Tonight - More4, The God Delusion

[daveinprague]

Which goes along with the theory, that there is no god, and religion was put there to keep the natives in line.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

heres the thing: science is not always right. it doesnt claim to be either. thats because its not rooted in faith. Im wondering if the umbilical cord was cut, as other wise there is no known way *any* mammal (and they have tested such things) could have survived without oxygen for 2 hours. so we must comclude the cord was sustaining the baby or it was breathing itself.


Acker79 makes a fundemental point above too, in no way is it implied she willed, prayed or otherwise refused to accept the "death" of the child, so there was not apparently any faith involved. i like what you are doing seperating faith from religion, but im not sure it really follows, as the word is tied to religious faith. you need another word to describe what you are trying to say.

I don't necessarily follow the line of thought of miracles the way others do so I never assume straight up that it's a faith based solution.

But what I will say that is even if you don't believe in a God or a faith there's no denying for some people having this in their lives has had a placebo effect on them.

The placebo effect is a scientific notion, one which in more than a few cases has confounded the scientific community when people recover from inoperable conditions.

The Dr's won't have a reason for such a recovery where as the patient and their family will say it was the power of prayer.

Who knows the real reason, but it is interesting to study cases like this where the diagnosis was terminal.

and the proof we originated from the ether, soil breathed on by a diety? we have seen simple "goo" in which basic organisms live and i believe recent experiments have triggered life-like signs from soups of suitable amino acids. in the vacuum of ignorance, science attempts to find an answer and prove or disprove those put forward. religion refers you to a parable written 4000 years ago and says its fact, the last and only word on the matter, take it or leave it. (and theres an awful lot that is subjectively left...)

all science is theory based, because it acknowledges that all is not known absolutly. electromagnatism is "merely" a theory, yet there you are on a computer using the fruit of that knowledge.

Religion offers a parable, it's how you interpret it that will determine you beliefs.

Which is like science in that you take the information you have present before you and you formulate your own person thesis to reach a conclusion.

To be perfectly honest the most interesting discussions i've ever had on such subject have always involved Agnostics.

They are actually(in my opinion) the most open minded goruping and I know i've found some of their personal theories on things incredibly interesting and insightful.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Which goes along with the theory, that there is no god, and religion was put there to keep the natives in line.

Put there by whom?

You mean already imprinted within the brain?

 

[daveinprague]

No, I mean ordinary people who realised that being a vessel to some unnamed god gave them position, financial reward and favour.
A king is a king, but a king with an unseen all powerful god backing him up is a strong king.

 

[Scampi]

That's a sweeping statement.

The church advises ITS members to practice abstinence and fidelity within a relationship.

It's not talking to you or the Muslim bloke next door nor his Jedi practising room mate.

Interestingly Uganda an African nation with one of the best record in AID's reduction is also the African nation with the largest Catholic population in Africa.

The catholic campaign against condoms is well documented. Interestingly Uganda doesn't have the largest catholic population in Africa either in number or as a percentage of the population.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I found the repeated argument that without God there would be no morality insulting.

I am an Athiest, yet I don't murder, steal and rape, because evolution has made me into a creature for whom cooperation and 'doing the right' thing is to my advantage. I don't need a God to tell me that killing other people is wrong.

 

[bhaexpress]

I found the repeated argument that without God there would be no morality insulting.

I am an Athiest, yet I don't murder, steal and rape, because evolution has made me into a creature for whom cooperation and 'doing the right' thing is to my advantage. I don't need a God to tell me that killing other people is wrong.

And yet there's been no shortage of 'religious' people who have done the above, how odd.

 

[Silent Bob]

I found the repeated argument that without God there would be no morality insulting.

I am an Athiest, yet I don't murder, steal and rape, because evolution has made me into a creature for whom cooperation and 'doing the right' thing is to my advantage. I don't need a God to tell me that killing other people is wrong.

They must only be speaking for themselves I guess, the only thing holding back their desire to murder and rape is fear that GOD will get them.

 

[Stoo82]

They must only be speaking for themselves I guess, the only thing holding back their desire to murder and rape is fear that GOD will get them.

*steps back in*

If we are talking about 11th century knights, then yes, it was the only thing which stopped them from killing any old bugger they wanted.

*steps back out*

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I found it interesting that one of the main arguments from both the Jew turned Muslim and the Christian Evangelist is that without some form of religious morality framework providing a "moral compass" mankind would descend into anarchic hedonism.

I have some sympathy with this argument. Whilst Dawkins is pretty much correct in blaming religion for much of society's ills the alternative world with no religion is, arguably, even more dangerous.

Personally, I think it's a very weak argument. You don't need a religious moral framework to know that killing someone is generally not the best thing to do socially. Nor is stealing, rape etc etc. If you want to live in a socially productive and safe environment then some basic common sense rules will quickly appear. Don't kill each other. Don't steal. Don't go around raping everyone who takes your fancy. It's essentially why governments exist.

 

[Stoo82]

Personally, I think it's a very weak argument. You don't need a religious moral framework to know that killing someone is generally not the best thing to do socially. Nor is stealing, rape etc etc. If you want to live in a socially productive and safe environment then some basic common sense rules will quickly appear. Don't kill each other. Don't steal. Don't go around raping everyone who takes your fancy. It's essentially why governments exist.

The time when there where no governments, the fall of the Roman Empire to about 1750 was when religion, or the Christian religion in Europe was at its hight.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

The time when there where no governments, the fall of the Roman Empire to about 1750 was when religion, or the Christian religion in Europe was at its hight.

So, from the dark ages until the enlightenment then!

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

When someone says they are a Muslim, a Catholic or a Jew I always take it with a pinch of salt. The reason being is that, in most cases, they never had any choice or say in the matter – they were indoctrinated by their parents because ‘we know what’s best for you’ and were then packed off to the local school / seminary etc. for more brainwashing.

Free will seems to be fine for believers when explaining some of mankind’s atrocities but they seem unable to let their own children use this same free will when it comes to religion.

I have no problem at all with people asking questions about existence / life / religions whilst they are growing up and then deciding for themselves to belong to one of these groups. What I find completely out of order is having their parent’s belief system foisted on them whilst they are at an impressionable age.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

So, from the dark ages until the enlightenment then!

And what happened after the Enlightenment?

Weapons of mass destruction would come to be more people would die than ever before in the name of very little.

Seems we didn't become that enlightened after all.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I found the repeated argument that without God there would be no morality insulting.

I am an Athiest, yet I don't murder, steal and rape, because evolution has made me into a creature for whom cooperation and 'doing the right' thing is to my advantage. I don't need a God to tell me that killing other people is wrong.

Evolution didn't do that.

You are a product of the Victorian values which shaped today's societies views.

Just like religious people are "indoctrinated" into their faith you have been indoctrinated into your society.

Before the Victorian era people were still marrying 13 year olds. Now by todays standards this can't happen and could lead to arrest.

And there's plenty examples of how we became much less liberal in our thinking.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Evolution didn't do that.

You are a product of the Victorian values which shaped today's societies views.

Just like religious people are "indoctrinated" into their faith you have been indoctrinated into your society.

Before the Victorian era people were still marrying 13 year olds. Now by todays standards this can't happen and could lead to arrest.

And there's plenty examples of how we became much less liberal in our thinking.

I disagree with you... And you've missed my point. Our laws and morals will develop with or without an imaginary friend watching us all the time. If you want to learn about how evolution and natural selection pertains to behaviour, cooperation and altruism read Richard Dawkins' book, The Greatest Show On Earth, it deals with it very well...

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I disagree with you... And you've missed my point. Our laws and morals will develop with or without an imaginary friend watching us all the time. If you want to learn about how evolution and natural selection pertains to behaviour, cooperation and altruism read Richard Dawkins' book, The Greatest Show On Earth, it deals with it very well...

I'm not saying moral codes wont develop without religion.

But I don't agree with Dawkins.

Moreover, characterising his opponents as "history-deniers," “worse than ignorant” and “deluded to the point of perversity” within that book is not the language of science, or civility.

It's the language of an arrogant prick who think he's knows it all.

Which might be the title for his next book. The Dawkin's Delusion.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I'm not saying moral codes wont develop without religion.

But I don't agree with Dawkins.

Moreover, characterising his opponents as "history-deniers," “worse than ignorant” and “deluded to the point of perversity” within that book is not the language of science, or civility.

It's the language of an arrogant prick who think he's knows it all.

Which might be the title for his next book. The Dawkin's Delusion.

The Dawkins Delusion has already been published i beleive as a direct response to his book.

 

[Acker79]

The Dawkins Delusion has already been published i beleive as a direct response to his book.

The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine: Amazon.co.uk: Alister McGrath, Joanna Collicutt McGrath: Books

 

[DJ Leon]

There is no proof we originated from a pile of goo.

Merely theories and assumptions.

Wrong. There is proof. Your actual scientific scientific proof! Deny it all you like, but it exists. It's a theory only in the sense that gravity is a theory.