Blogs


Notices

The God Illusion

Old 04-19-2007, 04:43 PM
  # 61 (permalink)  
To Life!
 
historyteach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 9,293
There is no evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist.
Boolean logic, Maurius. It replaced Aristotean logic @ 1950s or so. Since there IS no pink unicorn, there can never be proof of it, even if the logic works out perfectly!

There is no evidence that god exist.
I accept that is your opinion! LOL!
See, it's so funny. All I recommended is an open mind. ANd some can't manage that! And since there is no evidence, and can never *be* any evidence of a lack of god/goddesses...., an open mind is the least that should be expected!
Don't tell me that there is more of a reason to believe in a god.
We'll just continue to agree to disagree.
And I'll keep my mind open to all evidence....

Another way to look at this is that the overwhelming majority of the people on earth believe in a personal god. Comparatively little believe in a deist god.
That's a false dichotomy you present -- once more...
And I have seen no evidence anywhere to support your assertation.

But, I honestly don't want to argue with anyone, so, I'm probably done with this thread....
I simple state that an open mind is the only way one can learn.
What's that statement about contempt prior to investigation?

Have fun, everyone!

Shalom!
historyteach is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:11 PM
  # 62 (permalink)  
Knucklehead
 
doorknob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Davenport, WA
Posts: 4,005
doorknob is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:22 PM
  # 63 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by historyteach View Post
{on the assertion that there is not evidence that God exists}
I accept that is your opinion! LOL!
Not to pick- really, but if you have evidence that gd *does* exist, now would be a good time to present it. Otherwise, you risk asserting an opinion and nothing more yourself!

Just sayin'.

It's always funny to me when it comes to "does exist, doesn't need evidence" vs "no evidence, doesn't exist". It is also interesting to see what people consider evidence.

(For the record, I am an atheist Jewess. My motto: Go, figure )
andshewas is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:35 PM
  # 64 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 66
You don't need to argue with me Teach. You could give me evidence that a god's existance is more probable than an invisible pink unicorn though. Or you could give me evidence that a gods existance is more probable than his non- existance.(you previously stated that belief and nonbelief require equal amounts of faith)

I can modify one of my earlier statements and still make the same point if you would like. IMAGINE that a majority of people believed in a personal god and not a deist god. Does this make it more likely that a personal god exist instead of the diest?

The purpose of this statement is to show that your reasoning that since most people believe in a god he is more likely to exist than not exist or more likely to exist than an invisible pink unicorn is incorrect.No matter how many people believe in something or how strongly they believe in it, it does not effect the validity of said belief.Perhaps you have thought of a better reason and have neglected to mention it.

Please understand that there was probably no need to modify that statement.According to a chart I am looking at a 54% majority of the world is either Christian or Islamic. Both Christians and Muslims believe in a personal god.

You can find the chart by googling religion statistics. Look on the first result listed.That took all of about 1 minute to find. If you disagree with the chart fine. Just understand the point I am making.


I am open minded. I have not always been an athiest.I have also been a theist,and an agnostic.Heck, I even became a theist once again until I started to truly research the issue. Given good reason to believe in god, or a celestial teapot I would believe and be thankful to have seen the error of my ways.

Just, please, don't ever seriously try to use the argument from popularity! It is irrational.I realize that earlier you said that the universality of belief in god does not*prove* existance but you need to go ahead and take the next step and admit that it also does not qualify as evidence for the existance of a god.

And once again you have angered the invisible pink unicorn by deniying his existance. I have been authorized to inform you that you are now beyond redemption as far as he is concerned. He awaits your arrival in unicorn hell!
marius404 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:44 PM
  # 65 (permalink)  
Knucklehead
 
doorknob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Davenport, WA
Posts: 4,005
Originally Posted by Nuclerosis View Post
I realise my what I'm about to write may not seem productive, but here goes.

I'm one of those militant atheists. We are a rare bunch, but we do exist.

I was brought up with a complete freedom of thought. My parents never told me what was right and wrong to think. I remember being a 6 year-old and being led down to church in school to listen to the reverend. The UK is one of the most secular nations but interestingly, the Church of England still has (theoretical) control in schools. I could never see a reason to believe what I was being told. I'm not one of those people who questioned it as they got older, I simply never ever believed.

I'm a man of science and logic. I approach everything with a cold, clinical outlook. The reason I personally don't believe in any god is because I've never seen evidence of it. I see what I believe. I'm a skeptic in every sense of the word. The only person who is responsible for my problems in life, as well as my successes, is me. And me alone. No one anywhere is going to save me, apart from me. Sure, there are people who can and want to support and help me, but the fact is, if I don't want to stop drinking, then theres nothing anyone can do. Silly books written thousands of years ago won't change that.
I was also raised secular and have never seen any reason to believe in God. I'm very skeptical by nature, and even if I am inclined to believe something, I still want to examine and research it myself. My gf gets really frustrated with me because when she makes an assertion I almost never take her word for it, I have to go look it up. Sometimes she's right and sometimes she's not. Also, I don't believe or disbelieve things so strongly that I won't change my mind should evidence persuade me. As far as a personal capital G god, I don't see any evidence for that. And as for the attributes often ascribed to this supreme being, I think the evidence is contrary and suggests otherwise. I don't think I am what would be described as a militant atheist, but I will admit that I proudly display this sticker on the back window of my ride:

doorknob is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 06:07 PM
  # 66 (permalink)  
Wii
A SeaBird Living LandLocked
 
Wii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Smack Dab Right in the Middle of the U.S.A.
Posts: 238
Smile

Not to disagree with all of you or any of you, I have done my research in my lifetime. I am at a place that makes me Very Happy. I can enjoy my time in this world Appreciating what is around me. I HAVE my evidence of God. I see it everywhere. Perhaps I am lucky or deluded but either way I am happy with it. If you can't appreciate the fruits then maybe your just not seeing what I see. I marvel at everything. And I appreciate everything even the bad. It just makes me appreciate the good.

What is that saying? "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Just study a blade of grass. Could YOU make that??
Wii is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 06:32 PM
  # 67 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Leaving Sparta
Posts: 2,912
Originally Posted by mjs View Post
Has anyone read the current bestseller The God Illusion by Richard Dawkins. I read this book about 3 months ago and it totally turned my world upside down.In this book, one of the worlds top scientists proves how God almost surely does not exist.

If Mr Dawkins is a "scientist" then Mr. Dawkins should know that it is neither possible to prove nor disprove the existence of God.

How did he come by his proof anyway? Pure mathematics ? Or did he unearth some ancient artefact and slip it under an electronic scanning microscope.

I would very much like to read Mr. Dawkins book but doubt if I'll spend my hard eaned money on a copy so I will wait until I get one to borrow or download excerpts on my puter.

Science is based on "proof" and everybody here knows that.

Those of us who are predisposed to a belief in God can find "proof" everywhere and similarly those of us who don't may want to accept rhetoric as "proof".There is no proof.

Whether God exist's as a singular entity that holds sway over individual lives or he exists as a guiding thought that dwells within me and exhorts me to become a better person I find both concepts to be rather cool.....

.....However, it is hard for me within this shortage of proof to contemplate the enormity of life and our universe and to believe that it originated in a vacuum......
Peter is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 06:44 PM
  # 68 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 66
Hi Peter, Richard Dawkins is well aware that you can not prove that god does not exist. In his book he states this clearly.
marius404 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 06:55 PM
  # 69 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Leaving Sparta
Posts: 2,912
Originally Posted by marius404 View Post
Hi Peter, Richard Dawkins is well aware that you can not prove that god does not exist. In his book he states this clearly.
Maybe you need to read the first post in this thread and point that out to mjs.
Peter is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:00 PM
  # 70 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 66
Saying god ALMOST surely does not exist and saying I can prove god does not exist are 2 different things.

While evidence can be presented showing the probability of the existance of god you can never reach 100% refutation. Dawkins knows this.
marius404 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:05 PM
  # 71 (permalink)  
Member
 
TexasDumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 365
Sorry folks,

I still want the answer....IT (our universe) had to start SOMEWHERE from NOTHING.

Maybe we will never know, until we pass on....one thing for sure, "There ain't none of us getting out of this life alive!"

On a more happy thought, thanks for being there for me and us!
TexasDumb is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:06 PM
  # 72 (permalink)  
To Life!
 
historyteach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 9,293
Lightbulb mjs; hope you're still with us...

Originally Posted by mjs View Post
Has anyone read the current bestseller The God Illusion by Richard Dawkins. I read this book about 3 months ago and it totally turned my world upside down.In this book, one of the worlds top scientists proves how God almost surely does not exist.I am a Christian but after that book I was totally depressed and confused. I have searched for any sensible rebuttals to his book and have not found any. Now I am trying to get clean and sober and have made it 30 days but it has been very choppy. I have made 7 major attempts to get clean and sober. These lasted anywhere from 3 months to 18 months. I never reached a place in my sobriety where being clean became a more attractive option than returning to using. I am a 45 year old dad with two beautiful twin daughters 9 yrs old, a great wife, decent job,etc,etc...My drugs of choice are weed and alcohol.I am pretty much a binge drinker/smoker on weekends.In short a functioning alcoholic/addict. I am doing some things differently this time around. I am seeing a therapist once a week and slowly telling her my whole story. She thinks that until I come to terms with the emotional,physical, and sexual abuse I suffered when I was growing and stay sober I will never be free from it.She practices depth therapy and thinks that building relationships is the primary way to recover.Well the easiest way to build new relationships is going to na/aa. I am also building a meditation/yoga practice,exercising,etc. I want to incorporate 12 step work into my recovery but when i went to meetings in the past I kept seeing the same people telling the same stories. Its like in the movie groundhog day...I skip a couple years and when I go to a meeting its like yesterday.No one ever moves on or improves. Not a very compelling future to look forward to. I love the theory of the 12 steps but after reading that blasted book it is going to be even more problematic.At any rate I am moving forward with my recovery and trying to hold onto the belief that my quality of life is going to be so much better without using. That seems to be a universal truth. No matter that part of me is screaming for weed and a beer. No matter that my mind has me convinced that moderate use is preferable,its only weed,life is better when using, I will never ever think any thing differently, on and on and on. At any rate, I would greatly appreciate any feedback concerning my situation, esspecially any one else who has managed to get free from weed after abusing it for years and years.
Thanks for the reminder, Peter....
We haven't seen mjs for quite a while. He was struggling so much.
I guess it's time to get back to recovery, here....

I do hope that you're still doing well, mjs...and still clean and sober.
Please let us know.

That is what SR is all about, folks. Giving and getting support in our individual recovery. That, and that alone is our mission.

I'll only point out the following once. Trolling, to cause disruption, is against the rules. It's not welcome here. Nuf said!

Shalom!

Last edited by historyteach; 04-20-2007 at 05:35 AM.
historyteach is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:11 PM
  # 73 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Leaving Sparta
Posts: 2,912
Originally Posted by marius404 View Post
Saying god ALMOST surely does not exist and saying I can prove god does not exist are 2 different things.
...and with a response like that I am ALMOST certainly done here.
Peter is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:24 PM
  # 74 (permalink)  
Member
 
TexasDumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 365
Historyteach,

Weed, well, you just don't inhale. Bill Clinton.

Actually, it is quite boring for most folks, especially once it makes you more sleepy that it energizes you.

I have noticed that when weed makes you more sleepy instead of more energized, most folks quit...Just like that....

My middle/older brother paid his way through college with duffle bags full of weed.
And the idiot drove a tiny little French car that made police officers stop him just to ask what kind of car it was!

He finally said he had wore out TOO many rear-view mirrors,, so he gave it up.

Now, about once every 8 years, he might partake. But, lucky for him, no withdrawals or regrets.

He is still a wild man, and a millionaire at that,...go figure!

Good luck!
TexasDumb is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 08:00 PM
  # 75 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 56
Historyteach- I am not out to cause trouble, but this is the second time you have said the thing about trolling- I did read the bylaws before signing up but maybe I am missing something? Is there a rule that ONLY sobriety/recovery can be discussed?

Here is my story (in way brief)- I am the daughter, granddaughter, neice and wife of alcoholics/drug users. I am also an atheist. This has made AA somewhat difficult for me (al anon as well as various people's interpretations of Higher Power). This site was recommended to me by a friend who is on here somewhere because I am currently trying to deal with my husband's relapse. I started in this section because I wanted to make sure I had some kind of commonality beyond *just* the addiction issues. These threads I have posted in have been ones I chose because I am comfortable putting forth an opinion on the subjects.

One of the things which has fascinated me for years has been the idea of Higher Power as Only Way To Recover. Frankly, I disagree. I also find a lot of the hoo and hah around it to be detrimental. Yes, I know many people *have* been helped by AA, but I do not think it is the Only Way. For a variety of reasons.

In the OP, the person (whom I wish well) said this book made them very uncomfortable in an already really painful situation. A lot has come up, and I commented not just on the first post, but some of the other issues/ideas.

Sorry if this seems weird, I just thought I would explain myself (hey, did I mention I might have a little dose of the Adult Children syndrome? ). Edit to add, after reading other thread- Maybe you're not paranoid when they really *are* out to get you, eh?

Last edited by andshewas; 04-19-2007 at 08:06 PM. Reason: many threaded response and smilie trouble
andshewas is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 01:02 AM
  # 76 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.
Posts: 828
Cool

Good morning all!

Good morning Historyteach!

i love you, you know that.

I am glad to see the topic is still being allowed. I actually hesitated many weeks before participating here. lol It is a subject of endless fascination for me personally, but gosh you know. I just never wanted to upset anyone. Towards that end, I even drew up the following statement. (lol) It's kinda all I can do really, short of not participating.

"My posts in this topic are from a point of view critical to organized religion. Anyone offended or easily upset by this subject may wish to skip over my posts, if not the entire thread."


TexasDUH so good to see you here! I will respond to you shortly on the genesis of the universe.

Ten
Ten Chips Down is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 01:12 AM
  # 77 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.
Posts: 828
I want to break here quickly enough to say that I rather doubt Dawkins claims any such 'proof' in his writings, and would encourage Mjs to double-check this statement for accuracy. -Ahh! I see Marius has corrected the claim.

The dangers of organized religion
People in my country, the U.S., typically fail to grok the insidious nature of blind conviction, characteristic of religion.

The world history of religion is writ in the blood of intolerance for the beliefs of others and the lacking of reference to the whole of humanity. Anyone who would still deny that organized religion has played a significant role in perpetuating evil upon others across the millennia are really ignorant to world history. (This is right up Teach's alley!)

Ever since Muslims swept across the European continent in the fourteenth century to assimilate Constantinople, the last vestige of the Christian Roman Empire, the wars of religion have wraught bloodbath after bloodbath. Later, Christian warriors as directed by the Pope would go on to prosecute the notorious Crusades seeking to annihilate their enemies.

Which of course segues into the centuries-old feuding between Kurds, Shiias, Sunnis, Christians, and Muslims of today in the broader Middle East. In the name of religion and of defending holy lands, these wars are responsible for some of the bloodiest, most intractable feuding of the last two-thousand years.

Make no mistake, organized religion of today does good only to the extent that it does not divide... fuel prejudice and intolerance such as homophobia... and create factions which fight bloody civil wars.

* * *

These citations demonstrate the nefarious influences brought on by organized religion, as over the centuries dissident faiths and traditions have given rise to the systematic slaughter of mankind.

How that can be in any way equivocated is beyond me, and the sooner we as a species are rid of this fiction of the ages, the better for all.

Ten
Ten Chips Down is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 01:42 AM
  # 78 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.
Posts: 828
all right Tex :-D

Originally Posted by TexasDumb View Post
Sorry folks, I still want the answer....IT (our universe) had to start SOMEWHERE from NOTHING.
Hey you.

Well, but it does not, see. lol

Let us go back to ½Sane's c/c/p.

Originally Posted by ½Sane ® View Post
Here's a little something I copied years ago from a discussion. It's a long read but seems fitting.
It's unweildly and fraught with inaccuracies and bad application of logic.... therefore I HAVE to address a couple of sections! lol

The reader is urged to Google for himself any and everything I state along the lines of science in this series of posts to learn more.

"Ok first things first. The entire study of science is based on the idea of 'probability'."

This is false. Science is based on facts, and experiments and observation designed to derive those facts.

"You can’t prove to me that if you drop a pencil now it will fall to the floor."

This is false, as the exercise described is demonstrable. The law of gravity is not theoretical.

"The universe cannot be eternal and must therefore have had a beginning and a cause."

This is false. (See below.)

"The Big Bang is now the dominant cosmological theory about the origin of the universe."

No longer. It has been supplanted over the past half-dozen years by a relative to Superstring Theory known as M Theory (M being for membrane). The heart of this theory describes our universe as one in an infinite number of universes in the multiverse, such that time and existence may well be infinite in both directions, and may well predate the 4 billion year-old universe we now inhabit. Under this view, our particular universe may have had a beginning, but the stuff of which it is formed would be from the interaction of various "membranes" (other universes) described in M Theory, giving birth to our own.

TexasD, the difficulty with wrapping our minds around this -something far more radical than the old Big-Bang Theory- is tied to the traditional ways of thinking we were all raised on, certainly including the concept of a 'Creator' God.

You may be surpised. Very real answers to the genesis of our universe and the elusive Holy Grail in science, the Unified Theory Of Everything (known as TOE lol), may be but years away from discovery.

(By the way, TOE would unite and reconcile Einstein's relativity--governing laws of the very large with quantum mechanics--governing laws of the very small.)

Science and the theoretical physicists driving it are advancing with amazing speed, but to appreciate it and have any chance of understanding any of it, we have to expand our ways of thinking and toss aside older, confining conceptions of the universe and reality.

Thanks for letting me share this!

Ten
Ten Chips Down is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 02:32 AM
  # 79 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by marius404 View Post
No matter how many people believe in something or how strongly they believe in it, it does not effect the validity of said belief.
Argumentum ad numerum, the fallacy that popular belief makes it so. She commits a similar mistake in suggesting that because it has always been believed, it must be so, a fallacy called argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Nah, you are right--there *is* no more reason to believe than to not believe. Not objectively, there isn't. This is all down to the realm of subjectivism... LOL And you can believe whatever you want, but ya just cannot hold up in telling me there is more objective reason to worship gods.

Finally, the two states are not equivalent. Faith is belief in things unseen. It takes no grand leaps of faith to not embrace skygods or other supernatural beings.

Ten
Ten Chips Down is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 02:50 AM
  # 80 (permalink)  
To Life!
 
historyteach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 9,293
Oh, ten,
I'm so disappointed!
Just because someone else claimed I stated somehting, does not make it so!
I did not claim a numeracy arguement. A careful reading of the posts, though, will show you MULTIPLE issues involved, that are not easily discerned by the nekid eye!
Be careful, my friend...

And I respectfully disagree with your faith idea. Since it cannot be proved scientifically, you *must* have faith not to believe. If you put your trust in proof, that is... :>)

But, again, this message board is about recovery.
Let's try to stick to that.
There are plenty of boards available for arguement.

Shalom, my friend!

Last edited by historyteach; 04-20-2007 at 03:21 AM.
historyteach is offline  

Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:12 AM.