View Full Version : The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Crazy Guggenheim
10-07-2011, 12:38 AM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Crazy Guggenheim
10-07-2011, 12:49 AM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Crazy Guggenheim
10-07-2011, 01:01 AM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Crazy Guggenheim
10-07-2011, 01:15 AM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Crazy Guggenheim
10-07-2011, 01:24 AM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
From the book "The God Delusion"
Religious leaders are fully capable of verbalizing the 'tricks' that aid in the survival of religion. Martin Luther was well aware that "REASON" was religion's arch-enemy, and he frequently warned of its dangers: 'Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.' ...and... 'Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.' ...and again... ' Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.' [Only registered and activated users can see links]
There are many other quotes from Martin Luther to be found at that link...
The book is much more thorough... but these clips are good. :)
SubstituteTeacher
10-07-2011, 03:04 PM
In catholic school the nuns would say everyone has a guardian angel to watch over them. If that is true , how do you explain 9/11 or any other evil?
You have one; it's just not guarding you.
There are almost certainly no Angels.
There are almost certainly no Angels.
David Boreanaz begs to differ.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
SubstituteTeacher
10-07-2011, 06:49 PM
The science teacher at the high school where I sub said life is too complex not to have a creator. So that is one scientist who disagrees with with Dawkins.
The science teacher at the high school where I sub said life is too complex not to have a creator. So that is one scientist who disagrees with with Dawkins.
Bad arguement because it defeats itself. If one says that something is too complex and for that reason must have a designer/creator then the implication is: whatever created/designed it MUST be more complex (than the thing it designed)... Which means that the creator/designer couldn't possibly come into existence without having been designed itself.
OR the "too complex" argument is false.
One other thing... shouldn't it send up a little red flag when a "Scientist" says, "That question is too hard to answer." ?
SubstituteTeacher
10-07-2011, 08:54 PM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
It's a well articulated article but this is where I think he breaks down:
What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose.
well... Actually he loses me when he says he's a scientist who believes in a creator for which there is no evidence other than the thoughts in his own head (which, as a scientist, he should know better)... and specifically calls himself a Christian which, I suppose, means he believes in a virgin birth as well as the idea that Christ was dead then came back alive and then floated into the sky... And that god can listen to each and every prayer... Can read each and every thought... And actually requires everybody believe in him... Or there's no 'eternal life'... Scientist indeed.
IMO, he's a questionable scientist at best.
One thing further (now that I'm not limited to typing on my iPhone)...
This guy claims to be a Christian Scientist... he goes on to give an eloquent thought on the beauty of evolution... He could not understand this thought if he didn't have at least some understanding of statistical probability. I mentioned the tea cup in orbit around the sun somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars... If I claim there is one and I support this claim with books containing the same claim... books that are 100s of years old... and I line up a bunch of people who have the same books and believe in the tea cup, too... I wonder if this scientist would accept that as "good enough for him"? Would he, too, believe in the tea cup?
Probably not. Why? Because it is statistically almost impossible for that tea cup is actually there... Now, Dawkins would say he's "agnostic" about the idea, recognizing that there "COULD" be such a tea cup, and if it was ever shown that such a tea cup does exist then he would happily agree... but until that time, there's really no evidence of any kind to support the tea cup.
I dare say the above Christian Scientist would agree completely with Dawkins on this. The "Odds" of such a tea cup being there are almost zero. The statistical probability of it being there is soooo smallllll that I think we can all agree that it is almost certainly NOT there.
For people who say, "I don't know if God exists or not... Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't"... That does NOT mean the odds are 50/50. The odds are probably closer to that of the Tea Cup. So, to choose to believe in the Tea Cup with such incredible odds against, and in the face of ZERO evidence is not a very 'scientific' way of understanding the world around you... It's a mockery of Science... This Christian Scientist mocks himself when he chooses think, consider, and decide so conclusively based on no evidence and such statistical improbability.
While looking for a video of the Tea Cup argument I ran across somebody claiming to debunk the whole thing by evoking the tooth fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
Said something like Dawkin's says there's no such thing as the Tooth Fairy but how does he know? He hasn't proven there isn't a tooth fairy.
Seriously?
If I am to claim that there is a Tea Cup in orbit... my claim doesn't make it a fact. If I say, "Prove me wrong!"... and you are unable to do so... that does NOT mean that I'm right. You see?
If I am to make that claim, then it is up to me to prove it... it is NOT up to you to disprove it. I hope you can see the CLEAR logic of this.
And, just because somebody claims there's a God who listens to the thoughts and payers of everybody simultaneously, is capable of raising from the dead and floating into the sky, and requires we believe in him if we want 'everlasting life'... Does NOT mean there is such a God. And it is NOT up to anybody to prove them wrong.
Just because somebody can't prove them wrong, doesn't mean they are right. You see?
If they want to make that claim, it is up to them to prove it.
And when there is no evidence... when the statistical probability of such a God existing is as close to Zero as possible... then I really don't think their claim is worth much.
They, like all others before them, have found comfort in a set of Memes that exist in the presence of themselves but which make no sense when put in the presence of other Memes. The previous quotes by Martin Luther exemplify how an environment is created where these memes are kept "safe" from the outside and allowed to flourish within their own little circle... Most religious God believing people were exposed to these ideas at an early age... they were presented by trusted adults... and there are good reasons to listen to and believe the adults in your life when you're a child.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.