Tonight - More4, The God Delusion

[Tyrone Biggums]

Im not blaming 'god'...there is no god.
although, I believe the religion preaches that man is created in gods image.
Im saying that millions of people have died 'in his name', over the millenia, and when weighed up, its a bit stupid to kill in the name of some mythical fantasy.

When you think about it its actually a lot less stupid killing in the name of a mythical fantasy than say a King or Queen.

At least the mythical fantasy in people minds can be something of massive proportions with out of this world powers.

Killing in the name of a mortal that can be killed just as easily as the man you just killed in their name is even more ludicrious.


And yes they do say man was created in Gods image. If all the wonderful, loving people I know in the world are in his image then he must be a jolly good fellow.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

True, and Dawkins argues that first point quite forcefully; that any scientific theory is always open to being disproven. Just go ahead....science is quite happy about that.

It is religion that will brook no discourse. That is, despite there being no evidence whatsoever for even the theory of a god, some people just choose to believe it's fact. That is their right to do so.

It is the demonisation of science by religious people that he has a problem with. So do I.

It's the arrogance of modern day science which can cause the discourse between the two groups.

Dawkins is a prime example of this. He is deliberately provocative so the mercenary can sell more books.

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, these groups have all been responsible for some of the greatest scientific minds in history. Far greater than that of the condescending twat Dawkins.

It's people like him who create these issues because they try to use science to belittle other peoples views.

 

[Easy 10]

In the words of Homer Simpson:

"Lord, if this is thy will, then please send me absolutely no sign whatsoever".

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, these groups have all been responsible for some of the greatest scientific minds in history.
.

I'm not sure I follow. How have these religions been responsible for some of the greatest minds?

 

[bhaexpress]

Fact which you take on faith.

Unless you have done the experiments.

Well I have quite a lot of faith in my computers and they're pretty scientific. Can't say I have but faith in all the holy myths though.

 

[Monkey Man]

Atheism is not a faith, any more than "not playing chess" is a hobby.

All we atheists are saying is we don't believe in god. Show us evidence that he or she exists and we'll consider it.

And science is the opposite of faith. Science doubts everything until it can be proved. And even then, its findings are continually challenged and questioned.

Compare and contrast this with religion: fossilised philosophies that aren't allowed to evolve.

Hooray for Dawkins, I say.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'm not sure I follow. How have these religions been responsible for some of the greatest minds?

Well way back in the day there weren't governments with education portfolios.

So most of the great early seats of learning throughout Europe (to keep it local) were built and funded by the various faiths.

And at a local level most of the school were run by branches of the church.

So in answer to your question, it was often monks, brothers etc that were the teachers whose set these great minds on their path to brilliance.

 

[Stoo82]

Well way back in the day there weren't governments with education portfolios.

So most of the great early seats of learning throughout Europe (to keep it local) were built and funded by the various faiths.

And at a local level most of the school were run by branches of the church.

So in answer to your question, it was often monks, brothers etc that were the teachers whose set these great minds on their path to brilliance.

They also made all the BOOZE!

 

[Stoo82]

Atheism is not a faith, any more than "not playing chess" is a hobby.

All we atheists are saying is we don't believe in god. Show us evidence that he or she exists and we'll consider it.

And science is the opposite of faith. Science doubts everything until it can be proved. And even then, its findings are continually challenged and questioned.

Compare and contrast this with religion: fossilised philosophies that aren't allowed to evolve.

Hooray for Dawkins, I say.

We have already said you cannot have evidence of a 'god'. You need faith.
Regarding your last point, you are sugesting that becuase all the relgions are wrong (which they may or may not be) then this proves there is no God.

What if they was a God yet there was no relgion dedicated to 'him' on earth? Maybe mankind got it wrong yet 'God' still can exist.

 

[beorhthelm]

It does. But in regards to Christianity Jesus arrival in part signaled a parting from the Old Testament and onto the New Testament.

there is somthing to be said about jettisoning the old testement as that seems to be where most the contentious crap comes from. stick to just the gospels and you have the teachings of a mystic which few would argue against.

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, these groups have all been responsible for some of the greatest scientific minds in history.

Really? funny how science made most ground since the enlightenment, when the authority of religious dogma was replaced by reason and scientific method. before that scientists where opposed by church authorities. thats the Christian side, on the Islamic side, the Arabic mathematical tradition found itself stalled after a couple of centries, from which it has never recovered.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Dawkins has never claimed any such thing.

It's been ages since I read The God Delusion, but I seem to remember he is adamant that a fortunate coincidence is precisely what it is not.

Religious leaders often claim that this is the crux of his argument, despite knowing full well that it is not.

Well, lets see as Im going to download the series... certinly the intervies Ive seen of him dont back you up.

 

[1959]

It's the arrogance of modern day science which can cause the discourse between the two groups.

I don't understand how a 'thing', like science, can be arrogant. And why is modern day science more arrogant than, say, that of the middle ages?

Dawkins is a prime example of this. He is deliberately provocative so the mercenary can sell more books.

Is asking pertinant questions being deliberately provocative? I don't think it is.
Is there something wrong with an author wanting to sell more books? We all want to do well in our chosen professions, don't we? Does that make us all mercenaries?

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, these groups have all been responsible for some of the greatest scientific minds in history. Far greater than that of the condescending twat Dawkins.

Yes, this is partly true. They have all also been responsible for suppressing and murdering some of the greatest scientific minds in history.
You know, Dawkins' style and demeanour might well rub people up the wrong way but there are two sides to it. I find him quite a generous, gentle guy, for instance. Different strokes for different folks.

It's people like him who create these issues because they try to use science to belittle other peoples views.

He seems to go out of his way not to belittle anyone, as far as I have seen. Maybe I have misinterpreted something.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Well way back in the day there weren't governments with education portfolios.

So most of the great early seats of learning throughout Europe (to keep it local) were built and funded by the various faiths.

And at a local level most of the school were run by branches of the church.

So in answer to your question, it was often monks, brothers etc that were the teachers whose set these great minds on their path to brilliance.

O.K, thanks, that's made it clearer.

However, if I were to play (the aptly named in this instance)devil's advocate I'd suggest that you're being a little inconsistent. Earlier, in reply to someone else who said that religion was responsible for millions of deaths, you said that God didn't kill man, but rather man killed man. So if religion can't be blamed for the deaths of those people-even if we were to take the most obvious example, that of the Crusades where undeniably people were killed in the name of God and religion(on both sides)-then is it fair to credit it with the positives done in it's name?

Maybe there's an obvious answer that I'm missing or I've misunderstood your points?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Really? funny how science made most ground since the enlightenment, when the authority of religious dogma was replaced by reason and scientific method. before that scientists where opposed by church authorities. thats the Christian side, on the Islamic side, the Arabic mathematical tradition found itself stalled after a couple of centries, from which it has never recovered.

I don't disagree that religion in some ways held science back.

But it was in certain areas more than others. The fields that openly challenged religious ideas were the ones naturally that came up against authorities.

But others didn't. If you practiced chemistry you were less likely to draw anyones ire as say compared to someone undertaking astronomy.

Conversely we have the Muslims to thank for introducing the Arabic numerical system to replace the cumbersome and impractical roman system.

The thing that science never seems to admit is that just because it was held back doesn't mean that's a bad thing.

Imagine if science was never impeded in its progress. Hypothetically you could have had Napoleon dropping atom bombs on Europe.

Given the times and the attitudes to war then the decision to explode one would have taken very little discussion nor thought in regards to the consequences of setting it off.

It's all well and good to say now science was held back, but the consequences if it hadn't may have been even more catastrophic.

The only thing that's capable of truly wiping out the planet in one foul swoop was created by science, not religion.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I don't understand how a 'thing', like science, can be arrogant. And why is modern day science more arrogant than, say, that of the middle ages?

Because in the middle ages more scientists held a faith in a "god".

Added they didnt have mediums like television or the Internet for people like Dawkins to espouse their views while ridiculing others.

Is asking pertinant questions being deliberately provocative? I don't think it is.
Is there something wrong with an author wanting to sell more books? We all want to do well in our chosen professions, don't we? Does that make us all mercenaries?

Peoples beliefs no matter what they are be should be a personal thing that need not be challenged nor need to be defended.

If he wants to ask himself these questions fine. But don't get up on a pulpit and declare to the world your God is a delusion.

What an arrogant prick.

As far as I know he's a biologist. Or is there a new job description called "Professional Atheist".?

Yes, this is partly true. They have all also been responsible for suppressing and murdering some of the greatest scientific minds in history.
You know, Dawkins' style and demeanour might well rub people up the wrong way but there are two sides to it. I find him quite a generous, gentle guy, for instance. Different strokes for different folks.

So was Stalin and Hitler and they were raving atheists.

As I said even without religion this kind of thing would still go on, tis human nature.

Well according to Dawkins there's only one side to the story, his.

He seems to go out of his way not to belittle anyone, as far as I have seen. Maybe I have misinterpreted something.

Really?

You dont think calling good honest people who believe in a God delusional isn't belittling tehm?

I'd say its pretty bloody condescending.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

O.K, thanks, that's made it clearer.

However, if I were to play (the aptly named in this instance)devil's advocate I'd suggest that you're being a little inconsistent. Earlier, in reply to someone else who said that religion was responsible for millions of deaths, you said that God didn't kill man, but rather man killed man. So if religion can't be blamed for the deaths of those people-even if we were to take the most obvious example, that of the Crusades where undeniably people were killed in the name of God and religion(on both sides)-then is it fair to credit it with the positives done in it's name?

Maybe there's an obvious answer that I'm missing or I've misunderstood your points?

God in the Christian sense can't be responsible for millions of deaths because he expressly said in the text attributed to his words "thou shall not murder/kill"

You can't kill in the name of God because he forbid it.

Conversely he did promote generosity and kindness to ones neighbour.

So if you followed that text from the same place he forbid murder then you'd be following his words.


The Crusades isn't a great example to use for a religious war because there's too many examples where its apparent it was nothing more than a looting venture.
Granted there were elements like the Knights Templar who were religious zealots but for a lot of others, it hardly mattered.

One glaring example of this was the Fourth Crusade. When instead of the original plan of attacking the Muslims they instead went and sacked Constantinople which was itself part of the Byzantian Christian Empire.


It's almost always about the $$$

 

[Monkey Man]

Regarding your last point, you are sugesting that becuase all the relgions are wrong (which they may or may not be) then this proves there is no God.

What if they was a God yet there was no relgion dedicated to 'him' on earth? Maybe mankind got it wrong yet 'God' still can exist.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. We're just saying we don't believe. That's what make us atheists. The burden of proof is on those who say there definitely IS a god. Evidence, please.

It amazes me how some Christians think that faith is some kind of default setting, and atheists have opted out of it. The point is, we never opted in.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Atheists don't have to prove anything. We're just saying we don't believe. That's what make us atheists. The burden of proof is on those who say there definitely IS a god. Evidence, please.

Nobody has to prove anything to anyone.

That's the point.

The greatest irony is that from my experience the people who talk most about God aren't those who believe in him. It's those that don't who seem more zealous about the whole thing.

Which begs the question, why would anyone who didnt believe in something spend so much time talking about it?

It amazes me how some Christians think that faith is some kind of default setting, and atheists have opted out of it. The point is, we never opted in.

Its almost as amazing as atheists who think people who are religious haven't ever contemplated and thought inwardly about their beliefs before coming to their conclusion.

Looks like everyones got everyone worked out wrong.

 

[Monkey Man]

Tyrone ... Why do atheists talk about these things? We live in a society where kids have to have faith-based assemblies at school (unless they opt out), religious leaders are part of the legislature by right, there are laws against offending people who choose to call themselves religious ... we're surrounded by religion. Those of us who find it all a bit illogical are bound to make observations about this state of affairs. I only get really annoyed by the casual indoctrination of my kids into the Christian faith by state schools. Personally I don't mind what anyone believes, unless it impinges on my family's freedoms. And sometimes it does, just a little bit.

 

[MattBackHome]

The greatest irony is that from my experience the people who talk most about God aren't those who believe in him. It's those that don't who seem more zealous about the whole thing.

You don't really think this do you? Really?