Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because. . . (2)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 10000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 15 Sep 2010 16:17:02 BDT
Huck Flynn says:
another thread "neutralised" !
[sighs]
maybe we could all contribute some money and get him a humour transplant

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Sep 2010 16:54:40 BDT
Neutral says:
HF

Try getting yourself an intelligence transplant while you're at it.

Posted on 15 Sep 2010 18:04:22 BDT
Mr. Bde Wall says:
Do you guys, or anybody else have any thoughts on what what I or AJ were saying? The points were there to be challenged/re-directed/extented etc.. Or is this thread only a war of words now? :(

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Sep 2010 20:24:56 BDT
"Or is this thread only a war of words now?"

I'd go with that.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Sep 2010 23:35:33 BDT
Dreamer says:
It has gone the way of its esteemed parent.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 09:34:25 BDT
Withnail says:
As I understand it, Phil has used his superior intelligence and rapier like wit to say -

"I'm rubber, you are glue, what ever you say bounces of me and sticks on you".

Wow - I sure wish I was that clever what with all his book learnin and all.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 10:17:50 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Hi Ben,

Glad you followed my line of thought, my original intention was to put the product link in place of the books name, but ended up forgetting to include it. Your quote from Wittgenstein is what put me in mind of Brian Cox's writings.

Why Does E=mc2?

-"Apologies for the awkward wording of point (5), which, unsurprisingly, is the one thats difficult to grasp (entirely my own fault)."

No need, i think everyone suffers the difficulty of getting our thoughts ordered and 'out there' onto the page with any clarity. I've mangled my fair share of sentences on these threads.

-"What I would like to say is that, I think its important to bear in mind, when we address anything, our thought process is playing a role - we can't make sense of things free of this. I think our conceptions are shaped by a whole range of histories - our own direct social history (e.g. upbringing, cultural background and so forth), but also, the history of the language we use, which structures our thought virtually all the time."

Very true, we are to a certain extent the products of our environment which in turn lends us our biases.

-"This has implications for any attempt to identify the underlying mechanisms at work behind life, the universe and everything, be it a God behind it or anything else."

I would disagree with this. Our biases would only affect our interpretation, not the mechanisms themselves. God as i have already said is a meaningless term, so we cannot speak of any implications until that changes.

-"This has some implications for science too - the role of science is thus here not a case of 'verifying' hypotheses, but creating the most workable accounts of nature that we can, with the situated grasp of things we have. I expect I may ruffle some people's feathers there, they might see it as undermining scientific achievement, but it really doesn't. Science is essential for living in the world, and offers extremely valuable criteria for directing our knowledge and practice."

Broadly i agree. Although i would point out that the majority of time invested in the sciences are about attempting to disprove hypotheses. Every failure to do so adds to the veracity of the hypothesis that is undergoing testing. The value lies in it practical nature and the fact that it attempts to remove those biases that we carry from the process. Its more about systematic self-examination. This places the knowledge acquired through this method on a more objective footing. You don't have to subscribe to a particular belief system in order to reap the benefits of this process. That why i see it a inherently superior to the purely subjective methods of enquiry employed by theists.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 11:39:03 BDT
Funny - I started a Part II days ago.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 12:08:08 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
If you check out the date I started this thread you'll find it was 11th Sept. to your 12th :)

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 12:25:39 BDT
Can we merge the threads?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 12:34:56 BDT
Huck Flynn says:
Hi Ben
all good and reasonable points
i concur with them all (i think) - starting at point 6. if i don't have the right tools to detect god the fault is his. instead i have a strong alternative to most of his alleged claims eg creation, couched in scientific rather than superstitious terms.
i also find the purpose of scriptural source documents to be rather transparently man made and self serving, their lessons confusing, illogical and unfair. why should we live our lives according to these archaic tribal guidebooks?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 12:37:35 BDT
G. Proctor says:
Don't cross the streams!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 12:54:46 BDT
*snerk* Or whatshisname (Gozer? who actually looked like a girl), with the help of Mr Stay-Puff, will kill us all?

"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 15:11:08 BDT
Neutral says:
cd

You're on the wrong track.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 17:38:25 BDT
Mr. Bde Wall says:
Hi AJ,

Thanks for your post. Just want to pick up on the point where you say you disagree.. I'm a little confused, I think you may have mis-read me. You say by way of response " Our biases would only affect our interpretation, not the mechanisms themselves", but what I was talking about was "any attempt to identify the underlying mechanisms" (my previous quote). It was the identification I was discussing, not the reality itself which this tries to address. Or have I misunderstood?

You then say "God as i have already said is a meaningless term, so we cannot speak of any implications until that changes."

I think The problem isn't that God is a meaningless term. Rather, the problem is that the term 'God' connotates too much! The meanings are too many, too diverse to ever feel you're getting close to anything substantial beneath the multiplicity of diverse, shifting meanings, if that makes sense.

"i would point out that the majority of time invested in the sciences are about attempting to disprove hypotheses"

Yes, this is true today - but historically not so. 'Verification' was considered a goal of science as well as falsifying hypotheses up until the early/mid twentieth century. The shift from 'verification', on to falsification (emphasis on disproving hypotheses) came about when severe epistemological difficulties, highlighted by Karl Popper and others, revealed the difficulties in proving hypotheses. I think it remains the case that there are many scientists and members of the general public who still see scientific knowledge as a straight forward description of absolute, static facts. Some who hold this view often try to make a scientific theory 'confirmation' of theism or athiesm, or indefinitely make God probable or improbable. I think such an approach is problematic and do not hold it myself.

many thanks,

Ben

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 17:59:48 BDT
Andy PW says:
I think these message boards are as good as ones the BBC trashed a couple of years ago. I was sad to lose them, but now these exist! Hurrah. There is a god!

Backbiting coexisting with intelligence (sometimes from the same people), and excellent suggestions, e.g. the Brian Cox (who has done a superb job popularising physics and astronomy on the box) has a very interesting looking book there.

"Thats pretty much my position, 'god' as this undefined unobservable entity is superfluous to our understanding of the world."

- but that does not help to explain all those religions. Philosophy cannot do that either. Any psychologists here?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 19:51:59 BDT
*raises hand* I took a few undergrad courses in psych. Didn't intend to get a degree, but a few of the classes interested me.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 20:11:12 BDT
Andy PW says:
Hi Stephanie

So how does psychology explain religions then? If it cannot, then do we not need gods (and in my view there must be many) to explain them?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Sep 2010 20:31:36 BDT
Ritual and tradition gives people a sense of comfort and predictability. Religion may have sprung from rituals that were as yet unformalized. Humans didn't always bury their dead, but eventually they developed rituals to go along with it.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2010 13:45:41 BDT
Shakti~ says:
Beautiful! I love Kahlil Gibran

Posted on 16 Nov 2010 18:32:05 GMT
Pendragon says:
Part 2! With a good OP from Isobel. Let's get to it.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2010 18:55:56 GMT
Oh God Nooooooo!

I thought we were rid of M. James and his inanity. Please do something new...

Oh well, if you can't beat 'em - join 'em!

Wayne

Posted on 16 Nov 2010 19:29:24 GMT
MarmiteMan says:
I say, I go away for 24 hours and return to find 92 + 47 new posts on this thread. My my, we happy atheists & theists have been busy! By the by, try saying "atheists & theists" after a glass of wine too many! Anyway, another thread for atheists to (mockingly) refute the existence of Spirits In The Sky and for theists to (patronizingly) lecture how the atheists are In Denial ...!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2010 19:31:42 GMT
Pendragon says:
Wayne

By all means start one yourself - make sure to re-post any unanswered posts!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 09:53:01 GMT
Spin says:
Is it not the case that one's definition of the term "God" influences ones acceptance or denial of a deity's existence? Your arguments against the existence of a deity are aimed at the standard, cultural definition of "God". Consider this: the human brain is composed of billions of atoms. The structure of these atoms creates consciousness/thought. But the observation of the structure of a brain gives no indication of the existence of thought/consciousness. now, perhaps a deity "exists" in a similar manner in that no matter how much we observe the material world it will never indicate the presence of a deity. All arguments against the existence of a deity are, in fact, arguments against the propositions put forward by theists, and are not, despite their claim, against the actual existence of a deity. That is atheistic arguments are themselves defined by the requirement to refute theistic arguments which in themselves contain a prior conception of the nature of deity.
Discussion locked

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  201
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  11 Sep 2010
Latest post:  5 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions