Disproving the Existence of God

[onewheeldave]

Exactly, which is what we're talking about. As I pointed out to evildrneil, if he/she/it doesn't manifest itself in the here and now in some way then what's the point in believing in it and if it/he/she does then those claims can be tested and disproved.

That's for the believer to answer- suffice it to say that rational believers can and do possess beliefs that do not require the evidence that you seem to need.

 

That's why I always ask the person I'm debating to give me their definition of what they mean by god.

You will find that many will have a definition that can't be understood on purely scientific terms.

 

The point you seemed to have missed is that the article is from the USA where most xtians are this so called strawman that you accuse Dawkins of inventing. They believe the bible to be the unerring word of god, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, that Adam and Eve were the first humans created by god and that evolution is a total myth. These are people who practice real xtianity, not the watered down version that you find in an angican church every Sunday and they hold an immense amount of power over there that needs to be substantially reduced if the US is to flourish as a truly secular nation.

Like I said, there are many rational believers who do not subscribe to this fundamentalist definition of God- I wish Dawkins would start to engage with them, rather than showing off his intellect by engaging fundamentalist fools.

 

From what I've seen of Dawkins, I really don't think he has any grasp of non-fundamentalist ideas of God, he seems fixated on his dogmatic view of the fundamentalist God and all the illogicalites that go along with it.

 

Really? All I saw was the archbishop squirming uncomfortably knowing that his meaningless rhetoric (poetic language) was being sussed for what it was by his intellectual superior.

Let's watch and see.

 

I see different- I was very pleased that, at long last, Dawkins wasn't shown engaging a fundamentalist with no grasp of reason- IMO, the Archbishop did well.

 

Again that is your impression - I have a rather different impression. As to the lack of combativeness I was just stating it was nice to see rather than the more common narrow minded intollerence and beligerence far to often seen when theists and atheists clash.

 

 

Hmmmm - I think you may be seeing what you want to see. It seems a perfectly coherent and competent display to me. I wouldn't say that either person "came off better" - they both expressed their views in a non combative way which it would be nice to see more of...

 

I agree, it would be nice to see more of it

[onewheeldave]

You say that from a position of not knowing God but perhaps if you became a Christian and through prayer and Bible study you sought to know God and to seek his will then you might think differently?

 

This is exactly the kind of suggestion that atheists are going to get wound up by- by definition, if they 'became a Christian' then they would obviously think differently

 

There'll also not at all interested in prayer and bible study, as they believe (with some justification) that this can be akin to a kind of brainwashing.

 

(prayer or meditation are good for believers or spiritual seekers- they are not conversion tools for atheists)

[evildrneil]

I think you're confusing belief with opinion.

http://itslonelyoutsidetheboxtaiwan.blogspot.com/2006/10/opinion-vs-belief.html

Btw I notice you deleted the video I linked to in my last post. I'd like to hear your opinion on it please.

 

If we take belief to be "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." then how are all the things I stated not beliefs. As to the thing you posted - first it's not a video so have you posted the right thing? Secondly who came up with the rule that a belief requires support? If I claim something as fact then it requires some form of support if I claim something as belief it doesn't

 

No, it's what Rowan Williams admitted he'd done to try and justify the unjustifiable.

 

Rowan Williams stated what he believed happened in a rather nice way. He even stated that to hold his oppinion you have to step into the mindset of religious belief rather than approaching everything from the point of view of hard science. Personally I thought he came across very well.

 

You have just reminded me however, that this is specifically what this thread is about. It's about debunking the claims of theists as opposed to deists or pantheists etc. Claims made about a god that interferes in our lives on a daily basis. Claims which, time and time again have been debunked and with no evidence that a theistic god exists in the last 2000 years then the only conclusion a rational person can come to is that god doesn't exist

 

Really? I thought it was called "disproving the existance of god" - no specificity there!

[milquetoast1]

This for me is the basic psychological dynamic that matters beyond all else. 'Know thyself'. Develop awareness. Face your shadow. Accept that your failings exist rather than denying them with horror. What we shut away in the basement grows rancid and bursts out in monstrous form. If we refuse to acknowledge what we fear and despise in ourselves we see it in others and fear and despise them instead and act accordingly. The outer world mirrors our inner state.

 

I don't actually care if anyone personally believes in a god or not, what matters is whether they understand and practice self awareness to deflate their ego and demons and lessen their distorting filters. That, in a nutshell, is the effective point of any spiritual or philosophical habit. But so many people miss the point.

 

Very wise words purdyamos.

 

Claire Rayner sadly died today, and she was one of a number of people towards the end of the last century who had plenty of self-awareness. She was somebody who could ignore the idea that certain things should be ignored, or hidden away. She came to her own conclusions about what was right and wrong.

 

It reminds me of some comments by Jerry Coyne in the USA Today article linked to earlier:

 

Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.

 

You correctly point out the dangers of an individuals failure to practice self-awareness, and religion assists many individuals in avoiding self-awareness. As soon as individuals look to authority for truth there are dangers.

[six45ive]

If we take belief to be "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." then how are all the things I stated not beliefs. As to the thing you posted - first it's not a video so have you posted the right thing? Secondly who came up with the rule that a belief requires support? If I claim something as fact then it requires some form of support if I claim something as belief it doesn't

 

My bold.

It's not quite as simple as that. People use the terms fact and belief and opinion interchangeably, but they are all very different. A fact is indisputably the case – something no one can argue against. A belief is an acceptance that something is true or something exists. An opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge but simply on personal preference.

As for the link that you claim doesn't work I've just checked it and it's fine so please watch and let me know your opinion (as opposed to belief).

 

Rowan Williams stated what he believed happened in a rather nice way. He even stated that to hold his oppinion you have to step into the mindset of religious belief rather than approaching everything from the point of view of hard science. Personally I thought he came across very well.

 

And isn't that just the perfect way to shut down conversation or criticism? "If you can't think like me then you can't possibly understand me", without realising that most scientists know exactly how religious people think which is why they make the arguments they do against theists and always come out on top leading the theist into the dark corner of desperation that the above statement is. That exact same excuse has been used for centuries by all kinds of charlatans desperate to hang onto their illusions of power and influence.....and then you wonder why so many atheists are angry.

 

Really? I thought it was called "disproving the existance of god" - no specificity there!

 

Until you read the opening post;

 

'Although atheism is simply a disbelief/nonbelief in a god/gods and doesn't make any other claims regarding knowledge of the existence of god/gods, if you're a strong agnostic atheist and anti theist like myself who understands the mountain of evidence against the likelihood of there being a god, then it's always good to see a well thought out argument that clearly shows the stupidity of the idea of an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent (and some might say omnipresent) all powerful being.'

 

The clue's in the word atheism (I'll give you a clue.....if you remove the a in atheism what do you get?) and then I go on to use the terms highlighted above which define specifically a theistic god which leads you to the article that overwhelmingly disproves the idea of this kind of god.

[Grahame]

Very wise words purdyamos.

 

Claire Rayner sadly died today, and she was one of a number of people towards the end of the last century who had plenty of self-awareness. She was somebody who could ignore the idea that certain things should be ignored, or hidden away. She came to her own conclusions about what was right and wrong.

 

It reminds me of some comments by Jerry Coyne in the USA Today article linked to earlier:

 

You correctly point out the dangers of an individuals failure to practice self-awareness, and religion assists many individuals in avoiding self-awareness. As soon as individuals look to authority for truth there are dangers.

 

Who would look to an atheist for the "truth" when they admit they have no knowledge (are ignorant) of God.

[milquetoast1]

Really? I thought it was called "disproving the existance of god" - no specificity there!

 

six45ive clearly states "it's always good to see a well thought out argument that clearly shows the stupidity of the idea of an omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent (and some might say omnipresent) all powerful being" in his opening post.

 

I call myself an agnostic atheist, being atheist towards all the theist gods that have been proposed to me thus far. It's useful shorthand to call myself an atheist, even though I am 100% agnostic towards a deistic god.

 

Edit: I see six45ive has replied in similar fashion already.

 

[six45ive]

That's for the believer to answer- suffice it to say that believers can and do possess beliefs that do not require the evidence that you seem to need.

 

I've adjusted your above statement so it reads more accurately.

The above is fine as long as their beliefs don't manifest themselves in the real world that affects other people in a negative way. I'll link to the same paragraph that Milquetoast has just linked to;

 

'Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.'

 

You will find that many will have a definition that can't be understood on purely scientific terms.

 

We're not just talking about scientific terms though are we?

 

Like I said, there are many rational believers who do not subscribe to this fundamentalist definition of God- I wish Dawkins would start to engage with them, rather than showing off his intellect by engaging fundamentalist fools.

 

Obviously you know very little about Dawkin's past itinery;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626#

or here's a few pages of the people he's debated with (type 'dawkins debates' in the search box);

http://richarddawkins.net/archive/all_content/latest

 

 

From what I've seen of Dawkins, I really don't think he has any grasp of non-fundamentalist ideas of God, he seems fixated on his dogmatic view of the fundamentalist God and all the illogicalites that go along with it.

 

Watch/listen to all the debates I've provided above and then make that statement again and see how ridiculous it makes you look.

 

I see different- I was very pleased that, at long last, Dawkins wasn't shown engaging a fundamentalist with no grasp of reason.

 

See above.

[Karis]

You say that from a position of not knowing God but perhaps if you became a Christian and through prayer and Bible study you sought to know God and to seek his will then you might think differently?

 

Been there, done that. What you see as God, I see as self hypnosis, and conditioning...

 

What you call seeking the will of god is what I would call finding meaning in random coincidence and attributing that to god. Those feelings you have are self made. Look hard enough, you'll feel something, eventually.

[purdyamos]

I would have thought in the field of self-awareness it is not how we project ourselves, but other peoples projected opinion of us. I agree that we need to be sensitive to other people responses to us and we need to be willing to deal with it. This has nothing to do with whether you believe in God though.

 

If you are hinting at me, then let me say I value highly the knowledge of all experts but not the opinion of someone who is neither an expert or someone who has no knowledge which is something atheists readily admit, and on that basis the atheists opinion of me matters little to me other than their rudeness and intolerance.

 

If it is 'you' dealing with 'you' then all else is excluded.

 

Please don't take illustrations literally.

 

 

 

You don't get what it is I'm talking about. To be honest I wasn't expecting you to.

 

The places and people I admire the most have greatly valued the cultivation of self awareness as the best protection against the negative side effects of human nature. I have found that many of the people in this part of the world, who I've mentioned it to, just don't know what self awareness means. they literally don't understand it as a concept. And sadly it shows.