Yeah, I agree. I think its mostly because Christianity is more "popular" or widespread than other religions. The part that I read so far dealt with all kinds of arguments of a God (non-specific), and then certain aspects on the Christian faith. He makes a lot of valid points, but I must say he's not really sensitive to religious people (perhaps to make a point, I don't know), although he states his intent clearly in the beginning of the book.
Religion Vs Atheism
- Thread starter Tobes
- Start date
- Status
Dawkins actually addresses all religions in The God Delusion. Read the opening to Chapter 2, and it'll explain who he is talking about.
Christian, Atheists, and your beliefs surrounding the supernatural can not be proven to a 100%. However, we can weigh the individual probabilities and compare the local underpinnings of each religion.
While your 'religion' (and I call it that for a lack of a better word) is arguably harder to disprove than Christianity, it is only because you've defined 'god' in to oblivion. If your god doesn't take presence in the world, doesn't have consequences for beliefs, and, far as I can tell, really doesn't do anything, why call it god? Why even acknowledge it's existence?
Absolutely. Stupidity in mass quantities is still stupidity. Again, reread what I said about science and mysticism. Large quantities of people have believed in things we've proven to be wrong before, why assume this to be any different?
Christian, Atheists, and your beliefs surrounding the supernatural can not be proven to a 100%. However, we can weigh the individual probabilities and compare the local underpinnings of each religion.
While your 'religion' (and I call it that for a lack of a better word) is arguably harder to disprove than Christianity, it is only because you've defined 'god' in to oblivion. If your god doesn't take presence in the world, doesn't have consequences for beliefs, and, far as I can tell, really doesn't do anything, why call it god? Why even acknowledge it's existence?
Absolutely. Stupidity in mass quantities is still stupidity. Again, reread what I said about science and mysticism. Large quantities of people have believed in things we've proven to be wrong before, why assume this to be any different?
Do you say he's an individualist because he is an atheist? Because atheism is just another belief system, he is not unique in that respect. I used to think being an atheist made me an individualist, but it doesn't. And I still held the possibility of God then, like now I hold the possibility of no God now (again, I am not talking about Christian God). I am not so arrogant as to say with 100% certainty one or the other. You say belief in God makes no sense? People once believed that a spherical earth made no sense. Or that we could step foot on the moon. Or that animals evolved from other animals. They thought with 100% certainty that it wasn't possible, and with time, and through science and discovery, they were proven wrong. I'll agree that people believe some stupid shit sometimes, but neither belief nor disbelief equates to truth or proof.
Think whatever you want, it's your right, but don't act like you have this piece of knowledge that proves you are right and others are wrong. It's okay to be sure of your beliefs, but to remove the possibility of error is simply close-minded. What would you do if the Christian God were proven to be true? Or the Pantheistic, or Shinto, or Shi'ite God? Would you stick to your beliefs despite clear evidence you are wrong, or would you change your mind and in turn, your tune? You might say that this is a dumb question because that will never happen, but don't be so sure. This is probably the ultimate question scientists wants to answer.
Think whatever you want, it's your right, but don't act like you have this piece of knowledge that proves you are right and others are wrong. It's okay to be sure of your beliefs, but to remove the possibility of error is simply close-minded. What would you do if the Christian God were proven to be true? Or the Pantheistic, or Shinto, or Shi'ite God? Would you stick to your beliefs despite clear evidence you are wrong, or would you change your mind and in turn, your tune? You might say that this is a dumb question because that will never happen, but don't be so sure. This is probably the ultimate question scientists wants to answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Science, the study of nature, is not concerned with answering whether or not 'god' exists, because 'god' by definition is supernatural.
You are right when you say that belief or disbelief does not equate to truth. However, a lack of evidence against something does not automatically make it as equally valid as other assertions.
I'll use Russel's teapot to illustrate my point. You have absolutely no proof that there isn't a teapot in orbit around mars, so long as I qualify that statement by saying that the teapot is too small to be seen by our telescopes. Yet neither of us believes in said teapot, because we know that such a belief is irrational and unfounded.
We don't believe in fairies in the bottom of gardens, invisible pink unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters because each of the beliefs are without proof. Why do we make an exception for deities?
Using your logic, it would be "close-minded" to disregard anything of what I've said above.
If it turns out that either Yaweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Izanagi or Izanami were real, I will happily reverse my opinion. Until then, I will stick to what is rational and can be known.
You are right when you say that belief or disbelief does not equate to truth. However, a lack of evidence against something does not automatically make it as equally valid as other assertions.
I'll use Russel's teapot to illustrate my point. You have absolutely no proof that there isn't a teapot in orbit around mars, so long as I qualify that statement by saying that the teapot is too small to be seen by our telescopes. Yet neither of us believes in said teapot, because we know that such a belief is irrational and unfounded.
We don't believe in fairies in the bottom of gardens, invisible pink unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters because each of the beliefs are without proof. Why do we make an exception for deities?
Using your logic, it would be "close-minded" to disregard anything of what I've said above.
If it turns out that either Yaweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Isis, Izanagi or Izanami were real, I will happily reverse my opinion. Until then, I will stick to what is rational and can be known.
I didn't call anyone an individualist; the word was used in reference to one who does not follow ideals simply because the majority believes them to be true. But to answer your question as to whether or not atheist = individualist; no, that word can not be applied to every atheist.
And you would've been right there with them, considering many of the cultures in earlier times subscribed to that belief. There isn't always strength in numbers - you are just reiterating the point.
I'm not saying anything with 100% certainty. A supernatural force doesn't make sense to me. It will in all probability never make sense unless it's seen with my own eyes.
Where did this come from? You said the following in post #10 of this thread:
To which I responded:
I've barely contributed to this post, yet somehow you make an obtrusive judgment alleging that I have removed the possibility of error. Calling me "close-minded" is hardly a way to go about such a discussion. If you're going to create a stipulation to your thread, at least abide by it:
Cower in fear and succumb to the almighty powers that be.
Scientists don't concern themselves with such things.
And you would've been right there with them, considering many of the cultures in earlier times subscribed to that belief. There isn't always strength in numbers - you are just reiterating the point.
I'm not saying anything with 100% certainty. A supernatural force doesn't make sense to me. It will in all probability never make sense unless it's seen with my own eyes.
Where did this come from? You said the following in post #10 of this thread:
To which I responded:
I've barely contributed to this post, yet somehow you make an obtrusive judgment alleging that I have removed the possibility of error. Calling me "close-minded" is hardly a way to go about such a discussion. If you're going to create a stipulation to your thread, at least abide by it:
Cower in fear and succumb to the almighty powers that be.
Scientists don't concern themselves with such things.
Aeterna, that is a good and level-headed way of looking at things, and I agree that is isn't very practical to believe in something without proof, yet belief prevails, so I won't try to discredit it. I'm the type that thinks of possibilities, sometimes forgetting facts, and in some ways to my detriment. I have not been trying to say you are wrong for being an atheist, that's just rude, and would make me wrong. I am just appealing to the possibility, because it seems that some aren't thinking of it themselves. I've got my message across, so I won't keep on pressing the issue, it's like beating a dead horse. As well as this, I respect everyone's beliefs, so I won't try to knock them down. I have no respect for people that do, because your belief does not affect me in any way, and so mine shouldn't affect you (this is not aimed at anybody specific). I'm all for healthy debate and sharing different viewpoints, but to say "You're wrong, I'm right, here's why" I think is crossing the line. It can be hard to do, but should still be doable.
I have done some thinking and I think if I were to give myself a label for my beliefs, it would be pantheist. This is a belief system older than Christianity and Judaism, and is not based on worship of a supernatural being, but reverence of the laws of nature and the laws of the universe, and our part in the universe. As is my understanding, this is what a pantheist calls God. Dawkins calls it 'sexed-up atheism', which I guess could be accurate, but is still a bit of an insult. I thought I had my own beliefs, because I had came up with them all by myself, but found that my beliefs are pantheistic beliefs, so they do have some significance. I would love to hear an atheist have a go at pantheism, because this isn't a wacky or far-out belief, it is based on what we know to be true, not ideation of something we have no proof of. Dawkins mentions it in his first paragraph of The God Delusion, but then says that for the rest of the book he will only be talking of the theistic God, so I don't know if I will continue reading (I have only read the first chapter). This implies that either a) he doesn't want to find fault with it or b) he can't find fault with it. This strengthens my belief because he is considered one of the top intellectuals on the subject of religion, and has made a career of debunking religious beliefs.
I may yet return to atheism, I don't know, but as it stand I am more comfortable with what I believe now than what I believed then. My belief now doesn't make me feel like an insignificant speck in the grand scheme of life, like I did as an atheist, but a significant part of life, as every living thing is. If this helps me sleep at night, and helps me function, then I'll be happy.
Also, sometimes I say things that others would call dumb, or inaccurate. Occasionally I will say things that I believe at the time, or have recently thought of to be accurate, and others read it and can see how wrong I am. I say things as if they were fact, which is just fodder for people to disagree with. I guess what I am trying to say is, don't think that everything I say is fully what I believe to be true, real or accurate, it may just be an error in my thinking. This doesn't mean discredit everything I say of course, but I ask of you to not think of me as a fool because I say some foolish things.
I have done some thinking and I think if I were to give myself a label for my beliefs, it would be pantheist. This is a belief system older than Christianity and Judaism, and is not based on worship of a supernatural being, but reverence of the laws of nature and the laws of the universe, and our part in the universe. As is my understanding, this is what a pantheist calls God. Dawkins calls it 'sexed-up atheism', which I guess could be accurate, but is still a bit of an insult. I thought I had my own beliefs, because I had came up with them all by myself, but found that my beliefs are pantheistic beliefs, so they do have some significance. I would love to hear an atheist have a go at pantheism, because this isn't a wacky or far-out belief, it is based on what we know to be true, not ideation of something we have no proof of. Dawkins mentions it in his first paragraph of The God Delusion, but then says that for the rest of the book he will only be talking of the theistic God, so I don't know if I will continue reading (I have only read the first chapter). This implies that either a) he doesn't want to find fault with it or b) he can't find fault with it. This strengthens my belief because he is considered one of the top intellectuals on the subject of religion, and has made a career of debunking religious beliefs.
I may yet return to atheism, I don't know, but as it stand I am more comfortable with what I believe now than what I believed then. My belief now doesn't make me feel like an insignificant speck in the grand scheme of life, like I did as an atheist, but a significant part of life, as every living thing is. If this helps me sleep at night, and helps me function, then I'll be happy.
Also, sometimes I say things that others would call dumb, or inaccurate. Occasionally I will say things that I believe at the time, or have recently thought of to be accurate, and others read it and can see how wrong I am. I say things as if they were fact, which is just fodder for people to disagree with. I guess what I am trying to say is, don't think that everything I say is fully what I believe to be true, real or accurate, it may just be an error in my thinking. This doesn't mean discredit everything I say of course, but I ask of you to not think of me as a fool because I say some foolish things.
Last edited by a moderator:
shock_me_sane you are right, I am kind of being a dick if I implied you are close-minded or am acting in a way that is seen as attacking you. This is not my intention. Like I just said in my previous post, I say dumb things sometimes without thinking, to my detriment, and is something I need to get a handle on. I am not as experienced in debating as you are, and am doing it wrong in some ways. I usually don't consider that there may be someone like you to deconstruct every thing I say, which is hard to prepare for. This is your right of course, and the mark of a good debater.
I apologize for debating the subject the wrong way, I am still learning, and should put more thought into how what I say will be read. And this part,
'Think whatever you want, it's your right, but don't act like you have this piece of knowledge that proves you are right and others are wrong.' was not directed at you, but at atheists and religious people in general, because I see it a lot. I wasn't attacking you. It was a stupid statement, and I am retracting it.
I apologize for debating the subject the wrong way, I am still learning, and should put more thought into how what I say will be read. And this part,
'Think whatever you want, it's your right, but don't act like you have this piece of knowledge that proves you are right and others are wrong.' was not directed at you, but at atheists and religious people in general, because I see it a lot. I wasn't attacking you. It was a stupid statement, and I am retracting it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Think about what you are saying for a minute.
If you've stopped questioning what you know, what is the point of this conversation? More so, what makes you any different from the fundamentalist who blows himself up, the fundamentalist who protests outside of a building saying "God hates Fags", or the fundamentalist that believes he is entitled to a piece of land because an ancient book says he is?
While you may have a much tamer sense of morality, the underlying logic which supports what you believe is identical.
Richard Dawkins chose not to argue against pantheism in his book, not because he does not have a refutation, but because no refutation is possible. pantheism defines 'god' in to such an abstract definition that it's impossible to argue with it. All pantheism does, is substitute the word 'god' for existence. Then it turns to circular logic to support itself: If it exists, it is god, and it is god because it exists.
Also, given the minority pantheism plays in Richard Dawkin's target population, arguing against such a small population wouldn't sell a book nearly as well.
You are happy because you have given yourself meaning. You were the one who said you were happy, because you thought of yourself as being important. Yet you attribute your importance to a concept. An atheist does the same thing as you have done, except they attribute their happiness to themselves.
Do not mistake my words for saying you are dumb. I am merely pointing out that you're giving your own self-worth away to a concept which is unnecessary.
If you've stopped questioning what you know, what is the point of this conversation? More so, what makes you any different from the fundamentalist who blows himself up, the fundamentalist who protests outside of a building saying "God hates Fags", or the fundamentalist that believes he is entitled to a piece of land because an ancient book says he is?
While you may have a much tamer sense of morality, the underlying logic which supports what you believe is identical.
Richard Dawkins chose not to argue against pantheism in his book, not because he does not have a refutation, but because no refutation is possible. pantheism defines 'god' in to such an abstract definition that it's impossible to argue with it. All pantheism does, is substitute the word 'god' for existence. Then it turns to circular logic to support itself: If it exists, it is god, and it is god because it exists.
Also, given the minority pantheism plays in Richard Dawkin's target population, arguing against such a small population wouldn't sell a book nearly as well.
You are happy because you have given yourself meaning. You were the one who said you were happy, because you thought of yourself as being important. Yet you attribute your importance to a concept. An atheist does the same thing as you have done, except they attribute their happiness to themselves.
Do not mistake my words for saying you are dumb. I am merely pointing out that you're giving your own self-worth away to a concept which is unnecessary.
I'm not one for debates, so I'm just popping in this thread real fast to throw my beliefs out there. Feel free to skip this post.
I'm atheist. I have no problem learning about other religions. I don't push mine on anybody. I don't tell anybody unless asked or the discussion comes up. I don't even think about it much (as in, question myself about it), it's like having hair or something, you don't think about it, it's just always there. I have a LOT of good reasoning behind why I don't believe in a god, I'm just not enough of a debater or researcher to put my words together to tell somebody else properly. It's also because I don't care enough if other people care that I'm atheist or want to know why.
I've thought about it a lot over the years, and to put it all simply, I'll be sitting there thinking about how extensive the universe is and I just laugh to myself (not AT religion) and realize that I still completely believe there is no God at all. This does NOT mean I know how the universe IS in any way. It's just my beliefs.
There's a lot more that goes into why I believe this (like I said, I don't know how to properly transfer my ideas about it from my brain to writing). Some of it has to do with me believing that there could be any reason why were here. We could be molecules of something bigger, we could be criminal aliens (like australia! haha jk), we could be a glitch in the animal kingdom (I've been set on thinking this one more thoroughly through lately because I'm starting to believe it more), etc etc. I know this should make it seem as if I SHOULD have a reason to believe a god could be possible, but I just can't believe that this all came from one.. person (for lack of better word?)..
I'm still open to it all though. I am not strictly atheist and never will be. I have a lot of insane theories about why were here, and it COULD be a god.. but that theory is on the bottom of my growing list. I'm pretty sure I believe there IS some crazy theory of why were here but I don't believe it's a God. So if there was some sort of word for believing that, but it not being a religion.. that would be me.
In the end, we'll never know. So I don't worry about it either way. I only think about it when it's enjoyable for myself to do so.
I'm atheist. I have no problem learning about other religions. I don't push mine on anybody. I don't tell anybody unless asked or the discussion comes up. I don't even think about it much (as in, question myself about it), it's like having hair or something, you don't think about it, it's just always there. I have a LOT of good reasoning behind why I don't believe in a god, I'm just not enough of a debater or researcher to put my words together to tell somebody else properly. It's also because I don't care enough if other people care that I'm atheist or want to know why.
I've thought about it a lot over the years, and to put it all simply, I'll be sitting there thinking about how extensive the universe is and I just laugh to myself (not AT religion) and realize that I still completely believe there is no God at all. This does NOT mean I know how the universe IS in any way. It's just my beliefs.
There's a lot more that goes into why I believe this (like I said, I don't know how to properly transfer my ideas about it from my brain to writing). Some of it has to do with me believing that there could be any reason why were here. We could be molecules of something bigger, we could be criminal aliens (like australia! haha jk), we could be a glitch in the animal kingdom (I've been set on thinking this one more thoroughly through lately because I'm starting to believe it more), etc etc. I know this should make it seem as if I SHOULD have a reason to believe a god could be possible, but I just can't believe that this all came from one.. person (for lack of better word?)..
I'm still open to it all though. I am not strictly atheist and never will be. I have a lot of insane theories about why were here, and it COULD be a god.. but that theory is on the bottom of my growing list. I'm pretty sure I believe there IS some crazy theory of why were here but I don't believe it's a God. So if there was some sort of word for believing that, but it not being a religion.. that would be me.
In the end, we'll never know. So I don't worry about it either way. I only think about it when it's enjoyable for myself to do so.
I think as far as that quote above goes... a person have a great deal of inward suffering to be able to commit such a terrible act. I do not think people are inherently evil, and so I don't think there is any way for someone to murder or rape unless they are already in hell themselves. Not justifying the horrible act in any way, but just saying they're already there.
- Status