited mind, and there is a lot of babbling and mystification about these abstract concepts, which is something "theologists" and other charlatans thrive on.

We know what we know, with the tools that we have. Yes, we're basically meat robots in an incomprehensible abyss. It is disturbing, but so what.

[brahG]

so what are some good points that he made or that stood out to u?

1. Even though you're not able to prove something to not exist (or the other way around) you can still determine the probability of it's existence.

2. Christianity is VERY hypocrtical. Richard Dawkins destroyed Christian faith in the book imho. He explained how Christianity is not very different from a polytheistic religion like Hinduism. Hinduism has the Elephant God, Vishnu, Krishna etc. and they're all a 'part' of the one God, while Christianity has the Trinity (Jesus, The Holy Spirit and The Father) who are distinct yet coexist and are of one being.

3. Religion plays the 'butthurt card' 99% of the time it gets criticised.

And much more... what I disliked about the book is how one third of it is him trying to make a point when he says Albert Einstein, The Founding Fathers etc. were secularists/atheists.

[DogOnWheels]

He defined himself as a 6.9 out of 7. That's pretty ****ing hard. But since it's impossible to disprove God he cannot claim a 7. Every sensible atheist on Earth has the same position.

But it must be noted that the "god" concept has no more relevance "red transvetite dragon bird that ****s universes" concept.

[germanyt]

Every sensible atheist should call themselves agnostic then.

Not really. Atheist is just not believing in God. There are gnostic and agnostic atheists. There are also gnostic and agnostic theists.

[germanyt]

Umm, why would you ever think that your thoughts are relevant to something? Life has no meaning, get used to it. Not like the universe cares about you.

Hello fellow existentialist.

[sinfiery]

Umm, why would you ever think that your thoughts are relevant to something? Life has no meaning, get used to it. Not like the universe cares about you.

I'm curious how people think so can I ask you and anyone else sharing this opinion some questions?

Isn't making the statement that life has no meaning making a statement about what the meaning of life is?
Even saying I don't know what the meaning of life is, specifically assumes that you don't know something which is making a statement.

Thoughts?

Not really. Atheist is just not believing in God. There are gnostic and agnostic atheists. There are also gnostic and agnostic theists.

right, right.

general consensus within our population/culture is that Atheist = gnostic atheist so if you say you are "atheist" with no clarity, I will assume you as a fool.
If you say you are an agnostic atheist, carry on.

[Lowlander]

Lol at rednecks voting the thread 1 star.

[bendesha777]

OK OP got a question. i lost my wedding ring in a river..was looking for it underwater for around an hour. i sat on the shore line and prayed to god that he would help me find my ring. went down , found ring. feels god man. Jesus is in the business of finding a man's wedding ring you mad?

[ticktickytembo]

brb just watched Zeigeist

....understands the world

Let your sht clear for a few months to a year and then talk. People are always so impressed immediately after watching a documentary or reading on a book pertaining to something they know little to nothing about. As if they just got 'schooled' without the ability to critique any of it. Just soak it in like a sponge.

Dawkins is a biologist. Evolution doesn't disprove the absolute. It's a part of it. You can call it 'God', but that word has been ruined to a man in the clouds who answers certain people's prayers and ignores others. That's called ego perception.

Most people don't know anything about spirituality, god, etc. They don't even know the follies of their own egos. It's truly pathetic.

[Loctus]

I'm curious how people think so can I ask you and anyone else sharing this opinion some questions?

Isn't making the statement that life has no meaning making a statement about what the meaning of life is?
Even saying I don't know what the meaning of life is, specifically assumes that you don't know something which is making a statement.

Thoughts?

Fair enough, I'll give you that one. Let me rephrase my statement: Life most likely has no meaning, there is no way to know if it does or not, and there is no good evidence leading to believing that it does.

It ties back into "Does God exist?"; well, it's impossible to prove he doesn't, but there is no proof and no reason to think he does until there is proof.

[MotoBrah]

post on misc section













get told you posted on wrong section

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72

[Loctus]

OK OP got a question. i lost my wedding ring in a river..was looking for it underwater for around an hour. i sat on the shore line and prayed to god that he would help me find my ring. went down , found ring. feels god man. Jesus is in the business of finding a man's wedding ring you mad?

[Jack3dSparrow]

[sinfiery]

Fair enough, I'll give you that one. Let me rephrase my statement: Life most likely has no meaning, there is no way to know if it does or not, and there is no good evidence leading to believing that it does.

It ties back into "Does God exist?"; well, it's impossible to prove he doesn't, but there is no proof and no reason to think he does until there is proof.

Saying I don't know if life has no meaning is specifically making a statement about life.
Where does this factual knowledge about life come from where you state:"I know that I cannot know about life?" or "Life probably doesn't have a meaning"
You are assuming some form of knowledge and that assumption of knowledge has to come from a source other than yourself to be considered truth via the cause and effect principle unless you are your own cause or your tools are your own cause

[DogOnWheels]

right, right.

general consensus within our population/culture is that Atheist = gnostic atheist so if you say you are "atheist" with no clarity, I will assume you as a fool.
If you say you are an agnostic atheist, carry on.

lol at this stupid trick

lemme ask you, do you think there is a homosexual polar bear that created 12 Gods that rule 12 universes?

I assume you don't. therefore you are gnostic in the matter of existence of almighty ******* polar bear. stupid gnostic atheist, HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE? I RESPECT AGNOSTICS, NOT PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

[sellerdoar]

Tempted to neg OP.

No, I'm not religious. But it's equally ignorant to say with such conviction that a "god" can't exist.

read the book. dawkins himself doesn't even say "god can't exist"; he says on a scale from 1-10, 1 being entirely certain god exists and 10 being entirely certain god doesn't exist, that he is a 9. he can't be 100% sure that god doesnt exist, but considering all available information, he's pretty sure that there is no god.

[Loctus]

fuking lol @ The Cosmological Argument

[sinfiery]

lol at this stupid trick

lemme ask you, do you think there is a homosexual polar bear that created 12 Gods that rule 12 universes?

I assume you don't. therefore you are gnostic in the matter of existence of almighty ******* polar bear. stupid gnostic atheist, HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE? I RESPECT AGNOSTICS, NOT PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

I assume I don't know.
Seriously.

The only thing respectable about being an agnostic isn't that it is particularly "hard" to derive from logic and thus makes you smart, but that it is the most humbling thing in the world to say. The acceptance of ignorance. Dear god all mighty, that is hard. There's a reason why ignorance is bliss.

[newjeep75]

People say, "God gives us free will."

Then they say, "Everything for my life is set out/predestined by God." And, "It is God's will, it's up to the Man upstairs."

Which is it? Can't be both!