The God Delusion

303 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
Mods,

Mods,

Can you please place Arakish in 'time out' for ruthlessly spanking another member?

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Spankings and Burns

Re: Spankings and Burns

All I know is that something has got to give. I'm starting to run seriously low on my special Carolina Reaper infused Preparation H ointment.... *looking glumly into near-empty jar*...

arakish's picture
Don't worry Tin-Man. My

Don't worry Tin-Man. My sister lives close enough to where it was invented and I'll get her to send you case of Carolina Reaper powder and Preparation H so you can make some more.

rmfr

arakish's picture
Random,

Random,

I peed on myself laughing at this one.

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
Apollo - Dawkins has argued

Apollo - Dawkins has argued that the theory of evolution proves God doesn't exist.

@Apollo

While I'm not that familiar with Dawkins's work, I'm skeptical of this claim. Do you have a source for it?

Sheldon's picture
"While I'm not that familiar

"While I'm not that familiar with Dawkins's work, I'm skeptical of this claim. Do you have a source for it?"

Of course he does, he pulled it steaming straight out of his ringpiece, like all his other claims. His arse is a prodigious source of BS claims, impressive in it's own way I suppose.

Apollo's picture
You continue to be funny.

You continue to be funny.
My recollection of your claims is your subjective claim to be objective, thereby declaring your faith in an epistomology that long ago became a historical relic.

Then your persistant demands for a quote from the God Delusion, and the liar liar pants on fire chant. When you got the quote from "Professor Dawkins" work, what then? just diverting to your semi literary jokes? When will you ever begin to realize your potential? You have to work at it. Otherwise you are just like those Pentecostal fundamentalist christians who think they get knowledge from prayer with their Paper Pope, the Bible before them.

You have to critically study your Paper Pope, the holy word of Dawkins before you, ferret out his assumptions and ask yourself are these assumptions really reliable? If you don't you are just like a fundy imaginging they get knowedge from prayer.

Sheldon's picture
" your subjective claim to be

" your subjective claim to be objective,"

What?

"an epistomology that long ago became a historical relic."

What the hell is "epistomology" (sic)?

"Then your persistant demands for a quote from the God Delusion,"

Not only can't you spell persistent, I don't think you understand what it means. Nor is it clear why anyone would think it unreasonable to ask you to cite text when making claims about the book that are highly dubious.

"When you got the quote from "Professor Dawkins" work, what then? "

I don't understand the question, you made a claim about TGD and I asked you to cite text to support it, it's not complicated. Most people would think it a reasonable enough request.

"diverting to your semi literary jokes"

What the hell are "semi literary jokes"? Are you actually using English?

The rest of your post is incomprehensible gibberish sorry.

Apollo's picture
What makes you skeptical of

What makes you skeptical of the claim?

in The Blind Watchmaker, and other works, he claims evolution is a purely natural process clearly unguided by any Creator. he fails to consider the possibility that evolutionary process were created By God.

This wikipedia write up states,
"He embraced Christianity until halfway through his teenage years, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in a god.[33] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Clearly, Dawkins uncritically accepts the notion that there are only two possibilities: Either God created life, or evolution did. He fails to notice his black and white, either/or thinking. In other words, he assumes, and therfore has faith in his belief there are only two possibilities, either God or evolution. he doesn't consider a third possibility, namely, that God created the evolutionary processes.

Personally I believe there was no single act of creation, and that creation is ongoing via evolutionary processes that God created.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Remember you told us "Dawkins

@Apollo:
Remember you told us "Dawkins has argued that the theory of evolution proves God doesn't exist.". That is what I asked you to provide a source for. I didn't ask for a source for the idea that Dawkins doesn't believe in god, that seems trivial.

/e: I'm skeptical of your claim because I don't think Dawkins is stupid enough to have made such a silly statement. I think you made the silly statement, then falsely attributed it to him. But I could be wrong, so that is why I asked you about it.

algebe's picture
@Apollo: he fails to consider

@Apollo: he fails to consider the possibility that evolutionary process were created By God.

If evolution had been created by god, wouldn't you expect it to be a little closer to perfect? In reality, evolution is a tremendously cruel and wasteful process. The failure rate for new species is close to 100%, and every species that currently survives is riddled with serious defects. And while species evolve, the evolutionary process itself has not. It's just as unreliable as ever. Do you see evidence of the hand of an all-powerful perfect designer in that process?

But even if we accept that evolution was jump-started by god, you're still left with the problem of where god came from.

Apollo's picture
Algebe,

Algebe,
Perfect by who's norms? It is easy to subjectivly create norms to say this or that entity is imperfect.
"all powerful" doesn't necessarily mean "can do anything". for instance, humans created the ideas of a square, and a circle. so humans are, in the context of creating squares and circles "all powerful". But "all powerful" doesn't mean humans can create a square circle. Similarily, God can't do every thing, such as, for example, create a dead living animal. to me "all powerful" doesn't mean God can do anything and everything.

I'm not left with the problem of where God came from. I'll explain. Supposing there is an archaeological dig and they come accross some pottery and other artifacts. They very excitedly announce humans were here, as their creations prove it. But Dawkins and Algebe are in a nearby town having a beer and they heare about it. this is an outrage they think and hop in their jeep and rush out to the dig to contront the archaeologists. You can't say that stuff is pottery made by intellegent desigers. Are you crazy? did you see it being made? Did you see these intellegent designers leave it here? No, you didn't . So there. All you can say is what real science - physics and chemistry - tells you. Besides, says Dawkins and Algebe, that pottery isn't perfect, so it couldn't be the result of intellegent design. it must have created itself. And whats more, if you say intellegent people designed and made it, you have the problem of where people came from. And if you say abiogenesis, and evolution, you have the problem of where did evolution come from? See. So you can't say anything came from intelligent design says Algebe and Dawkins.

Algebe, part ot the point is, there is no problem of infinite regression. Explanations come to an end. Archeologists can say some artifacts came from ancient intellgent designers even though they never directly saw such people. And thiests can say the world around them came from God even though they never directly saw such a God. People can believe what they want.

Part of the problem with Dawkins is, he manipulativly tries to get Theists to prove via direct observation that God exists, but he is a hypocrite because he doesn't require the same thing of himself and athiests in general. its OK if athiests believe things they never saw, but not for others.

algebe's picture
@Apollo:

@Apollo:

There's a difference between creating a logical contradiction, such as a square circle, and creating something flawed when perfection is a logical possibility. You seem to be arguing that your god makes mistakes. That's a novel argument from a theist.

Why on Earth would Dawkins or I or anybody conclude that ancient pottery shards weren't made by people because we hadn't seen it happen? People make pottery today as they did thousands of years ago. I've done it. I've seen it done. So I can assume that ancient pottery was made by people using similar processes. You can even find human fingerprints in pottery.

What I haven't seen is any entity creating a species (though humans may soon have that capability).

You haven't solved the problem of infinite regression. With your pottery shard comparison, we can ask where did the pottery come from. The answer is humans made it. Where did humans come from? They evolved from other apes. Where did apes come from? They evolved from earlier species. And so on, back to chemical reactions in the primordial oceans. Now apply this process to your god hypothesis. You not only haven't seen god making anything, you haven't seen any traces or evidence of god making anything.

Eyewitness accounts are the least credible form of evidence, because our senses and memories are imperfect. Scientists, including Dawkins, base their conclusions on traces left behind in pottery shards, fossils, DNA, etc. These types of evidence can be reviewed by other scientists. Basing conclusions on evidence is not hypocritical at all. Basic conclusions on zero evidence is deluded.

Apollo's picture
Well I haven't seen anyone

Well I haven't seen anyone make pottery. Apparently its ok for me to believe it on your say so, and to believe that all pottery is made by people eventhough you haven't seen all pottery being made. I'll accept that. So now I'm getting to understand what you guys mean by "evidence". For example, for you guys its OK to assume, by induction, that all pottery is made by people, and its OK for me to believe it on your say so. That raises the concern: should I believe every thing you claim on your say so? Pottery is a fairly safe one, but what about other claims that may not be so mundane as pottery? Should I just believe you, Sheldon and others? What process should I go through to determine if your claims qualify as knowledge?

There is no infinite regression problem for me. Explanations come to an end. As you have confirmed for me, in explaining pottery as made by people, we don't have to explain where the intellegent designer of pottery people came from (even though I've never seen anyone make pottery). Its OK to say I know people make pottery because you and others say so. But somehow, this doesn't seem to be a reliable criteria for all knowledge - IE believeing because other people say so. seems like you have a very loose criteria for knowledge.

CyberLN's picture
Apollo, you wrote, “There is

Apollo, you wrote, “There is no infinite regression problem for me. Explanations come to an end.”

Of course it comes to an end for you. You’ve filled in the blank with your gawd.

You also wrote, “But somehow, this doesn't seem to be a reliable criteria for all knowledge - IE believeing because other people say so. seems like you have a very loose criteria for knowledge.”

Is it equally unreliable to believe something because a book considered holy said so?

Apollo's picture
CyberLN,

CyberLN,
So for your explanations, how do they come to an end?

What holy book are you refering to? I don't consider any book to be holy. There is no book that I automatically believe in.

Sheldon's picture
"Well I haven't seen anyone

"Well I haven't seen anyone make pottery."

https://youtu.be/Br_hc2dvQmQ

Job done...

Apollo's picture
Well, that's indirect viewing

Well, that's indirect viewing of someone portrayed making pottery. Apparently, then you allow indirect "evidence" as a part of your theory of knowledge. The video could be a fabrication. For instance look at super hero movies - EG Spiderman, Superman, and so on. Do you automatically believe those too?

Just to sum up,
1. We are alowed to believe things on somones say so
2. We are allowed to believe in videos that could be fabrications.

So when somone says somthing how do you decide whats baloney, and what is believeable?
When you view a video, how do you decide what's a fabrication, and what's real?

Tin-Man's picture
@Apollo Re: "Well I haven't

@Apollo Re: "Well I haven't seen anyone make pottery."

Wow.... *shaking head sadly*.... You really should get out more. Here. This should help get you started.

https://youtu.be/Br_hc2dvQmQ

Edit to add: Better yet, how about this?...

https://youtu.be/HvyCMgAajqk

Apollo's picture
Tin-man,

Tin-man,

I suppose you believe everything you see on youtube. I'm not drinking that kool aid. I suppose you believe in Superman, and The Incredible Hulk too, just because they were on video.

Tin-Man's picture
@Apollo Re: "I suppose you

@Apollo Re: "I suppose you believe in Superman, and The Incredible Hulk too, just because they were on video."

WHAAAAT???? You mean thay AREN'T real???...... *wringing hands nervously*.... Oh dear oh dear oh dear... This can't be happening! Somebody PLEASE tell me he is lying and this is just some horrible practical joke!.... *starting to hyperventilate*....

arakish's picture
At least the Hulk is real. I

At least the Hulk is real. I just saw a big green man-shaped thing jumping over my house and landing several kilometers north. Looked to be heading to Denver. Although I don't know why.

And just yesterday I saw this contrail without an airplane. Looked like a Superman to me.

rmfr

EDIT: removed a duplicate phrase

Apollo's picture
So tell me your method of

So tell me your method of distinguishing real from baloney. You can't cause you don't have one.

CyberLN's picture
Apollo, I think everyone has

Apollo, I think everyone has a bullshit meter. I also think they are completely personal so no two completely match.

Do you think this is bullshit?

arakish's picture
@Apollo

@Apollo

Of course I have a method.

Anything you post is... what was that word CyberLN used...

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
@Apollo Re: "So tell me

@Apollo Re: "So tell me your method of distinguishing real from baloney. You can't cause you don't have one."

Au contraire, my good man! I happen to have a tried and true method of distinguishing real baloney! I trust no brands other than Oscar Mayer. Because Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A.

Apollo's picture
Its been a while and I log in

Its been a while and I log in today and here, awaiting me, is an interesting post touching on key issues.

You ask why on earth would anyone conclude that pottery shards were not made by people?
Answer: I think it is legitimate to think they were made by people even though you didn't see it. No one needs direct observation to believe it. But then you switch when you say,
"What I haven't seen is any entity creating a species" Now, all of a sudden, you require direct observation. In the first case you are inferring. In the second case you seem to be requiring direct observation of the emergence of a species. hence your epistemology is vague.

Apparently current thinking is that humans did not evolve from apes. Although apes and monkeys apparently have a common ancestor. So the facts have, according to some anthropologists, changed. (That says something about "facts").

Infinite regression: Where did the chemical reactions in the primordial oceans come from? You haven't gone back far enough nor deep enough. Now again, you require me to see God making something, while simultaneously you don't require seeing people make that pottery. Hence, your epistemology is vague. it is on two mutually exclusive tracks. You are using a double standard which makes your epistemology incoherent.

Although you accept your eyes when you look a pottery and infer that ancient humans made it, you then attack eye witness accounts. Which is it? Is sensing valid and reliable, or is it incredible? You are arguing both sides of the fence.

By the way, I don't have a God hypothesis. Nobody has a God Hypothesis. You misunderstand what a hypothesis is.

In a future thread of a different title I will address these issues again. For the time being, I conclude you have zero evidence for your incoherent epistemology.

Sheldon's picture
Apollo "Answer: I think it

Apollo "Answer: I think it is legitimate to think they were made by people even though you didn't see it. No one needs direct observation to believe it. But then you switch when you say,
"What I haven't seen is any entity creating a species" Now, all of a sudden, you require direct observation."

People can be objectively shown to occur naturally, pottery shards can't, what's more we can directly observe pottery being designed and made, again this represents compelling objective evidence IT IS in fact designed and created. However and as usual your facile nonsense entirely misses the point, lets suppose for instance your semantics were not a dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, and an atheist had made an assumption that was irrational. How exactly does that change the fact YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ABSURD SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS? That is never going away, no matter how much sophistry and red Herrings you produce.

"Quod Erat Demonstrandum"

"Apparently current thinking is that humans did not evolve from apes. Although apes and monkeys apparently have a common ancestor. So the facts have, according to some anthropologists, changed. "

Oh I think we will need a citation here, as this sounds like creatard bullshit to me. Not that it matters, as even were this not an idiotic lie, all it shows is that the scientific method is vastly superior to religious superstition as we already know of course, because science can correct an error, whereas religious creatards cling to the same errant nonsense

"Infinite regression: Where did the chemical reactions in the primordial oceans come from? You haven't gone back far enough nor deep enough. Now again, you require me to see God making something, while simultaneously you don't require seeing people make that pottery. Hence, your epistemology is vague. "

The rankest sophistry I've seen for ages, well since you were last stinking up this place in fact. The first sentence is clearly an argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy, and an hilarious one at that since you earlier asked someone for evidence that theists here ever used a god of the gaps polemic, fnarrr.

Your imbecilic pottery analogy has been destroyed above. At least you have learned to spell epistemology anyway, this is progress of a sort I suppose, but I think we can all see whose epistemology is rank stinking lie, and the one using dishonest semantics, and facile logical fallacies to pretend he has any justification for his superstitious beliefs in a deity he STILL cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for, and all the rred herrings in the world won't change that FACT.

The real hilarity is I destroyed your pottery analogy last time, just scroll down, so your a dishonesty is manifest on top of everything else.

Apollo's picture
1. So you accept that you

1. So you accept that you can know an event occurred even though you didn't see the event.
2. Check the anthropology department University of Wisconsin for updated thinking on evolutionary theory.
3. Please give me your version of the chemical reactions in the primordial oceans. Which oceans? What chemicals? What happened before the believed chemical reactions? Where did the chemicals come from?

Is it your personal subjective belief that the chemicals always existed? Or are you going to inject your absurd notion of "objectivity" here and "objectively" describe the origin of such chemicals? After all, science has established that the universe had a beginning. What precipitated the beginning of the universe and subsequently gave rise to the chemicals in the primordial oceans?

4. The reality is Sheldon, your ontology (metaphysics) is Naturalism. You pair that with a vague outmoded epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) which in unfounded fashion purports to be "objective". Naturalism, your assumed ontology is just your personal subjective view of things. There is no proof for Naturalism, yet you believe it anyway. Looks like faith to me.

In an upcoming thread a view of the origin of the universe by an atheist cosmologist will be presented. When that happens you will have the opportunity to "objectively" critique it. Good luck.

Sheldon's picture
Apollo "So you accept that

Apollo "So you accept that you can know an event occurred even though you didn't see the event."

No, that would imply I had ever thought, claimed or even implied otherwise.

Apollo "Check the anthropology department University of Wisconsin for updated thinking on evolutionary theory."

No, I am not researching your creatard BS for you, besides it's irrelevant if you'd bothered to read my response. Species evolution through natural selection is a scientific fact, this hasn't changed.

Apollo "Please give me your version of the chemical reactions in the primordial oceans. Which oceans? What chemicals? What happened before the believed chemical reactions? Where did the chemicals come from?"

This is still an argument from ignorance fallacy, as I just stated. It's also a god of the gaps polemic, which you hilariously asked someone earlier to evidence a theist using on here, QED.

I note you have slithered away from your appalling and fallacious pottery analogy, but lack the integrity to admit it was fallacious, and erroneous. Quelle surprise.

Paragraph 4 is disjointed incoherent babble, I set the same standard for belief in all claims, that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support the claim. You as we now know do not, ball in your court, and do stop with sophistry and semantics, I know you think we're all dazzled by your intellect, but it actually has the polar opposite effect on anyone capable of cogent reasoning and who has even a tenuous grasp of epistemology and informal logic. You are the one claiming an unevidenced deity, created everything using unexplained magic, try focusing on producing a shred of this evidence you keep claiming you have. As so far you have produced nada, again.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.